Crysis 2 Digital Foundry Comparison

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="incuensuocha"]You saying the PS3 is maxed out is no more credible or legitimate than all the people that said the 360 was maxed out prior to the release of Crysis 2. So don't go spewing that as fact. Nobody in SW knows that for a fact.savagetwinkie

It's console hardware, there isn't much you can do now, I read on their specs and even my PC trashes them, it's no wonder they can't do 1080p while looking like Gears, Uncharted, Killzone, etc. The best they can do is 720p(and even less with a few above it will cutting corners), 0-4xAA, like 0-2 AF and barely contain 30FPS in most games. I don't see how much further they can go.

[QUOTE="killzowned24"][QUOTE="soulitane"]@killzowned24 have you actually played the game or are you basing all your opinions off of terrible screen shots(which don't even properly represent the game)?soulitane

@killzowned24 have you actually played the game or are you basing all your opinions off of terrible screen shots(which don't even properly represent the game)?soulitane

Using his logic, Killzone 3 looks like this:

How is this impressive?

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="mitu123"] It is a fact, you honestly think those outdated things can go much, much further, hell, consoles can barely handle Crysis 2 as it dips into 20FPSs with both versions while both being below 1280x720 while rendering more in big environments, sacrifices have to be made to try to make them better.

mitu123

It's console hardware, there isn't much you can do now, I read on their specs and even my PC trashes them, it's no wonder they can't do 1080p while looking like Gears, Uncharted, Killzone, etc. The best they can do is 720p(and even less with a few above it will cutting corners), 0-4xAA, like 0-2 AF and barely contain 30FPS in most games. I don't see how much further they can go.

[QUOTE="soulitane"]@killzowned24 have you actually played the game or are you basing all your opinions off of terrible screen shots(which don't even properly represent the game)?mitu123

Using his logic, Killzone 3 looks like this:

How is this impressive?

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] its not maxed out, especially the ps3 there is still a lot to learn with the type of programming that developers have to deal with, not to mention they can keep pushing for more and more efficiency just like they can on the 360, its just a matter of how far they really want to push. Considering how large some of these dev teams its easy for some things that can be improved to be completely forgotten. So there is likely room for improvement Now don't get me wrong, we aren't going to see a massive leap in graphics, but they might still be able to squeeze out subtle upgrades, unless you work on the platform and know it intimidate you really can't say its maxed out.savagetwinkie

It's console hardware, there isn't much you can do now, I read on their specs and even my PC trashes them, it's no wonder they can't do 1080p while looking like Gears, Uncharted, Killzone, etc. The best they can do is 720p(and even less with a few above it will cutting corners), 0-4xAA, like 0-2 AF and barely contain 30FPS in most games. I don't see how much further they can go.

Even if devs find ways to make it happen, they are still limited.

[QUOTE="tonitorsi"]

I just find it funny.

How the Hermits talked teh superiority, teh superiority for years and consoles are holding gaming back & Crysis 2 comes out and is easily comparable to Battlefield 3 on PC.

mitu123

Can't wait to show my screens of it on PC.:)

Wut!

This thread has 200 replies bathed with Crysis 2 pics and you're still not seeing it?

Accept defeat! It more than does dawg :P

tonitorsi

And then there's March 30th that is going to amaze people.;)

@killzowned24 have you actually played the game or are you basing all your opinions off of terrible screen shots(which don't even properly represent the game)?soulitane

I am willing to bet he hasn't played it. Well, I have played it and in my opinion it easily has the best graphics ever seen in a console game. Uncharted 2 and Killzone 3 are more polished, but on the other hand they aren't doing nearly as much from a technical/graphical standpoint as Crysis 2 is.

He is just being selective. He is latching on to the weak areas of the game and ignoring a whole host of amazing graphical strengths.

The sub-HD thing is a red herring. You can't even tell it is sub-HD. I directly compared it against Killzone 3 and was Crysis 2 blurrier or less detailed in any way? No, it absolutely wasn't. It looked as sharp and clear as Killzone 3. So, while it might be technically barely below 720p, in real world terms this has virtually no impact.

In terms of aliasing, it's funny he would bring that up, as Killzone 3 has horrible jaggies. MLAA was a step back for the Killzone franchise. Killzone 2 on the whole looked cleaner than Killzone 3. Crysis 2 and Killzone 3 have a similar amount of perceived aliasing, just in different areas.

Pop-in is indeed worse in Crysis 2. Killzone 3 has pop-in as well, but it is much less noticeable. This is one of the few areas that Killzone 3 wins.

