Gamersmint writes : Mazinger dude the well known wizard from Neogaf has found out the resolution for Crysis 2 PS3
sucks but whatever KZ3 = 720p + mlaa
lol that still sucks!!
well is the 360 sub hd? didnt feel like reading the article
MLAA does not blur anything. that is Quincunx anti-aliasing which was used in Killzone 2. They switched to MLAA because it DOEsnt cause blur. Lol. you realize they are even coming up with new PC graphics card to use MLAA?? yea MLAA is that amazing and runs best in SPUs.. btw, that is from Eurogamer article. lol nothing about blur there. hahaha well, i guess this shows that wrong trolls are wrong.
Crysis 2 is best served on PC anyway. I've learned you cannot expect much graphics wise unless it comes from PS3 first party developer studios. Multiplat devs want 360/PS3 to look identical.
Even then you can't expect too much.
What anyone was expecting? the PS3 version is probably a port of a port from PC to x360 then to PS3, I really don't care if the game is Good, but all that PR talk about how Crytek was doing stuff any other Dev can't, now can stop be labeled as PR-BS XD
LOL its not like you ps3 fanboys are use to real hd when it comes to multiplatforms 10 out of 10 multiplatform games are sub HD on ps3 the only true 1080p game is GT5 rest are 720p
GT5 isn't 1080p either fool. WipeoutHD is 1080p.
FYI Playstation 3 Cars Mater-National = 1280x720 (QAA), 1920x1080 (QAA) Fifa Street 3 = 1920x1080 (no AA) Full Auto 2 (demo) = 1920x1080 (4x AA) GT5 Prologue (demo) = 1080p mode is 1280x1080 (2xAA) in-game while the garage/pit/showrooms are 1920x1080 with no AA. 720p mode is 1280x720 (4xAA) Marvel: Ultimate Alliance (screenshot) = 1920x1080 (no AA) NBA07 (demo) = 1920x1080 (no AA) NBA08 (demo) = 1920x1080 (no AA) NBA Street Home court (screenshot) = 1920x1080 (no AA) Ridge Racer 7 (demo) = 1920x1080 (no AA) Virtua Tennis 3 (demo) = 1920x1080 (2x AA) World Series Of Poker 2008 = 1920x1080 (2xAA) MLB 09:The Show is not in the list but should be. PSN GAMES 1942: Joint Strike = 1280x720 (4xAA) or 1920x1080 (2xAA) Blast Factor = 1920x1080 (no AA) Calling All Cars (screenshot) = 1920x1080 (4x AA) Commando 3 = 1280x720 (4xAA) or 1920x1080 (2xAA) Echochrome = 1920x1080 (2xAA) Elefunk = 1920x1080 (4xAA) Go Puzzle = 1920x1080 High Velocity Bowling = 1920x1080 (no AA) Locoroco Cocoreccho = 1920x1080 (2x AA) Pixel Junk Monsters/Racers/Eden = 1920x1080 Rocketmen = 1920x1080 (2xAA) Sudoku = 1920x1080 Tekken 5 Dark Ressurection (screenshot) = 1920x1080 (no AA), not always? Wipeout HD = dynamic-framerate-dependent 1080p framebuffer (1280x1080 to 1920x1080) Wolf of the Battlefield: Commando 3 = 1920x1080 (2xAA) Xbox 360 Fifa Street 3 = 1920x1080 (4xAA) NBA Street Home court (demo) = 1920x1080 (4xAA) Virtua Tennis 3 (demo) = 1920x1080 (2xAA) XBL GAMES Boogie Bunnies = 1920x1080 (4xAA)
GT5 isn't 1080p. GT5 is 1280x1080, not 1920×1080.
it's still good though, better than most, plus it's 60fps and still manages to look f-n awesome
damn dude fyi get out of your house more often
@floetry and LunaticBrandon, If it has 1080 vertical lines, it's 1080p. Do you homework kiddies. Now if you're asking if it's FullHD (1920 x 1080) then no GT5 is not.
"If it has 1080 vertical lines, it's 1080p. " sorry bro 1080p has gone the way of the cracker vs. hacker arguments. 99% of the time hacker is the term used to describe a cracker. meaning yes in all of n4g and for the past 10 years everyones been saying "F*ck hackers" when it should be "F*ck crackers." It's become commonplace that the term 1080p means 1920x1080. Get used to it because it's here to stay. So no GT5 isn't true 1080p.
