• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF

rvy
Banned
(04-25-2012, 01:50 PM)
rvy's Avatar
The problem with console Crysis is that it looks fine on screenshots, but like ass when you start moving around. Games with inconsistent framerates are a fucking disgrace. I'd rather they push less pretty stuff and focus on making the framerate locked, be it 30 fps or 60 fps, but locked.
dark10x
60 fps 60 fps 60 fps 60 fps 30 fps 60 fps 60 fps 30 fps
(04-25-2012, 02:22 PM)
dark10x's Avatar

Originally Posted by clutch.as.it.gets.

Doom 3 and HL2 were PC games and took full advantage of those. Crysis 2 on the other hand was a console game with console hardware in mind. That`s a complete different case.
Crytek even kept the terrible weak console textures in the PC version.

And i highly disagree with you that the current consoles are still pretty capable. It about time for new hardware.

Sure, but Crysis 1 was a PC game through and through. It pushed the platform much harder in 2007 than Doom 3 or Half-Life 2 did back in 2004.

Despite that they were able to recreate the game on consoles without sacrificing the gameplay. What Crysis 1 on consoles delivers is much more impressive than HL2 or Doom 3 on XBOX.

The problem with console Crysis is that it looks fine on screenshots, but like ass when you start moving around. Games with inconsistent framerates are a fucking disgrace. I'd rather they push less pretty stuff and focus on making the framerate locked, be it 30 fps or 60 fps, but locked.

It's not that bad on 360, though. It actually stays around 30 fps a lot of the time and, really, it runs smoother there than it did on my 8800GT back in 2007. It's much more consistent.

The PS3 version, however, is rather choppy in comparison and routinely drops well below 30 fps.

I mean, watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glqeaaxZ7kM&hd=1

That's pretty god damned smooth, if you ask me. Sure, it's not as detailed as the PC version, but it still holds up very well and proves that the original Crysis was not too ambitious for dated console hardware.
Last edited by dark10x; 04-25-2012 at 02:26 PM.
Neuromancer
The Mayuh of f'n Bawston
(04-25-2012, 02:59 PM)
Neuromancer's Avatar

Originally Posted by rvy

The problem with console Crysis is that it looks fine on screenshots, but like ass when you start moving around. Games with inconsistent framerates are a fucking disgrace. I'd rather they push less pretty stuff and focus on making the framerate locked, be it 30 fps or 60 fps, but locked.

Oh I'm the opposite. I don't care too much about frame rate, I just want it to be pretty.
rvy
Banned
(04-25-2012, 04:24 PM)
rvy's Avatar

Originally Posted by Neuromancer

Oh I'm the opposite. I don't care too much about frame rate, I just want it to be pretty.

It can be pretty and locked at 30 fps. Developers just haven't realized that the costumer notices it, even if he doesn't know what it is.
Look at Call of Duty, the success isn't just because it's a war game with focus on online and ridiculous perks/killstreaks, it's because of how it feels to play.

I don't even ask for 60 any longer, I just want the framerate to be locked. You can have the prettiest game in the world, if it runs at 15 fps, it's no good.
Silly.Mikey
Banned
(04-25-2012, 04:26 PM)

Originally Posted by rvy

It can be pretty and locked at 30 fps. Developers just haven't realized that the costumer notices it, even if he doesn't know what it is.
Look at Call of Duty, the success isn't just because it's a war game with focus on online and ridiculous perks/killstreaks, it's because of how it feels to play.

I don't even ask for 60 any longer, I just want the framerate to be locked. You can have the prettiest game in the world, if it runs at 15 fps, it's no good.

COD also has not evolved one bit graphically in the last 5-6 years because of that frame-rate.
Kintaro
Worships the porcelain goddess
(04-25-2012, 04:31 PM)
Kintaro's Avatar
I doubt they even get Crysis 3 running with DX11 on PC...
Silly.Mikey
Banned
(04-25-2012, 04:33 PM)

Originally Posted by Kintaro

I doubt they even get Crysis 3 running with DX11 on PC...

