B3D News Item: Challenge: Find Differences between Crysis 2 Console SKUs

[Antan]

So this low resolution, blurry, pop-up ridden, gamma curve correction issues, sub 30 FPS, frame tearing demonstration is the best looking console game according to IGN?

It's good to see that standards for graphical quality and fidelity are so high at IGN, or that EA's marketing money is put to a good use.

I'd put a sarcastic remark about playing it on PC anyway... But I won't even do that anytime soon, given how in the sequel, Crytek changed the core gameplay element of Crysis I liked the most, the large maps and the free form approach to many of the combat situations, into a more "focused" corridor-like experience.

Seems so.

 

[Ruskie]

Seems like people are exaggerating.Its drops frames,but as I said most dropped frames are in the same mission that LOT captured,later in game it does not drop them anywhere near.On my TV its anything but blurry and it does not seem so on direct feed shots I have here by myself.In the end I would hardly patch screen tearing "badge" on it.1.9% on 360 is hardly what you would call a game with screen tearing and even then it seems like tearing is kept at top of the screen.Honestly,thats one thing I haven't noticed.

But we all have opinion its just that this thread is not about marketing or whats best looking console game but rather differences between SKUs.

 

[nightshade]

I don't know... ps3 using even hardware upscaling & they have the same fps of castlevania average? Not sound so good to me...

actually Castlevania has a much higher avg framerate, I'd say the avg fps is most definitely around 30 or even more. Cause majority of the levels in the game run at a fairly high framerate compared to the demo levels.

 

[scently]

So this low resolution, blurry, pop-up ridden, gamma curve correction issues, sub 30 FPS, frame tearing demonstration is the best looking console game according to IGN?

It's good to see that standards for graphical quality and fidelity are so high at IGN, or that EA's marketing money is put to a good use.

I'd put a sarcastic remark about playing it on PC anyway... But I won't even do that anytime soon, given how in the sequel, Crytek changed the core gameplay element of Crysis I liked the most, the large maps and the free form approach to many of the combat situations, into a more "focused" corridor-like experience.

IGN are not the only ones saying it, the same thing is being said by other websites. Whether or not you accept such statement should not be used as a basis for disqualifying their assessment and opinion because they are as valid as yours.

Saying they where bribed ( in which case that would mean that pretty much every gaming website where bribed) is not something that I expect from you especially.

The issue of best looking game will always be a subjective issue and one that is not the intention of this thread.

 

[Farid]

It's not the topic at hand, I agree, but it's one outlandish claim to make about Crysis 2 on consoles. Because while graphic quality can be subjective to a certain level, especially when talking about the artistic side of things. But in the case of Crysis 2, the art style could be summed up by "realistic modern city + aliens." So, the core of the argument about its graphical qualities should be in its technical display of such a setting... And that part can be quite objective.

On console, the game is technically sound and it's implementing some new screen space effects to boot. But to be semantically and verbally correct, it's not anywhere near "impressive" or "best" on PS360.

One can argue that Crysis 2, measurable, shortcomings in term of Level Of Detail transitions, image quality, frame buffer size and integrity, frame rate and gamma rendering are not horrible issues. With that I, for one, agree. In fact, the severity of these issues on the overall graphical experience is entirely subjective and may differ from an individual to another. Many multi platform games on PS360 have just as bad, if not worse shortcoming. What is not up to subjective matters is the fact that Crysis 2 is too far removed from being a flawless technical demonstration (or a work of original artwork) on consoles to be considered the best consoles have to offer.

I refuse to entertain the idea that games with so many technical and image quality compromises are considered as standard setters. So, even if it's off topic, I still take some liberty with the rules (that I've set ) to label that IGN point as crazy talk. Not like it's first thing an IGN reviewer said that comes off as being inane.

 

[AlNom]

Seems like people are exaggerating.Its drops frames,but as I said most dropped frames are in the same mission that LOT captured,later in game it does not drop them anywhere near.

Sounds about right.

 

[scently]

It's not the topic at hand, I agree, but it's one outlandish claim to make about Crysis 2 on consoles. Because while graphic quality can be subjective to a certain level, especially when talking about the artistic side of things. But in the case of Crysis 2, the art style could be summed up by "realistic modern city + aliens." So, the core of the argument about its graphical qualities should be in its technical display of such a setting... And that part can be quite objective.

