It's perfectly pin sharp on my machine...
*Confirmed* Original Crysis Bound for *PS360
- Thread starter fellix
- Start date
It's perfectly pin sharp on my machine...
It's not our fault it takes them that long to upgrade the hardware
Also, it's just roughly a year after PS3 global availiablity
Was this comparison already posted?
You know what's strange? We have that, plus the airplane shot plus the last thing in the trailer which are much below the PC version but then we have other scenes which hold up pretty darn well. That scene above in particular doesn't even seem that complex compared to some other foliage scenes from the trailer.
everyone: we're all going to calm down and stop with the sniping posts. Either point out specific grievances, backed up with ss if possible or don't post at all.
Some comments from Xzero
You know, but some still thinks that lighting is not better.
At first I was like "ugh the colorgrading ruins the night scenes"... then I saw the sunset and I was like "Linear lighting at work!
Seriously, the new lighting makes it look so much more vivid.
You'd be amazed by how bad C1 is in terms of optimizations. You'd also be amazed by how much merging shaders can help speed up the engine. CE2 was a huge waste of resources, it really was. Just.... trust me on that.
I hope you realize a lot of the shaders I wrote include several things that are in the new engine, such as linear lighting or consistent specular lighting. The lighting in CE3 is unarguably better and so the console versions of C1 will also benefit. Don't underestimate physically correct lighting and correct math.
Also: environment probes.
Anyway, tetxures, objects, LODs, all of these things were not well optimized for memory usage in CE2. With some correct optimizations they could easily get the game to run within the consolelimits. Again, the game was actually horribly optimized, and everyone at Crytek knows it. Everything from the assets to the post-process pipeline wasn't given much thought as they were purely PC at the time. The move to consoles really opened their eyes to it. And now CE3 runs as smooth as butter.
Though obviously draw distance and texture res might suffer a bit more, but honestly the original game's textures were crap too. Most of them are just 512x512 (some are even 256x256!) with some detail-bump mapping applied. Most people have sugar-coated their memory of Crysis' textures. They were never that good.
Because someone was trigger happy with it :S. Even Tiago is face-palming over the implementation of tessellation.
Is that your only argument? xD Unless you know more about the engine than the actual R&D team, I'd like to see you disprove my statements. lol
I know people want a CE3 version of C1 on PC, I know I do, but I don't see the need. We have a mod SDK, we have a skilled community. If we had the GO to port it to the CE3 SDK, then I'm sure we can do that as well.
other Crytek employer said:The lighting overall is far superior to that that was originally in CE2, and actually properly lights were its supposed to - the scene in the airplane shows that quite well, along with the dawn picture.
Crytek never denied that CE2 was massively unoptimised. It was pretty damn clear it was, and you didn't have to work at Crytek to find that out. What exactly has anyone lied about in regards to this? In regards to the graphics settings, if you compare Crysis 2's low setting to Crysis 1.. well, lets just say theres a considerable difference.
You know, but some still thinks that lighting is not better.
Last edited by a moderator:
I see that trolling just wont stop and i dont have words for last almighty comment.
BTW new pic
Every bit of grass and foliage has gone in that shot
Aesthetically it really is better in the old PC version in a few shots I've seen in this thread. IMHO of course.
Technically, CE3 has many advantages over CE2. No-one is going to deny that since it's pure common sense given that it's its successor. But engines can be implemented very differently across games and platforms. Just because one engine sports an improved lighting system over another does not automatically mean a game implemented with that lighting system has an overall more impressive implementation than a less advanced lighting system employed on a system with 5 times the resources.
The dawn scene for example. I'm failing to see where the superior lighting systems advantages are coming into play:
http://h3.abload.de/img/vlcsnap-2011-09-11-09h0fy5.png
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/9469/crysispc1.jpg
Yes we see an advantage in the plane interior, yet we see a disadvantage on the exterior. Evangalising this whole superior lighting system just seems to be stretching things a bit. It's never going to match the PC version blow for blow. The odd win here and there will always be countered by huge differences in other ways so why not just sit back, accept the consoles have a decent facsimile of the original and enjoy it for the great game it is.
nAo was right! - Uninteresting story ahead: you've been warned
Well, this ordeal of having Crysis running on Consoles forces me to remember an argument we had a few years ago. That argument involved two parties, a large group comprised of graphics experts, whose names shall remain unsaid to protect their jobs at NV, AMD, Intel and IMGtec, and a trio of never easily-impressed graphics alpha connoisseurs.
The gist of the theory pushed by the 3 proud graphics warriors
was that Crysis wasn't all that impressive and its performances were due to a non-existent optimization work back then (Crysis might still have the "crown" for the most shader work per pixel ratio on PC, in fact. I didn't check). One of those valiant heroes-of-3 went further than simply being disappointed by Crysis technical prowesses on the PC, he went as far as saying that the game could be made on PS360, with maybe more effects!