Man, i have a i5 quad, 16gig of ram, a 570gtx and Crysis1 still chugs and crashes at times. You figure it out. So ya, i wouldnt be surprised.
rvy
Banned
(04-25-2012, 04:36 PM)
rvy's Avatar

Originally Posted by Silly.Mikey

COD also has not evolved one bit graphically in the last 5-6 years because of that frame-rate.

MW 2 looks better than MW to me.
Silly.Mikey
Banned
(04-25-2012, 04:42 PM)

Originally Posted by rvy

MW 2 looks better than MW to me.

It looks exactly the same to me.

This is the only video i could find. Looks identical.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnN3A...eature=related
KageMaru
Member
(04-25-2012, 04:46 PM)
KageMaru's Avatar

Originally Posted by Silly.Mikey

COD also has not evolved one bit graphically in the last 5-6 years because of that frame-rate.

Bad joke, right?
rvy
Banned
(04-25-2012, 04:49 PM)
rvy's Avatar

Originally Posted by Silly.Mikey

It looks exactly the same to me.

This is the only video i could find. Looks identical.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnN3A...eature=related

That's MW 3 and MW 2.
Silly.Mikey
Banned
(04-25-2012, 04:49 PM)

Originally Posted by rvy

That's MW 3 and MW 2.

I cant find any with MW3 and MW. And that's already 0 difference between 2 and 3.
dark10x
60 fps 60 fps 60 fps 60 fps 30 fps 60 fps 60 fps 30 fps
(04-25-2012, 04:52 PM)
dark10x's Avatar

Originally Posted by Silly.Mikey

COD also has not evolved one bit graphically in the last 5-6 years because of that frame-rate.

It actually has, though. They've made a number of changes and optimizations to the engine. Better texturing techniques, more complex lighting and shaders, greater particle density with less of a performance hit, etc. It hasn't been a massive leap forward or anything but it still looks nice and they have definitely enhanced it.
Silly.Mikey
Banned
(04-25-2012, 05:03 PM)

Originally Posted by dark10x

It actually has, though. They've made a number of changes and optimizations to the engine. Better texturing techniques, more complex lighting and shaders, greater particle density with less of a performance hit, etc. It hasn't been a massive leap forward or anything but it still looks nice and they have definitely enhanced it.

From the video i posted above which is MW2 vs 3, i don't see much of anything different other than the layout of the map. And that's a major sequel released 2 years later. But hey, its 60fps.
KageMaru
Member
(04-25-2012, 05:08 PM)
KageMaru's Avatar

Originally Posted by Silly.Mikey

From the video i posted above which is MW2 vs 3, i don't see much of anything different other than the layout of the map. And that's a major sequel released 2 years later. But hey, its 60fps.

Youtube isn't really the best way to judge graphics. ;)
Silly.Mikey
Banned
(04-25-2012, 05:10 PM)

Originally Posted by KageMaru

Youtube isn't really the best way to judge graphics. ;)

Why, because it proves my point? Go put it side by side with 2 TV, you'll see the same difference.
BruiserBear
Banned
(04-25-2012, 05:12 PM)
BruiserBear's Avatar
I was tolerant of the framerate in Crysis 2 on 360. It got choppy during heavy combat, but the game looked amazing for that hardware, so I was willing to forgive it.


I sure hope they don't go any lower than that level of performance for Crysis 3, because I think that was the limit. Any lower and it would have hurt the experience.
dragonelite
Member
(04-25-2012, 05:14 PM)
dragonelite's Avatar

Originally Posted by Silly.Mikey

Why, because it proves my point? Go put it side by side with 2 TV, you'll see the same difference.

I couldn't see shit in a youtube version of the Crysis 3 trailer now i have a higher bit rate one i can atleast see stuff and can run ingame parts in slowmo.
KageMaru
Member
(04-25-2012, 05:16 PM)
KageMaru's Avatar

Originally Posted by Silly.Mikey

Why, because it proves my point? Go put it side by side with 2 TV, you'll see the same difference.

It doesn't prove your point though. How can we accurately see the improvements in a horribly compressed Youtube video? On top of that, we should be looking at the campaign, not MP, since that is where graphics typically shine in games.
Neuromancer
The Mayuh of f'n Bawston
(04-25-2012, 05:21 PM)
Neuromancer's Avatar

Originally Posted by rvy

It can be pretty and locked at 30 fps. Developers just haven't realized that the costumer notices it, even if he doesn't know what it is.
Look at Call of Duty, the success isn't just because it's a war game with focus on online and ridiculous perks/killstreaks, it's because of how it feels to play.

