Crysis 2 on a top end PC does look fantastic. But I played a bit of multiplayer on PS3 and it obviously doesn't have the same level of visual fidelity and it came across as being a bit generic.
Agreed, all they talk about is graphics. It's like they are a broken record. They literally act like a 12 yr old talking about (Ta Gaphix). There is so much more to a game than just graphics people. And when it comes to these key areas Crytek falls very short. I would call there art style generic and uninspired at best. And lets not even get into how stupid and convoluted this tale of prophet is.
@taiyed80 You are one brave soul here on N4G.COM to say that. Even though what you stated is 100% truth based on the very words of ND staff...You will lose bubbles galore and get disagrees up the ying yang for bringing this up.
"In a PAX 09 interview with GTTV, Amy Hennig Creative Director at Naughty Dog, have said that the first Uncharted game used about 30% of the PS3 capabilities while this time around with Uncharted 2 they are utilizing 100% of the PS3 power."
"I think Uncharted 1 used maybe 30 percent efficiency. Uncharted 2 we were finally using 100 percent, but it wasn't as efficient as it could be. Then, Uncharted 3 we got way more efficient," Minkoff explains. "With The Last of Us, we are as efficient as we can possibly be. It's just squeezing every last drop of power out of the system. And it's a system we know really, really well. We know its constraints, so we can push it to the edges and play it really fast and loose because we know what the system can handle."
Guess what PEOPLE? ALL developers say they MAXED out a console system...even the darlings of game creation on N4G.COM Naughty Dog...It's called P.R. Folks. Everyone does it. :-P
Ik what you mean, i've played the beta on PS3 and it doesn't look that great but that is just from the beta, though i might get Crysis 3 for PC cause it looks great on PC.
PS3 aliasing crap? 1st it isn't even used in the BETA MP. 2nd Have U played God of War III? It has the best AA in any console game. 3rd Crytek will be using SMAA: Enhanced Subpixel Morphological Antialiasing T2 http://www.iryoku.com/smaa/ in the SingleplayerCampaign of Crysis 3 on consoles(specially used in CryEngine3 for console, less resource demanding but with comparably good AA as the PC version), which is unique and not been used in Crysis2 console version. The only thing u guys are displaying here is ignorance & misguided hate towards Crytek. Crysis 3 SP will look spectacular, but i'd wish Cervil didn't run his mouth before the release, just so u guys have fuel for ur hate campaign, bunch of losers.
You have no idea, if developers take advantage of the Cell Processor rather than rely more heavily on the Nvidia Graphics Processor Unit, they can more than double their FLOPS resulting in better Anti Aliasing. Which means the combination of the Cell Processor Unit and the Graphics Processor Unit is actually "superior" than a 2010 high-end PC graphics. This technique has been used in a game called Saboteur. Here is an image to give you an example. http://images.eurogamer.net...
What are you smoking? Better then a high End 2010 PC Graphics? YOU'RE KIDDING RIGHT? Ahhhhh... I knew you were joking! You had us there for a moment with that post of insanity...
FYI: The FLOPS as you seem to want to make that important... ALONE for a GPU in 2010 is ALMOST 5 times that of the ENTIRE PS3 INCLUDING THE CELL CPU and the RSX which is nothing more then a 7800GTX.
"The ATI Radeon HD 5970 graphics card delivers nearly 5 TeraFLOPS of compute power. Grab two of them together in CrossFireX and you're looking at nearly 10 TeraFLOPS."
That's not even taking into account the CPU with said memory on board. Do yourself a favor and don't compare consoles whether it's the PS3 or Xbox360 to a high end PC even going back to 2008...It won't end well for you.
I don't know about 2010 pc... but I will agree with you on the CELL+RSX. AMD is using that exact same method with their new APU (CPU+GPU) is exactly like the CELL from a conceptual standpoint. Pretty much having your CPU perform GPU tasks freeing up some workload for the GPU. I don't know why he's laughing when DICE gave an entire workshop on this when they were developing Battlefield 3(ps3 looks closer to PC than Xbox360). That's why is isn't a shock when you see Sony going with AMD's APU+GPU. Very similar to ps3 design but with a simpler code for devs. Developer won't have to rely solely on the GPU to achieve better visuals. Also PC's OS bottlenecks graphics card's capabilities. So even with all that horsepower devs don't have low-level GPU access because Windows doesn't permit it. http://www.examiner.com/art... Another reason why most developers move over to consoles from PC.
givemeshelter I mean 2009[must have been a mistake]. I know it sounds deceiving, but actually it's true. I have a link to back up my comment. http://www.eurogamer.net/ar... It's complicated, you have to read it carefully.
