*Confirmed* Original Crysis Bound for *PS360

[NotTarts]

I can't see any difference in foliage/grass distance compared to the shot I posted. Where specifically are you looking?

Circled areas in that other shot (just as valid as yours is, only missing the palm trees).

 

[pjbliverpool]

Circled areas in that other shot (just as valid as yours is, only missing the palm trees).

Just as valid as mine? By what logic?

I've just shown you what that area looks like on a stock, untampered PC build. It's indisputable fact that the shot shown earlier has had a lot of foliage removed. How is that that a valid point of comparison?

 

[Neb]

Think it was mentioned in one of the posts the pics had the palms disabled for visibility reason though that point is moot as palms dont cover the marked area with missing barrel. That said each object/group can and has override multiplier applied to draw distance value. You could have a value of 200 for objects draw distance but have still get certain objects poping in at 10m (200x0,05). Also all PC pics looks way washed out becosue printscreen/screenshot mode dont react to set HW gamma so gamma, brightness and contrast settings are ignored.

Remeber I took these vanilla shots sometime ago and posted. Got games gamma, contrast and brightness settings applied for authenticy.

Spoiler

Crysis, vanilla maps/TODs/files, vanilla very high config -POM, edge AA 2 and native res... everything Crytek Crysis default.

http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/2546/crysisvanilla.jpg
http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/7340/crysisvanilla2.jpg
http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/8238/crysisvanilla3.jpg
http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/6342/crysisvanilla4.jpg
http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/4015/crysisvanilla5.jpg
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/7205/crysisvanilla6.jpg
http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/4571/crysisvanilla7.jpg
http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/9605/crysisvanilla8.jpg
http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/361/crysisvanilla9.jpg
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/9450/crysisvanilla10.jpg
http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/443/crysisvanilla11.jpg
http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/8630/crysisvanilla12.jpg
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/9519/crysisvanilla13.jpg
http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/8159/crysisvanilla14.jpg
http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/3464/crysisvanilla15.jpg
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/5375/crysisvanilla16.jpg
http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/2546/crysisvanilla.jpg
http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/7340/crysisvanilla2.jpg
http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/8238/crysisvanilla3.jpg
http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/6342/crysisvanilla4.jpg
http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/4015/crysisvanilla5.jpg
http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/7205/crysisvanilla6.jpg
http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/4571/crysisvanilla7.jpg
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/9605/crysisvanilla8.jpg
http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/361/crysisvanilla9.jpg
http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/9450/crysisvanilla10.jpg

 

[Cyan]

I really missed Nebula in this forum, so welcome back. Some of those vanilla photos look crazy, completely outstanding, my favourite being the a6 photo. The game looks really pretty using those vanilla settings.

By the way, here it is what I consider the best comparison of Crysis between consoles and PC to date, by far. For the PC version he is running the game at 1080p, 2xAA, under DirectX10.

The creator of the video tried to recreate the same situations shown in the videos of the console rendition of Crysis. I have to admit the console version of Crysis hold its ground very well, and things like the draw distance are kept intact, for instance.

I would never expect the consoles would manage to hit 120 fps while running Crysis, but in general the port is surprisingly good. Here is the comparison video:


maybe Nintendo want 120 fps when next gen drops and Wii U launches, as they hit 60fps since the gamecube. Sony and Microsoft were so much into graphics they went with richer graphics than gamecube and inferior frame rates. Nintendo are the king of the smooth frame rates

actually, I think they will completely move onto the 120 frames per second when the next generation launches.

 

[nintenho]

For what reason would you want to go above 60fps, unless you're talking about 60fps 3D games?

 

[Jedi2016]

Hell, I can't get Crysis to run at 60fps anyway, even after upgrading twice since the game was released (at max settings, anyway).

 

[NotTarts]

The problem with Crysis' vanilla TOD is that it's far too muted - fine if it's a cloudy day but that's not what a sunny day on a tropical island should look like at all. I honestly hate the high contrast TODs that seem to be popular, but I like this sort of lighting:

 

[sebbbi]

For what reason would you want to go above 60fps, unless you're talking about 60fps 3D games?

120 fps feels slightly smoother and has slightly less input lag (8 ms frame instead of 16 ms). 60 fps -> 120 fps is a much much less noticeable improvement than 30 fps -> 60 fps, but it still helps. 120 Hz PC monitors have become pretty popular among (professional/hardcore) gamers. I have couple of friends who have bought 120 Hz monitors just for gaming (in 2d). You can notice the difference (of 120 fps) even in Windows desktop just by moving the mouse cursor or dragging windows around.

I didn't believe myself that 120 Hz would bring much improvement until I got a 120 Hz 3d monitor for stereo rendering testing purposes at work. I ended running it at 120 Hz 2d mode mainly, as it felt so smooth compared to 60 Hz panels. Too bad there haven't been any good quality 120 Hz panels available until recently. Most of them are smaller 1680x1050 TN panels with bad color reproduction and bad light leaking. Samsung's brand new 27" 1080p 120 Hz panel is the first with really good image quality (and perfect response time), but it costs 700$.

