• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF

chandoog
Member
(03-02-2013, 10:19 AM)
chandoog's Avatar
Crysis 3 Face Off

The fact that Crysis 3 runs on console at all is a remarkable achievement, with Crytek deploying a wide range of advanced rendering techniques which make the game one of the most visually impressive titles released on the current-gen consoles to date. However, the admirable desire to pursue the latest graphics technology also means that the core gameplay is heavily compromised by what can only be described as some truly shocking levels of performance.

The fact is that while Crysis 3 may look stunning, it shifts between a highly enjoyable to a deeply compromised experience in a matter of moments. With that in mind, the relatively smoother frame-rates make the 360 version the more enjoyable one to play, but neither compares favourably with the PC version. Beyond the issue of performance, there's little meaningful difference between these two versions. Away from the harsh focus of direct A-to-B comparisons, the slightly softer image of the PS3 game isn't too big an issue, while the small inconsistencies in other areas won't impact your enjoyment of the game at all.

"Crysis 3 is nicely scalable across a range of PC hardware but we'd recommend an Intel quad-core CPU as the minimum with AMD's eight- core processors also performing very well."

Where Crysis 3 really shines is on the PC, in which we are presented with a huge leap in graphical quality that gives us a tantalising glimpse of visual accomplishment on next-gen hardware. If you've got the requisite hardware to run the game smoothly at 60FPS (or indeed a locked 30) it's easily the definitive way to experience the game. However, for lower-end enthusiast systems this does mean scaling back most settings to the low preset and opting for the more performance-lite SMAA TX2 option when targeting 1080p60, while aiming for either 30FPS or 720p60 gives you more headroom to use higher-quality features. Either way, even on lower-level settings, Crysis 3 on PC still yields a far more impressive experience than either console version.

From a technical perspective, then, Crysis 3 is undoubtedly one of the most sophisticated releases to date. However, the leap forward in visual beauty hasn't quite been complemented with a similar advance in gameplay. The AI is fairly decent, featuring very realistic qualities, but is also unnaturally aggressive, while the larger, more organic environments lack the same level of scope found in the original Crysis. In that respect Crytek's decision to create a more story-focused campaign - while factoring in more of the freedoms given to the player from the first Crysis - works very well, but not without feeling that the core ideas contained within are held back by the lack of ambition in other areas, outside of crafting even bigger visual spectacles with each new instalment.




omonimo
Member
(03-02-2013, 10:20 AM)
omonimo's Avatar
Not exactly a surprise.
chandoog
Member
(03-02-2013, 10:21 AM)
chandoog's Avatar
1080p PC shots




Margalis
Banned
(03-02-2013, 10:23 AM)
I hate the idea that a game that runs like crap can look "visually stunning." People play games, not screenshots.
Eusis
Member
(03-02-2013, 10:27 AM)
Eusis's Avatar
Yeah, looks at best like a PC game just sorta stuffing itself on consoles. At worst, an example of not having a damn clue how a console game SHOULD be designed: who cares how many nice effects you cram in if it looks and runs like an N64 game on massive amounts of steroids? Like it could cram in way more detail, but it's still chugging away and looks like it's smeared with Vaseline.

Although I don't really mind the idea of developing a game that really takes advantage of PC and just sorta compromises with consoles to work there, but a good example of that is a game like Deus Ex or Doom 3 Xbox, this seems like a game that didn't go as far as the first and possibly not even the second for gameplay, so... whatever.
Log4Girlz
I recently went to my friends house to check out his wii. I was generally impressed. It was larger than I expected though.
(03-02-2013, 10:28 AM)
Log4Girlz's Avatar
PC version looks pretty good.
sp3000
Member
(03-02-2013, 10:29 AM)

Originally Posted by Eusis

Although I don't really mind the idea of developing a game that really takes advantage of PC and just sorta compromises with consoles to work there, but a good example of that is a game like Deus Ex or Doom 3 Xbox, this seems like a game that didn't go as far as the first and possibly not even the second for gameplay, so... whatever.

Are you joking? Deus Ex 2 was pretty much completely destroyed because of the rampant consolization that occured. Levels were massively scaled down to fit within the 64mb xbox memory.