Texture quality is at least as good in Crysis 2 as in Killzone 3, if not better. There are some high res textures in Killzone 3, but most of them I would classify as low or medium texture quality. Crysis 2 generally has somewhat better texture quality.

Overall, Crysis 2 is more impressive visually. If the console version of Crysis 2 didn't have pop-in, jaggies, and an at times stuttering frame rate...well then, it would look like my PC version of Crysis 2 and would look a generation ahead of Killzone 3. With those issues taken into consideration Crysis 2 on consoles still looks better than Killzone 3 due to how far ahead it is in most other areas.

mitu123

But thats not really my point. Isn't it amazing that consoles have a game that can be comparable to BF3 ON PC, nonetheless a high quality PC game??

Obviously moded BF3 will perhaps look levels beyond those gif, but to have a game that looks as good as BF3 with 2005 hardware and fewer RAM makes some Hermits eat their own words.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="tonitorsi"]

Wut!

This thread has 200 replies bathed with Crysis 2 pics and you're still not seeing it?

Accept defeat! It more than does dawg :P

tonitorsi

And then there's March 30th that is going to amaze people.;)

But thats not really my point. Isn't it amazing that consoles have a game that can be comparable to BF3 ON PC, nonetheless a high quality PC game??

Obviously moded BF3 will perhaps look levels beyond those gif, but to have a game that looks as good as BF3 with 2005 hardware and fewer RAM makes some Hermits eat their own words.

No that's just disappointing. It's shocking that the industry has'nt moved forewards since 07.

tonitorsi

The main difference is scale. That's why BF3 on console is toned down as far as player count and level size. Consoles can manage close to the same level of shaders as BF3 PC, but it's literally impossible to have levels as huge as Crysis for example. And if any PC dev decided to push PC hardware like Crytek did back in 2007 with Crysis, the difference would be huge. The only reason console games look anywhere close to PC games is that PC devs have stopped pushing the envelope like they used to.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="tonitorsi"]

Wut!

This thread has 200 replies bathed with Crysis 2 pics and you're still not seeing it?

Accept defeat! It more than does dawg :P

tonitorsi

And then there's March 30th that is going to amaze people.;)

But thats not really my point. Isn't it amazing that consoles have a game that can be comparable to BF3 ON PC, nonetheless a high quality PC game??

Obviously moded BF3 will perhaps look levels beyond those gif, but to have a game that looks as good as BF3 with 2005 hardware and fewer RAM makes some Hermits eat their own words.

The main difference is scale. That's why BF3 on console is toned down as far as player count and level size. Consoles can manage close to the same level of shaders as BF3 PC, but it's literally impossible to have levels as huge as Crysis for example. And if any PC dev decided to push PC hardware like Crytek did back in 2007 with Crysis, the difference would be huge. The only reason console games look anywhere close to PC games is that PC devs have stopped pushing the envelope like they used to.

Very true what you are saying. I am still skeptical, though, about what Dice will be able to achieve on consoles for Battlefield 3 based on what they managed on BFBC2. There was such a big gulf between the PC version and console versions...it just makes me wonder how Battlefield 3 will turn out on consoles. Crytek did a very good job on the consoles.

[QUOTE="tonitorsi"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"] Yes, it does look amazing, however:

And then there's March 30th that is going to amaze people.;)

-Tretiak

But thats not really my point. Isn't it amazing that consoles have a game that can be comparable to BF3 ON PC, nonetheless a high quality PC game??

Obviously moded BF3 will perhaps look levels beyond those gif, but to have a game that looks as good as BF3 with 2005 hardware and fewer RAM makes some Hermits eat their own words.

The main difference is scale. That's why BF3 on console is toned down as far as player count and level size. Consoles can manage close to the same level of shaders as BF3 PC, but it's literally impossible to have levels as huge as Crysis for example. And if any PC dev decided to push PC hardware like Crytek did back in 2007 with Crysis, the difference would be huge. The only reason console games look anywhere close to PC games is that PC devs have stopped pushing the envelope like they used to.

kalipekona

The main difference is scale. That's why BF3 on console is toned down as far as player count and level size. Consoles can manage close to the same level of shaders as BF3 PC, but it's literally impossible to have levels as huge as Crysis for example. And if any PC dev decided to push PC hardware like Crytek did back in 2007 with Crysis, the difference would be huge. The only reason console games look anywhere close to PC games is that PC devs have stopped pushing the envelope like they used to.

