Crysis 2 dev: Both consoles are equal, but PS3 is 'lowest denominator'

[QUOTE="UnrealDelusion"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"]is that yours or your friends PSN ID, either way i suppose you have played those games, still doesn't change the fact that you have no credibility to say that john carmack is wrong, he was coding hardware before you left nappys mate and i will take his word over yours if thats alright.delta3074

Friend's because I said I DON'T OWN a PS3. lol resulting to insults you don't even know my age and no he is not a programming god he is heavily overrated and that comes from a pc only gamer. So I take what I see with my own 2 eyes over what he says.

it's funny crytek made the best looking game without those megatextures :P

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="UnrealDelusion"]

Friend's because I said I DON'T OWN a PS3. lol resulting to insults you don't even know my age and no he is not a programming god he is heavily overrated and that comes from a pc only gamer. So I take what I see with my own 2 eyes over what he says.

badtaker

it's funny crytek made the best looking game without those megatextures :P

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="UnrealDelusion"]

Friend's because I said I DON'T OWN a PS3. lol resulting to insults you don't even know my age and no he is not a programming god he is heavily overrated and that comes from a pc only gamer. So I take what I see with my own 2 eyes over what he says.

UnrealDelusion

Why should I enlighten you why I think he is overrated since we won't agree on it anyway. He just is overrated imo and hasn't done anything noteworthy for quite some time now. He's just an old relic living on past glories.

[QUOTE="badtaker"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"]fair enough, we can agree to disagree, how did i insult you? you know carmack has been a developer for 20 years, i was only 16 when he started coding, he also ioneered various techniques like adaptive tile refersh, raycasting,binary space partition,surface xachibg and mega textures, so how is he overated? please enlighten me.delta3074

it's funny crytek made the best looking game without those megatextures :P

No Half-Life 2 ,Fear Far cry were best looking game. Stop overrating Carmack. He has yet to make a good game since quake 3 doom3 and quake 4 were medicore gamesbadtaker

John Carmack is not a designer, he's a programmer.:roll: He just built the engine, he didn't make Quake 4 or Doom 3.

[QUOTE="badtaker"]No Half-Life 2 ,Fear Far cry were best looking game. Stop overrating Carmack. He has yet to make a good game since quake 3 doom3 and quake 4 were medicore gameswaltefmoney

John Carmack is not a designer, he's a programmer.:roll: He just built the engine, he didn't make Quake 4 or Doom 3.

yay i know but i already said Half-Life 2 ,Fear Far cry were better looking than Doom3 Actually he is also a game developer(although very few games were developed by him earlier) but he is a game programmer first. carmack game engines are overrated Crytek didn't use anyone of those stupid megatextures and yet beat doom3 and Quake4 even with farcry badtaker

Technically, Doom 3 was much more advanced than both Half-Life 2 and Far Cry, and FEAR was released a year later.

[QUOTE="waltefmoney"]

[QUOTE="badtaker"]No Half-Life 2 ,Fear Far cry were best looking game. Stop overrating Carmack. He has yet to make a good game since quake 3 doom3 and quake 4 were medicore gamesbadtaker

John Carmack is not a designer, he's a programmer.:roll: He just built the engine, he didn't make Quake 4 or Doom 3.

[QUOTE="waltefmoney"]

[QUOTE="badtaker"]No Half-Life 2 ,Fear Far cry were best looking game. Stop overrating Carmack. He has yet to make a good game since quake 3 doom3 and quake 4 were medicore gamesbadtaker

John Carmack is not a designer, he's a programmer.:roll: He just built the engine, he didn't make Quake 4 or Doom 3.

[QUOTE="badtaker"]yay i know but i already said Half-Life 2 ,Fear Far cry were better looking than Doom3 Actually he is also a game developer(although very few games were developed by him earlier) but he is a game programmer first. carmack game engines are overrated Crytek didn't use anyone of those stupid megatextures and yet beat doom3 and Quake4 even with farcry Orchid87

Technically, Doom 3 was much more advanced than both Half-Life 2 and Far Cry, and FEAR was released a year later.

[QUOTE="Orchid87"]

[QUOTE="badtaker"]yay i know but i already said Half-Life 2 ,Fear Far cry were better looking than Doom3 Actually he is also a game developer(although very few games were developed by him earlier) but he is a game programmer first. carmack game engines are overrated Crytek didn't use anyone of those stupid megatextures and yet beat doom3 and Quake4 even with farcry ferret-gamer

Technically, Doom 3 was much more advanced than both Half-Life 2 and Far Cry, and FEAR was released a year later.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

[QUOTE="Orchid87"]

Technically, Doom 3 was much more advanced than both Half-Life 2 and Far Cry, and FEAR was released a year later.

delta3074

[QUOTE="badtaker"][QUOTE="waltefmoney"]

John Carmack is not a designer, he's a programmer.:roll: He just built the engine, he didn't make Quake 4 or Doom 3.

delta3074

I am sorry i thought Doom3 used it (there were megatextures mods though)

Megatextures was used by Quake Wars so does it beat crysis when you previously said Carmack is a developer god???

