Crysis 3 PC obviously looks better then the new Killzone.

[QUOTE="kraken2109"][QUOTE="ReadingRainbow4"]

that's just talking out of your ass.

 

ReadingRainbow4

No he doesn't.

He's assuming consoles behave in the same way a pc might, Consoles do not allocate ram in the same way

if you have memory to do so yes you do. The need for streaming is when you do not have the required resources to load all the data that you need. Loading all the resources you need and not having to stream allows much more options in game design and level sizes.  Current consoles stream in cells as the player moves. which is why you have alot more ingame loading pauses, smaller mp levels and player counts. Also you have no idea what is going on, these upcoming consoles are going to be media centers with a focus of gaming which means a more compleicated system which means it will use more resources to all these adavanced features.

No sh!t, even Crysis 2 w/ Maldo looks better.  Hell, I'd say even Metro 2033 looks better. 

Also, we are talking about Guerrilla, a studio that is notorious for releasing touched up trailers and screenshots.  At an event to create hype for a new system, no less.

People also seem to forget that PC can render resolutions far higher than 1080p.  Even if Killzone were to somehow beat Crysis 3 in the graphical department  through magical optimization, it would still have the disadvantage of being rendered in half (or less) of the resolution many PC monitors are capable of displaying.

[QUOTE="kraken2109"][QUOTE="ReadingRainbow4"]

that's just talking out of your ass.

ReadingRainbow4

No he doesn't.

He's assuming consoles behave in the same way a pc might, Consoles do not allocate ram in the same way

No sh!t, even Crysis 2 w/ Maldo looks better.  Hell, I'd say even Metro 2033 looks better. 

 

Also, we are talking about Guerrilla, a studio that is notorious for releasing touched up trailers and screenshots.  At an event to create hype for a new system, no less.

 

People also seem to forget that PC can render resolutions far higher than 1080p.  Even if Killzone were to somehow beat Crysis 3 in the graphical department  through magical optimization, it would still have the disadvantage of being rendered in half (or less) of the resolution many PC monitors are capable of displaying.

Riadon2

[QUOTE="Riadon2"]

No sh!t, even Crysis 2 w/ Maldo looks better.  Hell, I'd say even Metro 2033 looks better. 

 

Also, we are talking about Guerrilla, a studio that is notorious for releasing touched up trailers and screenshots.  At an event to create hype for a new system, no less.

 

People also seem to forget that PC can render resolutions far higher than 1080p.  Even if Killzone were to somehow beat Crysis 3 in the graphical department  through magical optimization, it would still have the disadvantage of being rendered in half (or less) of the resolution many PC monitors are capable of displaying.

GioVela2010

[QUOTE="Riadon2"]

No sh!t, even Crysis 2 w/ Maldo looks better.  Hell, I'd say even Metro 2033 looks better. 

 

Also, we are talking about Guerrilla, a studio that is notorious for releasing touched up trailers and screenshots.  At an event to create hype for a new system, no less.

 

People also seem to forget that PC can render resolutions far higher than 1080p.  Even if Killzone were to somehow beat Crysis 3 in the graphical department  through magical optimization, it would still have the disadvantage of being rendered in half (or less) of the resolution many PC monitors are capable of displaying.

GioVela2010

Obvious baiting is obvious.

Oh, and there are 120 Hz 1440p monitors (I should know, I use one), but no true 120 Hz 1440 TVs (that I know of).

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="zeeshanhaider"]

Do you think I have some sort of bias against a piece of plastic? I just simply can't play with a controller...just can't. Tried multiple times but controllers are just aren't meant for me.

zeeshanhaider

I have normal size hands. It's the analog sticks and triggers that I don't like. Actually like wouldn't be an appropriate word. I just can't seem to get hold of that thing and play the game. Can't aim right, always mixed up walking controls with aiming etc.

Just buy an Eagle Eye:

[QUOTE="game_masta14"]I keep seeing people post screengrabs of Crysis 3 but I gotta ask, is the game even fun? It can be pretty to look at but if it isn't fun to play then what's the point.ReadingRainbow4

what's even worse is when someone tries to bring in Modded Crysis 2, rofl.

