A Fair Analysis Between Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 Employing CryEngine 3.

While I hate this board with a passion I guess it's my duty to logically input some potential here. If you buds compose yourselves a bit and really look at the shadows being casted from the objects on the ground level in addition to shadows on the wall, you will begin to see finer definition in the Xbox 360 shot. There are no differences in the textures, rather the measure of the Xbox 360 screen is adequately darker, happens often with different signal inputs/outputs.

CryEngine 3 which under the hood is CryEngine 2 works very differently then the engines you guys are use to on the consoles. I say this because what should be determined and compared is in game navigation from the player. If you look at the Playstation 3 version in motion you will notice smoother performance when the player is interacting with things/objects or when the player is firing all those rockets creating dust clouds. However, the Xbox 360 is a different case, if you carefully watch the shadows being cast by the objects when the player is interacting with them you will notice no real time shadows in addition it's very choppy compared to the rotating fan in the Playstation 3 version which went very smoothly showing real time shadows. Experienced PC users that has played Crysis on different computer machines will tell you what I'm about to tell which is, the more you feed CryEngine 2 cores the smoother the performance on things like explosions, destructible environments and so on, to simply put physics. From what I'm analyzing, if I had to choose a version that I rather will play a game utilizing CryEngine 2 on, it will certainly be the Playstation 3 version due to it benefits from more cores for a smoother play experience to essentially do what CryEngine 2 does best at and that's marvelous physics.

Feel free to visit the PC & Mac Games board, laters...

where can i see the actual demo video?

PS3 looks good, 360 looks good, crysis engine, looks good

That part about the PS3 having more cores is going to net you some hate.

http://dlovh.gamersyde.com/secdl/efac162e90784839e1ad9d9284ec62c3/49ca9886/GDC_2009_Cryengine3_Trailer.avi404-not-found

links not working man

That part about the PS3 having more cores is going to net you some hate.

lundy86_4

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

That part about the PS3 having more cores is going to net you some hate.

Coolio10

That part about the PS3 having more cores is going to net you some hate.

lundy86_4

While I hate this board with a passion I guess it's my duty to logically input some potential here. If you buds compose yourselves a bit and really look at the shadows being casted from the objects on the ground level in addition to shadows on the wall, you will begin to see finer definition in the Xbox 360 shot. There are no differences in the textures, rather the measure of the Xbox 360 screen is adequately darker, happens often with different signal inputs/outputs.

CryEngine 3 which under the hood is CryEngine 2 works very differently then the engines you guys are use to on the consoles. I say this because what should be determined and compared is in game navigation from the player. If you look at the Playstation 3 version in motion you will notice smoother performance when the player is interacting with things/objects or when the player is firing all those rockets creating dust clouds. However, the Xbox 360 is a different case, if you carefully watch the shadows being cast by the objects when the player is interacting with them you will notice no real time shadows in addition it's very choppy compared to the rotating fan in the Playstation 3 version which went very smoothly showing real time shadows. Experienced PC users that has played Crysis on different computer machines will tell you what I'm about to tell which is, the more you feed CryEngine 2 cores the smoother the performance on things like explosions, destructible environments and so on, to simply put physics. From what I'm analyzing, if I had to choose a version that I rather will play a game utilizing CryEngine 2 on, it will certainly be the Playstation 3 version due to it benefits from more cores for a smoother play experience to essentially do what CryEngine 2 does best at and that's marvelous physics.

Feel free to visit the PC & Mac Games board, laters...

OoSuperMarioO

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

That part about the PS3 having more cores is going to net you some hate.

Coolio10

But then we get into the whole argument of them not being full cores etc With the PPE and SPE's

[QUOTE="Coolio10"][QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

That part about the PS3 having more cores is going to net you some hate.

lundy86_4

But then we get into the whole argument of them not being full cores etc With the PPE and SPE's

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

That part about the PS3 having more cores is going to net you some hate.

OoSuperMarioO

I would agree for the most part, though my knowledge on the cell is ltd from a technical standpoint. However people will more than likely come in touting the 360's tri-core processor if they pick up on it

[QUOTE="Coolio10"][QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

That part about the PS3 having more cores is going to net you some hate.

Panther501

Xbox 360's version looks better. Compare the shadows, ground textures, and the light on the left side.

[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]

While I hate this board with a passion I guess it's my duty to logically input some potential here. If you buds compose yourselves a bit and really look at the shadows being casted from the objects on the ground level in addition to shadows on the wall, you will begin to see finer definition in the Xbox 360 shot. There are no differences in the textures, rather the measure of the Xbox 360 screen is adequately darker, happens often with different signal inputs/outputs.

