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

Seems so.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Sounds about right.

 

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.

 

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

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.

 

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

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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...

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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

 

Face-Off: Crysis 2

So it's 720p in final version?

 

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.