I believe the PC shots are on low settings. Or at least they look nowhere near as good as in the high res screenshot thread.
-
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.
[DF] Demo showdown: Crysis 3 multiplayer beta. A "cinematic" feast for the eyes?
- Thread starter Reiko
- Start date
I believe the PC shots are on low settings. Or at least they look nowhere near as good as in the high res screenshot thread.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
DF didn't use enough AA. The shots that dmr87 quoted look fine.
alexandros
Banned
Not games like Crysis 3. I have a netbook with low resolution that I play indie games on, doesn't mean I do all my gaming on that.
IIRC it's a comparison of the consoles and the PC on low settings by someone here on NeoGAF. There were a bunch of other shots in the MP beta thread.
shungokusatsu
Member
Finally gave this a try on PC after playing the absolutely disgusting looking PS3 version and the game is stunning maxed out. I've never been a fan of the art style though. If you watch the 7 wonders trailers, the art direction is a mess and half the time you can't tell wtf is going on due to it.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Pnuembra on shadows is automatically calculated and handled by Cryengine 3 based on the strength of the light, distance of the object from the light and the angle. Artists are not needed which makes sense since...well lights and how they work are mathematical, an artist will never be more accurate than a computer at something like that. However artistic direction can take precedence over clinical accuracy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=MSgJIbtRZ7s#t=831s
AgentOtaku
Member
I still can't over how horrid the PS3 version looks
My mouthed literally gaped open when I booted up the beta.
I love Crytek and wanted to believe in the PS3 skus of the Crysis series but as I said in another thread, they ranged from merely okay (Crysis2) to ghastly (Cry1 and 3)
My mouthed literally gaped open when I booted up the beta.
I love Crytek and wanted to believe in the PS3 skus of the Crysis series but as I said in another thread, they ranged from merely okay (Crysis2) to ghastly (Cry1 and 3)
nelsonroyale
Member
Looks pretty poor on consoles...Might wait for the next gen version
Chaos Theory
Banned
aside from the 60fps. if this is what i am going to exepct in terms of difference between PS3 and PS4, then i am going to be one sad panda :/
to me, the difference isnt as big as say.. ps2 to ps3 or psx to ps2. kinda lame.
i hope we get better graphics than this on ps4/durango
Guerrillas in the Mist
Member
The lack of AF REALLY hurts the console versions.
That's the bane of most console games... Halo 4 also looks really muddy because of this...
The price of a rig running crysis 3 maxed at 1080p60 is laughable. But yes. Wouldn't call it a generational leap though...
AgentOtaku
Member
For me it's the lack of motionblur
Shit CARRIED Crysis visuals sooo damn much
You don't like "cinematic" experience?
To quote the Shakespeare of our time : Dost thou eat shite?
Barring the haphazard composition of the screens - if this doesn't count as generational leap then I don't even know what would constitute a generational leap.
That's a generational leap, but what is the rendered res? Looks like 1800p+. A lot more than what a vast majority of rigs could run at 30fps.
Does not make it any less generational.
Windom Earle
Member
Crytek is a joke to me at this point. Their CEO keeps running his mouth while not delivering on the games. Better go free to play soon, I won't miss you...
The art direction of this game looks very bland and the dudebro factor is through the roof. Keep chasing that COD money.
The console versions obviously look and run like crap. For PC Crytek is just checking boxes while forgetting to actually implement those effects properly so they can shine. Once again modders will have to fix this. It doesn't help that the game is poorly optimized, it doesn't even hold a steady 60 fps on high with a GTX680. The end result does not warrant this performance, BF3 looks and runs much better.
Also no FOV option? "Hold X button to skip" on PC again?
And the gameplay? Reserving my judgement, but we know the route Crytek has taken...
The art direction of this game looks very bland and the dudebro factor is through the roof. Keep chasing that COD money.
The console versions obviously look and run like crap. For PC Crytek is just checking boxes while forgetting to actually implement those effects properly so they can shine. Once again modders will have to fix this. It doesn't help that the game is poorly optimized, it doesn't even hold a steady 60 fps on high with a GTX680. The end result does not warrant this performance, BF3 looks and runs much better.
Also no FOV option? "Hold X button to skip" on PC again?
And the gameplay? Reserving my judgement, but we know the route Crytek has taken...
Halo 4 is less tech advanced game. Thats the problem with Crytek games on current gen consoles, they dont have balance between tech and art like other developers and thats why theirs game suffer. They were to ambitious and it bit them into the ass, but i'm not complaining because PC will finally get next-gen game.
HollovVpo1nt
Banned
Not lame, realiatic. The reason that the jump from PS2 to PS3/ Xbox to 360 looks huge is because of the imoroved geometry complexity and character models. Character models in the PS2 era didn't look real, geometry wise, because you could point out the polygons. Current gen, the details has increased on everything, enough to make it look real, geometry wise. I expect next gen to inprove on the geometry detail rather than geometry itself.
Just throwing out a data point directly related to the post I quoted. Does steam break it down by game anywhere?
COD money? Are You serious?