CryEngine 3 which under the hood is CryEngine 2 works very differently then the engines you guys are use to on the consoles. I say this because what should be determined and compared is in game navigation from the player. If you look at the Playstation 3 version in motion you will notice smoother performance when the player is interacting with things/objects or when the player is firing all those rockets creating dust clouds. However, the Xbox 360 is a different case, if you carefully watch the shadows being cast by the objects when the player is interacting with them you will notice no real time shadows in addition it's very choppy compared to the rotating fan in the Playstation 3 version which went very smoothly showing real time shadows. Experienced PC users that has played Crysis on different computer machines will tell you what I'm about to tell which is, the more you feed CryEngine 2 cores the smoother the performance on things like explosions, destructible environments and so on, to simply put physics. From what I'm analyzing, if I had to choose a version that I rather will play a game utilizing CryEngine 2 on, it will certainly be the Playstation 3 version due to it benefits from more cores for a smoother play experience to essentially do what CryEngine 2 does best at and that's marvelous physics.

Feel free to visit the PC & Mac Games board, laters...

vaderhater

[QUOTE="Panther501"][QUOTE="Coolio10"] But its true. Crysis was just as much CPU as graphics.vaderhater

lol make it quuuuuick... before the fanboys come :P

[QUOTE="404-not-found"]http://dlovh.gamersyde.com/secdl/efac162e90784839e1ad9d9284ec62c3/49ca9886/GDC_2009_Cryengine3_Trailer.aviPanther501

links not working man

The onlything about the TC's thread that is true is whatever the guy in his sig has ever said about the consoles.

So ... The Xbox versions looks better, but the PS3 version is smoother. I say that's about right, taking into acccount the hardware.

the ps3 screen looks so much better just because of the lighting.

well imo the ps3 screen looks just better overall. the 360 is really starting to show how outdated the hardware really was. it's becomming more and more obvious the 360 was just thrown together using the cheapest parts they could. I mean ps3 has all the graphics kings...by a large margain. multiplats are better on the PS3...if the devs take their time with it. Bethesda is proof of that...oblivion runs better on ps3 then fallout runs worse. it's all about how much time they put into it.

Is the engine done and optimized for the hardware yet?

What was shown looks inferior to most games, and if developed well both versions should be equal.

the ps3 screen looks so much better just because of the lighting.

well imo the ps3 screen looks just better overall. the 360 is really starting to show how outdated the hardware really was. it's becomming more and more obvious the 360 was just thrown together using the cheapest parts they could. I mean ps3 has all the graphics kings...by a large margain. multiplats are better on the PS3...

enygma500

Both systems are about equal in power actually.

You just have your goggles on.

Here is a link to the gametrailers version, though it looks like the just stretched the video out, as it looks pretty awful

1. The dynamic light is terrible on the ps3 version however looks much softer on the 360 version. PS3 one even has a jaggy
2. Shadows on the ps3 one are god awful, blurry and undefined. 360 version has clear shadows that are far superior

3. better texturesonthe 360

The onlything about the TC's thread that is true is whatever the guy in his sig has ever said about the consoles.

vaderhater

i just saw the video and wow does the ps3 version look better. compare the jungle scene right as the guy comes out.

While I hate this board with a passion I guess it's my duty to logically input some potential here. If you buds compose yourselves a bit...OoSuperMarioO

and really look at the shadows being casted from the objects on the ground level in addition to shadows on the wall, you will begin to see finer definition in the Xbox 360 shot.OoSuperMarioO

It's difficult to tell with these things, but it's entirely possible that the 360 shadows, rather than being higher resolution, may simple be "sharper". Keep in mind, sharper doesn't always mean better. In fact, it could simply mean that the PS3 has softer, and therefore, better, shadowing. For reference, compare the shadows from Crysis, in Very High, and High.

Like I said, it's difficult to tell the difference between a low-resolution shadow and a soft shadow sometimes, but it could really go either way if you ask me.

Edit: If Glicthspot isn't loading those pics, just open them in a new tab.

So ... The Xbox versions looks better, but the PS3 version is smoother. I say that's about right, taking into acccount the hardware.

-Snooze-

I love how in the videos they felt like they had to add the word REALTIME like anything in the CE3 video was amazing. That might be amazing for PS3 or 360, but the CE3 footage looks like Crysis on mostly low and some medium settings. It actually upsets me that Crytek would lower their standards like that.MadExponent

CryEngine 3 will add some improvements for the PC versions and games on future consoles. So, hopefully, once they demonstrate the PC version of CryEngine 3 it'll be better than a tweaked CryEngine 2 game.

[QUOTE="enygma500"]

the ps3 screen looks so much better just because of the lighting.

well imo the ps3 screen looks just better overall. the 360 is really starting to show how outdated the hardware really was. it's becomming more and more obvious the 360 was just thrown together using the cheapest parts they could. I mean ps3 has all the graphics kings...by a large margain. multiplats are better on the PS3...

swazidoughman

Both systems are about equal in power actually.

You just have your goggles on.

You're the one with goggles on if you think the 360 is as powerful as the ps3.

I never bashed on the 360's games, it's got a fantastic game selection and a superior (in someways) online system.From what I've seen and heard the Ps3 has a smoother running online whereas the 360 has the superior feature set.

Both consoles have their pros and cons.

