[swym]

Originally Posted by ultragpu

The Haze dev team only did the MP section while the main Frankfurt studio who has never had any experience on PS3 development worked on all the porting etc. So yeah, it's their first attempt.

That still counts for experience, doesn't it? It's not like the UK team hid their experience with the console from the Frankfurt team...
And it doesn't change the fact that it was actually their first attempt with the X360.

Originally Posted by nightshade

Its the PS3 version that runs smoother (during gameplay).

I think that you're mixing "during gameplay" with "during heavy load instances", which probably counts for a fraction of the actual gameplay. At least from the gameplay samples that we have we can see a smoother framerate average on the X360.

But that's not even relevant to my point. My point was the Crytek catered to both platforms and each has it's own advantages and disadvantages.
They didn't go for "platform parity" which basically means that you play for the lowest common denominator and not using any advantages that each platform offers, and they didn't go for a "port" where one version is clearly superior in all aspects to the other. IMO this shows they they put a lot of effort into both versions.

More then that, the fact that both versions can sometimes have a problem of keeping up with the heavy sequences can at least hint us that Crytek didn't compromise the PC gamers with Crysis 2. The easy solution would have just been to tone down these sequences (smaller encounters for example), but they decided to keep them the way they are.

[nightshade]

Originally Posted by swym

I think that you're mixing "during gameplay" with "during heavy load instances", which probably counts for a fraction of the actual gameplay. At least from the gameplay samples that we have we can see a smoother framerate average on the X360.

Errr...heavy load is pretty much the only reason why there are framerate drops in games. :S
Yea its irrelevant but the vids here speak otherwise:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/di...ace-off?page=2

But regardless of all that the game in itself isn't really a smooth performer...regardless of the platforms.

[assurdum]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

Colour pallette has nothing to do with rendering resolution. That's just an artist choice, unaffected by hardware concerns in this day and age.

But if the cost of rendering more pixels outweighs the benefit, it doesn't make sense. Why don't we render audio at 360kHz, 64bit precision, when that's better than 44.1kHz, 16 bit precision? Because no-one can hear the difference, so the extra cost is a waste of resources. Now on paper 1280x720 is better than 1024x720, but if in reality people can't perceive a difference in resolution, developers can target fewer pixels for gains elsewhere.

Hence Laa-yosh's question. Irrespective of numbers, if no-one had done any pixel counting, can you or can you not actually perceive a notable difference between 1280x720 and 1024x720? If yes, there's reason to render more pixels. If no, there's reason to give up on true 720p and target lower resolutions in all games.

Wait a minute... I never said I'm not perceive difference with subhd & hd, but just through 360 & ps3 I don't perceive drammatic differences; every true 720p to my eyes are pretty evident for the most of time... there are some exception, but I hate subhd even for few pixels... it's just my problem, but to when 1024x720p are a great target in a multiplatform? even if not appears so horrible compared to 360... By the way, I don't understood why prefer true hd is a contraddiction when even other technical aspect less evident are prefered to prebaked imho.

[function]

Originally Posted by assurdum

...but to when 1024x720p are a great target in a multiplatform?

When the overall result is better than aiming for something higher?

By the way, I don't understood why prefer true hd is a contraddiction when even other technical aspect less evident are prefered to prebaked imho.

Why is "true hd" good enough for you?

1280 x 720 sucks.

Only 1296 x 729 "Magic Definition" is good enough for me. Even though I can't tell the difference by looking, any game that doesn't run at Magic Definition is unacceptable to my eyes.

[Scott_Arm]

Originally Posted by function

When the overall result is better than aiming for something higher?



Why is "true hd" good enough for you?

1280 x 720 sucks.

Only 1296 x 729 "Magic Definition" is good enough for me. Even though I can't tell the difference by looking, any game that doesn't run at Magic Definition is unacceptable to my eyes.

You fool. 1296x730, known as 720p++ or 1080p--, is the only acceptable definition.

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by assurdum

By the way, I don't understood why prefer true hd is a contraddiction when even other technical aspect less evident are prefered to prebaked imho.