Much laughs and mockeries were sent toward the man for uttering such "nonsense," they said. But here we are, 4 years later, crow-à-la-napolitaine on the menu! The man who was riled for such a heretic point-of-view was Marco "nAo" Salvi, the second caballero was Arun "Uttar" Demeure and for the third strong willed warrior, well, my memory fails me... But I remember that he can speak French and he's always very, very eager to remind you that "HE WAS RIGHT, ALL ALONG."
PS: Yeah, I've wasted a minute of your time just to crow like an idiot. But it feels good, man!
Well, this ordeal of having Crysis running on Consoles forces me to remember an argument we had a few years ago. That argument involved two parties, a large group comprised of graphics experts, whose names shall remain unsaid to protect their jobs at NV, AMD, Intel and IMGtec, and a trio of never easily-impressed graphics alpha connoisseurs.
The gist of the theory pushed by the 3 proud graphics warriors
(who do not like to crow when they are right)
Much laughs and mockeries were sent toward the man for uttering such "nonsense," they said. But here we are, 4 years later, crow-à-la-napolitaine on the menu! The man who was riled for such a heretic point-of-view was Marco "nAo" Salvi, the second caballero was Arun "Uttar" Demeure and for the third strong willed warrior, well, my memory fails me... But I remember that he can speak French and he's always very, very eager to remind you that "HE WAS RIGHT, ALL ALONG."
PS: Yeah, I've wasted a minute of your time just to crow like an idiot. But it feels good, man!
They can add all they want it still looks below par compared to it running on CryEngine 2.
The fancy new lighting can't hide the fact that it looks like a dog.... By the look of it they've had to strip so much grass and foliage out of the game just to get it to run... decently.
Modded the game looks leagues above anything I've seen on 360, PS3 or any other game for that matter.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think one of them who said Crysis was possible on PS360 was Fran, who unfortunately we don't hear much from anymore.
It is interesting however that the argument from one side went from "not possible - end of story" to "might be possible but it will look like a totally different game" to . . . well . . . whatever the current arguments are.
It is interesting however that the argument from one side went from "not possible - end of story" to "might be possible but it will look like a totally different game" to . . . well . . . whatever the current arguments are.
As far as I know Fran's at Crytek and helped programming CE3; the studio may simply have a different policy on forum postings compared to Lionhead and that may be why he isn't active any more.
Or he might have been chased away by the influx of... less than interesting posts. See repi's tweets misinterpreted all the time as another example. I also noticed that assen, DeanoC or nAo doesn't post as much anymore, either, yet most of them haven't changed jobs as far as I know. B3D isn't what it used to be?
Or he might have been chased away by the influx of... less than interesting posts. See repi's tweets misinterpreted all the time as another example. I also noticed that assen, DeanoC or nAo doesn't post as much anymore, either, yet most of them haven't changed jobs as far as I know. B3D isn't what it used to be?
Well, this ordeal of having Crysis running on Consoles forces me to remember an argument we had a few years ago. That argument involved two parties, a large group comprised of graphics experts, whose names shall remain unsaid to protect their jobs at NV, AMD, Intel and IMGtec, and a trio of never easily-impressed graphics alpha connoisseurs.
The gist of the theory pushed by the 3 proud graphics warriorswas that Crysis wasn't all that impressive and its performances were due to a non-existent optimization work back then (Crysis might still have the "crown" for the most shader work per pixel ratio on PC, in fact. I didn't check). One of those valiant heroes-of-3 went further than simply being disappointed by Crysis technical prowesses on the PC, he went as far as saying that the game could be made on PS360, with maybe more effects!(who do not like to crow when they are right)
Much laughs and mockeries were sent toward the man for uttering such "nonsense," they said. But here we are, 4 years later, crow-à-la-napolitaine on the menu! The man who was riled for such a heretic point-of-view was Marco "nAo" Salvi, the second caballero was Arun "Uttar" Demeure and for the third strong willed warrior, well, my memory fails me... But I remember that he can speak French and he's always very, very eager to remind you that "HE WAS RIGHT, ALL ALONG."
PS: Yeah, I've wasted a minute of your time just to crow like an idiot. But it feels good, man!
Obviously it can be done, with more effects too - but at what costs? Foliage, based on trailer and screenshots is for example almost gone - is it worth the extra effects?
Is "more effects" better than foliage?
Is foliage better than "more effects"?
Could it be done with foliage and same/similar effects?
It doesn't look like a dog on consoles, at least not in comparison with other shooters, its more complex to. And yea, we all know modded Crysis is best thing since sliced bread, but this is console forum and there is no need to talk about how much better Crysis looks on maxed out PC, we got it.They can add all they want it still looks below par compared to it running on CryEngine 2.
The fancy new lighting can't hide the fact that it looks like a dog.... By the look of it they've had to strip so much grass and foliage out of the game just to get it to run... decently.
Modded the game looks leagues above anything I've seen on 360, PS3 or any other game for that matter.
Any game can be ported to console, they did get Zaxxon working on a 2600 after all. What it comes down to is will the compromises be so severe as to change the game. Some stuff in these new Crysis console pics actually do look better than the original game, but I dunno so far it looks like a different game aside from the name. Would have to try the demo I guess, maybe it will play "just like the arcade" and still have the Crysis feel.
djskribbles
Legend
+1.
