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

I've played it on PS3 and it doesn't look like that on my brother's screen.

 

Just saw gametrailers review, they didnt say anything about ps3 being worse. Anyway very VERY impressive i can understand why people are saying that C2 is the best looking game on consoles.
IMO its best looking game right now.

 

The comment "best looking" is clearly subjective. Evidently the guy playing isn't hpased by a lack of AA of filtering. that doesn't make his opinion any more or less true - it's just his opinion.

Why do so many people have such a hard time understand what a gaming review is? It's not a scientific analysis and derived score and shouldn't be judged as such, any more than "football is the best game ever" should be proven with metrics to convince someone who feels hockey is better.

 

LOT video comparison (sadly, without framerate analysys): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp8Ij1E1m-M&feature=player_embedded

 

Pretty strange sometimes lack of casting shadows on the ps3... very rare but bizzarre...

 

Well, if they adding culling on the SPU (and we not sure they don't already do culling of SPU, it's only speculation from now)… don't think they have more free way for MLAA than now, 'caus MLAA on PS3 was made on SPU.

 

Shadow bias setting it seems, one of the banes of PCF.

 

Ah ok. Any news about fps on ps3? Please don't kill my hope
come on

 

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

 

So, any preview leaks about eurogamer face-off? Jeez this waiting will kill me; I just hope the ps3 is good how 360 version, but the 'horrible' ign has alimented the suspect, even I consider this site like 0 in technical persepctive...

 

O jeeeeez noooooooooooo

 

It's pretty much in line with the demo. Framerate in 360 version is very unstable judging from the video, but... better.

 

Now I really disappointed... 1024x720p & even worsen fps? I must say wtf...

 

26.54 fps doesn't seem like much to worry about. Neither does 29.11 with 1.93% torn frames (about 1 torn frame every 2 seconds). The versions look nearly identical and perform in a nearly identical fashion, from those numbers. I don't put much faith in LoT, so I'll wait and see the Digital Foundry comparison out of curiosity, even though I'm expecting everything to be remarkably similar.

 

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

 

imagine 1280x720p = + 4ms... we would see deeps up to 15 FPS like GTA4 ... the most bad framerate hide motion blur and its hard to spot while moving... different story is vision mode you can feel the 20 FPS... its shame/disappointment after so big words from crytek the first trophy is ironic...

 

I think it's too easy to get fixated on numbers. The real test is playing it. From the gameplay vids I've seen for the PS3, the framerate seems suitable for the pace and design of the game. I would obviously prefer a rock solid 30 or 60, but some games can play incredibly well with fluctuations.

 

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.

 

EA marketing expenditures for the Q1 validated: "Best looking game on consoles" - IGN

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.

 

Yeah, the global average is only 2.5 difference, obviously it's going to be higher also due to the lack of v/sync, when the door is opened notice the 360 version jumps briefly to 45fps (though without the player moving). Still, disappointing to see the PS3 numbers, especially given the lower screen res. It's like RDR, just with the same detail on both. My mind is now 50/50 between 360/PS3 (more friends on PS3 though 8(). See what DF come up with tommorow afternoon.