Also the lighting on the Ps3 version of the demo is far superior. it's the same as comparing the lightin in killzone to the lightin in Gears of war.

Why can't you fanboys just admit..Ps3 has superior hardware. It's even made a lot of progress with its game selection in the last 8 months or so.

No one can deny that the PS3 has superior hardware; just not for games. The Cell is a multipurpose processor with a painful architecture for programmers to use at the moment. It's getting better, though, of course, but by the time the Cell starts to make any significant differences the Xbox 3 will be out.

[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]

While I hate this board with a passion I guess it's my duty to logically input some potential here. If you buds compose yourselves a bit...agentfred

and really look at the shadows being casted from the objects on the ground level in addition to shadows on the wall, you will begin to see finer definition in the Xbox 360 shot.OoSuperMarioO

It's difficult to tell with these things, but it's entirely possible that the 360 shadows, rather than being higher resolution, may simple be "sharper". Keep in mind, sharper doesn't always mean better. In fact, it could simply mean that the PS3 has softer, and therefore, better, shadowing. For reference, compare the shadows from Crysis, in Very High, and High.

Like I said, it's difficult to tell the difference between a low-resolution shadow and a soft shadow sometimes, but it could really go either way if you ask me.

Soft shadows on current generation consoles? LOL! Soft shadows is one of the most demanding things to be implemented in current games .. and, in my opinion, makes very little difference in most games.

Sorry for double post...edit wasn't working for whatever reason.

To the guy that said the shadows on the ps3 are aweful...no they're more realistic. That's how real shadows look. hold your hand kinda close to a slight source of light and you'll find that the shadow casted across the room is very blurry. not very defined. the lighting on the 360 version is garbage and it stands out.

EDIT: the boxes and crates right underneath the light source in the 360 version dont even have shadows...and you're saying the 360 has a superior lighting system...

So ... The Xbox versions looks better, but the PS3 version is smoother. I say that's about right, taking into acccount the hardware.

-Snooze-

No one can deny that the PS3 has superior hardware; just not for games. The Cell is a multipurpose processor with a painful architecture for programmers to use at the moment. It's getting better, though, of course, but by the time the Cell starts to make any significant differences the Xbox 3 will be out.

DeckardLee

[QUOTE="-Snooze-"]

So ... The Xbox versions looks better, but the PS3 version is smoother. I say that's about right, taking into acccount the hardware.

spike6566

[QUOTE="DeckardLee"]

No one can deny that the PS3 has superior hardware; just not for games. The Cell is a multipurpose processor with a painful architecture for programmers to use at the moment. It's getting better, though, of course, but by the time the Cell starts to make any significant differences the Xbox 3 will be out.

OoSuperMarioO

What this means is the 360 is easier to program for and easier to "cheat" performance out of. But if a dev takes their time and puts a little extra polish on the ps3 version it will look better...We all knew this already.

Well, it's understandable bud, but in this case of CryEngine 2, soft shadows basicallys softens the shadows(edges ect.). Personally, neither the Xbox 360 or Playstation 3 are utilizing soft shadows for performance reasons in my opinion. The shadows I showed earlier are of higher resolution on the Xbox 360 due to GPU benefits.OoSuperMarioO

Soft shadows on current generation consoles? LOL! Soft shadows is one of the most demanding things to be implemented in current games .. and, in my opinion, makes very little difference in most games.

DeckardLee

^ this

[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]Well, it's understandable bud, but in this case of CryEngine 2, soft shadows basicallys softens the shadows(edges ect.). Personally, neither the Xbox 360 or Playstation 3 are utilizing soft shadows for performance reasons in my opinion. The shadows I showed earlier are of higher resolution on the Xbox 360 due to GPU benefits.agentfred

I'm no master at this but I do know that soft shadows causes a HUUUGE performance hit in PC games. So for consoles it would probably be better not to implement it even if it could since it would allow for A LOT more FPS when all you do is lose something that's really no big deal.

[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]

[QUOTE="DeckardLee"]

No one can deny that the PS3 has superior hardware; just not for games. The Cell is a multipurpose processor with a painful architecture for programmers to use at the moment. It's getting better, though, of course, but by the time the Cell starts to make any significant differences the Xbox 3 will be out.

enygma500

What this means is the 360 is easier to program for and easier to "cheat" performance out of. But if a dev takes their time and puts a little extra polish on the ps3 version it will look better...We all knew this already.

It doesn't really have as much to do with polish as it does with the laws of programming. The more you design a game around a certain set of hardware the more it won't work on other sets. So, the best thing to do is to go at it 50/50 for each console make them as close to each other as possible.

Does anyone notice that in the video there's is no gun shot on the PS3 version??

A FAIR analysis?

you know it's gonna be god different in motion?

what? you don't like the vid from gamersyde? or you just think pictures do more justice.

*sigh*

[QUOTE="vaderhater"]

The onlything about the TC's thread that is true is whatever the guy in his sig has ever said about the consoles.