IDoItLikeAboss' forum posts
[QUOTE="IDoItLikeAboss"][QUOTE="savagetwinkie"]Are you kidding me? It was a pc engine RE MADE for consoles WITH crytech focusing their efforts on the 360 first and foremost to get it up and running as quick as possible.I don't think you know what your talking about, it was in development for a couple of years, with 3 teams working on each platform, Not only are they a clearly lazy developer(no wonder they get along so well with m$) They cearly did a horrible job as console Crysis is plagued with numerous issues But again for like the 100th time BOTH console versions of crysis are nearly identical3 dev teams working on each version seperately, oh thats clearly focusing on the 360Both versions hit the same bench marks and hit the same lows with frame rate dips and glitches galoreHowever ps3 exclusives are hitting equal to higher benchmarks AND are performing consistently unlike crysis 2And they aren't good ways to measure the two systems comparatively, you don't have the same measuing stick on teh 360, and you don't know how much sacrifices in specific things they had to make to make them run better, you can't give me a technical break down of how they compare to even crysis 2 so even if they look better, crysis 2 still is a technical beast and a better benchamarking tool.s you must have not watched the vid i posted either. Killzone 3 nearly beats Crysis 2 in every aspect on top of performing tons betterI've played killzone 3, i've tried to ignore it in this thread since it doesn't even look as good as killzone 2 and I didn't want to open that can of warms right now. And I still think crysis 2 looks betterSeriously bro, we get it, you love the 360 and are one of its biggest fanboys next to karatee chop, but lol at least you should play the ps3 games that you talk about constantly Because it seems like you havent I'm a fanboy because I have an interested in harware, and like comparing the two systems. I've taking an engineering approach to measuring the two systems, using the same game and have taken into consideration UC2 and KZ2/3 but they generally just look good but they aren't overall supproting as many technical features. I think they look and perform great but everything was made to just look good, even if it means finding short cuts that look good enough to keep the performance together where crysis didn't make as many sacrifices, and still performs admirably for all it does.savagetwinkieLMAO Im going to use the common excuse from the 360 fanboy defense team "Well, the team that did the engine for the 360 was simply more talented that is all" Hahaha no but really....both versions of Crysis 2 on consoles are damn near identical and a game with as many bugs and issues as crysis 2 should never ever be used as any sort of benchmark. And oh yeah can i have a source to your claims that "3 teams worked on it" for many years? Doesnt change the fact that it was a pc engine PORTED OVER to and DOWNGRADED to consoles and that that PORT was then PORTED over again to the ps3 version which was the last version that cryteck cared about. P.s.s You might also want to watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CBd6QX8nps Regardless of whether or not it was ported, it was still tailored to each system, and it doesn't matter how many issues it has, its a game that was made for each system and strives to pull off equally the same effects and recreate them on each system. This is why there are technical issues, this is why its a good bench mark because seeing the different issues on each system gives us a lot more information than Uncharted 2 ever will comparing the two systems. and regardless of what you may or may not believe, uncharted 2 look great has no baring on what the 360 can and can't do, so its irrelavent. It can't be proven it in a technical sense is trying to do more, so saying it looks nicer means crysis doesn't do as much is purely speculation. This is true with any exclusive. Its like me saying halo reach doesn't look as good but with the dynamic lighting system and using it with 40 ai and 20 vehicles, that supports real time physics on all of those characters plus huge levels designed around being more of a sandbox with linear progression proves that 360 is more powerful. Its impossible to prove me wrong. Its an opinion and speculation just like uncharted 2 doing more than any 360 game is an opinion and speculation. Where is your proof that it was specifically tailored to each console? Oh yeah and im still waiting on the source to your original claims as well. Will you be providing that any time soon too? Also, you obviously didnt watch the video because that was a vid of K3 and C2 NOT UC2 LMAO And Bro this is like the third time you have used this halo example word for word lol. Give it up bro. Its was ridiculous back then and its still ridiculous now. P.s Just going by your posts i cant imagine the type of engineer you are lol
Are you kidding me? It was a pc engine RE MADE for consoles WITH crytech focusing their efforts on the 360 first and foremost to get it up and running as quick as possible.I don't think you know what your talking about, it was in development for a couple of years, with 3 teams working on each platform, Not only are they a clearly lazy developer(no wonder they get along so well with m$) They cearly did a horrible job as console Crysis is plagued with numerous issues But again for like the 100th time BOTH console versions of crysis are nearly identical3 dev teams working on each version seperately, oh thats clearly focusing on the 360Both versions hit the same bench marks and hit the same lows with frame rate dips and glitches galoreHowever ps3 exclusives are hitting equal to higher benchmarks AND are performing consistently unlike crysis 2And they aren't good ways to measure the two systems comparatively, you don't have the same measuing stick on teh 360, and you don't know how much sacrifices in specific things they had to make to make them run better, you can't give me a technical break down of how they compare to even crysis 2 so even if they look better, crysis 2 still is a technical beast and a better benchamarking tool.s you must have not watched the vid i posted either. Killzone 3 nearly beats Crysis 2 in every aspect on top of performing tons betterI've played killzone 3, i've tried to ignore it in this thread since it doesn't even look as good as killzone 2 and I didn't want to open that can of warms right now. And I still think crysis 2 looks betterSeriously bro, we get it, you love the 360 and are one of its biggest fanboys next to karatee chop, but lol at least you should play the ps3 games that you talk about constantly Because it seems like you havent I'm a fanboy because I have an interested in harware, and like comparing the two systems. I've taking an engineering approach to measuring