The method used is MLAA. Which is a fantastic work around for FSAA or MSAA for consoles that lack the bandwidth and power to run Anti-Aliasing in its different capacities, however it's not always the best method to use in most games as it blurs the images in question and reduces image quality. It works for some...not all. FXAA is also a similar solution. These solutions are great because performance hits are almost nil saving resources, however it's not always the best solution for image quality over traditional Anti Aliasing as I mentioned above.
@Muerte2494 I was not laughing just stunned by the comment, however plazHD stated:
"Which means the combination of the Cell Processor Unit and the Graphics Processor Unit is actually "superior" than a 2010 high-end PC graphics."
Which is not true as he states that the combination of the RSX and Cell CPU doubles the flops calculations of the system aiding in superior Anti-Aliasing methods. For example as I noted above, the 5970 AMD/ATI GPU alone has almost 5 Tera-flops of power calculations. That cards bandwidth alone is far and above the PS3 multiple times over. Even a high end GPU from ATI/AMD from 2009 has more total FLOPS then the Entire PS3.
That card that came out in 2009 has 2.72 TeraFLOPs of processing power. As for battlefield 3, compare MSAA Anti-Aliasing images for a high end GPU running the game COMPARED to said consoles running FXAA or MLAA? The image quality brought forth by Multi-Sampling Anti Aliasing is superior. More over you can use a combination of BOTH techniques on the PC unlike these consoles. MLAA and FXAA are amazing additions to aid in video game image quality, however to compare a high end GPU to these consoles even with the console running MLAA is pointless at best because only a hand full of games look better running it compared to a PC running MSAA (That's normally a GPU that's low end. A high end GPU running MSAA sampled above 4 times almost always looks better then MLAA for the same game)
I think that, going forward, the best way to apply anti aliasing in games would be a combination of coverage sampling AA and post-process AA...which is MLAA and FXAA. However as I stated, high end cards today can run MSAA sampled 8 or 16 times and that will ALWAYS look better then MLAA or FXAA.
If the PS3 was still relevant 2 years from now, and no next gen machines were on the horizon, you will see what Crytek is doing now can be bettered...you can always squeeze more out of hardware, as developers find more ways to streamline and code more effectively...
It's more PR spin from a company you would expect it from ;/
Pfffft for some reason i doubt it Crytek. If first party devs can squeeze more out of them then i'm afraid you're just not optimizing your engine right.
It's not the console's fault that third party devs are incompetent.
Crytek has never been able to optimize an engine. How long did it take for PC hardware to be able to run Far Cry and Crysis? Much better-looking games had been released for like a year after each of those games and PCs still couldn't max them out
I sort of agree... Optimization for the first Crysis sucked (in terms of hardware when it was released) but then I also have to disagree that any game came out even relatively soon after it that could compete visually with Crysis (without mods) as a whol for years. It was the total package for years in terms of textures, foliage, physics, draw distance, etc and in some ways still beats most games on any 1, if not more, on the fidelity front when compared side to side.
The problem was getting all of that into one game was it made it required a beast of a machine at max. You could find a few games that did something better now and again but not all of it at once. That is what made Crysis such a huge benchmark game as if you could run it at max you could run anything for several years (Metro 2033 taking its place--that game can still make many pcs cry with heavy aa, high res, and tessellation, etc in city hubs especially). But with newer hardware it isn't near as bad as it was at launch either.
I honestly believe CRYTEK has maxed out the PS3 and 360, but that doesn't mean that their graphics are the best.
What they're trying to say is... they've done the best they can and they just can't optimize any further to get better visuals. Obviously Naughty Dog are better developers.
I hope this game does not sell on consoles...they should of just keeped it a pc Exclusive. I said the same thing last week about them (Crysis 2has pushed the ps3/Xbox to there limits)
But did anyone see Crysis on PC, the first one? AMAZING PS3 looks no where near as good. And it's no secret that the PS3 is not as good at rendering distance polygons. this is a known fact. Hopefully the new PS will be better.