I don't even ask for 60 any longer, I just want the framerate to be locked. You can have the prettiest game in the world, if it runs at 15 fps, it's no good.

That's reasonable I suppose.
dark10x
60 fps 60 fps 60 fps 60 fps 30 fps 60 fps 60 fps 30 fps
(04-25-2012, 05:22 PM)
dark10x's Avatar

Originally Posted by Silly.Mikey

From the video i posted above which is MW2 vs 3, i don't see much of anything different other than the layout of the map. And that's a major sequel released 2 years later. But hey, its 60fps.

60 fps is a big deal.

Anyways, I see you were comparing multiplayer while I was talking about single player (where the engine refinements are most obvious). Multiplayer maps always seem to limit visual flair for competitive purposes so the differences are not astounding.

That doesn't mean improvements haven't been made, however.
Lion Heart
Member
(04-25-2012, 05:25 PM)
Lion Heart's Avatar
Lets bring the AI to PS1 levels first, then you can think about a real AA solution, not that temporal garbage in C2.
Metroid-Squadron
Banned
(04-25-2012, 05:56 PM)
Metroid-Squadron's Avatar

Originally Posted by Lion Heart

Lets bring the AI to PS1 levels first, then you can think about a real AA solution, not that temporal garbage in C2.

I see some people don't read.
dark10x
60 fps 60 fps 60 fps 60 fps 30 fps 60 fps 60 fps 30 fps
(04-26-2012, 02:32 PM)
dark10x's Avatar

Originally Posted by Lion Heart

Lets bring the AI to PS1 levels first, then you can think about a real AA solution, not that temporal garbage in C2.

What does "PS1 levels" even mean? The AI in Crysis 2 was competent and certainly well beyond the AI you see in a 90s first person shooter.
Moegames
Banned
(04-26-2012, 02:40 PM)

Originally Posted by dark10x

Eh, I'd say what they are achieving here is more impressive than what developers delivered on the original XBOX when it was more recent. I mean, Doom 3 and Half-Life 2 were equivalents back in 2004 yet both of those games were heavily compromised on XBOX.

Crysis 1 and 2 were much more accurate on 360 and PS3 than those games were on XBOX. Of course that ignores the fact that Doom 3 and HL2 would have been impossible on PS2 or even Gamecube.

So, despite their age, I'd say the current consoles are still pretty capable.

Finally..someone with some common sense...thank you

And to those that claim Crysis 2 on consoles sucked....eh i totally disagree..it was a awesome game and one of the best looking shooters thus far on current systems. Sure it was subHD and the frame rate was not pristine perfect but to say the game was unplayable and not enjoyable is just trolling imho
Moegames
Banned
(04-26-2012, 02:49 PM)

Originally Posted by lowrider007

wow I didn't realise Crysis 2 was hated so much, surely it's in the top 10 at least for best looking console game?, I was very impressed with it graphically on the 360 and the framerate really wasn't that bad, the motion blur helped a lot in that respect, I don't think you can discount it just because it was sub HD, look at Alan Wake for example, one of lowest resolutions in a console game this gen and looks perfectly fine, and outside of gaff I haven't heard one person complain about the frame-rate.

Here at GAF..you will see some real hardcore nitpickers that are not in it to enjoy games but rather be butt hurt over the littlest things just to rain on the party of some good games..some are just in it to take sides..pc vs consoles or consoles vs pc ..so you must take opinions around here with a grain of salt rather than allow it to steer you're way of gaming.

I learned a long time ago that to go by my own feelings..im a straight shooter..i'll play any good game that's a good game and i dont tend to put a game under the microscope and allow the littlest things to ruin my gaming experience like some do. This is why i can enjoy many more games than a lot of these nit pickers..while they are getting all butt hurt over stuff like this..im enjoying games they avoid. ;)
Neuromancer
The Mayuh of f'n Bawston
(04-26-2012, 02:50 PM)
Neuromancer's Avatar

Originally Posted by dark10x

What does "PS1 levels" even mean? The AI in Crysis 2 was competent and certainly well beyond the AI you see in a 90s first person shooter.