There is a good argment to be made that DX2 sucked in large part because it was not released originally as a PC exclusive like the original.

I would take a game like Crysis 3 any day over something like that.
sono
Member
(03-02-2013, 10:33 AM)
sono's Avatar
I am not a PC gamer (time/cost justification) but the screenshots I have seen here and on the other threads and reviews for C3 on PC had me wishing I had a rig just for this.

Great technical achievement Crytek.
Reiko
Banned
(03-02-2013, 10:35 AM)
That's actually impressive.



Who knew in 2005 we would be seeing something like this?
chandoog
Member
(03-02-2013, 10:36 AM)
chandoog's Avatar
so it's .

PC -------> 360 -> PS3

sounds fair enough.

Originally Posted by Reiko

That's actually impressive.

[IMG]http://images.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/5/5/9/1/0/3/360_023.jpg.jpg[IMG]

Who knew in 2005 we would be seeing something like this?

Virtual Balmer looks pretty damn amazing even on 2005 hardware.



it's a shame DF didn't take a shot of the close up of that old man's face from that gamersyde video, that looked REALLY impressive.
Last edited by chandoog; 03-02-2013 at 10:38 AM.
sleepykyo
Member
(03-02-2013, 10:48 AM)
sleepykyo's Avatar

Originally Posted by Reiko

That's actually impressive.



Who knew in 2005 we would be seeing something like this?

They really need a new art director. Something about the asymmetrical, bloodshot eyes make her perfect for Resident Evil or 28 Days Later infected.

At the lowest point, frame-rates plummet down close to single digits in some areas - even when there is apparently little in the way of hectic action taking place. During a short section of gameplay taking place in a small building early on in stage three, we witnesses by far the biggest sustained drop in performance on both versions of the game. As we were slowly making our way out of an elevator and into a confined room frequented by just two enemy personnel, frame-rates took a dive down to a sustained 14FPS on the PS3 and 16FPS on the 360 before exiting the immediate area, in which case we were still looking at sub-30FPS performance on both consoles.

Sounds like the Metacritic of 78 is well deserved.
Last edited by sleepykyo; 03-02-2013 at 10:52 AM.
Galacticos
Banned
(03-02-2013, 10:50 AM)
I wonder if we'll keep seeing these face offs next gen.
omonimo
Member
(03-02-2013, 10:51 AM)
omonimo's Avatar

Originally Posted by sleepykyo

They really need a new art director. Something about the asymmetrical, bloodshot eyes make her perfect for Resident Evil or 28 Days Later infected.

You are so right. Crysis 3 art design is really terrible. Levels are incredible bland.




Sorry if use the post to see how will fit on ps3 in comparison, but I was so curious.
Last edited by omonimo; 03-02-2013 at 10:53 AM.
MANGOD
Member
(03-02-2013, 10:51 AM)
MANGOD's Avatar
FINALLY! Not sure if I should get this or wait and see if an ultimate edition will pop up on the next gen consoles
diamount
Member
(03-02-2013, 10:54 AM)
diamount's Avatar

Originally Posted by Margalis

I hate the idea that a game that runs like crap can look "visually stunning." People play games, not screenshots.

If the game runs like crap then your PC isn't up to playing it at the settings you got it at.
chandoog
Member
(03-02-2013, 10:55 AM)
chandoog's Avatar

Originally Posted by omonimo

Sorry if use the post to see how will fit on ps3 in comparison, but I was so curious.


Looks about the same with extra blur thanks to the extra upscaling no doubt. The article mentions that small things here and there are peered back on the PS3 like shadows, draw distance and normal mapping etc being better on the 360.
les papillons sexuels
Banned
(03-02-2013, 10:56 AM)

Originally Posted by Margalis

I hate the idea that a game that runs like crap can look "visually stunning." People play games, not screenshots.

I hate the idea that a game is designed like crap and people can say "visually stunning". We play games not graphics.
Backfoggen
Member
(03-02-2013, 10:57 AM)
Backfoggen's Avatar
Wow at the performance of the PS3 version during that grass field sequence.
Tron#1
Junior Member
(03-02-2013, 10:59 AM)
Tron#1's Avatar
would have loved to see this running on the U.
omonimo
Member
(03-02-2013, 10:59 AM)
omonimo's Avatar

Originally Posted by les papillons sexuels

I hate the idea that a game is designed like crap and people can say "visually stunning". We play games not graphics.

