[360, PS3] Crysis 2

Actually I found the textures to look quite good. Some are obviously lowres but others are higher res and though filtering on ground is trilinear by the looks it might do AF or other trick for distant textures as they look quite detailed and sharp (Gamersyde mp4 video). I would say it is in the near or same ballpark as Uncharted 2 also factoring in player FOV. And if the leaks textures in 360 spec is representative then without doubt better to as a total!

There is also lots of mapping present and of quite high res to.
I guess the blurry textures I noticed could be the victim of poor filtering, but I do agree with you there are some really nice and high res textures present, just not very well catered for. Pier 17's textures looked a lot better than this level imo.
I disagree... I thought the MP 360 demo had noticably worse IQ than this new video. Maybe it's the different environment and layout, but i thought the TAA worked a whole lot better in this clip. I also didn't much notice the pop-in and such, but then again it's an edited trailor so i guess we'd need to wait and see for the final product.

I'm slightly on the side of optimistic, but then again i'm getting it on PS3 and so i'm probably setting myself up for major (bayonetta level) disappointment. :cry:
The Skyline demo is quite possibly the worst offender in IQ and pretty much everything else except lighting. But Pier 17 by itself alone is better than either in terms of polygon density, texture quality and the overall level detail.
TAA really is not my cup of tea, just look at those Gamersyde screenshots, I can literally find jaggies without trying.
 
I guess the blurry textures I noticed could be the victim of poor filtering,
Judging texture res based on web-quality videos doesn't make much sense. High detail textures are the first thing that gets eaten up by bitrate starved encoding.
 
Compared to what? What other AA option could they have used on the 360?
None, just ditch that half broken AA all together and up the res to full 1280 x 720, the higher res should naturally reduce the aliasing a bit and benefit the appearance of textures in return.
Judging texture res based on web-quality videos doesn't make much sense. High detail textures are the first thing that gets eaten up by bitrate starved encoding.
I've seen loss-less captures of Skyline and bad filtering still remains.
 
Old? The supposed PS3 config running on a PC with 360 gamepad, not sure how indicative this is for the ps3 version but it sure doesn't look too terrible.

PC section to make BRiT happy. But I would only use it for a simple finger pointer. There are things that dont match up. For example 360 spec version runs shadow filtering as of PC shaders and has clean and smoother shadow edge filtering than the actual 360 gameplay video linked in here. I see no debuginfo either and most likely reason PS3 spec hasn't worked is becouse it calls for shader code that needs Cell and PS3 HW specific solution not meant to run on PC HW.
 
None, just ditch that half broken AA all together and up the res to full 1280 x 720, the higher res should naturally reduce the aliasing a bit and benefit the appearance of textures in return.

why would you do that?
halo:reach (same res. same aa tech.) is a clean looking game... sure there's some aliasing here and there, but it's way better than 720p+noAA games
 
Some shot from Story trailer. Mind you despite being HD video the video quality was average at best so the shots end up a a bit blurry and what not.

c2-storytr45mpm.jpg


More shots below.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
None, just ditch that half broken AA all together and up the res to full 1280 x 720, the higher res should naturally reduce the aliasing a bit and benefit the appearance of textures in return.

You make it seem like it's that easy. You don't know where their bottleneck is or how raising the pixel count would effect performance.
 
this thread is getting ridiculous...nitpicking this chit ? really?

laughable...

this game is gorgeous for any console game (with obvious compromises as any game has) and we have not even seen it rendered on our TVs yet.

we get it, texture res (according to an internet video is not up to YOUR expectations). noted. Gezzus cripes.
 
No I don't but it would be my choice if things could work out that way.

Well of course, just like I'm sure Crytek would opt for full 720p with 4xMSAA if things could work out that way. However that usually isn't the case when working with these closed systems.

Increasing the pixel load and turning off AA entirely would have probably created more performance problems than the slight increase in IQ would be worth.
 
this thread is getting ridiculous...nitpicking this chit ? really?

laughable...

this game is gorgeous for any console game (with obvious compromises as any game has) and we have not even seen it rendered on our TVs yet.

we get it, texture res (according to an internet video is not up to YOUR expectations). noted. Gezzus cripes.
I think there's higher than usual nitpicking because the same thing is happening in the KZ3 thread. They're simply retaliating.

It's kind of annoying (in both threads). I think both games look amazing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No I don't but it would be my choice if things could work out that way.
I'm pretty sure it would be their choice too if they COULD and I'm pretty sure some pretty smart people work there so thats not problem.Its obvious that with this kind of level design you can't achieve all that on those old boxes,not a single game has.

With all the tech it uses(HDR,SSAO,camera and OMB,real time GI etc.) its simply impossible.I bet the biggest problem is ram because all footage I have seen on medium take more than 1GB at all time on avg. and consoles have LESS than 512mb. And everything you do in your game will use ram not just textures.
If they went with something more in line of COD or Gears of War I'm pretty sure they would hit 720p.Dunno about 360 version thought but if it had no HDR that would be achievable to.
 
Mind you though DX9 needs more RAM than usual due to replication of VRAM data becouse Windows supports alt tabbing. AFAIK DX10 has some other solution not requiring data replication.
 
Mind you though DX9 needs more RAM than usual due to replication of VRAM data becouse Windows supports alt tabbing. AFAIK DX10 has some other solution not requiring data replication.
You are right but still...less than 500 megs for a game like that is a bit tricky now-a-days :smile:
 
Back
Top