@crzyjackbauer 10/10 multiplats? Tomb Raider Underworld is a sub-HD 576p on the 360 but 720p native on the PS3. That's just one example. Calling others fanboys doesn't mean you're not one yourself. EDIT +bub' for Metfanant, I was just thinking about those MSAA quotes from Digital Foundry. There it is in black 'n' white.
People are missing the fact that this is only being based off of the trailer, not the actual demo like the 360 was based off of. So people are counting their chickens before they hatch. http://www.thinkdigit.com/f... "1080p means there will be 1080 vertical lines which displyed in progressive mode.." if the game can display 1080 vertical, progressive lines, then it qualifies as 1080p. This does not mean that it's FULL HD though. FULL HD is 1920 x 1080p. The 1920 represents the amount of horizontal lines and 1080p or 720p is the amount of vertical lines you see.
GT5 is 1080p 1080p stands for 1080 vertical lines. Prologue was 1280x1080. Still looks better than 720p or 640p like the almighty Halo.
them believe whatever they want!! crysis 2 on 360 1152x 720p which is higher than 1020 x 720p on ps3. But one thing I still don't get if 360 holding ps3 back why you get the lesser of the 2???!!!
I will bet you all a bacon egg & cheese biscuit that none of you could tell the difference between 720p and 1080p if the box didn't tell you.
GT5 runs at 1280x1080 in "1080p" mode, it's not really true 1080p.
but just got killzone 3 so i am all set till maybe brink and than rage/resistance 3 but its sad that this dev made so many promises about how each version will look the same and stuff yet epic fail and this late into this gen don't make any excuses. if ND can make uncharted 2 in 18months with a medium size team how can these big devs who work on more than one game at a time have trouble and sony have ND to help anyone who needs help problem is you ask for help sony ain't about to knock on your door to offer help that is WHY THIS GEN I BUY MORE EXCLUSIVES and some other AAA games that i know are great
say i'm a fan who is shamed that I got a lesser system so I get what the rest can't get to feel better lol. "but its sad that this dev made so many promises about how each version will look the same and stuff yet epic fail" they do look about the same so whats the problem? Also note they said that the engine would do the same things just not to the same degree
Eurogamer confirms the game to be 1152x720 (based on the demo version). And yet here we are with garbage PR talk from Nathan Camirillo stating that there would be almost "no difference" from each other. Despite the fact this new evidence discovers the PS3 version to be 1024x720. That's a 100K pixels difference my friend. I don't believe this.... such rubbish developers, lying to us in front of our faces. And to think there was so much promise, considering the engine was "supposedly" developed to the individual platforms. -End of Line
100k pixel difference? more like just 100, which is not much, i doubt you would even notice
You're completely missing the point. Suppose I say I'm going to give you and your friend and "equal" amount of money, then I would proceed to give you $95 and your friend $100. By then, you would immedately evaluate the difference by stating to me that the money I gave you and your friend were not "equal". How you like it if my response would be: "well, $5 is not that much, I doubt you'd even notice?" Crytek promised an EQUAL experience and they have to live up to that expectation. 100K pixels off is NOT equal, imagine what U2 and KZ3 could've done with that extra pixel budget? -End of Line
"100k pixel difference? more like just 100" 1152 x 720 = 829440 pixels 1024 x 720 = 737280 pixels Or in other words, 360 is rendering approx 10 percent more resolution, or 90 thousand more pixels
Wow, you mean, in only one hour, Xbox users will be subjected to 9,953,280,000 more pixels than the PS3! (92160 * 30 * 60 * 60) And that will make the game much more awesome! Imagine what you can do with all those pixels! /s That said, if it was the other case, people would brag about how PS3 is so much stronger than the Xbox. Guys, can't you find some middle ground? 10% pixel count is not much of a difference. Still, Xbox has a superb GPU, no doubt about it. But PS3 is a capable machine too. They are both good.
128 pixels times 720 pixels is a difference of 92,160 pixels.
Are N4G PS3 owners not going to buy this game just because it's 100K less pixels? LOL! This is really ridiculous. Only on N4G. In reality, the difference cannot be detected unless you're some crazy graphic nut who was finicky about having every single micro details there. Details that cannot be detected with the naked eye. This isn't GTA4 on the PS3 with sub-hd 640p!