That games even more boring than c3.

I got bored with KZ3 before I got tired of Crysis 2.

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"][QUOTE="Riadon2"]

No sh!t, even Crysis 2 w/ Maldo looks better.  Hell, I'd say even Metro 2033 looks better. 

 

Also, we are talking about Guerrilla, a studio that is notorious for releasing touched up trailers and screenshots.  At an event to create hype for a new system, no less.

 

People also seem to forget that PC can render resolutions far higher than 1080p.  Even if Killzone were to somehow beat Crysis 3 in the graphical department  through magical optimization, it would still have the disadvantage of being rendered in half (or less) of the resolution many PC monitors are capable of displaying.

Riadon2

Obvious baiting is obvious.

Oh, and there are 120 Hz 1440p monitors (I should know, I use one), but no true 120 Hz 1440 TVs (that I know of).

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"][QUOTE="Riadon2"]

No sh!t, even Crysis 2 w/ Maldo looks better.  Hell, I'd say even Metro 2033 looks better. 

 

Also, we are talking about Guerrilla, a studio that is notorious for releasing touched up trailers and screenshots.  At an event to create hype for a new system, no less.

 

People also seem to forget that PC can render resolutions far higher than 1080p.  Even if Killzone were to somehow beat Crysis 3 in the graphical department  through magical optimization, it would still have the disadvantage of being rendered in half (or less) of the resolution many PC monitors are capable of displaying.

clyde46

Animation on Crysis was a joke.. In fact the excuse use to defend it was that it was a 2007 game while Killzone 2 was a 2009 game,Crytek introduced rag doll physics after 2009..:lol: Animation wise Killzone 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crysis.tormentos

i'm sorry eltormo what was that?

Lol it's sad when your graphical showcase is a 7.5 console portGioVela2010

You're just jelly mad that Killzone Shadow Fall looks better than the fat guy in Crysis 3.Super7OO

You're just jelly mad that Killzone Shadow Fall looks better than the fat guy in Crysis 3.Super7OO

How is he fat?  Are you bullemic?

[QUOTE="tormentos"]Animation on Crysis was a joke.. In fact the excuse use to defend it was that it was a 2007 game while Killzone 2 was a 2009 game,Crytek introduced rag doll physics after 2009..:lol: Animation wise Killzone 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crysis.KarateeeChop

i'm sorry eltormo what was that?

[QUOTE="KarateeeChop"]

[QUOTE="tormentos"]Animation on Crysis was a joke.. In fact the excuse use to defend it was that it was a 2007 game while Killzone 2 was a 2009 game,Crytek introduced rag doll physics after 2009..:lol: Animation wise Killzone 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crysis.Cranler

i'm sorry eltormo what was that?

i'm sorry eltormo what was that?

Also it apparently runs at 30 fps maxed out on 2000$ + PC.

beganoo

Exactly. Even a GTX 690 can't get a stable 60 fps with Crysis 3. The new 1,000-dollar GTX Titan is even worse. Im a PC gamer but I am sick of the BS that comes from many PC gamers.

They point to a game maxed out on the most expensive hardware available and act like they are all playing at that quality level.

I am playing Crysis 3 maxed out (with crappy frame rate) and it doesn't look better than the Killzone Shadow Fall demo.

[QUOTE="KarateeeChop"]

[QUOTE="tormentos"]Animation on Crysis was a joke.. In fact the excuse use to defend it was that it was a 2007 game while Killzone 2 was a 2009 game,Crytek introduced rag doll physics after 2009..:lol: Animation wise Killzone 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crysis.Cranler

i'm sorry eltormo what was that?

i think eltormo only started gaming in 2009. :(

[QUOTE="beganoo"]

Also it apparently runs at 30 fps maxed out on 2000$ + PC.

avshaman

Exactly. Even a GTX 690 can't get a stable 60 fps with Crysis 3. The new 1,000-dollar GTX Titan is even worse. Im a PC gamer but I am sick of the BS that comes from many PC gamers.