Again i say Half-Life 2 ,Fear Far cry were better looking than Doom3

I always found Doom 3 to look like crap, nowhere near the quality of Half life 2, the only thing i really see technically nice in it is it had alot of normal/bump mapping and dynamic lighting but i would take really nice looking prebaked lights w/ global illumnation with suberb animation systems and great physics(HL2) over some cheaply done dynamic lights and overused bump mapping(doom 3) any day.

ferret-gamer

Doom 3 dynamic lights are NOT cheaply done. It was all real-time that is awesome for 2004 tech.

[QUOTE="themyth01"]

[QUOTE="UnrealDelusion"]

well having games which look better then anything on the 360 means more then mere words. So until the 360 gets a game in the same league graphics wise the 360 is less powerfull.

Anastasia1997

Really, can you prove that claim of yours without going by looks? you say graphics but go back to looks. Do you even know anything about graphics or are you another PS3 fanboy dreaming of PS3 superiority? I'll wait for your proof that does not involve looks.

In the meantime I'll take Carmack's word over yours.

[QUOTE="NotTarts"]

[QUOTE="gpuking"] Well on that note I will stand corrected. But realtime the shadows they maybe, clearly not many objects are benefiting from it is there? If we are to look at the whole picture here, crysis 2 on console is sacrificing many things in order to tick a few check boxes.

gpuking

Those shots were from E3, though, and I'm betting that it'll be improved during the polishing stage. It's easily capable of it; it's just a matter of balancing the load. Crytek have always stuck by 'real-time, all the time', and I don't think that's going to change.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

I always found Doom 3 to look like crap, nowhere near the quality of Half life 2, the only thing i really see technically nice in it is it had alot of normal/bump mapping and dynamic lighting but i would take really nice looking prebaked lights w/ global illumnation with suberb animation systems and great physics(HL2) over some cheaply done dynamic lights and overused bump mapping(doom 3) any day.

Orchid87

Doom 3 dynamic lights are NOT cheaply done. It was all real-time that is awesome for 2004 tech.

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] I always found Doom 3 to look like crap, nowhere near the quality of Half life 2, the only thing i really see technically nice in it is it had alot of normal/bump mapping and dynamic lighting but i would take really nice looking prebaked lights w/ global illumnation with suberb animation systems and great physics(HL2) over some cheaply done dynamic lights and overused bump mapping(doom 3) any day.

ferret-gamer

it looked really fake/cheap, unrealistic and altogether bad.ferret-gamer

, yes i do know all about HDR lighting and global illumination, don't be so ignorant and assume that people do not know what they are talking about.delta3074

[QUOTE="delta3074"], yes i do know all about HDR lighting and global illumination, don't be so ignorant and assume that people do not know what they are talking about.ferret-gamer

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="delta3074"], yes i do know all about HDR lighting and global illumination, don't be so ignorant and assume that people do not know what they are talking about.delta3074

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="delta3074"]because Half life 2 doesn't use full GI that's why.delta3074

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="delta3074"]Half life 2 uses HDR l, check out the lost coast demo.delta3074

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="delta3074"]it's still half-life 2 and it's still using HDR, technically we are both correctdelta3074

No matter what people think what their consoles can do. But the fact remains that Both consoles are stuck with 2004/5 based direct x 9 gpu's with only 512mb of total memory for system and video use, which should tell you that Crysis 2 wont look better then medium quality graphics from the 1st Crysis. Also since the game is multiplatform the base line in graphics, level design, gameplay and other limits will be designed for the LCD(consoles). Which in turn will cause the Pc version to suffer. I would glady trade in the extra graphics from Crysis 2 and keep the 1st ones graphics to be able to get the game out of the console based limits of design.04dcarraher

not 2004 lol 2005 technology. To be precise both consoles had their hardware chosen as early as March of 05, then microsoft rushed the production of the 360 so it would be ready in the same year. I assume that's where you got 2004 from, since consoles normally use tech from the year prior to launch. But not in the 360's case. The hardware was rushed, hence all the issues :) Just wait until Nintendo busts out of the next gen gates lol their system will be a beast technically. I predict a late 2011 launch. (they need to)