Very true what you are saying. I am still skeptical, though, about what Dice will be able to achieve on consoles for Battlefield 3 based on what they managed on BFBC2. There was such a big gulf between the PC version and console versions...it just makes me wonder how Battlefield 3 will turn out on consoles. Crytek did a very good job on the consoles.

Yeah. I've heard a lot of impressive promises about BF3 on consoles. We'll see how it really turns out. I'm skeptical of it as well.

DICE should learn a thing or 2 from Crytek.

If only wished BF3 would look like that on consoles. Or at least like KZ3. Dang.

DICE should learn a thing or 2 from Crytek.

If only wished BF3 would look like that on consoles. Or at least like KZ3. Dang.

tonitorsi

[QUOTE="soulitane"]@killzowned24 have you actually played the game or are you basing all your opinions off of terrible screen shots(which don't even properly represent the game)?kalipekona

I am willing to bet he hasn't played it. Well, I have played it and in my opinion it easily has the best graphics ever seen in a console game. Uncharted 2 and Killzone 3 are more polished, but on the other hand they aren't doing nearly as much from a technical/graphical standpoint as Crysis 2 is.

He is just being selective. He is latching on to the weak areas of the game and ignoring a whole host of amazing graphical strengths.

The sub-HD thing is a red herring. You can't even tell it is sub-HD. I directly compared it against Killzone 3 and was Crysis 2 blurrier or less detailed in any way? No, it absolutely wasn't. It looked as sharp and clear as Killzone 3. So, while it might be technically barely below 720p, in real world terms this has virtually no impact.

In terms of aliasing, it's funny he would bring that up, as Killzone 3 has horrible jaggies. MLAA was a step back for the Killzone franchise. Killzone 2 on the whole looked cleaner than Killzone 3. Crysis 2 and Killzone 3 have a similar amount of perceived aliasing, just in different areas.

Pop-in is indeed worse in Crysis 2. Killzone 3 has pop-in as well, but it is much less noticeable. This is one of the few areas that Killzone 3 wins.

Texture quality is at least as good in Crysis 2 as in Killzone 3, if not better. There are some high res textures in Killzone 3, but most of them I would classify as low or medium texture quality. Crysis 2 generally has somewhat better texture quality.

Overall, Crysis 2 is more impressive visually. If the console version of Crysis 2 didn't have pop-in, jaggies, and an at times stuttering frame rate...well then, it would look like my PC version of Crysis 2 and would look a generation ahead of Killzone 3. With those issues taken into consideration Crysis 2 on consoles still looks better than Killzone 3 due to how far ahead it is in most other areas.

This guy gets it ;) Nail on head.

[QUOTE="1Stark1"]

[QUOTE="DreamCryotank"]

Man, cows are on meltdown! :lol:

gaming25

Not really, just trying to let people know that Crysis 2 isn't the best looking console game just because a few sites give vague graphics praise. I suggest you look up the word meltdown.

Of course it is. The problem with declaring any game a "graphics king" is that art style differences get in the way. Obviously, some games just plain look better than others, but how do you compare GoW with Cryisis? They don't even look anything alike to begin with.

Of course, these arguments will always go back and forth. I personally thought Halo 3 looked great in most parts, even if the animations suck. People will continue to damn everything that isn't the best at something though, and it doesn't matter that it doesn't make any sense. Darksiders did nothing better than everyone else, but it was still one of my favs from last year.

Dang everyone just ignores my posts :cry:

people just cant seem to argue againts unbiased logic

Deadbeatcobra

As someone else who consistently gets ignored, I will quote you because I feel your pain. However, I don't know what your logic was because this was the first of your posts I saw :P.

[QUOTE="OneLazyAsian"]

It seems to be that DF says that the XBox360 version runs a bit better (1-2 fps from the vids I saw) and has higher res (but is still sub-HD). There are some areas where the PS3 does better. And it seems that when both games are taxed, the XBox360 version is hit harder. I wonder if DF will pull a LoT and run a Uncharted 2 vs Crysis 2 so we can stop this silly debate.

Episode_Eve

I think it would be interesting if they compared Crysis 2 with Uncharted 2 and / or Killzone 3.

lol. Only LoT does that backwards arse crap. Comparing different games on performance and whatnot makes no sense. I guess a comparison of tech can be justified in ways, but how that tech is used and how often makes those comparisons really seem like just fanboy fodder, moreso because they usually do different exclusives.