the two systems, using the same game and have taken into consideration UC2 and KZ2/3 but they generally just look good but they aren't overall supproting as many technical features. I think they look and perform great but everything was made to just look good, even if it means finding short cuts that look good enough to keep the performance together where crysis didn't make as many sacrifices, and still performs admirably for all it does.savagetwinkieLMAO Im going to use the common excuse from the 360 fanboy defense team "Well, the team that did the engine for the 360 was simply more talented that is all" Hahaha no but really....both versions of Crysis 2 on consoles are damn near identical and a game with as many bugs and issues as crysis 2 should never ever be used as any sort of benchmark. And oh yeah on a serious note can i have a source to your claims that "3 teams worked on it" for many years? Doesnt change the fact that it was a pc engine PORTED OVER to and DOWNGRADED to consoles And most likely crytech being a pc developer favored the 360 and were to lazy to realise the ps3's potential Basically the ps3 version was a port of a port. And yet still its identical to the 360 version P.s.s You might also want to watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CBd6QX8nps
[QUOTE="charlesdarwin55"][QUOTE="ZOOIINHEERRRE"]crysis 2 on ps3 or 360 doesnt look jaggie on my tv, when you look at the skyscrappers and stuff u dont notice any giant jaggies. dont know wtf people talking about,ZOOIINHEERRREThat's cause the scyscrapers aren't drawn probably... look at the actual playing area. the game looks fine I dont even care about jaggies most console gamer's dont even own a nvidia geforce 560 ti like i do and i dont even use anti aliasing so why should they care? lol sound's pretty stupid to me. I cared about the frame rate dips and the massive amounts of pop in and glitches with textures and a.i It totally..and i mean totally...detracts from the experience
[QUOTE="IDoItLikeAboss"][QUOTE="savagetwinkie"]what about everything else with the lighting, physics, particle effects, actors on screen, lighting, and all those other effects. both uncharted and killzone come up horrendously short if you took everything into account. I know in game explosions/lighting pretty much crysis 2 dominates, I believe it supports more actors on screen, not sure, There is more detail in the enviroment, the enviroments are bigger, the models are more detailed. How can you just ignore everything that makes crysis good and only go for a few things that on paper make uncharted look better.are you really saying 27fps vs 29 fps is a big difference that matters? 1112x720 vs 1280x720 is a big difference? Both have great animations and I don't know how our measuing draw distance effectively... I will agree with jaggies in crysis 2 is a little crappy but generally I believe crysis offers the better graphical/technical package.Your picking and choosing things and yoru not taking everything into account, this is why your narrowsited view is completely invalidated. Comparing crysis 2 is much much more proof that 360 is just as powerful as ps3. And generally crysis 2 performed better on 360 more consistently with some larger drops, while both dropped to 15fps in hariy moments. Also its known that the 360 has a crisper image, though the AF was better on the ps3.savagetwinkieBro i think your having a hard time understanding that while Crysis 2 on 360 is said to be the 360's best , its still being out done on the ps3 by ps3 exclusives But no game with as many issues as crysis 2 should ever be in the running for graphics king in the first place! Lmao Yeah, it looks great in screen shots but it looks ass in motion. I dont play screen shots The pc version of crysis 2 can be stunning however But its not being out done, that's the problem is that ps3 owners don't want to believe the 360 can have anything as good as the exclusives so they are exaggerating the problems of crysis and downplaying the problems of ps3. and yet your downplaying crysis 2's problems and over exaggerating the ps3's problems. Your a fanboy bro.
Bro its pretty obvious, but unfortunate, that you have very little idea what your talking about. Please do yourself a favor and do some research Well then enlighten me, because i guess the research I've done and engineering degree isn't enough to fully comprehend the ps3 architecture and you know something I don't? The info is there for you to know it too. ...Mr. engineer For one the ps3 has faster memory then the 360. You should have known that. And actualy more then 5 of the ps3's spus can be used for gaming. The 360's gpu is good, over rated by fanboys, but its better then the ps3's gpu HOWEVER the cell cpu is significantly better then the 360's cpu & what ever gap the 360 had in the gpu the cell closes it and then some AND pulls the ps3 ahead If the 360 was so much better AND easier to develop for then why are all the best looking games this gen ps3 exclusives It makes no sense right? And 360 fanboys have yet to have a logical answere as to why. (P.s for all the hate it gets the cell is criminally under rated on here)[QUOTE="IDoItLikeAboss"][QUOTE="savagetwinkie"] first lazy dev's is speculation, not a fact. And you got to remember when the ps3 first came out it had a bloated OS which was the leading cause for downgraded visuals, its not as bloated but it still takes up more room than the 360's so even though on paper they both have physical 512mb of memory, actual usable memory goes to 360. Its processor is even more flexible than the SPU's, the shared memory architecture makes it possible to keep all 3 cores chugging away on threads (6 in total). The ps3 has 2 main threads and 5 SPU's for games, the 5 SPU's do not share memory, so having a flexible job system causes memory cycles to be thrown out giving them new jobs, or if you dedicate the SPU to a job it will be underutilized unless like, say its doing physics, if some sort of physics isn't allways pushing it to 100% (impossible to do unless its predefined) it will be underutilized. 100% utilization on this type of processor, where game code can shift loads pretty regularly is a pipe dream. It has a theoretical max peak, but its theoretical for a reason because its just not possible to really reach and if you do its not sustainable. secondly while those games are locked at 30fps (like crysis2), uncharted 2 and killzone will drop in hairier situations, so its not perfect, neither is crysis 2, and its only real performance issue is on teh level with the tank, because its excessive amounts of explosions, is a good cause for a lower frame rate. Otherwise I haven't heard of any real performance issues beyond that that wouldn't be considered normal. Like similar situations that cause frame rate drops even in UC2/kz2.savagetwinkie
Log in to comment