[360, PS3] Crysis 2
- Thread starter ultragpu
- Start date
Yea...i just thought they would not put great,jaggieless PC versions side by side with "ugly" 360 version.Not good business move.
Yea...i just thought they would not put great,jaggieless PC versions side by side with "ugly" 360 version.Not good business move.
I really hope they're using TAA+EAA (or any other variation) on consoles, becouse 0xAA isn't good in enviroment with lots of edges (city)
Billy Idol
Legend
So they had the same impression as I mentioned:
http://translate.google.com/transla...risch-gelungen/Action-Spiel/Test/&sl=de&tl=en
http://translate.google.com/transla...risch-gelungen/Action-Spiel/Test/&sl=de&tl=en
dragonelite
Veteran
The question is how does the console version compares to other console games would be kinda logical that the pc version looks way better.
I translated the bits about 360/PC visuals perfomance. However in a game designed to push all platforms it is not surprising to see a tremendous difference between PC and console version. However that doesn't mean console version looks bad/ugly in comparision to other console games. It might well be one of the best looking console games. And lets not forget the dynamic factor the game has.
Translated bits.
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1463904&postcount=357
upnorthsox
Veteran
But of course Billy Idol saw it firsthand so I'm sure in his minds eye he's able to make that comparison as he's done with others he saw.
From the vids I have seen, the PC multiplayer doesn't exactly look amazing either. Maybe it looks better than consoles, but it looks underwhelming for supposed to be pushing PC's, and not as good as Crysis 1.
Honestly at a glance I cant tell the difference between PC/console MP vids from gamescom.
Still think the supposed 360 campaign level with the pinger theyve been showing looks snazzy though.
What said below about quality of videos. Though consider they run in DX9 mode, an API which will limit quality and tech used. The previous translated article by PCGH interview reveals DX11 support, tesselation, bokeh DOF etc. Thats some heavy duty stuff right there. Now they dont mention GPU for PCs running multiplayer but one of their articles mentions the editor being showcased at Gamescon on a GTX260.
Considering Crytek said CE3 performs about 2x as fast as CE2 at same visuals it sounds fairly plausible of a GTX260 doing the rendering. I find it it interesting that what they think are high visual settings for Gamescon MP demo on PC and while running in DX9 mode, 1920x1080, locked 60fps and MSAA (4x esstimated by them) aswell as AF. Obviously they enabled the r_displayinfo cvar which shows all this except AF value and doesn't reveal MSAA amount hence the guesses.
With such headroom in perfomance I dont see Crytek holding the 'beasts' back so to say!
Considering all captures are crappy mobile phone quality offscreen videos it is hard to judge at all any detail but there where still quite some obvious differences. However I trust the judgement of PCGH when it coms to seeing tech/visual differences considering their extensive background of doing in-depth tests with PC games, perfomance and visual wise. That said they are comparing 360 vs PC version which are 2 different beasts and nothing says it will be bad compared to other console games.
Yes it looked good and if that level of IQ is the avg on console version I dont see anyone being dissapointed. Again they made a PC vs console comparision and the outcome is expected. I think they where to harsh with their words but then they go straight to point like in other articles with only PC games.
Yes I read Billy agreed with PCGH impressions. However I would like to know if it was in PC/360 version comparision or just console space alone. We have seen the SP demo be it PC with 360 specs or 360 devkit that certainly had very impressive visuals and a top contender for console games and overall very nice.
Nebula,i agree with you.Especially about sp footage but what REALLY breaks the overall look and quality of 360 footage shown is nonexistence of per object motion blur.After watching PC mp footages OMB was the thing that really upped things up a notch while 360 version has none of it.Its still unclear to me how come that in the CE3 papers it says "motion blur and per object motion blur easily and cheaply implanted on all platforms" and not only is OBM nonresistant,motion blur in general is no where to be seen.Reach and KZ2/3 look much better because of it...If it just was there...
Svensk Viking
Regular
I just wonder, why doesn't Crytek use the 360's tesselator unit? Is it simply too weak?
