Does Far Cry 3 Give Us the Next Gen Early?

Is Playing Far Cry 3 a next generation experience?

I have been running Far Cry 3 on a DX9 graphics card on the games highest available settings with a strong Intel CPU...

For the most part, characters are realistically animated using motion capture and complex organic calculations. Bodies pile up on top of eachother and....

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
TheRealSpy1955d ago

Crysis 3 max settings crushes Far Cry 3.

Statix1955d ago (Edited 1955d ago )

I'll always be more impressed with a true open-world--one where I can go anywhere, anytime in a single huge map--than a game that is merely comprised of a series of pseudo-open, "sandbox" levels. Crytek can layer on all the post-processing effects and graphical tricks they want, but all that dazzle doesn't make up for the lack of ambition in gameplay and level design compared to Far Cry 3.

Crysis 3 levels aren't even as big as Crytek's own Crysis 1 or Far Cry 1... games released many years ago.

chcolatesnw1955d ago

even though that's true, i felt confined while i was playing through most of crysis 3. i dunno why they said it would be an open world game. sure, its a little more open than c2, but doesn't even touch c1, far cry, skyrim... etc.

having said that, far cry 3 to me looks (graphically) more fun and colorful, but when you start to look at small details like ground texture and rocks, it gets outclassed by c3 2:1 at least. but far cry 3 when you look at the whole picture and not just the small details, its a very good looking game

N0S3LFESTEEM1955d ago

Not a chance... I've figured the rush from that game has settled and everyone can agree how mediocre it is in hindsight. The islands geometry was rough... the grass textures float in a lot of area's... however it was that you took out main characters left you confused enough to think you might see them again and I won't even go over those endings seeing as they are both shit.

landog1955d ago

every major game on pc from the last few years is a glimpse of next gen, though ps4/nextbox won't actually come close to the high end pc's of today and the last few years

there will be no games on ps4 that look like metro2033 in 2560x1600, crysis 2 in 2560x1600, the witcher 2 in 2560x1600,

you can bet on that, plus, the AA levels will still be too low on ps4/720, almost assuradly, there will still be jaggies, there are virtually none on a proper pc with the right settings

also, the performance will still be spotty...25-35 frames per second

hopefully the can use proper v-sync next gen and get rid of the awful screen tearing, thats honestly almost worse than all the ps3/360 jaggies floating everywhere

Arai1955d ago (Edited 1955d ago )

You are right that there won't be any games that run at 2560x1600, but the next generation of consoles doesn't need to run at that resolution either.
We can live without the extra viewing space (amongst other things) compared to 1920x1080.
Not to mention Metro2033 was poorly written that it runs like sh.. on all GPU's.

True 1920x1080 with 4xMSAA/FXAA 16xAF is more than enough for now.
And that's something we'll be seeing and experiencing on consoles for the next generation.

landog1955d ago

its not a 7870 though, its a 7870m

m is for mobile, a mobile chip is far, FAR worse than its desktop counterpart

jmc88881955d ago

Which means that it's lower than a 7850...basically a stripped down version of it.

snipab8t1955d ago Show
Statix1955d ago (Edited 1955d ago )

You're joking right? Please tell me you're not being serious.

PS4 games already destroy the visuals seen in Metro 2033, and they're only at alpha stage in development. Doesn't matter how much you raise the resolution, the graphics of such an old game will still look more or less the same.

I can crank up DOOM 3 or HL2 to 5000x3000 resolution, that doesn't mean the graphics even come CLOSE to those in PS4 games. If anything, higher resolution only makes the imperfections in graphics even more apparent (polygon edges, low-res textures, floating objects, etc). I'd love to hear you dispute this.

Playing games on my big-screen plasma HDTV in 1080p already looks absolutely stunning, and the framerate is smooth as silk. You must have bionic vision if you think an extra bump in resolution over 1920x1080 is worth the performance cost, or actually going to make a huge difference in clarity. After playing PC and console games on a large HDTV with a true 5.1 sound system, I would never go back to playing on a computer monitor... the slightly higher resolutions means nothing to me.

Btw, SMAA looks fantastic and is extremely effective at getting rid of jaggies. It is ALREADY being used on the PS3/360, so you can surmise that almost all PS4 games will utilize SMAA (or some variant), which will effectively make jaggies a non-issue. How do you explain your (failed) logic that jaggies will still be a problem on the new consoles?