@hesido Haven't PS3's first party games shown you that PS3 is more than a "capable machine"? You simply can't give these kinds of handouts when there are games on PS3 that run rings around any given game on x360. You can't pity the PS3 owners for this. The "fault" lies in the gameENGINE which is built to run better on PC-based rigs. X360 is PC-based and PS3 is not. There's absolutely no need to feel sorry or pity for us since multiplatform games do not define our gaming experience. Besides we all KNOW the reasons for these things so you feeling pity for us is kinda OLD. Gosh I've been using the word "old" pretty much lately. Why are we seeing comments from 2006-2008 even today?
If you think you would notice the difference with a naked eye... you are wrong. You keep up your hyperbole about what the 360 has over PS3 and I will stick you with the reality of the situation... PS3 has more games. Period... As a gamer what matters to you? Sick games or 100pixels. I know you basically answered my question already, but it must be asked just to call out all of the stupidity in this article.
@insomnium I don't even have xbox, Uncharted 1 and 2 are my most favourite games, and they do look the best among the current gen games. That doesn't change the fact that RSX is inferior to Xenos, which is hindering the quality of multiplatform games, because multiplatform devs cannot cater specifically to the Ps3's architecture. I don't feel pity for Ps3 users, I am a ps3 user and I get the best possible games I want. This pixel counting needs to be over.
@hesido I can't claim one way or the other about RSX or xenos since I'm not a tech head. What I do know though is that when devs utilize the strenghts of the PS3 (CELL I would presume) they get a LOT more punch out of the hw in PS3 opposed to the x360. Doesn't matter if the RSX is inferior. Devs however are reluctant to take advantage of teh CELL since the traditional PC-way of coding must be so much easier and cheaper since that's the way they've done it for years and years. This is why the PS3 is getting the short end of the stick even today with multiplats. It doesn't have anything to do with the hw. On the contrary. If only the good'ol dollar wouldn't have so much to say in these things since it really is hindering the industry. This is one of the reasons the x360 has been dragging the PS3 all these years. Money and the good'ol ways of coding. Lucky for us Sony is willing to take the next step forward in software too. They had the hw locked down in the future from the getgo. Lately these passing years we've seen the next step in games too.
You said ALMOST no difference. That doesn't mean no difference whatsoever.
Why do fangirls always say ps3 haz moor gamez? If you did research you would see the 360 has way more games released on it. Why does 720 vs 640 even matter? I can't tell the difference really. Alan wake was what 640 and looked as good as any game and more importantly was better. Damn you people can't even enjoy a game unless it's 1080 huh? You probably play plenty and can't even tell. Crysis 2 will own. Idk looks great to me.
You guys are such babies. They said the experience would be equal. They didn't say the exact technical specs would be equal. Crying over a 100 pixel difference... Do you guys have any clue how utterly sad you are? Sorry for the personal attack, I'm just so sick and tired of fanboys whining over things that they'll NEVER EVEN NOTICE if they weren't specifically told about it. Just play the game and judge it on its own merits. Pixel counters aren't gamers. They're menopausal women.
It's official, they bull shitted and got into microsofts bed. They said that each version would make the most of eachconsole, which factually speaking would mean the pc version would be superior followed by the ps3 and then the 360.. Now we're hearing the ps3 by the looks of it is the sub-par version lol..Oh how typical crytek ;)
Conspiracies... You all are truly insane. Why are you even complaining? It's obvious they're spending more time on the PC version anyway. The 360 and PS3 ones are simply ported versions and they probably had to sacrifice more things on the PS3 because the hardware isn't as compatible.
Where's the conspiracy theory?.. It's FACT that they said each version would run to the max on each console.. this has been a LIE(which is why im complaining). It's also FACT that microsoft got the timed exclusive demo. They'll probably get some other time exclusive things. I based my opinion on 2 facts, how is that a conspiracy theory?.. They are not ported versions at all, the cryengine 3(i think that's its name) builds all 3 versions simultaneously and adjusts itself to each consoles specifics(which is where they said it would max eaxh console). There's no ports. As a ps3 consumer they completely lied, i have a right if i wish to use it to be annoyed by this. So do 360 owners aswell actually because that version is also sub-par when the 360 can also perform 720p. It's just slightly more insulting when they say it will max eaxh version hardware and then doesn't look half as good (on consoles) as certain exclusives. So please do not call my "Truly insane" when i mention facts and you use false evidence to back up your claim. As to anyone else, if your PC can run it, get it for that. If the ps3 demo is good i may still buy the game i mean we're used to be shafted by developers, i just don't appreciate being lied to in attempts to get me to buy and be pleased about a product that is sub-par.
