No, it has been confirmed as not AMD exclusive, but it's likely that the performance hit will be noticeably lower on radeon cards.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Digital Foundry : Crysis 3 Face Off
- Thread starter adamsapple
- Start date
No, it has been confirmed as not AMD exclusive, but it's likely that the performance hit will be noticeably lower on radeon cards.
theignoramus
Member
I remember when C2 launched with DX9 and they took till fucking June, three months after launch, to give us a DX11 patch. Im fucking grateful Crytek's done what it has this release. and anyway, the extensive, high quality blurring for objects+ the entire image helps out when the framerate bottoms out, at least its that way on PC.
les papillons sexuels
Banned
whether or not the graphics make the game better to play.
theignoramus
Member
lol,of course they do, the gameplay is okay this installment, but the graphics are the real selling pitch.
No offense, but I have no idea what you're saying.
I liked Crysis 3, but seeing that performance, I don't know that I'd feel the same had I not played it at a constant 30fps with all the settings cranked up.
les papillons sexuels
Banned
So, then you already forfeit the idea that the gameplay is any good, and you're happy that all that visual garbage is being thrown at you, and in turn negatively impacting gameplay. So you concede my point, the graphics are at fault for the game being subpar. Therefore the graphics make the game worse.
What's wrong with you? He said the gameplay's ok. Not amazing, not bad, but ok, meaning it's acceptable. Then on top of the ok gameplay, he feels the graphics add to the experience. Are you practicing for court or something?
That's mid-high end.
les papillons sexuels
Banned
Nothing's wrong with me, I'm just pointing out that because crytek decided to focus on the visuals instead of gameplay, that they were able to make a better looking game but a worse playing game. So the visuals are at fault for the gameplay.
Earlier in this thread I stated why:
1.Levels are designed to show off the engine not on game encounters.
2.enemies are designed to appeal to graphics, not to distinguish unique gameplay approaches, to be clearly visible or interesting to play against
3.pacing is intended to move players quickly from one experience to the next so that cysis can show off new settings or create action to fill the screen.
4.post processing effects interfere with gameplay and make it harder to see what's happening on screen.
5.crytek pushes graphics instead of opting for stability and making the game less consistant, graphically and gameplay wise.
there are others, but for the most part, all of this makes for a game thats average, and all of it stems from the graphics first approach of trying to show off their engine. Good graphics in this case is a detriment to the game experience.
LowEndTorque
Member
IMO, both this and Crysis 2 look awful on both the consoles. The type of aesthetic that they go for with this game only looks good at high resolution with crisp IQ. When it's downgraded to run on consoles, it completely loses its aesthetic appeal and just looks like a blurry splash of vomit in motion.
nelsonroyale
Member
Yeah, it was kind of the same with the original crysis. On low and even medium settings it didn't look that spectacular.
Pestilence11
Member
low end because $1000 Titan?
It was low-end long before the Titan showed up.
It would be low end even compared to my GTX 590, which I've had for almost two years now.
Yeah, lol that low end comment made me laugh. 2gb 7850 is not low-end. Mid-range at the least.
Well people overpay for crap, thats nothing new.
Good performance is affordable these days.
theignoramus
Member
what the fuck? C1 looked amazing back in the day and that game and Warhead had the best gameplay of any Crysis installment. The gameplay experience went from "awesome" to "servicable" for me with C2 and C3....and I dont think its a coincidence that that's also when they went multiplatform and tried to make a game that would appeal more to the OCD Call of Duty crowd.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
I wouldn't call those mid-end, either, but you can run anything these days with a decent CPU and a $200ish video card.
"low-end" video cards are more than sufficient for most games these days. I imagine that will change by this time next year, though.
690 and Titan were my high-end examples, putting what I believe a mid-range GPU at around $500.
Like the GTX 680.
I agree though that even "low-end" cards can still be more than capable for gaming.
Surface of Me
I'm not an NPC. And neither are we.