As the two posts below yours demonstrate, it's not about the numbers. You only prefer 720p because that was a standard picked for TVs. If they had picked 1366x768, and many games rendered 1366x768, and we had a game that rendered 720, that 720p game would still look as good as it does now, but people would be complaining about it being sub HD.

No-one is disagreeing that higher resolutions are typically better, but console development is a series of trade offs, and the cost of hitting 720p could be more noticeable downgrades in other departments. eg. Would you prefer 1280x720 0xAA, or 1024x720 4xMSAA? I'd prefer the latter as it would look smoother. Unless you can see what Crysis 2 would look like at 720p and what other sacrifices would need to be made to get there, you can't say the game would look better overall at that resolution. Saying the devs should never use lower resolutions is unfair on them when that's a legitimate choice. Would you also say they should never use less than 4xMSAA, and 16xAF, and 60 fps?!

[assurdum]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

As the two posts below yours demonstrate, it's not about the numbers. You only prefer 720p because that was a standard picked for TVs. If they had picked 1366x768, and many games rendered 1366x768, and we had a game that rendered 720, that 720p game would still look as good as it does now, but people would be complaining about it being sub HD.

No-one is disagreeing that higher resolutions are typically better, but console development is a series of trade offs, and the cost of hitting 720p could be more noticeable downgrades in other departments. eg. Would you prefer 1280x720 0xAA, or 1024x720 4xMSAA? I'd prefer the latter as it would look smoother. Unless you can see what Crysis 2 would look like at 720p and what other sacrifices would need to be made to get there, you can't say the game would look better overall at that resolution. Saying the devs should never use lower resolutions is unfair on them when that's a legitimate choice. Would you also say they should never use less than 4xMSAA, and 16xAF, and 60 fps?!

Ok

[assurdum]

Originally Posted by function

When the overall result is better than aiming for something higher?



Why is "true hd" good enough for you?

1280 x 720 sucks.

Only 1296 x 729 "Magic Definition" is good enough for me. Even though I can't tell the difference by looking, any game that doesn't run at Magic Definition is unacceptable to my eyes.

Depends better to what imho... I disagree about full 720p, not suck to my eyes on the console. But my question was only: from when a game with native 1024x720p it's a great achievement? To me it isn't, but here I'm not talking of crysis 2 in general, but only of the res, pretty low consider the actual console standard... & consider the lot of promises before that (GI, ps3 better console version, alternative 3D equal to standard, custom AA good how MLAA oh come on... I never read so much bullshit before a tech engine was released imho); probably would been better if crytek would have avoided so much hyped stupid P.R. proclaim without any tech basis & my expectations sure were more low...

[swym]

Originally Posted by nightshade

Errr...heavy load is pretty much the only reason why there are framerate drops in games. :S

It's a matter of exactly how heavy then, isn't it? If there was only a specific load threshold afterwhich the game drops to something like 15fps, then how come that it still doesn't run at a constant smooth 30fps for the rest of the time?
The framerate is not stable throughout the whole game on both platforms and we see dips in performance, but only during very specific points the X360 version framerate falls deeper. There's no such thing as a single point where you can say "ok, now we see heavy load".

[RobertR1]

Got the game last night. Played for a few hours.

I have a question though. When I'm aiming, the crosshairs tend to float a bit. I'll let go of the sticks yet the character continues to move around a little until I correct it with the right stick. Other times the character will come to rest where I intended. Anyone else notice this? (360)

Aside for that, I'm really enjoying the SP and it's quite refreshing to the usual style of FPS all too common this generation. The game looks and sounds fantastic also. The varied environments are nice to see and I hope to see that continue.

[PSman]

Bumping this thread to ask: should I get this game for the PS3 or 360? I have heard that the 360 version have this hideous "grain glitch" that make everything all grainy and blurry. Can you guys here confirm this?