You actually bought into the PR of they're graphics engine? There's no way they can optimize for PC and the other consoles at the same time. They'd have to create three completely different sets of code, which I doubt they did. It's still tantamount to a port, and I still say things were sacrificed for both consoles; more so for the PS3 because of compatibility issues. I've never heard of a program that magically works exactly the same for every OS and computer micro-architecture. It's just not possible. And yes, I understand it's able to work with different brands of computers, but there's a common ISA between them. Consoles are different.
Damn wtf! I run Crysis at 1280x800 on my macbook and it looks better than this!
buy killzone 3 instead! problem solved!
who would even buy crysis 2 instead of killzone 3 anyway if you own a ps3 you would of come to this conclusion before any of this even started killzone looks alot better plays alot better and will be the only choice for ps3 gamers, unless of course you have some extra money to waste killzone was the only choice
@MRMagoo123 idontknow maybe people that dont want a boring 84% rated FPS might want to look into Crysis2? truth hurts.
seriously crytek are so full of shit its incredible, What happened to "Maxing out consoles" they haven't even maxed out the 360 let alone the PS3 save your bravado for PC games
And how exactly do you know that it's not maxed out?
Oh yeah i forgot most consoles have crappy physics engines and sorry draw distance. They must had to cut alot to get crysis 2 on consoles. Most console games; gears or killzone there isnt any draw distance. If its not within 50 feet away it looks like crap, full of smoke to hide things, or blurred out. IM playing it on Pc so it doesnt effect me.
Crysis 2 on the PC is the best looking game ever on consoles, its a far cry from even being the best ever or the best on consoles. "Oh yeah i forgot most consoles have crappy physics engines and sorry draw distance. They must had to cut alot to get crysis 2 on consoles. Most console games; gears or killzone there isnt any draw distance." Insult Gears and Killzone all you want i think they look better than Crysis 2 on CONSOLES!! If Crysis 2 isn't a problem on your PC why are commenting on a CONSOLE SPECIFIC ARTICLE, is PC gaming news that dry today, this doesn't concern you so go and boast about your specs on some graphics thread whatever the hell PC whores do.
And still Crysis don't look so good on consoles..
@Eyeco Because i have all 3 systems so i can. Why are you ps3 fanboys in every 360 article? Because you can so shut your mouth. Oh and does that taste of graphics sour grapes taste good ps3 fanboy? You never seem to mind when your doing it to the 360 lol.
Eh.. i don't really care. It's just graphics.. they weren't talking about shit like this back in the day, so i don't see how it should apply now. I only care about how they play.
GUYS this is based on a screenshot from a compressed video by some guy on a forum. Let's wait for a demo or a final build before you guys lose your minds.
and do an analysis then. I hate the guys who post stuff based on a VIDEO analysis. Seriously, a video? How can you tell the resolution from a compressed video? When it's running in real time, we'll talk then. It's very possible that it does run in a lower resolution, but so did the 360 version. Not like I even care. The game looks great regardless and is likely going to be completely awesome.
To be fair, this is Crytek's first attempt on the Cell. Just look at the leap from Uncharted 1 to Uncharted 2. Yet plenty of other studios never even bothered to optimize their engine for the PS3 and continue to successfully produce sub-par software and make millions (COD, for example). As long as people keep buying, there's no reason to get better. @Whitenoise, you have no clue how MLAA works. It most certainly does not blur the whole scene. God of War 3 uses MLAA yet sports sharper textures than just about any other game on the market yet benefits from MLAA's ability to smooth edges equivalent to 8xMSAA.
I find it horribly ironic that WhiteNoise got hidden for trolling when he said the truth, while Karooo says something completely offtopic and gets 100 agree's lol.
I troll bubble WhiteNoise whenever I see him because he has been complaining about his silica vaginitis since 2005 back when Digg was relevant... That dude has been trolling ps3 vs xbox article for 6 frigging years. He is so trolly, I bet he doesnt even own a console, he just spends all his time trollin
resolution isn't everything do you even know what crytek is going to do with the spare memory and bandwidth making the frame buffer sub hd freed up ? nope yet your bitching can you do a better job ? probably not. by the way crysis 2 is a sandbox game while kz3 is linear did you bother to take that into consideration ? nope you probably don't even know what I mean by that lol. The SPUs don’t have much to do with the possible framebuffer resolution(they only help with post procesing effects, lighting, physics and sometimes AA). The bottleneck for that lies elsewhere. It also has little to do with the game being a multi-platform title. Cryengine 3 scales exceptionally well. 1st party 720p games like Killzone 3 have other limitations, such as very low res alpha buffers or lack of HDR. mlaa has its disadvantages because it doesn't have access to sub pixel level data(works only at the pixel level) while MSAA works at the sub pixel level. This makes msaa more costly but superior to MLAA because it will work on ANY surfece no matter how thin. do you even know that mlaa on kz3 runs simultaneously on 5 SPUs ? probably not because you fanboys never know anything about programing just a bunch of ignorant turds that think your beloved consoles are the most powerful machines on earth lol crysis 1 on high setting wipes the floor with anything you beloved ps3 and 360 will EVER be able to come up with so just imagine what crysis 2 will look like now that we are in the era of directx 11 gpus with up to 30 times the raw horsepower and several times the ram and memory bandwidth of any of your pathetic consoles.