I don't know tech, but one would think that a game aiming for the best graphics on consoles would want to use everything available
That sounds great
But on the other hand, doesn't it mean that Crysis 1 and Warhead could have performed so much better?
I don't know tech, but one would think that a game aiming for the best graphics on consoles would want to use everything available
That sounds great
But on the other hand, doesn't it mean that Crysis 1 and Warhead could have performed so much better?
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it is a question of load balance to get the most out of the visuals. Doing tesselation would bring perfomance penalties. Even with 5xxx/GTX4xx has a pretty hefty perfomance impact with tesselation in games and they have much improved tesselation hardware and capabilities.
But perhaps they might use tesselation selectively, who knows.
That sounds great
But on the other hand, doesn't it mean that Crysis 1 and Warhead could have performed so much better?
Yes but consider that Crytek created Cry Engine 2 for a long time witouth having access to DX10 hardware, limited by that times current GPUs with fixed pixel/vertex shaders and mostly single core CPUs. DX10, multi-core rendering and unified shaders was a pretty new concept to them and first try newer tends to give best results.
Billy Idol
Legend
I mean, somehow Nebula is right. The 360 screen and the PC screen stood right beside, this is maybe not fair to the 360 version. But I can say that the flickering was rather hefty and took away much from the looks. If I dare to compare it to other console games using my memory, I just say that for instance RAGE Xbox360 looked fundamental in comparison (which may on the other hand also be related to the different, IMO, more pleasing art style...).
But regarding this PC article, those guys stated that even the PC version did not impress them so much, especially as we are talking about Crytek here...they hoped that there is a ultra high setting left!
What I wonder, there was this presentation by Crytek about this edge bluring+temporal AA method they use - I wonder if this was already included in the Xbox 360 version?
But regarding this PC article, those guys stated that even the PC version did not impress them so much, especially as we are talking about Crytek here...they hoped that there is a ultra high setting left!
What I wonder, there was this presentation by Crytek about this edge bluring+temporal AA method they use - I wonder if this was already included in the Xbox 360 version?
They hope for 'very high' option being avaiilable and what extra DX11 brings (and DX10 obviously). 'Ultra high' will be tweakers/modders domain!
Billy Idol
Legend
BTW, I was kind of surprised to learn that a lot (all?) PC gamers mock about console game graphics/controlls all the time (while waiting in the queue, I could listen to a lot of PC guys discussions)...you guys are kind of snob-ish, aren't you
(the only exeption was indeed RAGE, where all those guys raved about: if it looks this good on console, the PC version must be brain melting)
(the only exeption was indeed RAGE, where all those guys raved about: if it looks this good on console, the PC version must be brain melting)
Kameradschaft
Regular
That's interesting, it seems that the rough IQ and the unstable frame-rate of Crysis 2 really hurt the overall presentation even though it's more advanced tech-wise than Rage.
On the other hand Crytek releasing a game with jaggies, frame drops and some ugly things here and there doesn't make sense since Crytek wants to sell their engine with Crysis 2...who knows maybe they will polish the hell out of this game till March and the end result will be more impressive.
I've uploaded quite an interesting comparison Spaziogames.it did between the PC and Xbox 360 versions. It's all in Spanish, of course, but you get the general vibes from the footage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVysWjrUONA
Maybe it's just me, but the Xbox 360 version actually looks better in some parts Guess it shows just how much art can impact the graphics reception
I'm not going to fret too much about the graphics at this point. Crytek's known for managing to do quite a bit of polishing in a short amount of time. Just look at how crappy the GDC 2010 footage was, and compare it to now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVysWjrUONA
Maybe it's just me, but the Xbox 360 version actually looks better in some parts
Guess it shows just how much art can impact the graphics reception I'm not going to fret too much about the graphics at this point. Crytek's known for managing to do quite a bit of polishing in a short amount of time. Just look at how crappy the GDC 2010 footage was, and compare it to now.
Similar threads