But 120 fps (2d) rendering in consoles would be a huge waste of resources. It's only slightly smoother than 60 fps (and mostly only visible in high speed sideways movement), but it requires double the performance to generate as good image quality (only 8 ms time to generate a single frame). I don't see a scenario where I would personally (as a game developer) choose 120 fps rendering instead of improving ("doubling") the image quality of our game at 60 fps. But I would choose 60 fps over 30 fps every time, even if that means slightly reduced visuals. The difference is responsiveness is just so large.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If anyone was going to try 120 fps, it'd make more sense to do it via frame interpolation. At 120 Hz the artefacts would be pretty unnoticeable. But no-one is going to try that. We'll be lucky if any console hits 60 fps. It will be interesting to see if Wuu gets a Crysis port and if it offers 60 fps. Bizarrely there's the potential for Wuu to offer the best Crysis experience, being optimized in a way the original wasn't and running on the improved CE3. That might be quite the coup for Ninty.

 

[tabs]

Well, if 'best' includes being at 720p and played with a gamepad then yeah, maybe.

 

[I.S.T.]

Well, if 'best' includes being at 720p and played with a gamepad then yeah, maybe.

Uh, the Wii U doesn't support pads...

Edit: Well, not directly. There is the Classic Controller, but that's almost entirely used by fighters and VC releases.

 

[tabs]

Oh, it will be mouse and keys will it?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It can certainly have keys thanks to the Wuupad touchscreen. As no Wuu version has been announced though, it's best we keep this thread on the subject of the PS360 game due soon.

 

[almighty]

The image quality on those PC shots is shocking, Have people forgot to turn on AA for the foliage?

This is me just having a play with the game, Excuse the JPEG compression, It killed the quality a lot.

I run 4xMSAA+4xTRSAA, Foliage looks so much better with 4xTRSAA enabled!! For anyone interested running that amount of AA add's about 200-300mb of VRAM use over no AA.

 

[assurdum]

I highly doubt but any chance to see the cryengine 3 on the ps3 to use spu & the other ram left for improve the graphic performance on the hardware, in cryisis 1? Every time I see this lack of info about the ps3 version I can't to avoid to be 'suspicious'...

 

[BoardBonobo]

I vaguely remember way back when C2 was first announced there was an interview conducted at the old Free Radical Design offices. In the interview there was mention of a room that was labelled PS3 development (or something like that), that the interviewer wasn't allowed into. I was rather hoping that it would be the room in which timesplitters 4 was being baked in, but maybe it was all about the Cryengine? I can't believe that crytek wouldn't want to push any iteration of hardware they get to play with to the max?

 

[N_B]

The image quality on those PC shots is shocking, Have people forgot to turn on AA for the foliage?

This is me just having a play with the game, Excuse the JPEG compression, It killed the quality a lot.

http://i408.photobucket.com/albums/pp166/almighty151986/2011-09-21_00005-1.jpg[IMG]
[/QUOTE]

Seems a waste to have a mega high res texture next to 2 stock low res textures. If you're going to use a texture pack it should at least cover each texture. The default textures of the game are very inconsistent too.

And it's reasonable to not use transparency AA seeing as it's a hassle to get running and then there's the performance..

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I vaguely remember way back when C2 was first announced there was an interview conducted at the old Free Radical Design offices. In the interview there was mention of a room that was labelled PS3 development (or something like that), that the interviewer wasn't allowed into. I was rather hoping that it would be the room in which timesplitters 4 was being baked in, but maybe it was all about the Cryengine? I can't believe that crytek wouldn't want to push any iteration of hardware they get to play with to the max?

When I read how they went about implementing CE3 on PS3, whether they want to get the most of the consoles or not, they weren't going about it the right way. "Port it over so it runs at any speed, and then refine it to get it running faster" doesn't work for these consoles, PS3 least of all. That's why I'm very interested in C1's performance, and what changes they've made under the hood if any.

 

[almighty]

Seems a waste to have a mega high res texture next to 2 stock low res textures. If you're going to use a texture pack it should at least cover each texture. The default textures of the game are very inconsistent too.

And it's reasonable to not use transparency AA seeing as it's a hassle to get running and then there's the performance..

I'm not using any texture packs..

It's as easy as few mouse clicks in the graphics card driver and it works...

Nvidia driver panel - Set transparent AA to your desired super sample level ( 4xAA in my case ) load the game up, Turn on 4xAA in the games menu and bobs your uncle, Gorgeous AA'd foliage

It's just s easy to get working on ATI cards...

Performance hit is not really noticeable as well tbh..

 

[patsu]

Your console can run Crysis on Oct. 4, new screenshots attest:
http://www.joystiq.com/2011/09/26/your-console-can-run-crysis-on-oct-4-new-screenshots-attest/

The original Crysis is cruising to consoles (via PlayStation Network and Xbox Live's Games on Demand service) on October 4 for $20, according to EA's last announcement.

The publisher sent out a small batch of screenshots too, which we've appended below. Walk through the tropics and talk through the topics as you scroll down.

...