I knew you would have more disagrees simply because it was the truth and didn't put the ps3 in a good enough light. I basically just posted the same thing: the original Crysis was the premiere benchmark for years as it was the "total package" in terms of texture, foliage, draw distance, physics, etc and although you now find a game that can surpass it on one or two fronts no game has yet to surpass it all at the same time. That was what made it stand out more than any other game when it was released and for years to come (still one of biggest graphical powerhouses today--the jungles are still lusher than Farcry 3 even although it wins on other fronts).
The only "jungles" that are more lush are stage props in the sense you can't explore as much. Uncharted went this route: smaller scale where most of be lushness is actually "walls" that you can't pass or in the distance so lushness is easier to "fake". Makes for insanely nice looking, but much smaller scale/interactive environments. Its what ND (and all of the best console devs) do best. They accept their limitations and strive to maximize what they can do give hardware limitations. Crytek however strives to push the limits which is why the original Crysis was such a benchmark for so long--PC only and didn't even design it for the hardware of that day in mind (at max). I expect Crysis 3 to be similar but probably won't be near as bad because today's graphics cards are hugely more powerful to begin with (still, expecting it to make most pcs cry though).
Maybe we should look at it as they have maxed it out.
What I mean is they have maxed out their ability to create a game on the console, while other studios are still moving forward creating more engaging visual experiences.
It's sad that they can't do anything more, while others are.
That's exactly what I was thinking. They've maxed it out according to THEIR ABILITY. You can max out a console with a Pong game if you really wanted to. It's about how efficient you can make the code.
Sorry but crytek does have a point, what more can they do with 512MB of ram seriously.
And to all those talking about nuaghty dog and the last of us etc... please shut up because those are linear games on rails with next to no destructable environment, whereas crytek games are known for large open worlds with lots of destrucable environment! If they want to create better graphics then they will have to compromise on the size and interaction of the gaming environment because there simply isnt enough power available on these consoles.
So how can anyone with a brain expect games to keep getting bigger and better looking at this stage in the console lifecyle is beyond me.
Excuse me, Crysis 2 was not open world. I don't know where you got that from. Crysis 3 isn't going to be open world either.
I think more code optimization and better visual style is needed for Crytek games to stand out. To me, they look rather bland. I much prefer Naughty Dog games because they have style, story and great gameplay. Crysis games bore me to death.... I just can't get into them... too generic.
And not really. There are games such as Hitman that look amazing on consoles and Pcs! But they are open-world linear you moron. Just like Dishonored. And the destrutible items are alot.
So do you thinks games like "The last of us" would still look like it does now if it was even half the size of games like far cry 3 and had destructability like crysis or battlefield etc???
You must be a PC gamer right? so I wont hold it against you if you are not used to better, because your one track mind is only concerned about graphics and since when is "linear" so evil, most of the best games this gen are linear, besides just because Crysis has a larger playing area (which BTW isnt that big) doesnt mean its not linear or a big game, sure it has a slightly larger playing area but enemies are few and far between with almost nothing happening in the background, compare this to game like KZ2/3 and you will see the difference is resounding. At the end of the day TLOU will not only look better than Crysis3, open world or not, it will be a unique gaming experience where as Crisis3 will just be another bore fest just the way Crytek can do it. I hope you enjoy Crysis3, I really do, as for me, I will be keeping my self company with better quality. Cheers bud.
So you've all played the Singleplayer Campaign then? I can't believe how stupid u guys are! He's talking about the Singleplayer Campaign...U guys are comparing Full Singleplayer Console games with a BETA MULTIPLAYER, which always differs hugely from the SP. Untill we have played the SP of the Full game, we can do a judgement about the quality...this is an old comment from Cervil. Why do these stupid Flamebait articles get approved? I've seen a dozen of these now on N4G.
They need to focus less on, "Holy shit this will be the best-looking game ever made" and more on actually making a good fucking game. Crysis 1 was brilliant, but the franchise is utter shit at this point. Just a graphics display. And it doesn't even look that good on PS3! Crysis 1 on PS3 looked better to me.
lol, its easy to max out any system, just uncap the FPS, oh, what do you know, its running at full capacity. Anyway, technicallities aside. Crysis 3 is a pretty good looking game, at least on pc, i cant really think of anything that really matches it. Like, there are games that match it in some aspects, like witcher 2 with texture quality and vegetation density. But crysis 3 is top notch in every graphical front, well maby not scale haha.