They point to a game maxed out on the most expensive hardware available and act like they are all playing at that quality level.

I am playing Crysis 3 maxed out (with crappy frame rate) and it doesn't look better than the Killzone Shadow Fall demo.

Cows gonna Cow, yo.

DarkLink77

[QUOTE="beganoo"]

Also it apparently runs at 30 fps maxed out on 2000$ + PC.

Exactly. Even a GTX 690 can't get a stable 60 fps with Crysis 3. The new 1,000-dollar GTX Titan is even worse. Im a PC gamer but I am sick of the BS that comes from many PC gamers.

They point to a game maxed out on the most expensive hardware available and act like they are all playing at that quality level.

I am playing Crysis 3 maxed out (with crappy frame rate) and it doesn't look better than the Killzone Shadow Fall demo.

[QUOTE="avshaman"]

[QUOTE="beganoo"]

Also it apparently runs at 30 fps maxed out on 2000$ + PC.

faizan_faizan

Exactly. Even a GTX 690 can't get a stable 60 fps with Crysis 3. The new 1,000-dollar GTX Titan is even worse. Im a PC gamer but I am sick of the BS that comes from many PC gamers.

They point to a game maxed out on the most expensive hardware available and act like they are all playing at that quality level.

I am playing Crysis 3 maxed out (with crappy frame rate) and it doesn't look better than the Killzone Shadow Fall demo.

Those are average frames. I am talking about a rock-solid 60fps with no dips below (which requires that the minimum framerate doesn't go below 60), which is what I look for in all my PC games. I value a stable frame rate far more than a higher average frame rate. I hate judder with a passion.

[QUOTE="avshaman"]

[QUOTE="beganoo"]

Also it apparently runs at 30 fps maxed out on 2000$ + PC.

Evo_nine

Exactly. Even a GTX 690 can't get a stable 60 fps with Crysis 3. The new 1,000-dollar GTX Titan is even worse. Im a PC gamer but I am sick of the BS that comes from many PC gamers.

They point to a game maxed out on the most expensive hardware available and act like they are all playing at that quality level.

I am playing Crysis 3 maxed out (with crappy frame rate) and it doesn't look better than the Killzone Shadow Fall demo.

You're right. It will be years before the average PC gamer can play Crysis 3 at a level that will rival PS4 launch titles.

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"][QUOTE="avshaman"]

Exactly. Even a GTX 690 can't get a stable 60 fps with Crysis 3. The new 1,000-dollar GTX Titan is even worse. Im a PC gamer but I am sick of the BS that comes from many PC gamers.

They point to a game maxed out on the most expensive hardware available and act like they are all playing at that quality level.

I am playing Crysis 3 maxed out (with crappy frame rate) and it doesn't look better than the Killzone Shadow Fall demo.

avshaman

Those are average frames. I am talking about a rock-solid 60fps with no dips below (which requires that the minimum framerate doesn't go below 60), which is what I look for in all my PC games. I value a stable frame rate far more than a higher average frame rate. I hate judder with a passion.

[QUOTE="avshaman"]

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"] Tessellation

Those are average frames. I am talking about a rock-solid 60fps with no dips below (which requires that the minimum framerate doesn't go below 60), which is what I look for in all my PC games. I value a stable frame rate far more than a higher average frame rate. I hate judder with a passion.

It even says average at the bottom of the picture... :| :| :| but the point he's making is that it isn't constant...

[QUOTE="avshaman"]

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"] Tessellation

Those are average frames. I am talking about a rock-solid 60fps with no dips below (which requires that the minimum framerate doesn't go below 60), which is what I look for in all my PC games. I value a stable frame rate far more than a higher average frame rate. I hate judder with a passion.

They both look like sex. I don't know how you could possibly unbiasedly judge which looks better without taking a f*cking microscope to them.

Master_ShakeXXX

Preach it brutha!

[QUOTE="Tessellation"][QUOTE="avshaman"]

 

Those are average frames. I am talking about a rock-solid 60fps with no dips below (which requires that the minimum framerate doesn't go below 60), which is what I look for in all my PC games. I value a stable frame rate far more than a higher average frame rate. I hate judder with a passion.