Yeah they weren't bad overall, but the problem is the did get stuck occassionally and do dumb stuff like blow themselves up with grenades. That stuff is real noticeable unfortunately.
plagiarize
Member
(04-26-2012, 02:51 PM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kintaro

I doubt they even get Crysis 3 running with DX11 on PC...

why? my PC runs Crysis 2 DX11 with everything maxed out and gets around 60 fps (not locked, average). i doubt Crysis 3's tech is going to be markedly different. C2 is also the best looking game i've seen to date (not talking about art).
Last edited by plagiarize; 04-26-2012 at 02:54 PM.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
(04-26-2012, 03:03 PM)
Stallion Free's Avatar

Originally Posted by Neuromancer

Yeah they weren't bad overall, but the problem is the did get stuck occassionally and do dumb stuff like blow themselves up with grenades. That stuff is real noticeable unfortunately.

I think the suit makes the AI feel a bit dumber too just because you are like a god with it and the AI just can't handle you disappearing like a wizard.
Liamario
Member
(04-26-2012, 03:04 PM)
Liamario's Avatar
If they could just strive to achieve a decent framerate and 720p minimum on all consoles, they'll be doing alright...
kinggroin
Banned
(04-26-2012, 03:04 PM)
kinggroin's Avatar
I still stand by what I said. Crysis 2 should have been to 2011 what the first game was to 2007. Targeting consoles during development means something has to give. Crysis 2 is prettier in some respects (after the PC update), but less impressive in others (level linearity, physics, and envrionement interaction).

The engine is capable, so why after 5 years are we only seeing a marginal increase in visuals and a decrease in level scope?
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
(04-26-2012, 03:06 PM)
Stallion Free's Avatar

Originally Posted by kinggroin

The engine is capable, so why after 5 years are we only seeing a marginal increase in visuals and a decrease in level scope?

I wouldn't call the advances that C2 made over the first game visually "marginal."
Angelus Errare
this looks like one of those Final Fantasy games lionhead always makes
(04-26-2012, 03:17 PM)
Angelus Errare's Avatar
Good to see no one on GAF is crazy enough to put forth the argument that the PS3/360 as just as powerful as current high end PCs. I'm browsing Teamxbox on another tab and there is a 15+ page argument going on that 360/PS3 are "easily" just as capable as a high end PC. (No I'm being serious, it's truly lol worthy).

I'm just happy Crytek is getting PC gamers better AA options this time. Shit looked hideous at higher resolutions.
kinggroin
Banned
(04-26-2012, 03:28 PM)
kinggroin's Avatar

Originally Posted by Stallion Free

I wouldn't call the advances that C2 made over the first game visually "marginal."

Are we talking launch stock C2? Or the later modded enhanced version?

The first was pretty, more 'in-your-face', and sports a better aesthetic than C1. It also has far less environmental destruction and MUCH smaller MUCH more linear maps. So yeah, marginal (especially considering the time gap).

The enhanced DX11 version with tesselation and higher res textures is a bit closer to what I originally expected from the game at launch. Still not what I imagined an exclusively PC developed version would look like though. Of course, we can then compare to modded Crysis 1, which mitigates some of the punch.

Look, I understand WHY we got the Crysis 2 that we did (made them bank by targeting three major platforms). I'm simply pointing out that resources ARE limited, and a game as potentially as big Crysis being stretched across three different platforms (where one has a canyon sized advantage) means sacrifices to its visual potential (and with Crysis, a lot of the gameplay derived from technical proficiency) .

That's what I meant by, "it suffered for it".
Last edited by kinggroin; 04-26-2012 at 03:31 PM.
RooMHM
Member
(04-26-2012, 03:29 PM)
RooMHM's Avatar

Originally Posted by kinggroin

The engine is capable, so why after 5 years are we only seeing a marginal increase in visuals and a decrease in level scope?