And remember kids, everything is real time in cryengine, so no baked in shadows, no pre rendered effects.
Exactly!! there's a whole lot more going on under the hood in a game like crysis than the smoke n mirror tricks of games like uncharted, which is what most of these kids doesn't understand.
Ok crytek i'll give you the upperhand. The crysis 3 beta looked and played terrible on my Ps3 and Killzone 3 looked and played better. But it's all about the Sp I wanna see how it'll look on my 40 inch hd tv. Even thought Tlou will look better on consoles.
6 years later and the both systems are maxed out on Crysis 3? I like visuals as much as the next guy but I want to be more immerse in the gameplay than seeing who can max out Consoles,graphically tho.
30°
30°
40°
40°
Ad 
10°
10°
20°
10°
10°
10°
Crytek has been playing too much of their own games, every time it's max this maximum that.
Crytek: Maximum troll suit engaged!
You are one brave soul here on N4G.COM to say that. Even though what you stated is 100% truth based on the very words of ND staff...You will lose bubbles galore and get disagrees up the ying yang for bringing this up.
http://www.joystiq.com/2009...
"In a PAX 09 interview with GTTV, Amy Hennig Creative Director at Naughty Dog, have said that the first Uncharted game used about 30% of the PS3 capabilities while this time around with Uncharted 2 they are utilizing 100% of the PS3 power."
"I think Uncharted 1 used maybe 30 percent efficiency. Uncharted 2 we were finally using 100 percent, but it wasn't as efficient as it could be. Then, Uncharted 3 we got way more efficient," Minkoff explains. "With The Last of Us, we are as efficient as we can possibly be. It's just squeezing every last drop of power out of the system. And it's a system we know really, really well. We know its constraints, so we can push it to the edges and play it really fast and loose because we know what the system can handle."
Guess what PEOPLE? ALL developers say they MAXED out a console system...even the darlings of game creation on N4G.COM Naughty Dog...It's called P.R. Folks. Everyone does it. :-P
Here is an image to give you an example.
http://images.eurogamer.net...
YOU'RE KIDDING RIGHT? Ahhhhh... I knew you were joking! You had us there for a moment with that post of insanity...
FYI:
The FLOPS as you seem to want to make that important... ALONE for a GPU in 2010 is ALMOST 5 times that of the ENTIRE PS3 INCLUDING THE CELL CPU and the RSX which is nothing more then a 7800GTX.
http://www.hardwareheaven.c...
http://www.tomshardware.com...
"The ATI Radeon HD 5970 graphics card delivers nearly 5 TeraFLOPS of compute power. Grab two of them together in CrossFireX and you're looking at nearly 10 TeraFLOPS."
That's not even taking into account the CPU with said memory on board.
Do yourself a favor and don't compare consoles whether it's the PS3 or Xbox360 to a high end PC even going back to 2008...It won't end well for you.
but I will agree with you on the CELL+RSX. AMD is using that exact same method with their new APU (CPU+GPU) is exactly like the CELL from a conceptual standpoint. Pretty much having your CPU perform GPU tasks freeing up some workload for the GPU. I don't know why he's laughing when DICE gave an entire workshop on this when they were developing Battlefield 3(ps3 looks closer to PC than Xbox360). That's why is isn't a shock when you see Sony going with AMD's APU+GPU. Very similar to ps3 design but with a simpler code for devs. Developer won't have to rely solely on the GPU to achieve better visuals. Also PC's OS bottlenecks graphics card's capabilities. So even with all that horsepower devs don't have low-level GPU access because Windows doesn't permit it. http://www.examiner.com/art...
Another reason why most developers move over to consoles from PC.
I mean 2009[must have been a mistake]. I know it sounds deceiving, but actually it's true. I have a link to back up my comment.
http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...
It's complicated, you have to read it carefully.
FXAA is also a similar solution.
These solutions are great because performance hits are almost nil saving resources, however it's not always the best solution for image quality over traditional Anti Aliasing as I mentioned above.