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]No matter what people think what their consoles can do. But the fact remains that Both consoles are stuck with 2004/5 based direct x 9 gpu's with only 512mb of total memory for system and video use, which should tell you that Crysis 2 wont look better then medium quality graphics from the 1st Crysis. Also since the game is multiplatform the base line in graphics, level design, gameplay and other limits will be designed for the LCD(consoles). Which in turn will cause the Pc version to suffer. I would glady trade in the extra graphics from Crysis 2 and keep the 1st ones graphics to be able to get the game out of the console based limits of design.theuncharted34

not 2004 lol 2005 technology. To be precise both consoles had their hardware chosen as early as March of 05, then microsoft rushed the production of the 360 so it would be ready in the same year. I assume that's where you got 2004 from, since consoles normally use tech from the year prior to launch. But not in the 360's case. The hardware was rushed, hence all the issues :) Just wait until Nintendo busts out of the next gen gates lol their system will be a beast technically. I predict a late 2011 launch. (they need to)

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]No matter what people think what their consoles can do. But the fact remains that Both consoles are stuck with 2004/5 based direct x 9 gpu's with only 512mb of total memory for system and video use, which should tell you that Crysis 2 wont look better then medium quality graphics from the 1st Crysis. Also since the game is multiplatform the base line in graphics, level design, gameplay and other limits will be designed for the LCD(consoles). Which in turn will cause the Pc version to suffer. I would glady trade in the extra graphics from Crysis 2 and keep the 1st ones graphics to be able to get the game out of the console based limits of design.04dcarraher

not 2004 lol 2005 technology. To be precise both consoles had their hardware chosen as early as March of 05, then microsoft rushed the production of the 360 so it would be ready in the same year. I assume that's where you got 2004 from, since consoles normally use tech from the year prior to launch. But not in the 360's case. The hardware was rushed, hence all the issues :) Just wait until Nintendo busts out of the next gen gates lol their system will be a beast technically. I predict a late 2011 launch. (they need to)

things change after this stage. The cpu's and gpu's are from 2005 respectively. I'm not really arguing, that's the just the bottom line. Not to say they both aren't VERY outdated, because they are.

What a joke this is. Crysis 2 is doing real-time GI, something KZ3 could only dream of doing at this point. Just to put it into perspective, there are but a handful of games out now that can use GI, one of them being Crysis. Technically Crysis 2 >>>>>>>>>> KZ3.

themyth01

Suuure, that cheap one bounce GI impelmentation used in console is hardly significant. And just take a look at the rest of the package, massive screen tearing, severe pop ins, low res blurry textures, aggressive LOD, piss poor DOF, lack of aa and primitive particle effect compared to kz3. Technically KZ3 is far superior at this point.

[QUOTE="themyth01"]

Suuure, that cheap one bounce GI impelmentation used in console is hardly significant. And just take a look at the rest of the package, massive screen tearing, severe pop ins, low res blurry textures, aggressive LOD, piss poor DOF, lack of aa and primitive particle effect compared to kz3. Technically KZ3 is far superior at this point.

gpuking

[QUOTE="themyth01"]

What a joke this is. Crysis 2 is doing real-time GI, something KZ3 could only dream of doing at this point. Just to put it into perspective, there are but a handful of games out now that can use GI, one of them being Crysis. Technically Crysis 2 >>>>>>>>>> KZ3.

gpuking

Suuure, that cheap one bounce GI impelmentation used in console is hardly significant. And just take a look at the rest of the package, massive screen tearing, severe pop ins, low res blurry textures, aggressive LOD, piss poor DOF, lack of aa and primitive particle effect compared to kz3. Technically KZ3 is far superior at this point.

Yeah, it is cheap. The current GI implementation cost nearly free on all systems. Go check B3D for reference. Now why don't you do some research yourself before calling me clueless. I own all three systems anyway so yeah.

Yeah, it is cheap. The current GI implementation cost nearly free on all systems. Go check B3D for reference. Now why don't you do some research yourself before calling me clueless. I own all three systems anyway so yeah.

gpuking

[QUOTE="gpuking"]

[QUOTE="themyth01"] [QUOTE="gpuking"]

[QUOTE="themyth01"]

What a joke this is. Crysis 2 is doing real-time GI, something KZ3 could only dream of doing at this point. Just to put it into perspective, there are but a handful of games out now that can use GI, one of them being Crysis. Technically Crysis 2 >>>>>>>>>> KZ3.

themyth01

Suuure, that cheap one bounce GI impelmentation used in console is hardly significant. And just take a look at the rest of the package, massive screen tearing, severe pop ins, low res blurry textures, aggressive LOD, piss poor DOF, lack of aa and primitive particle effect compared to kz3. Technically KZ3 is far superior at this point.

