Article says native 720p on 360, which is surprising. PS3 has better texture filtering. Both consoles have framerate issues in heavy situations. PS3 has slightly better framerate in heavy situations, 360 has slightly better framerate on average. You kind of wonder why they didn't sacrifice resolution and filtering respectively to try to improve the framerate. Otherwise they seem nearly identical.
Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2011]
- Thread starter user542745831
- Start date
-
- Tags
- digital foundry
- Status
Article says native 720p on 360, which is surprising. PS3 has better texture filtering. Both consoles have framerate issues in heavy situations. PS3 has slightly better framerate in heavy situations, 360 has slightly better framerate on average. You kind of wonder why they didn't sacrifice resolution and filtering respectively to try to improve the framerate. Otherwise they seem nearly identical.
Kameradschaft
Regular
OK now I'm confused...maybe AlStrong will shed some light on this.
If the proper 720p claim is legit all the "sub-HD is so obvious to my trained 720p-only eyes" comments will be hilarious.
But why the developer said 1152x720p in the last interview?
OK now I'm confused...maybe AlStrong will shed some light on this.
If the proper 720p claim is legit all the "sub-HD is so obvious to my trained 720p-only eyes" comments will be hilarious.
Well, like joker repeats quite frequently, people get obsessed with the resolution of the opaque geometry (if that's the correct term), when there are so many screen effects that are either at a much lower resolution (1/4, 1/8) or cause blurring.
I've got to go but I am actually surprised after reading this in the article. I think it's a tie, better texture filtering, shadows, framerate and 3D on the PS3, and better resolution (not sub-HD, OMG, this along with the technical features makes this game one of the most advanced games ever made on consoles, to date) on the 360, plus a slightly better representation of vegetation? (judging by the water comparison pics at the beginning of the article).
The article is good, though I missed the fact that they didn't compare the water reflections, maybe in the article featuring the PC version too? I am sorry for the critics that dismissed the game's GFX, carelessly spilling criticism, anger and a harsh attitude towards such an advanced game, and a prodigy among current games..., also engines.
p.s. I received the game today although I didn't play it yet. I will give it a try in the evening. Whether they are reading this or not, I want to thank you Crytek for bringing the game to life for a lot of gamers. I was heartily looking forward to it. It's amazing to see a Crysis game running on consoles.
ps3 has more 'steady' performance (in low fps) & more steady in the important situations, but no one said it's 'better' here...
I hope, especially on the ps3...
Really surprised about the resolution, may explain how the game looks slightly cleaner than Reach even though it's using similar AA methods.
I really hope this happens. I know it's different but they released performance improving patches on the PC for Crysis 1, I can only hope they do the same for crysis 2 on the consoles. IMO it would benefit them in the end as this game is supposed to be the poster child for their engine.
I really hope this happens. I know it's different but they released performance improving patches on the PC for Crysis 1, I can only hope they do the same for crysis 2 on the consoles. IMO it would benefit them in the end as this game is supposed to be the poster child for their engine.
ps3 has more 'steady' performance (in low fps) & more steady in the important situations, but no one said it's 'better' here...
Except for the post directly above his of course.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Looking at the screenshots, it looks like consoles are missing some of the really, IMO, jawdropping effects from the PC version. The flying birds, for example, don't cast dynamic shadow rays in the hazy air of the first level. Shame as I sat there just watching the birds fly around for like 10 minutes.
Regards,
SB
Regards,
SB
Yeah but it looks good and only few games uses it.
BTW framerate is a joke, especially in heavy gameplay situation on xbox. There was a 30 second gameplay section that vary from 12 to 16 fps. That's just ridiculously bad.
I'm not so convinced about 720p either. It was definitely lower in the demo.
And while I agree that frame rate was bad in those section I still don't get why did DF pick those sections
I mean,as I said,game drops most frames at first mission and the tank one.The tank one for minute or two was borderline unplayable but other than that game is perfectly playable.Its definitely better than say GTA IV on 360 and I have completed game.
It would also help to cut some slack towards Crytek because,the game is quite open majority of time.There are explosion cans,cars and ten guys all blowing stuff up sometimes in same time.Its very unpredictable and I somehow get why they couldn't fine tune performance like say UC2 or Gears 2,which are more controllable to devs when they are optimizing.
Example,I power kicked 5 cars on one spot and dump 2 explosion cans and than dropped two grenades on them,its clearly you can't get 30 fps locked on those situation .Or say you are battling 6-7 enemies,trying to cloak or go to armor mode,than you are jumping from one building to another running they are shooting at you with all kinds of stuff etc. Its much more unpredictable and thus harder to control performance.Only way to "fix" that was to drop some graphics features it seems but that was no no and I think it was right move.Frame rate,while sometimes iffy is no way unplayable
IQ also seems better than in beta and I have been saying a couple of times that it seems like its 720p native.Hard to say because there is Edge AA also so that might make things harder to judge.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I'm not saying the haze is why it works.
Just that in that scene, the air is presented to the viewer as hazy/dusty. Hence why it makes sense that you can see the shadow ray. That's as opposed to them putting in the shadow ray if the scene weren't presented as hazy/dusty. It wouldn't make sense to have that shadow ray in a scene with a clear sky and no dust/haze in the air.I understand what you told about how they generate the ray back in the PC forum.
And even if it's a cheap trick, I still think it's incredibly nice looking in motion. Far more so than static godrays in a dusty cathedral or something, for example.Regards,
SB
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Deleted member 11852
- Gaming Technology
- Locked