[Rangers]

Originally Posted by PSman

Bumping this thread to ask: should I get this game for the PS3 or 360? I have heard that the 360 version have this hideous "grain glitch" that make everything all grainy and blurry. Can you guys here confirm this?

mine does. crytek never fixed it either, i'm not one to trash devs for the sake of it, but them ignoring this issue said a lot about them. they really just put the product out the door and after a certain point didnt give a damn about it.

personally i dont like the playstation controller though so...

i have a feeling the grain glitch may not occur as much on slim 360's (newer). no evidence of that just my hunch. because i am not sure everybody is affected and i'm guessing that would be one of the variables, despite that some on slim 360's have reported it.

ps3 also runs at a somewhat lower res but slightly better framerate i think.

[rekator]

Originally Posted by PSman

Bumping this thread to ask: should I get this game for the PS3 or 360? I have heard that the 360 version have this hideous "grain glitch" that make everything all grainy and blurry. Can you guys here confirm this?

Look here http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/di...ysis2-face-off. After you can choose the better platform for you to play this game.
In resume 360 a slightly better and crisper image and more "stable" frame rate but in some case the 360 got low frame-rate than PS3. So choice is more a matter of personal choice, preferred controller, choice of multi and where friends are to play with.

[PSman]

Thanks for the help guys, but I want to be absolutely sure about this "grain glitch" thinging that the 360 version has. Is it a random thing? Or does it automatically appear at certain point in the game? Why don't comparison sites like Lens of Truth and Digital Foundry mention it?

[pjbliverpool]

Originally Posted by PSman

Thanks for the help guys, but I want to be absolutely sure about this "grain glitch" thinging that the 360 version has. Is it a random thing? Or does it automatically appear at certain point in the game? Why don't comparison sites like Lens of Truth and Digital Foundry mention it?

If you're really that bothered about the relatively tiny differences between console versions of this game then why not just sell one of the consoles and get yourself a GTX 570 with the money? As long as you've got a PC with any quad core and 4GB RAM then you'll be picking up a solution at least 10x as powerful as either console which will play Crysis 2 the way it was meant to be played. I can promise you you won't be worrying about grain glitch or tiny differences in resolution and framerate between the PS3 and X360 if you take that route.

Sorry to go off topic but it seems like a valid option given your concerns.

[Billy Idol]

Originally Posted by pjbliverpool

If you're really that bothered about the relatively tiny differences between console versions of this game then why not just sell one of the consoles and get yourself a GTX 570 with the money? As long as you've got a PC with any quad core and 4GB RAM then you'll be picking up a solution at least 10x as powerful as either console which will play Crysis 2 the way it was meant to be played. I can promise you you won't be worrying about grain glitch or tiny differences in resolution and framerate between the PS3 and X360 if you take that route.

Sorry to go off topic but it seems like a valid option given your concerns.

it's even on sale at origin

[Rotmm]

Originally Posted by PSman

Bumping this thread to ask: should I get this game for the PS3 or 360? I have heard that the 360 version have this hideous "grain glitch" that make everything all grainy and blurry. Can you guys here confirm this?

I had to google the glitch as I didn't know what you were on about. All I can say is that I played through the game twice (2nd time in 3D) on the 360 and didn't come across that.

Not saying you won't, just that I didn't

[Prophecy2k]

Originally Posted by rekator

Look here http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/di...ysis2-face-off. After you can choose the better platform for you to play this game.
In resume 360 a slightly better and crisper image and more "stable" frame rate but in some case the 360 got low frame-rate than PS3. So choice is more a matter of personal choice, preferred controller, choice of multi and where friends are to play with.

Sorry I haven't been following this thread, but i'm confused by how the 360 version can have a "more" stable framerate and yet drop to lower framerates than PS3 at certain points.

I thought the conclusion from the eurogamer face-off was effectively that both versions had a pretty bad framerate with one version out performing the other in some sections and the other in others.

It seems more to me that the PC version would be the ostensibly more desireable version. However, if the intention was to go for a console version the framerate as a performance metric is not a distinguishing factor between the two, since both are pretty crap.