On console, the game is technically sound and it's implementing some new screen space effects to boot. But to be semantically and verbally correct, it's not anywhere near "impressive" or "best" on PS360.

One can argue that Crysis 2, measurable, shortcomings in term of Level Of Detail transitions, image quality, frame buffer size and integrity, frame rate and gamma rendering are not horrible issues. With that I, for one, agree. In fact, the severity of these issues on the overall graphical experience is entirely subjective and may differ from an individual to another. Many multi platform games on PS360 have just as bad, if not worse shortcoming. What is not up to subjective matters is the fact that Crysis 2 is too far removed from being a flawless technical demonstration (or a work of original artwork) on consoles to be considered the best consoles have to offer.

I refuse to entertain the idea that games with so many technical and image quality compromises are considered as standard setters. So, even if it's off topic, I still take some liberty with the rules (that I've set ) to label that IGN point as crazy talk. Not like it's first thing an IGN reviewer said that comes off as being inane.

Well, like I said, they are not the only ones, so the majority of the gaming press must be "inane". Matter of fact any body who thinks this game is the best looking game they have seen on console must be insane then.

Anyway I will not say anything else on the matter, opinions are opinions and are as valid as you want them to be.

 

[Farid]

Off topic: you shouldn't try this at home or the B3D forums

IGN are not the only ones saying it, the same thing is being said by other websites. Whether or not you accept such statement should not be used as a basis for disqualifying their assessment and opinion because they are as valid as yours.

Saying they where bribed ( in which case that would mean that pretty much every gaming website where bribed) is not something that I expect from you especially.

The issue of best looking game will always be a subjective issue and one that is not the intention of this thread.

Technical shortcomings are hardly a subjective manner. Their severity and their impact on the overall experience, on the other hand, is indeed subjective. Their presence or not is a matter of empirical experimentation.

And no, I'm not arguing in favour of changing IGN's reviewer, or any other video game reviewer, opinion. I'm just going on record to say that I think it's sad that such a low standard for image quality and performances, in such a common setting setting (realistic NYC), is even being considered as the standard on console.

I really don't see the point in making the precision that when I talk in absolute terms, I'm referring to my opinion... since that's obvious.

 

[Farid]

Hey look, a roll eye smiley... I love those!

Well, like I said, they are not the only ones, so the majority of the gaming press must be "inane". Matter of fact any body who thinks this game is the best looking game they have seen on console must be insane then.

Using the roll eye smiley isn't going to make me consider anymore seriously your points, scently.

For some reason, you seem to think that I'm partaking in something other than sharing my opinion. I'm not calling for the global and universal dismissing of any opinions.

I'm dismissing the opinion that Crysis 2 is the best graphical showcase on consoles, and I present that in a simple form: my opinion. You can obviously dismiss it, if you, or anyone, think that Crysis 2 is indeed a standard on console.

But it remains crazy talk to me. I don't want to take part in any generalization of lowered standard in terms of graphical fidelity, on console or PC or anywhere. If 99% of folks, reviewers and gamer alike, out there don't mind these issues, I'll still be happy to be part of the 1% who care about graphics fidelity and performances.

But I'll restate my point, just in case someone didn't read it earlier, I realise that games are not created in a vacuum and that concessions have to be made. Crysis 2 on consoles offers a solid result when compared to other multi-platform offerings. But that's not enough for me to call it a standard setter, in terms of graphics across the whole libraries of multi-platform and (let alone) exclusive games on PS360.

 

[scently]

Using the roll eye smiley isn't going to make me consider anymore seriously your points, scently.

For some reason, you seem to think that I'm partaking in something other than sharing my opinion. I'm not calling for the global and universal dismissing of any opinions.

I'm dismissing the opinion that Crysis 2 is the best graphical showcase on consoles, and I present that in a simple form: my opinion. You can obviously dismiss it, if you, or anyone, think that Crysis 2 is indeed a standard on console.

But it remains crazy talk to me. I don't want to take part in any generalization of lowered standard in terms of graphical fidelity, on console or PC or anywhere. If 99% of folks, reviewers and gamer alike, out there don't mind these issues, I'll still be happy to be part of the 1% who care about graphics fidelity and performances.

But I'll restate my point, just in case someone didn't read it earlier, I realise that games are not created in a vacuum and that concessions have to be made. Crysis 2 on consoles offers a solid result when compared to other multi-platform offerings. But that's not enough for me to call it a standard setter, in terms of graphics across the whole libraries of multi-platform and (let alone) exclusive games on PS360.