Because Crysis was already ahead of its time on PC. The switch to console based developpement just forced the team to make two or three more steps backward.
YAY CONSOLES.
kinggroin
Banned
(04-26-2012, 03:37 PM)
kinggroin's Avatar

Originally Posted by RooMHM

Because Crysis was already ahead of its time on PC. The switch to console based developpement just forced the team to make two or three more steps backward.
YAY CONSOLES.

Ha. Hey man, I love these consoles.

While it does suck that we aren't seeing boundaries being pushed faster and harder on the tech end, it also means we still get great looking games that RUN smooth as silk. Our computer hardware is probably getting more mileage this gen, than any other. At least my wallet is safe!
scitek
Member
(04-26-2012, 03:42 PM)
scitek's Avatar

Originally Posted by Silly.Mikey

From the video i posted above which is MW2 vs 3, i don't see much of anything different other than the layout of the map. And that's a major sequel released 2 years later. But hey, its 60fps.

The thing with the Call of Duty series is that due to its aim for 60fps on consoles, it runs at like 200fps on my PC, which means I can slap 4xSSAA on it and the shit still runs at like 90fps. I can deal with its visuals if it delivers that kind of performance, honestly.
plagiarize
Member
(04-26-2012, 03:44 PM)
plagiarize's Avatar

Originally Posted by scitek

The thing with the Call of Duty series is that due to its aim for 60fps on consoles, it runs at like 200fps on my PC, which means I can slap 4xSSAA on it and the shit still runs at like 90fps. I can deal with its visuals if it delivers that kind of performance, honestly.

C2 at launch ran amazingly well and looked really good to boot. it certainly ran circles around the COD games in just about every area. it was lacking a good AA solution though, i'll concede that.
scitek
Member
(04-26-2012, 03:57 PM)
scitek's Avatar

Originally Posted by plagiarize

C2 at launch ran amazingly well and looked really good to boot. it certainly ran circles around the COD games in just about every area. it was lacking a good AA solution though, i'll concede that.

Which is why I wish they'd bring the CE3 version of the first Crysis to PC. It'd run so much better, and mods with that new lighting would be amazing.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
(04-26-2012, 04:04 PM)
Stallion Free's Avatar

Originally Posted by kinggroin

Are we talking launch stock C2? Or the later modded enhanced version?

The first was pretty, more 'in-your-face', and sports a better aesthetic than C1. It also has far less environmental destruction and MUCH smaller MUCH more linear maps. So yeah, marginal (especially considering the time gap).

The lighting in Crysis 2 is a generation ahead of Crysis 1.
Leucrota
Member
(04-26-2012, 04:04 PM)
Leucrota's Avatar

Originally Posted by dark10x


I mean, watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glqeaaxZ7kM&hd=1

That's pretty god damned smooth, if you ask me. Sure, it's not as detailed as the PC version, but it still holds up very well and proves that the original Crysis was not too ambitious for dated console hardware.

Wow, that vid just sold me on that game for Xbox. Totally forgot it came out. Thanks for reminding me. I didn't know it was THAT good looking.
dark10x
60 fps 60 fps 60 fps 60 fps 30 fps 60 fps 60 fps 30 fps
(04-26-2012, 04:13 PM)
dark10x's Avatar

Originally Posted by Stallion Free

I think the suit makes the AI feel a bit dumber too just because you are like a god with it and the AI just can't handle you disappearing like a wizard.

Yeah, I think people are misunderstanding some of the AI problems. The game mechanics simply demand MUCH more from the AI than most games would ever have to consider. In regards to the stealth functions I'd say it's one of the most difficult things to balance. If you make it too difficult to "disappear" that function could become frustrating and useless the second you break stealth (leading to trial and error retries) while making it too easy results in AI that appears stupid. They didn't quite find the right balance but I really didn't think it was that awful.

I'm glad they went for slightly less aggressive AI than overly aggressive. Their original Far Cry AI was complete shit for that reason. You could be spotted half a mile from a village which would result in every active enemy on the map becoming aware of your position. It simply wasn't fun.

What they DO need to work on, I think, is individualizing enemy encounters a bit more. You should be able to break stealth without alerting the group at large. Now if the AI fires their weapon or makes a call on the radio, sure, the rest of the enemies should now be hunting you. However, if you are spotted, there should be an initial element of surprise or something that makes it feel as if you snuck up on them. I always thought Metal Gear handled this really well in that it made each enemy feel like an individual threat that you could deal with in a number of ways. If they spotted you there was still a chance of eliminating them before they call for help.