GD1551

It even says average at the bottom of the picture... :| :| :| but the point he's making is that it isn't constant...

They both look fantastic.

There I solved the issue.

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

[QUOTE="Tessellation"] hey genius how is that average 60fps when it shows that goes over the 60fps mark? :cool: :lol:faizan_faizan

It even says average at the bottom of the picture... :| :| :| but the point he's making is that it isn't constant...

Do you understand what an average is?

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"][QUOTE="GD1551"]

It even says average at the bottom of the picture... :| :| :| but the point he's making is that it isn't constant...

GD1551

Do you understand what an average is?

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"][QUOTE="GD1551"]

It even says average at the bottom of the picture... :| :| :| but the point he's making is that it isn't constant...

GD1551

Do you understand what an average is?

Yes.faizan_faizan

ok then, you realize that beyond all the stupidity and name calling his point was extremely valid right? Guru 3D says it drops to as low as 40 FPS on a $1000 GPU.... most PC gamers here cannot even hope to play it at the same quality of the pictures/performance they are boasting about, and those that do are paying upwards for $1500 for their PCs... as opposed to a 400-500 dollar console...

I'm not sure, I can max the game with 30fps (While I'd like 60 I think the game looks too good on 60FPS).

 However I was still amazed at the scale and just overall polish and crisp look of KZ:SF.

I'm not sure, I can max the game with 30fps (While I'd like 60 I think the game looks too good on 60FPS).

 However I was still amazed at the scale and just overall polish and crisp look of KZ:SF.

WiiMan21

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8387/8493794320_44b0904f9c_o.jpg

Obnoxious blur effects and PS3-level textures.

cows gonna cow. I witnessed 690 in person and it's constant 60 fps in crysis 3 at max with 4x AA. It only drops that low if you play at an extreme 1600p.

Crysis 3 does look amazing on a high end PC, but before the hermits get overly smug, it's worth noting that only about half of steam users can even run the game due to the lack of DX9/10 support, and most of those that can play it are a long way off max settings. But hey, for the 5% or so of PC gamers that can actually play this glorified benchmark tool at max settings, I hope you feel justified in the cash you've spent getting there :)JamDev

What's your point? At least people can play Crysis 3 right now. No one has a PS4. And yet, look at all the cows so gushy over alpha footage.

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]

Yes.

ok then, you realize that beyond all the stupidity and name calling his point was extremely valid right? Guru 3D says it drops to as low as 40 FPS on a $1000 GPU.... most PC gamers here cannot even hope to play it at the same quality of the pictures/performance they are boasting about, and those that do are paying upwards for $1500 for their PCs... as opposed to a 400-500 dollar console...

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

[QUOTE="Tessellation"] hey genius how is that average 60fps when it shows that goes over the 60fps mark? :cool: :lol:faizan_faizan

It even says average at the bottom of the picture... :| :| :| but the point he's making is that it isn't constant...

LOL, no.

cows gonna cow. I witnessed 690 in person and it's constant 60 fps in crysis 3 at max with 4x AA. It only drops that low if you play at an extreme 1600p.

FashionFreak

They also act as if their beloved consoles can and will be able to maintain stable framerates.

[QUOTE="GD1551"]

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]

Yes.Cranler

ok then, you realize that beyond all the stupidity and name calling his point was extremely valid right? Guru 3D says it drops to as low as 40 FPS on a $1000 GPU.... most PC gamers here cannot even hope to play it at the same quality of the pictures/performance they are boasting about, and those that do are paying upwards for $1500 for their PCs... as opposed to a 400-500 dollar console...

I'm sorry, I was reading guru's while looking at another chart that includes min FPS.. here they are....

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/nvidia_geforce_gtx_titan_gaming/5.htm

^Can't link that one

On my older GTX 570 and Phenom II x4 build I am running crysis 3 at 1680x1050 at max settings SMAA x2 Medium and I get around 30-40fps (I have it capped at that to stop sudden drops and make it more smooth.

If my old build can do that then an i5 2500k and GTX 680 could do much better....which it does.