and people said this game was supposed to trump KZ3????? It isn't even touching KZ2 and this is for BOTH PS3 & Xbox360 console versions........ that's pretty sad Crytek
Just goes to show developing a multiplat game is harder than a single platform game.
You realise that all the effects in crysis are real time and not baked on. Eg. It uses actual HDR lighting and not just deferred rendering like KZ3. The draw distances are also much bigger than KZ3. So have twice as much stuff rendered at a time with only a slight resolution drop and with all real time effects. I think it is definitely superior based on that.
Turns out they utilize "deferred" lighting as well. -End of Line
Yeah. The draw distance is much greater on Crysis 2 once you get past the crazy pop in that the 360 version showed. Of course I am just basing my comment on the demo build. . . Just like you are.
baked on! haha!...KZ2 (not 3, 2) had levels with over 500 shadow casting light sources lol...Crysis 2? not so much... as for deferred rendering...you realize that Crysis 2 uses DR as well right?...oops...fail... as for draw distances...i hope they fixed them from the 360 demo...while the draw distance is impressive, it had TERRIBLE pop-in...huge draw distance is no good if the hardware can't load it all fast enough to avoid pop-in...i can also tell you have not played KZ3 all the way through if you're taking about the game not having some impressive draw distance... KZ3's effects are all real-time...its lights all interact with the environment to cast shadows, and its particle effects are second to none...period...
@Metfanant "KZ3's effects are all real-time" "500 shadow casting light sources lol" No they are not. Most of it is pre-calculated. There is a HUGE difference in Real time and pre calculated light HDR sources and Global Illumination in real time. KZ3 uses most of it soft shadow/HDR/Lighting effects NOT in real time. The Cryengine 3 and the Frost Bite Engine 2.0 does. Crysis 2 uses BOTH HDR and Deferred Rendering. KZ3 uses almost ALL deferred rendering. That is common knowledge. And the HDR it uses is low FP. Then again so is the Xbox360's version LOL. Just get the PC version for god sakes LOL KZ3/2 does not use Global Illumination in real time. The Cryengine 3 does. I don't even think KZ3 uses Global Illumination period real time or not to be honest. The reality is the Cryengine 3 is a more advanced engine than the KZ3 engine. Moreover it has greater draw distance capabilities AND better calculation algorithms for destructible environments. And I am not talking about DESTRUCTIBLE SET PIECES like shooting tiles and boxes etc. Two game engines that are setting the pace right now is the Cryengine 3 and Frost Bite 2.0 (and those will be bastardized by the consoles inability to take full advantage of its full features)
WRONG. CryEngine3 uses deferred lighting. They boast it in their "Beauty" trailer. But you also have to realize that the type of game and setting depend on what type of lighting is required. Crysis2 required Global Illumination in real time because the game has a dynamic day and night cycle. Here's a quote from the latest Game Informer that covered Battlefield3 "Frostbite 2 comes with powerful new features like deferred lighting, real-time radiosity,and dynamic shadowing that allow the art team to use pre-calculations to get the lighting up and running in a fraction of the time." So don't kid yourself, ALL devs use pre-calculations because it makes life easier for them. It's all about efficiency.
Kids just say Crysis 2 is the graphic king on console and they didn't even play the final product. With all that talk from crytek, there is no excuse for being sub HD. So what have we learn today? Don't bother praising a multiplat games to match ps3 exclusive. Bu bu but wait for Rage! Graphic king on console!!!
Seeing a far off object you'll never get to go to isn't as immersive when there are plants, objects and textures popping in as you're almost on top of them. In this regard Crysis 2 is no better than DCUO, but that's also a streaming open world MMORPG. What's Crysis' excuse?