Wise choice of words. Seen some walkthrough, game lack of creativity in everything... if it wasn't for the impressive tech, it's just a game really forgettable. A pity.
Shadow of the BEAST
Banned
(03-02-2013, 11:02 AM)
Shadow of the BEAST's Avatar
the pc and consoles are quite close.
Reiko
Banned
(03-02-2013, 11:03 AM)

Originally Posted by Shadow of the BEAST

the pc and consoles are quite close.

Compared to the Crysis 1 port, this is much closer.
S1kkZ
Member
(03-02-2013, 11:03 AM)
S1kkZ's Avatar
didnt the crytek guys say in, multiple interviews, that they consider 25 fps "perfectly fine"? no crytek: sub-hd visuals with a terrible framerate is not fine, no matter what unseen graphical effects you managed on the consoles.
Last edited by S1kkZ; 03-02-2013 at 11:07 AM.
sp3000
Member
(03-02-2013, 11:05 AM)

Originally Posted by Reiko

Compared to the Crysis 1 port, this is much closer.

Primarily because the physics engine and environment interactivity is still worse than what the original game had years ago.
omonimo
Member
(03-02-2013, 11:07 AM)
omonimo's Avatar

Originally Posted by Backfoggen

Wow at the performance of the PS3 version during that grass field sequence.

would have loved to see this running on the U.

Funny how those two post seems almost straight linked. I can't imagine how would ended in the wii U for those sequence.
Des0lar
will learn eventually
(03-02-2013, 11:09 AM)
Des0lar's Avatar

Originally Posted by Shadow of the BEAST

the pc and consoles are quite close.

Are we looking at the same screenshots?
gofreak
GAF's Bob Woodward
(03-02-2013, 11:11 AM)
gofreak's Avatar
Rendering foliage seems really problematic. Not just for Crytek, but I mean in general. Always seems to drag down a final result.

I can't help but look at these screens and be put off.

In fact, a number of things about the screens are offputting. Maybe it all comes together better when playing.
Alienous
Member
(03-02-2013, 11:11 AM)
Alienous's Avatar

Originally Posted by S1kkZ

didnt the crytek guys say in, multiple interviews, that they consider 25 fps "perfectly fine"? no crytek: sub-hd visuals with a terrible framerate is not fine, no matter what unseen graphical effects you managed on the consoles.

In a single-player experience (as Yerli suggested) I am fine with a game dropping to 25fps at some moments.

It just depends on how good the game is, and if the fps drop is justified (SOTC). If it's balanced correctly then it isn't such as big issue.

Yerli has said, however, that a high framerate is the priority in an online game. I agree with him there.
Last edited by Alienous; 03-02-2013 at 11:15 AM.
les papillons sexuels
Banned
(03-02-2013, 11:12 AM)

Originally Posted by S1kkZ

didnt the crytek guys say in, multiple interviews, that they consider 25 fps "perfectly fine"? no crytek: sub-hd visuals with a terrible framerate is not fine, no matter what unseen graphical effects you managed on the consoles.

bububu, subsurface scattering, chromatic aberration, bokeh dof, light shafts, lens flares.... We need these things so that people dont focus on the fact that the encounters are boring, the level design is set up to showcase the engine instead of being fun, and that most of the mechanics are still clunky and poorly designed, just like in the first crysis.

If the game ran at 60 fps, people would be fustrated at the game, and they wouldn't have the "underpowered" argument to try and make it seem like its somehow not their fault. People who blame the hardware are like artists who blame the pencil, or photographers that blame the lights.
Last edited by les papillons sexuels; 03-02-2013 at 11:21 AM.
Perkel
Banned
(03-02-2013, 11:14 AM)

Originally Posted by gofreak

Rendering foliage seems really problematic. Not just for Crytek, but I mean in general. Always seems to drag down a final result.

I can't help but look at these screens and be put off.