Fair enough, forgive the "rolleyes", opinions are exactly what they are and standards will always be different among individuals, but really, the reason I actually replied to your post is mostly because of the EA stuff or that IGN are crazy,.....and because you are a mod, I didn't expect someone like you to be making such statement. Certain posters on this board might make such statements and I really wouldn't look at it twice, but as a mod I expected....more I guess but fair enough.

 

[Ruskie]

Digital Foundry just put PS3 3D shots on twitter.
http://www.digitalfoundry.org/crysis3d.rar

 

[Farid]

Fair enough, forgive the "rolleyes", opinions are exactly what they are and standards will always be different among individuals, but really, the reason I actually replied to your post is mostly because of the EA stuff or that IGN are crazy,.....and because you are a mod, I didn't expect someone like you to be making such statement. Certain posters on this board might make such statements and I really wouldn't look at it twice, but as a mod I expected....more I guess but fair enough.

Fair enough, Scently, I understand where you're coming from.

To be honest, EA marketing part was indeed a crass joke. But I'm no stranger to bad jokes, you know.

It's just that I usually don't fool around too much in the console forums, especially inside exclusive game topics (I never reply to these threads, in fact), since the moderation is more complex here. By that I mean that over-sweeping generalisations and degrading remarks to a group or another are too common for harsh remarks (like mine about EA marketing in this thread) to be dismissed as just random jokes.

Anyway, I didn't want to call for an the end of the off-topic until you spoke your mind, since I was replying to you (It's not fair when mods get into an argument and get out of it by waiving the ban hammer or the rule book). Now that we're on the page, I think it's time to remind that we're way past off topic and we should get back to the regular schedule of comparisons between the two console versions of Crysis 2.

 

[assurdum]

Sounds about right.

Well, I know ps3 has a lot of problems for the RSX, but really,is it comparable how par the results on both console how crytek said beginning? I see even drop on 20 fps so frequently on the ps3, it use even 100.000 pixels less... the differences not appear so marginal or negligible, it seem ps3 suffer a lot of more comprimises...

 

[N_B]

Poor framerate in PS3 version

http://www.lensoftruth.com/analysis/feature-crysis-2-frame-rate-analysis/

lobal percent of torn frames: 0.0
Global average FPS: 26.54

Global percent of torn frames: 1.93
Global average FPS: 29.11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-9_abmeikM&feature=player_embedded

Some weird spikes in the framerate above 30. Like the Mass Effect 2 demo.

Why doesn't Crytek let the PS3 version tear, or at least use "soft" v-sync like 360 version? Surely it would do some good. Makes me wonder if Sony has some TCR that forces the use of triple buffering sometimes, with all these multiplatform games that use it, seemingly only to their detriment in terms of framerate and controller response.

 

[liolio]

I feel like biggest problem for Crytek was the fact that while playing the game you can find yourself in corridorish environment and then fps won't stutter but you can also find yourself in quite big environments,with lots of chaos all around you and frame rate can obviously go nuts.

It's harder to optimize it than because its unpredictable and you can find yourself in fight with 10 or more aliens around you all blowing stuff up in same time in big battleground or you can find yourself in corridor between buildings running nice and smooth.Obviously they could get it to work 30fps even with in chaotic situations but that would mean lowering graphics or they could make it more corridorish and make PC guys angry.They had to deliver graphics with quite open level design all at respectable FPS.It generally feels smooth on 360,especially with nicely implanted motion blur.

Although its interesting that PS3 performs noticeable worse with 10% less pixels to render.

EDIT
Also,its good to note that that first part of the game,first mission when you get out in that park there is most frame dips in whole game,maybe because of lots of foliage.I remember alot of frame drops on that part of the game.When you get into city its considerably better.

I wonder if this could be a reason why Crytech passed on implementing some extra hum using SPU. They could have faced synch issue they could have decided that they favored a tiny hit in perf instead of a "responsiveness" hit and move to triple buffering.

 

[JB9861]

Crysis 2 on consoles offers a solid result when compared to other multi-platform offerings. But that's not enough for me to call it a standard setter, in terms of graphics across the whole libraries of multi-platform and (let alone) exclusive games on PS360.