"Art is not subjective"-NeoGAF
Amazing.
Amazing.
les papillons sexuels
Banned
"it isn't" - the rest of the educated art world
I meant Deus Ex 1 actually, that was PC first and foremost, and got a PS2 port that while lesser did do its best to cram the game onto the system. Crysis 1's probably close to that actually. Crysis 3 seems more like Deus Ex 2 in that it tries to compromise and pleases too few: levels are too tiny, but visually it's underwhelming on consoles.
Though Deus Ex 2 has the added bonus of I think underestimating console players, or what can be done with the interface. Universal ammo was just... why?
Surface of Me
I'm not an NPC. And neither are we.
"Gobbledeegook"-les papillons sexuels
DarkLordMalik
Member
Apart from how beautiful the game looked, it ran like total crap. I don't normally notice low FPS in games but this was perhaps the first one, which made me notice the low fps on consoles. Even Far Cry 3 wasn't that bad in actual gameplay, sure, it had FPS drops in non-interactive cutscenes but the frame rate was smooth in combat.
P.S I am talking about the Xbox 360 version.
If you really wanna play this mess of a game, get it on PC at least to make it playable. Shadow of the Colossus might run at low FPS on PS2 but it was a stellar experience unlike Crysis 3, where the low FPS actually make it a torture to play through the game.
P.S I am talking about the Xbox 360 version.
If you really wanna play this mess of a game, get it on PC at least to make it playable. Shadow of the Colossus might run at low FPS on PS2 but it was a stellar experience unlike Crysis 3, where the low FPS actually make it a torture to play through the game.
LowEndTorque
Member
IMO, RAGE is the most impressive technical accomplishment on consoles as far as first person shooters go. Console Crysis isn't even in the same league.
I played the 360 version installed on the hard-drive and for half the game I forgot that I was playing it on a console and thought I was playing a PC game. It might not have the best facial/character models or all the graphical bells and whistles, but the fact that they achieved the level of visuals they did running at a solid 60 fps is amazing.
60 fps makes all the difference in the world with shooters and the sooner devs realize this, the better.
I played the 360 version installed on the hard-drive and for half the game I forgot that I was playing it on a console and thought I was playing a PC game. It might not have the best facial/character models or all the graphical bells and whistles, but the fact that they achieved the level of visuals they did running at a solid 60 fps is amazing.
60 fps makes all the difference in the world with shooters and the sooner devs realize this, the better.
ColonelColon
Member
Your GTX 590 is still very high end today. 7850 is a mid-range card.
Surface of Me
I'm not an NPC. And neither are we.
But the textures. I'm not even one to normally complain about textures, but they were fuck ugly.
LowEndTorque
Member
Which version of the game did you play?
PC version is a well-known disaster. Xbox version is great.
OgTheClever
Member
yeap
It looks decent, but nowhere near a generation leap from current gen consoles. Just looking at the clothing around the shoulders, it starts to look pretty crap.
I'm dumbfounded here.
Looking at these screenshots of the PC version....it...can't be the same game I'm playing. Having almost completed the game, I can confidently say that what I've seen so far, has easily matched (and it parts, exceeded) what was shown in KZ PS4. It really is the first "next-gen" title to be released. The intro alone was more impressive than the city flyby IMO. It genuinely looked CG.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see something like WatchDogs share a similar fate comparatively against the PC/PS4/720 version.
Looking at these screenshots of the PC version....it...can't be the same game I'm playing. Having almost completed the game, I can confidently say that what I've seen so far, has easily matched (and it parts, exceeded) what was shown in KZ PS4. It really is the first "next-gen" title to be released. The intro alone was more impressive than the city flyby IMO. It genuinely looked CG.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see something like WatchDogs share a similar fate comparatively against the PC/PS4/720 version.