In fact, a number of things about the screens are offputting. Maybe it all comes together better when playing.

Well look at Crysis 1 which renders ton of foliage. Crysis 1 on my hardware runs worse than Crysis 2 simply because there are far more things on screen at any given time.
omonimo
Member
(03-02-2013, 11:15 AM)
omonimo's Avatar

Originally Posted by gofreak

Rendering foliage seems really problematic. Not just for Crytek, but I mean in general. Always seems to drag down a final result.

I can't help but look at these screens and be put off.

In fact, a number of things about the screens are offputting. Maybe it all comes together better when playing.

You mean, is that the main reason why the game appears so terrible in the art design? I beg to differ. Will see how will appears the Last of us, but honestly art level design is just horrible in Crysis 3, no more.
Hypron
Member
(03-02-2013, 11:17 AM)
Hypron's Avatar

Originally Posted by omonimo

You mean, is that the main reason why the game appears so terrible in the art design? I beg to differ. Will see how will appears the Last of us, but honestly art level design is just horrible in Crysis 3, no more.

I feel like I'm living on an other planet sometimes.
CadetMahoney
Banned
(03-02-2013, 11:17 AM)
CadetMahoney's Avatar

Originally Posted by S1kkZ

Sub-hd visuals with a terrible framerate is not fine

Never was never will be. Shame screenshots and 20fps gifs will never communicate such important information.
gofreak
GAF's Bob Woodward
(03-02-2013, 11:17 AM)
gofreak's Avatar

Originally Posted by Perkel

Well look at Crysis 1 which renders ton of foliage. Crysis 1 on my hardware runs worse than Crysis 2 simply because there are far more things on screen at any given time.

I don't mean from a perf point of view. I mean it just looks wrong, in these screens anyway.

Of course, I am sitting here analysing screenshots, I know in a game you're not doing that. Just wish someone could come up with a nicer and equally efficient way to do leaves/grass than aliased billboards :)
Reiko
Banned
(03-02-2013, 11:18 AM)

Originally Posted by omonimo

You mean, is that the main reason why the game appears so terrible in the art design? I beg to differ. Will see how will appears the Last of us, but honestly art level design is just horrible in Crysis 3, no more.

Art design is subjective. Not everyone finds the art style terrible.

It's passable to pretty good for me.
velociraptor
Junior Member
(03-02-2013, 11:18 AM)
velociraptor's Avatar
I played the PS3 beta and it looked awful. Looks great on the PC, but Crysis 2 impressed me more to be honest.
omonimo
Member
(03-02-2013, 11:18 AM)
omonimo's Avatar

Originally Posted by Hypron

I feel like I'm living on an other planet sometimes.

Could be, with all respect. I never seen a game so uninspired from awhile.
Mogwai
Member
(03-02-2013, 11:21 AM)
Mogwai's Avatar
It's fine and all to show some screenshots. But the one key improvement on PC over consoles is the fluidity of the game.

The textures on the console versions look pretty great, but that's all.
omonimo
Member
(03-02-2013, 11:21 AM)
omonimo's Avatar

Originally Posted by Reiko

Art design is subjective. Not everyone finds the art style terrible.

It's passable to pretty good for me.

Not at all. I can post some beyond3d quote forum about the terrible art design of this game from different developers. I don't work in this sector, but if my opinion concur with someone who work there, I imagine I'm not that wrong. I can use how example Halo 4, don't give me the same bad feeling.
Reiko
Banned
(03-02-2013, 11:23 AM)

Originally Posted by omonimo

Not at all. I can post some beyond3d quote forum about the terrible art design of this game from different developers. I don't work in this sector, but if my opinion concur with someone in who work there, I imagine I'm not that wrong.

I'm an artist, and I'm critical about my work and others. The game sets out for what it wants to do.

There are somethings I like I about the art design in Crysis 3, and some things I don't like.