@Muerte2494
I was not laughing just stunned by the comment, however plazHD stated:
"Which means the combination of the Cell Processor Unit and the Graphics Processor Unit is actually "superior" than a 2010 high-end PC graphics."
Which is not true as he states that the combination of the RSX and Cell CPU doubles the flops calculations of the system aiding in superior Anti-Aliasing methods.
For example as I noted above, the 5970 AMD/ATI GPU alone has almost 5 Tera-flops of power calculations. That cards bandwidth alone is far and above the PS3 multiple times over.
Even a high end GPU from ATI/AMD from 2009 has more total FLOPS then the Entire PS3.
http://www.amd.com/uk/produ...
That card that came out in 2009 has 2.72 TeraFLOPs of processing power.
As for battlefield 3, compare MSAA Anti-Aliasing images for a high end GPU running the game COMPARED to said consoles running FXAA or MLAA?
The image quality brought forth by Multi-Sampling Anti Aliasing is superior. More over you can use a combination of BOTH techniques on the PC unlike these consoles.
MLAA and FXAA are amazing additions to aid in video game image quality, however to compare a high end GPU to these consoles even with the console running MLAA is pointless at best because only a hand full of games look better running it compared to a PC running MSAA (That's normally a GPU that's low end. A high end GPU running MSAA sampled above 4 times almost always looks better then MLAA for the same game)
I think that, going forward, the best way to apply anti aliasing in games would be a combination of coverage sampling AA and post-process AA...which is MLAA and FXAA.
However as I stated, high end cards today can run MSAA sampled 8 or 16 times and that will ALWAYS look better then MLAA or FXAA.
If the PS3 was still relevant 2 years from now, and no next gen machines were on the horizon, you will see what Crytek is doing now can be bettered...you can always squeeze more out of hardware, as developers find more ways to streamline and code more effectively...
It's more PR spin from a company you would expect it from ;/
Crysis 3 it's not even near the best looking game on PS3
It's not the console's fault that third party devs are incompetent.
The problem was getting all of that into one game was it made it required a beast of a machine at max. You could find a few games that did something better now and again but not all of it at once. That is what made Crysis such a huge benchmark game as if you could run it at max you could run anything for several years (Metro 2033 taking its place--that game can still make many pcs cry with heavy aa, high res, and tessellation, etc in city hubs especially). But with newer hardware it isn't near as bad as it was at launch either.
What they're trying to say is... they've done the best they can and they just can't optimize any further to get better visuals. Obviously Naughty Dog are better developers.
I said the same thing last week about them (Crysis 2has pushed the ps3/Xbox to there limits)
Is this is as far cry engine 3 will go on consoles, better more focused console games will look better
The only "jungles" that are more lush are stage props in the sense you can't explore as much. Uncharted went this route: smaller scale where most of be lushness is actually "walls" that you can't pass or in the distance so lushness is easier to "fake". Makes for insanely nice looking, but much smaller scale/interactive environments. Its what ND (and all of the best console devs) do best. They accept their limitations and strive to maximize what they can do give hardware limitations. Crytek however strives to push the limits which is why the original Crysis was such a benchmark for so long--PC only and didn't even design it for the hardware of that day in mind (at max). I expect Crysis 3 to be similar but probably won't be near as bad because today's graphics cards are hugely more powerful to begin with (still, expecting it to make most pcs cry though).
What I mean is they have maxed out their ability to create a game on the console, while other studios are still moving forward creating more engaging visual experiences.
It's sad that they can't do anything more, while others are.
The Last of Us says Hi.
And to all those talking about nuaghty dog and the last of us etc... please shut up because those are linear games on rails with next to no destructable environment, whereas crytek games are known for large open worlds with lots of destrucable environment! If they want to create better graphics then they will have to compromise on the size and interaction of the gaming environment because there simply isnt enough power available on these consoles.
So how can anyone with a brain expect games to keep getting bigger and better looking at this stage in the console lifecyle is beyond me.
I think more code optimization and better visual style is needed for Crytek games to stand out. To me, they look rather bland. I much prefer Naughty Dog games because they have style, story and great gameplay. Crysis games bore me to death.... I just can't get into them... too generic.
And remember kids, everything is real time in cryengine, so no baked in shadows, no pre rendered effects.