Say what you want to, but Crysis on consoles is one great looking game (56K)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rfFDJmjFBk

All I can say is wow(by console standards). I mean, this and RAGE on the same day looking way they do...really really amazing achievement by Crytek!

So what's so impressive?

INB4comparisonpicture.

But yeah,it looks good.

Wow, looks great.

Also, in before someone says PC looks better.

Man some of the textures are awful...looks very good otherwise.

So... the only way to max out the graphical capabilities of our consoles is to port PC games to them instead of building them from the ground-up? Yeah... makes sense...

Crytek punched the haters/doubters right in the mouth.

A ton of develoeprs have now said that you get the best graphics/technical improvements from games IF you devleop to target the PC, and then optimize for the cosnoles.

YET more proof that if devs continue targetting PC first we ALL benefit.

That was goddamn ugly as hell. Some decent textures but that's it... Jaggies everywhere! And probably 5X as bad in motion just as crysis 2

Too much bloom n' brightness.

Man some of the textures are awful...looks very good otherwise.

mitu123

It looks really good. But to be frank, after seeing the 30 minute footage yesterday, there is definitely a lot of noticeable problems in performance. The game looks like it's on Medium high, and that's great, but the texture pop-in is just too apparent some times.

Lack of veggetation and other details doesn't bother me that much to be frank, since you'd mostly notice that side by side--bar a few exceptions. Lower quality in particle effects detracts a little bit, since they're definitely noticeable, but this is only a problem if you played the PC version: Not sure why you would play the game again, if you already did that.

While it's true that Crytek did a good job, and they should be commended for it, they still lied, and while understandable, they should have done it only if the differences werent that apparent--which in some cases they are.

I still think they should have downgraded the quality of the visuals a little bit in order to get an even better performance, but, I can understand why they didn't. Lowering the visuals much more than they are now would widen the gap, and wouldn't offer that in your face quality that they're trying to show to the public--just look at the screenshots you posted. That said though, they're kind of deceiving their audience even further with this decision. The screenshots look great, but when you start playing the game and you see a bunch of stuff pop-in in very short distances away from you, it detracts from the experience.

It looks really good. But to be frank, after seeing the 30 minute footage yesterday, there is definitely a lot of noticeable problems in performance. The game looks like it's on Medium high, and that's great, but the texture pop-in is just too apparent some times.

Lack of veggetation and other details doesn't bother me that much to be frank, since you'd mostly notice that side by side--bar a few exceptions. Lower quality in particle effects detracts a little bit, since they're definitely noticeable, but this is only a problem if you played the PC version: Not sure why you would play the game again, if you already did that.

While it's true that Crytek did a good job, and they should be commended for it, they still lied, and while understandable, they should have done it only if the differences werent that apparent--which in some cases they are.

I still think they should have downgraded the quality of the visuals a little bit in order to get an even better performance, but, I can understand why they didn't. Lowering the visuals much more than they are now would widen the gap, and wouldn't offer that in your face quality that they're trying to show to the public--just look at the screenshots you posted. That said though, they're kind of deceiving their audience even further with this decision. The screenshots look great, but when you start playing the game and you see a bunch of stuff pop-in in very short distances away from you, it detracts from the experience.

StealthSting

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

Man some of the textures are awful...looks very good otherwise.

CwlHeddwyn

Yeah. For running on 5 yr old hardware, they did a fine job. Kudos to Crytek.

I got it for the 360 yesterday and think it looks really pretty. They did a great job getting this on consoles.

Looks better than expected.

But man, somehow they managed to make the terrible boulders look even worse.

A ton of develoeprs have now said that you get the best graphics/technical improvements from games IF you devleop to target the PC, and then optimize for the cosnoles.

YET more proof that if devs continue targetting PC first we ALL benefit.

Kinthalis

looks like Yerli vomited bloom all over a low res island.

With another blurry mess?

SquirrelTamer

This game is a must buy for me since I loved Crysis 2 so much. I wont be playing it anytime soon though, or anything else for that matter. Dark Souls is engulfing my life, and it will continue for quite sometime... :o

After seeing the video, the pop-in didn't look as bad to me as the footage I saw yesterday, which is weird. Though I think that might be because he didn't get into any vehicles. I agree with the comments on the bloom--it is overdone.

After seeing the video, the most noticeable pop-in problem imo is found in the water. The reflection is off as hell--instead of showing a smooth transition in the reflection of the objects as the player's angle changes, the water's reflection and texture seems to pop-in and out as the player moves. The first video that I saw on gametrailers hinted to this, but I just didn't think it would be that noticeable throughout.