There are also some things I like about TLOU's art design, and somethings I do not like from seeing the previews.
Hypron
Member
(03-02-2013, 11:24 AM)
Hypron's Avatar
Can people stop using art design? It doesn't mean anything. Either say "art and design" or just one of the two.
scently
Member
(03-02-2013, 11:24 AM)
scently's Avatar
I do hope they release a trilogy of the series on next gen consoles, at 1080p, 60fps if possible, if not 30fps. Would be next to play these games properly.
Eideka
Banned
(03-02-2013, 11:24 AM)
Wow at the gap between the PC and consoles. O_O

I expected the 360/PS3 versions to be a little closer.
les papillons sexuels
Banned
(03-02-2013, 11:25 AM)

Originally Posted by Reiko

Art design is subjective. Not everyone finds the art style terrible.

It's passable to pretty good for me.

Art isn't as subjective as people say. If that were the case then there'd be no point in making art. There are very evident levels of objectivity in art and design, if a tree doesn't look like a tree, then objectively it's a poor representation of a tree, regardless of the context.

Personally I dont mind the way crysis looks from a visual standpoint, but from a game standpoint I despise the way it looks. The videogame medium needs to play to its stengths visually, and those should derive from gameplay, the fundemental feature of games. Otherwise you get experiences that don't really benefit the game and graphics that actually hinder a game.

And yes, I'm an artist too.
Last edited by les papillons sexuels; 03-02-2013 at 11:27 AM.
KKRT00
Member
(03-02-2013, 11:25 AM)
KKRT00's Avatar

Originally Posted by Perkel

Well look at Crysis 1 which renders ton of foliage. Crysis 1 on my hardware runs worse than Crysis 2 simply because there are far more things on screen at any given time.

No, because Crysis 1 is unoptimized mess in comparison, for example it doesnt support more that two cores or ssao in Crysis 2 cost 1/10 of ssao from Crysis 1 even though it looks better, and that goes for almost every feature in the engine.

--
I dont like the guy who wrote that article now, because he skipped again tons of features. Why havent he wrote anything about particles? This game has the most advanced particles implementation in games to date and many of those features are on console [wind physics], what about foliage physics? What about cloud shadows? What about real-time reflections on consoles?
Jesus, a week of waiting for something like this ...
Last edited by KKRT00; 03-02-2013 at 11:34 AM.
Reiko
Banned
(03-02-2013, 11:25 AM)

Originally Posted by Hypron

Can people stop using art design? It doesn't mean anything. Either say "art and design" or just one of the two.


The fusion comes from the concept art and designing the play area around it.
angular graphics
Member
(03-02-2013, 11:25 AM)
angular graphics's Avatar

Originally Posted by omonimo

Not at all. I can post some beyond3d quote forum about the terrible art design of this game from different developers. I don't work in this sector, but if my opinion concur with someone who work there, I imagine I'm not that wrong. I can use how example Halo 4, don't give me the same bad feeling.

Is this a joke? Quite a few developers also seem to think 30 fps is awesome and excessive blur and bloom is amazing. I'll judge aesthetics on my own, thanks :P
Reiko
Banned
(03-02-2013, 11:30 AM)

Originally Posted by les papillons sexuels

Art isn't as subjective as people say. If that were the case then there'd be no point in making art. There are very evident levels of objectivity in art and design, if a tree doesn't look like a tree, then objectively it's a poor representation of a tree, regardless of the context.

Personally I dont mind the way crysis looks from a visual standpoint, but from a game standpoint I despise the way it looks. The videogame medium needs to play to its stengths visually, and those should derive from gameplay, the fundemental feature of games. Otherwise you get experiences that don't really benefit the game and graphics that actually hinder a game.

And yes, I'm an artist too.


You have to remember that the Crysis games exist as showcase titles to sell the graphical aspects of CryEngine3 to future developers.

So it has to be part technical showcase, and part game. Well Crytek pushed more technical showcase than game this time around.
Biggzy
Member
(03-02-2013, 11:31 AM)
Biggzy's Avatar

Originally Posted by Eideka

Wow at the gap between the PC and consoles. O_O

I expected the 360/PS3 versions to be a little closer.

The GPUs we have today are way beyond what the 360/PS3 have.
Shadow of the BEAST
Banned
(03-02-2013, 11:34 AM)
Shadow of the BEAST's Avatar

Originally Posted by Des0lar

Are we looking at the same screenshots?

I guess so.

I think they are pretty close.

Thread Tools