"...also, the performance will still be spotty...25-35 frames per second..."

Fail again. EA has already hinted that BF4 will run at 60 fps on the PS4.

landog1955d ago (Edited 1955d ago )

if you think that looks "next gen" you aren't a pc gamer, metro 2033 on pc DESTROYS that, heck, crysis from 2007 kilz it

look at those pics, can u tell which ones real and which ones crysis?

heres in game bf3 on pc,


shit looks almost real....killzone SF looks a bit better than killzone 3, better textures, still jaggies, still way to much blur to hide all the crappy backrounds

N0S3LFESTEEM1955d ago

Landog... they are both crysis -_-.

Crysis looked great for it's time but nothing happens... you just travel from one checkpoint to another with some scheduled events. Crysis 3 has Killzone whipped though if you can withstand the torture called a story. Killzones story isn't that great either it all just equates out to SPACE NAZIS IN SPACE-CE-CE-CE.

BF4 is 60fps on PS4... good I won't have to upgrade my computer again for it.

Skips1955d ago (Edited 1955d ago )

Way to pick a crappy pic of Shadow Fall to try and make your claim seem legit. Try these...


And I'm sorry but this...


absolutely destroys this.

And not to mention all those Killzone SF pics are from it's ALPHA state. XD

cyril sneer1955d ago

so why have you posted upscaled bullshots of killzone there at 3840x2160 do you think killzone will be running at them resolutions on ps4.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1954d ago
Arai1955d ago (Edited 1955d ago )

Even so I got a 7970M in my Alienware, just imagine the removal of the OS and API overhead and we'll end up with the same picture pretty much.
In other words what PC gamers took for granted all along console gamers will get to experience on their HD tv without all the fuss and in full glory.
It's not that bad at all, perhaps the generation after next we'll be going to 4k that should make things interesting haha.

jmc88881955d ago (Edited 1955d ago )

Are you serious.

Did you watch the reveal of PS4, and did you USE a PS3?

Because you're under the assumption that that the PS4 console is like the Sega Genesis.

It's not. It's a console with an advanced and taxing OS, like Windows, but for a console that streams and downloads in the background and always IS in the background.

In other words, there is little to NO advantage of a console over a PC when it comes to OS. At least when that person clicks one button to take off active monitoring of the AV software.

No what PC gamers (that can also be console gamers like me) have been experiencing for many, many years. Even before the 360/PS3.

Meanwhile, in the next year or two, PC people will be able to play in 4k. People that wait for consoles to provide 4k gaming will have to wait until about 2020.

Enjoy reality!

DeadlyFire1955d ago (Edited 1955d ago )

OS in PS4 is likely run entirely on a separate processor. I am thinking ARM design similar to what is in PSVita, but a little better or custom design. It helps with PSVita compatible games cross over and stuff like that as well as the OS.

ARM chips sell for $10 so in mass quantities. Its not cost problem either.

If true games would run entirely on the x86 hardware with no OS to get in the way of slowing it down.

Yes console gamers will have to wait for 4K unless they have super bandwidth and its offered through the Cloud stuff.

PC can do 4K this year with 20-30 fps. Why are you claiming it would have to wait another year or two? You just need the bleeding edge tech to do it.

reynod1955d ago


Remember when console gamers were promised PS3 is 1080 Capable everyone was they will be getting 1080p gaming at 60fps.

People chanted the same things, No OS overhead blah blah.

Once the games started rolling in it was realized most of them are 720p or even Below and most barely ran at 30fps. Specially games in recent years have run at horribly low FPS of 15-25fps.

So yea learn from history mate. Console makers always promise big and hype a lot in the end deliver a lot less.

If console optimization was so good why don't they beat an 8800GTX from 6 years back? after all a PC equipped with a 8800GTX has to handle OS over head etc. Yet 8800GTX even today runs most games in 1080p, mean while consoles are limited to 720p.

PC overhead being terribly bad is blown out of proportions by console makers and its just to suite their own agenda. PC optimization is pretty darn good. Sure console is better but the difference isnt what console makers make it out to be.

TheBrownBandito1955d ago

Some of you PC gamers really need to get over yourselves, seriously.

Show all comments (22)