DF's PC comparisons are nigh on pointless as Leadbetter and co. use a "mid-range" PC and adjust the settings accordingly, which would be fine if a higher-end PC were also entered into the mix for the purpose of including maximum settings among the comparisons, but this isn't the case. Want to see how the console versions and an upper-low/mid-range PC compare? Go to Digital Foundry. Want to see how the PC version fairs at maximum settings? Visit GAF's high-res PC screenshots thread.
No, that hardware is well above the minimum requirements.
RibbedHero
Member
Actual (only slightly compressed) footage unlike that shit DF is showing in its screenshots.
http://www.gamersyde.com/download_crysis_3_cutscenes-29588_en.html
http://www.gamersyde.com/download_crysis_3_cutscenes-29588_en.html
Rodney McKay
Member
Even the "educated art world" disagrees on what good art is.
"Good" art can be anything from an upside-down urinal to the doodles of a 4 year old girl.
Fuck, in 30-50 years after the dev team behind crisis has passed away, I'm sure people will look at them as the Van Gogh's of their time! They'll probably make a whole new catagory of art to justify its existence too. Pre-Modern Post-Enlightment Greco-Roman Realistic Interactive Future Fantasy.
Educated art man 1 - "My goodness! Look at how the dilapidated buildings and natural growth clash with the explosions and violence! Pip, pip, cheerio!"
Educated art man 2 - "Truly inspired art, my good man! Simply a marvel of the time what they were able to accomplish with the pre-holodeck interactivity of their era.
SneakyStephan
Banned
No it isn't ... Ah amd naming schemes strike again.
The x7xx mid end series got renamed x8xx and the x8xx high end series got renamed x9xx.
7850 is the crippled model of the mid range section of amd cards.
It'll also be over 2 years old by the time ps4 releases, so there is that.
2 year old low end of the midrange cards is not somehow high end
nelsonroyale
Member
That...doesnt make sense...the 7850 surpasses the 6950 in most benchmarks...that was a high end GPU when it was initially released:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/549?vs=510
Again, in terms of power:energy efficiency ratio, the high end gpus today are not particularly impressive. The power comes at a hugely impractical price in my opinion.
Windom Earle
Member
7850/660 - mid tier
680 / 7970 - high end
Titan/690 - enthusiast
It doesn't matter, Crysis runs like crap on all cards anyway.
680 / 7970 - high end
Titan/690 - enthusiast
It doesn't matter, Crysis runs like crap on all cards anyway.
It's not just a renaming. The 7850 far exceeds the performance of the 6770, and is often better than the 6950.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/549?vs=510
Aren't those 360 shots anyway. I recall the PC version of the old dude having noticeably better looking hair
plugs
theignoramus
Member
yessir. I remember some dude in one of those KZ4 wank threads saying it made C3 look like a gamecube game...another said C3 looked dated in comparison. What the fuck are these people smoking? what shitty rig did you play this game on? The second half of the game shits on that KZ4 trailer.....and fuck trailers anyway, I hate people using trailers from half finished games as some kind of benchmark, its straight bullshit and we all know why those people are doing it.
Just because people excessively over pay for stuff, doesn't make it a good gauge for performance. The difference today (largely in part to Nvidia's GPU dominance) is that great performance can be had for great value. You only have to look at the actual games, and how the different "low end" gpu's handle them to see that.
Also lol at you mentioning your GTX 590 as an example. That behemoth is not suitable for a home console. The heat and power draw alone see's that being the case. 500w at peak load...lol.
I actually agree with you, on consoles at least
OgTheClever
Member
Yeah, I guess so. I was a bit drunk when I posted that last night and thought they were supposed to be PC screenshots for some reason.
nelsonroyale
Member
Calm down mate, rage like that only leads to bitter tears.
I went off the rails I allow, but I stand by my comment that what has been shows of the new Killzone is superior to Crysis 3 maxed out, it's the real next-gen thrill and while Crysis 3 looks phenomenal it belongs to the current generation in my opinion.