This is how I felt about Alan Wake when members of the press claimed it was the best 360 game they had ever seen. But I don't know...feel a bit differently about Crysis 2. I guess I have double standards as far as shortcomings impacting my thoughts on the overall package.

But anyway why did some expect the PS3 to perform on par with the 360 version in framerate because of reduced res? There's been cases in the past where even with reduced resolution it still came up short in that regard.

 

[Ruskie]

This is how I felt about Alan Wake when members of the press claimed it was the best 360 game they had ever seen. But I don't know...feel a bit differently about Crysis 2. I guess I have double standards as far as shortcomings impacting my thoughts on the overall package.

But anyway why did some expect the PS3 to perform on par with the 360 version in framerate because of reduced res? There's been cases in the past where even with reduced resolution it still came up short in that regard.

Because it has 10% pixels less to render?

 

[assurdum]

Because it has 10% pixels less to render?

& more important, gain more ms on the RSX, thanks to the upscaling...

 

[Trejser]

Face-Off: Crysis 2

The reason here is fairly straightforward: while Crysis 2 runs at native 720p resolution on the Microsoft platform, PS3 operates at a base resolution of 1024x720. The final framebuffer is then sent out to RSX, where a bilinear upscale gives us the usual 1280x720 output - we see exactly the same differences

So it's 720p in final version?

Indeed, other elements of the visual make-up of the game do their job in helping to bridge the difference. For example, check out this shot: texture filtering on the tarmac looks better on the PS3 - base resolution isn't always the paramount element in image quality, something we touched upon in the Alan Wake sub-HD debate.

By and large, the look of the game is entirely consistent between both Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 versions. However, there do appear to be some isolated instances where lighting appears bugged or flawed in the PS3 version, as the brace of shots above demonstrates.

The implementation of shadow on the two versions also exhibits some interesting, though minor, differences. Again, there seems to be an off-set issue on the PS3 version which occasionally sees sections of some shadows disappear back the artwork (something we saw on the Xbox 360 of Final Fantasy XIII), however, close up, it's clear that shadows are somewhat more blocky and unattractive on the Microsoft console.

Performance is variable but in the majority of the scenes we do see an advantage to the Microsoft console. While frame-rate analysis comprehensively disproves the "nothing below" 30FPS claims, what we see here isn't really that different to what we see on many v-synced console titles. The difference is that we have CryEngine 3 powering the visuals here, providing a superb level of visual quality.

The increased performance and resolution indicates that the Xbox 360 is the preferred platform for Crysis 2, but in the heat of actual gameplay, this difference appears to evaporate. Put simply, on certain stages, frame-rate varies rather drastically to the point where the game can feel almost unplayable. Thankfully these areas don't account for the majority of the gameplay by any stretch of the imagination, but it does ask serious questions about the stability of the engine - or Crytek's own optimisation procedures.

While the engine analysis based on like-for-like footage suggests an advantage to the Xbox 360 version of Crysis 2, as we can see in these extensive tests, performance can be very, very variable and the small variations in frame-rate we see previously give way to some much bigger differences, depending on the level of action on-screen. The unavoidable conclusion we came to is that when frame-rate does crash in those affected areas, it's actually Crysis 2 on PS3 that holds up better.

There has been some attempt at giving a bit more parallax to the world layer. It seems that elements near to the camera are further shifted compared to objects further away, but the effect is very subtle. In short, Crysis 2 in 3D is no Motorstorm: Apocalypse or Killzone 3, but it is an interesting alternative technique that may exhibit better results in a game where aspects of the image are split into distinct layers, such as LittleBigPlanet. Certainly though, the performance Crytek promised is there, and on both platforms to boot. Here we re-run the same 3D test as before, but this time using the Xbox 360 version of the game. HDMI 1.4 isn't supported on the 360 of course, so Crytek's approach is to rescale the image into the side-by-side configuration and ask the user to switch his 360 dashboard to 1080p mode. This does result in rectangular pixels, however, so the game loses some of its visual fidelity compared to the 2D mode - and indeed the 3D mode on the PS3 version.

Bearing in mind the limited nature of the 3D support, it doesn't really factor into the purchasing decision – but the PS3 undoubtedly gives the better picture here.

 

[ct03]

Here is a comparison from Gamingbolt:
http://gamingbolt.com/crysis-2-comparison-which-one-looks-better

Water looks substantially better in PC shots as does overall clarity and definition. PS3 version is noticeably blurrier than 360.