Most shooters simply don't have these circumstances to contend with. Crysis is neither a straight stealth game nor a full on shooter. They need their AI to handle the best of both worlds and everything in between in addition to coping with a super powered suit. It's a huge challenge I'm sure.

Which is why I wish they'd bring the CE3 version of the first Crysis to PC. It'd run so much better, and mods with that new lighting would be amazing.

On top of that I actually really liked the changes they made to the interface. It's more streamlined but doesn't sacrifice the functionality present in the original game. They did a really good job with the conversion.
Revolutionary
Member
(04-26-2012, 04:20 PM)
Revolutionary's Avatar
Crysis 2's AI in regards to cloaking was downright garbage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKbBYjO5nyw
Fezan
Member
(04-26-2012, 04:24 PM)
Fezan's Avatar
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOwF6D9KBtM&sns=fb

Crysis 3 gameplay.is this legit ?
Dabanton
Member
(04-26-2012, 04:29 PM)
Dabanton's Avatar

Originally Posted by PatMcAtee

Wow, that vid just sold me on that game for Xbox. Totally forgot it came out. Thanks for reminding me. I didn't know it was THAT good looking.

Crysis on the 360 (not played or seen the PS3 version) is fantastic. Certainly felt more smoother than Crysis 2 and considering some of the setpieces (The mountain collapse,The alien ship and the warship battle) and the sheer size of the island i can only applaud Crytek for bringing it over.

That's why when people are talking shit about consoles potentially holding back the third game i invite them to if they can lower themselves to such debased activity to go and play at least the 360 version if they can, and be pleasantly surprised.

I always suspected porting Crysis this late was a test to see just how big they can make the stages in Crysis 3 and the reveal of that game certainly shows which direction they are taking it.

And why i have no worries about how big the game can be.
BigTnaples
Member
(04-26-2012, 04:37 PM)
BigTnaples's Avatar

Originally Posted by Fezan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOwF6D9KBtM&sns=fb

Crysis 3 gameplay.is this legit ?


Looks more like a custom map to me..
cgcg
Member
(04-26-2012, 05:06 PM)

Originally Posted by KKRT00

720p with SMAA T2x and stable 30fps in such demanding like Crysis 3 would be mindblowing finish for current gen consoles.

Don't worry they'll just run it on a PC *set* to X360 specs. It's same thing guys.
dark10x
60 fps 60 fps 60 fps 60 fps 30 fps 60 fps 60 fps 30 fps
(04-26-2012, 05:07 PM)
dark10x's Avatar

Originally Posted by Revolutionary

Crysis 2's AI in regards to cloaking was downright garbage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKbBYjO5nyw

It's hit or miss, though. The enemies do not always act in that way.

Part of the problem is that they are often wildly inconsistent.
kinggroin
Banned
(04-26-2012, 05:13 PM)
kinggroin's Avatar
I'd like to make a thread.

Which is the bigger bottleneck to advances on the visual end, Console focused development or game budgets?

Or the possible third option (which sort of relates to the second), a longer generation cycle.
dark10x
60 fps 60 fps 60 fps 60 fps 30 fps 60 fps 60 fps 30 fps
(04-26-2012, 05:20 PM)
dark10x's Avatar

Originally Posted by kinggroin

I'd like to make a thread.

Which is the bigger bottleneck to advances on the visual end, Console focused development or game budgets?

Or the possible third option (which sort of relates to the second), a longer generation cycle.

Perhaps a mix of all three?

I'm not sure Crytek is interested in pushing the PC platform to its limits ala Crysis 1 as that actually resulted in a lot of headaches for them at the time.

Also, I think PC gamers have grown accustomed to high framerates and great image quality so releasing a game that really pushes PC hardware to its limits would result in a lot of compromise on the performance/image quality end. When Crysis was first released nobody was playing at 60 fps and a lot of people had to drop the resolution well below that of their monitors.

If a PC game is released that routinely dips below 30 fps even at modest resolutions what sort of reaction would it receive, I wonder?

Thread Tools