[QUOTE="SquirrelTamer"]

With another blurry mess?

skrat_01

It looks better than it ever did on either of my PC's lol.

I think it looks really fantastic, I was really surprised.

Lol at everybody saying "looks like crap." Just because it doesn't look as good as a modded version of Cryisis on ultra high setting doesn't mean it doesn't look visually impressive. Maybe it looks unimpressive to you, but saying that it looks ugly and crappy is an extreme overstatement. If that looks crappy to you then you must not play very many games. Also, it's a given that it looks even better in motion.

Bloom

Considering how the console version look miles ahead of Crysis on medium (seriously, that game does NOT scale down well), I don't see the negativity. Though to be fair, most of it is from PC gamers who love their exclusive baby. Honestly though, just let everyone enjoy it, its not affecting you right?

Farcry 2 looks better on 360 imo

Considering how the console version look miles ahead of Crysis on medium (seriously, that game does NOT scale down well), I don't see the negativity. Though to be fair, most of it is from PC gamers who love their exclusive baby. Honestly though, just let everyone enjoy it, its not affecting you right?

SPYDER0416

it actually looks worse than medium

Lol at everybody saying "looks like crap." Just because it doesn't look as good as a modded version of Cryisis on ultra high setting doesn't mean it doesn't look visually impressive. Maybe it looks unimpressive to you, but saying that it looks ugly and crappy is an extreme overstatement. If that looks crappy to you then you must not play very many games. Also, it's a given that it looks even better in motion.

brickdoctor

runs at 25fps and drops to like 15 from what i saw, so im sure it runs better in motion, not to mention the AI is braindead, so the gameplay is also great

and this version is modded aswell, its using a new TOD

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="SquirrelTamer"]

With another blurry mess?

SquirrelTamer

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Considering how the console version look miles ahead of Crysis on medium (seriously, that game does NOT scale down well), I don't see the negativity. Though to be fair, most of it is from PC gamers who love their exclusive baby. Honestly though, just let everyone enjoy it, its not affecting you right?

HaloinventedFPS

it actually looks worse than medium

The fact that it has draw distance past 8 feet on consoles already means it runs better then Crysis did on medium. The draw distance below high was just beyond terrible in my experience for that game. But hey, if it really does look worse then at least the PC version on medium looks better up to 8 feet right?

[QUOTE="HaloinventedFPS"]

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Considering how the console version look miles ahead of Crysis on medium (seriously, that game does NOT scale down well), I don't see the negativity. Though to be fair, most of it is from PC gamers who love their exclusive baby. Honestly though, just let everyone enjoy it, its not affecting you right?

SPYDER0416

it actually looks worse than medium

The fact that it has draw distance past 8 feet on consoles already means it runs better then Crysis did on medium. The draw distance below high was just beyond terrible in my experience for that game. But hey, if it really does look worse then at least the PC version on medium looks better up to 8 feet right?

So what's so impressive?

Jebus213

The huge amount of jaggies perhaps...

I will agree that it is the best looking ame on consoles, but thats not rly saying muh. Those textures are just bad

awesome i can pay 16 pounds to get it on my ps3 or i can do what i did last night and get it on steam for 2 pounds 49 pence and then i can get access to proper controls and massive mod support and much better looking graphics, oh i can snipe a guy on the other side of the island and he is still there when i get there lying down :)

oh and a proper nano suit :)

edit : i guess crytek will complain about poor sales and blame piracy then switch to making hand held games or some thing?

I will agree that it is the best looking ame on consoles, but thats not rly saying muh. Those textures are just bad

painguy1

No, just no.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

[QUOTE="HaloinventedFPS"]

it actually looks worse than medium

wis3boi

The fact that it has draw distance past 8 feet on consoles already means it runs better then Crysis did on medium. The draw distance below high was just beyond terrible in my experience for that game. But hey, if it really does look worse then at least the PC version on medium looks better up to 8 feet right?

So, do you just always make things up to feel more right, or is this a one time case of you pulling these "facts" out of thin air?

I mean, it might not be as pretty on consoles, but since the AI and physics weren't all that great on PC it just seems like damage control. Blame consoles for issues Crysis had 4 years before it came on consoles. Actually, that seems to be where the blame trend is heading.

great looking game. but at the end of the day, its still crysis....and tech specs aside, that was one awful story imoslvrraven9