I played the PS3 verion and hated the IQ of the game. When I've built my new beasty gaming rig by the end of next month i'll be testing it on PC first thing

[Shifty Geezer]

Originally Posted by Prophecy2k

Sorry I haven't been following this thread, but i'm confused by how the 360 version can have a "more" stable framerate and yet drop to lower framerates than PS3 at certain points.

If framerate fluctuations are less common despite being larger fluctuations when they do happen, that can be considered a more stable framerate.

[Prophecy2k]

Originally Posted by Shifty Geezer

If framerate fluctuations are less common despite being larger fluctuations when they do happen, that can be considered a more stable framerate.

Gotcha fair enough then. I couldn't get my head around the meaning, but what you said makes sense.

360 version it is then, I would say. The PS3 IQ was so headache inducing for me that if I had a 360 at the time i'd have gone for that version for the slightly higher resolution alone.

[PSman]

OK, I decided to get the PS3 version due to concern that I might run into the (360 exclusive) grain glitch. I asked the Crysis forum and other Xbox forums as well and yep nearly every single one of them have experienced it (especially during their second play through where it get even worse) - even the developer themselves acknowledge it, they just refused to fix it.. This glitch does make the 360 version looks a whole lot worse. I don't think every single person who play the 360 version have or will encounter it, but it's def there and quiet a few of them does encounter it. They even show me these two pictures to show me what they meant




I'm utterly SHOCK and even disgusted at how lensoftruth and eurogamers didn't point this out. Because this glitch gravely hurt the 360 image quality and give the PS3 version a major advantage. This further show their pro-MS bias/agenda. OK, maybe I'm being too hard on them, maybe they haven't encounter it, yet? Either ways I strongly suggest that Lens and Eurogamers revise their articles.

Sorry for the rant, but stuff like this annoys me.

[N_B]

Lens of truth never play games all the way through (rarely past ther opening scenes even), and I doubt DF plays everything the whole way through either. Considering the buzz and rumors and reputation of Crysis visuals there would have been a lot of pressure to get the articles done fast.

[Billy Idol]

Originally Posted by PSman

OK, I decided to get the PS3 version due to concern that I might run into the (360 exclusive) grain glitch. I asked the Crysis forum and other Xbox forums as well and yep nearly every single one of them have experienced it (especially during their second play through where it get even worse) - even the developer themselves acknowledge it, they just refused to fix it.. This glitch does make the 360 version looks a whole lot worse. I don't think every single person who play the 360 version have or will encounter it, but it's def there and quiet a few of them does encounter it. They even show me these two pictures to show me what they meant

I'm utterly SHOCK and even disgusted at how lensoftruth and eurogamers didn't point this out. Because this glitch gravely hurt the 360 image quality and give the PS3 version a major advantage. This further show their pro-MS bias/agenda. OK, maybe I'm being too hard on them, maybe they haven't encounter it, yet? Either ways I strongly suggest that Lens and Eurogamers revise their articles.

Sorry for the rant, but stuff like this annoys me.

Why are you mad at LoT and DF?
Be mad at Crytek, they are the once who decided to not patch the glitch...so if you are annoyed don't support them and don't buy the game!?!

[PSman]

Originally Posted by Billy Idol

Why are you mad at LoT and DF?
Be mad at Crytek, they are the once who decided to not patch the glitch...so if you are annoyed don't support them and don't buy the game!?!

Well, I am mad at both. The reason why I'm mad at LoT and DF as well is because those two sites did a half-baked comparison and complete missed (or even ignored) the flaws that the 360 version has. It seems to me that they both have a pro-MS agenda because in a lot of their head-to-head of multi-plats games they often skewed things in the 360 favor and did stuff to make the PS3 version look worse. Ever since the day that the PS3 launch the gaming media seem to be hell-benting on smearing the PS3.

That's why I'm bumping this thread and ask you guys since this is a pretty unbias site. I also bumped it to inform people as well

We can't let LoT and DF (and Crytek) get away with this.

[antwan]

PS3 has the lighting, physics, anisotropy, and texture resolution advantage,
360 has resolution and framerate.

I'd go with 360