Best optimized game to date is now poorly optimized game. Most advanced real-time technology is now checking boxes, what am i reading here?
I have steady 60fps on my 560, what are You talking about?
Windom Earle
Member
Totally serious. And I want your magic 560ti.
I agree the mp looks like MP level of KZ3 in high res.
Its GTX 560, i've made a mistake in post.
Here's proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOZC49SM8DI\
Now You proof anything You said in earlier post.
LabouredSubterfuge
Member
This looks suspiciously like a game designed for PC and down ported for consoles, as opposed to the other way round.
SneakyStephan
Banned
I didn't know the MP was made by a different studio.
That would explain why all the shots and videos from it look like garbage and why I've seen a few pleasing SP screenshots.
also: seems like I'm not alone in thinking the art looks bad
Thankfully the graphics settings in pc games are never a single 'toggle graphics ON/OF' button.
If you turn off MSAA (does it even support it btw?), per object motion blur and choose a less fancy AO mode you'll gain a lot of performance while you can retain all the other settings.
Also prices for gpu go up exponentially for high end stuff, there is slightly less powerful stuff at much lower prices.
e.g hd 7850 = 150 euros, gtx 680 =475 euros (lol), the latter may be three times more expensive but is less than twice as fast.
So you are saying that you have absolutly everything maxed out (including 32xAA?) and have 60 fps with an 560gtx on 1080p? uhm yeah give me your gpu
Where did he say that?
Windom Earle
Member
lol, what does this prove? Those seem to be shitty settings @720p
Also look at the DF article, the 7870 has more power than your 560ti but has bad performance.
Also have a look at this thread please: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=510389
Besides this, everything else I have said is my opinion of course, but you have not delivered any counterpoints. Crytek games tend to be badly optimized and only modders bring out the true beauty of the games. They push a lot of effects, but don't showcase them properly and the art is bland. Checking boxes.
C2 took a lot of inspiration from COD, don't you agree?
Exactly.
Oh thanks, I thought you needed to mess around in config files for it.
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
I wish I had my new rig up when the beta was on. I just finished my setup a few days back with SLI 670's and I would have loved to try this at 1080p on my new IPS monitor.
Anything out there showing performance on 670's or 680's?
Anything out there showing performance on 670's or 680's?
Not really, its all relative.
Trickster
Member
That's a bad argument, saying it's all relative, we might as well not bother discussing graphics ever again, it's all relative afterall.
Metroid-Squadron
Banned
As it's always the case, if you can't argue against the technology, talk about "bad art". Completely subjective and no need to prove anything.
Not talking about the console versions, obviously.
Not talking about the console versions, obviously.
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
Pretty sure it didn't but I missed out on trying it with SLI 670's but if you can run it at a decent fps then I won't worry too much on SLI.
So You havent even played it, nice. I've been in Alpha and played beta and those arent shitty settings, those are very high and high settings, yes in 720p, because my monitor has 1280x1024 native res, but i can play on High settings in my native resolution in 60fps without a problem. Maldo does even play in 60fps in 2880x1800 on High Settings with SSDO on [http://maldotex.blogspot.com/2013/01/crysis-3-mp-beta.html]
What Crytek games? We are talking about CryEngine 3 and both games released on this engine are optimized to ground [Crysis 2 and Warface]
You dont like art, fine but its not checking boxes. Read any of theirs presentations, use SDK or watch some videos from GDC, because You clearly dont have any real knowledge about CE and Crytek's engines standards.
And no, they havent got inspirations from COD, but You would know that if You would play any of their games.
Windom Earle
Member
What makes you think that I haven't played it? I have tried the game on various settings on my GTX680 and a locked 60fps with V-Sync is impossible to achieve on high with high SMAA and Vsync. 1080p or more of course, peasant resolutions don't count. My performance is in line with this when I use identical settings: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYQc94C7aUI
Of course this guy has Vsync off and is downsampling, but it should give you a ballpark estimate how much this game makes a GTX680 choke. Your 560 should burn already at those settings.
Your link to Maldo's settings does not work btw. Maybe he is using SLI Keplers?
I see Crysis 3 and it's not optimized for what it's doing. Maybe the final game will be better, who knows... C2 probably ran decent when it came out, as Crytek couldn't be bothered to release the DX11 version on time, so PC gamers had to deal with an up-port of the 360 version. C1 was also badly optimized of course.
C2 started copying COD multiplayer and the campaign lost scope and increased in dudebro factor.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
Crysis 2 (and 3) feel more like FEAR than CoD. Not that anyone here has played FEAR's multiplayer.
The Cry3 beta seems CPU limited on my rig. Not sure which setting is causing it either. Running with 5850s and an i5-750.
The Cry3 beta seems CPU limited on my rig. Not sure which setting is causing it either. Running with 5850s and an i5-750.
The art is great, as far as generic FPS games go.
Slight tangent but Maldo's finished texture pack for Crysis 2 has finally come out, it's very pretty, and fixes alot of the art problems that people seem to have with Crytek's newer games of poor visual cohesion.
http://maldotex.blogspot.com.au/
http://maldotex.blogspot.com.au/