[QUOTE="gpuking"]

Yeah, it is cheap. The current GI implementation cost nearly free on all systems. Go check B3D for reference. Now why don't you do some research yourself before calling me clueless. I own all three systems anyway so yeah.

themyth01

regardless Crysis 2 on the xbox 360 (only version i've seen) is inferior to kz3 and possibly even kz2 due to it's awful awful performance.

[QUOTE="gpuking"]

Yeah, it is cheap. The current GI implementation cost nearly free on all systems. Go check B3D for reference. Now why don't you do some research yourself before calling me clueless. I own all three systems anyway so yeah.

themyth01

[QUOTE="themyth01"]

[QUOTE="gpuking"]

Suuure, that cheap one bounce GI impelmentation used in console is hardly significant. And just take a look at the rest of the package, massive screen tearing, severe pop ins, low res blurry textures, aggressive LOD, piss poor DOF, lack of aa and primitive particle effect compared to kz3. Technically KZ3 is far superior at this point.

gpuking

mlaa is cheaper than msaa. go watch the crysis 2 e3 demo and learn something.

[QUOTE="themyth01"][QUOTE="gpuking"]

Yeah, it is cheap. The current GI implementation cost nearly free on all systems. Go check B3D for reference. Now why don't you do some research yourself before calling me clueless. I own all three systems anyway so yeah.

gpuking

[QUOTE="gpuking"][QUOTE="themyth01"] lol you have no clue what you're talking about. cheap heh.. btw crysis 2 is doing 2xmsaa. you need to stop loving the ps3 so much to understand though.

themyth01

mlaa is cheaper than msaa. go watch the crysis 2 e3 demo and learn something.

[QUOTE="themyth01"]

[QUOTE="gpuking"] mlaa is cheaper than msaa (not referring to looks). go watch the crysis 2 e3 demo and learn something. And it's not exactly 2xmsaa it's more of a temporal aa which is yet to be used on consoles. And regardless it's still far inferior to the MLAA.gpuking

mlaa is cheaper than msaa. go watch the crysis 2 e3 demo and learn something.

[QUOTE="themyth01"][QUOTE="gpuking"] LOL, you're making me laugh. I said NEARLY free, can't you read?gpuking

I've read the PDF, and it's not even close to free. Doing an algorithmic analysis on it proves it's an expensive computation. It's why KZ3 can't do it.

[QUOTE="gpuking"][QUOTE="themyth01"]

mlaa is cheaper than msaa. go watch the crysis 2 e3 demo and learn something.

themyth01

They are roughly the same visually, but The performance on C2 kills it. Everything else you said is right, just stop arguing with him lol :P

[QUOTE="gpuking"][QUOTE="themyth01"]

mlaa is cheaper than msaa. go watch the crysis 2 e3 demo and learn something.

themyth01

[QUOTE="themyth01"][QUOTE="gpuking"] You keep amuse me with your ignorance. MLAA is cheaper than MSAA only on the PS3 lol, yet gives out much better results.theuncharted34

They are roughly the same visually, but The performance on C2 kills it. Everything else you said is right, just stop arguing with him lol :P

Was not referring to visuals, as many before have pointed out to him, Crysis is doing everything dynamically which is far mroe expensive than KZ3's static lighting method.

Also, lol at the MLAA being cheaper only on PS3, with better results too.. wow well I wasn't sure before but now I know you're just another cow. MLAA has been done on 360 taking only 3.7s, while on the PS3 it takes 4.5s using 4 SPUs. And MLAA is a method, it's result is not biased by the hardware.

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="themyth01"] The pot calling the kettle black. You claim KZ3 is better technically but have no proof at all whatsoever. Then you start making incorrect claims and lies such as no AA in Crysis 2 when it's obviously using AA. Then you try to dismiss Dynamic GI when only 3 games so far have ever used this method, furthermore you call it nearly free, lol like hell it is, that's why so many games use it right? You're obviously making up stuff and have no real idea what it is you're talking about. themyth01

They are roughly the same visually, but The performance on C2 kills it. Everything else you said is right, just stop arguing with him lol :P

Was not referring to visuals, as many before have pointed out to him, Crysis is doing everything dynamically which is far mroe expensive than KZ3's static lighting method.

Also, lol at the MLAA being cheaper only on PS3, with better results too.. wow well I wasn't sure before but now I know you're just another cow. MLAA has been done on 360 taking only 3.7s, while on the PS3 it takes 4.5s using 4 SPUs. And MLAA is a method, it's result is not biased by the hardware.

oh okay your just talking about lighting. I hope you weren't calling me a cow :( I am really not good at knowing what is being directed at who.