• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

DF Face-Off: Far Cry 3

NBtoaster

Member
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-far-cry-3-face-off

360 version: 1280x704, black borders top and bottom
PS3 version: 1274x702, black borders all around

Both use MSAA.

PS3_021.png

360_021.png


Performance is terrible on both PS3 and 360:
Travelling around the islands by either foot or car still gives us wavering readings on both consoles, mostly circulating around the 25FPS point. This is usually a little higher on 360, though the juddering sensation feels largely comparable between the two at these levels of refresh.

Rather than being subtly marginalised to the top of each console's output, each frame is constantly under threat of being torn directly through the middle when the hardware is stressed. This becomes a major blemish on both PS3 and 360 alike when charging through jungles, or indoor areas with high ornamental detail, which sadly comprises most of the game. The issue is only amplified by having the game set in a colourful world where such artefacts are easier for the eye to pick out.

Whether you're running, driving or zip-lining through the jungle, both platforms constantly give in to full-screen tearing which greatly impacts the clarity of the image. If you have a gaming PC, that version comes highly recommended.

Battle and hunting sequences give us some notable lows in performance, where during one outpost explosion we see the frame rate plummet down to 15FPS on PS3, and 18FPS on 360. The general flow of battle is generally better than this may suggest, but it's rare to see either platform hold a stable 30FPS - and the 360 usually takes the higher ground.

fc3ejkxi.jpg


Beware of PS3 shadowing as well:

 
Oh, that dithering.

Considering the complexity, scope and detail. Quite impressive multiplat.
 
New generation consoles cannot come soon enough.

If any, Ubi has shown with both ACIII and FC3 that they've hit the limit of what is possible with the current generation consoles. Which is perfectly understandable though, considering the scope of both games it is a miracle they even run at all.
 
From what I can see PS3 has better foliage, 360 has better shadows. Both run at +/- 25 fps.

I'm always amazed about people mentioning PC in these kind of threads. How is it not common sense that a capable PC can produce better IQ?
 
They should have dropped MSAA and gone for FXAA-like filtering, perhaps they could have got closer to a 30fps cap. Speculating of course...
 
The lower resolution of the PS3 version, at least horizontally, strikes me as wholly unnecessary considering the meagre resolution difference and the fact the game tends to run below 30fps anyway. Giving the game a letterbox display just adds insult to injury.
 
Devs are reaaaaally pushing this old hardware beyond the performance limit I'm comfortable with. After watching some X360 footage I'm surprised it even averages 25 fps. It came to an utter crawl constantly (10-20 range).
 
From what I can see PS3 has better foliage, 360 has better shadows. Both run at +/- 25 fps.

I'm always amazed about people mentioning PC in these kind of threads. How is it not common sense that a capable PC can produce better IQ?

Foilage is the same resolution from what i can see difference is probably from the 360 fucked up gamma curve.

Shadows are a world of difference.
 
New generation consoles cannot come soon enough.

If any, Ubi has shown with both ACIII and FC3 that they've hit the limit of what is possible with the current generation consoles. Which is perfectly understandable though, considering the scope of both games it is a miracle they even run at all.
Honestly people are talking about rising dev costs, but just give me something of the PC's level of fidelity and we're good.
 
PC version really looks quite incredible compared to the consoles.

Seems like GTA5 is the last hope for a open world game that runs well.

RDR and Just Cause 2 were the last ones from what I remember.

Saints Row ran well, and it looked nice as I recall.

I have no doubt GTA will run well.... right?
 
I'm surprised they used MSAA if they couldn't reach 30FPS, although I'm not a tech expert and other factors were probably involved.

Another nail in the coffin of the "we don't need new consoles" argument.
 
The console versions come very close, good job Ubi.

But which version offers the best experience? Alas, abundant full-screen tearing does much to curtail the look of an otherwise gorgeously designed game on console platforms, for which both PS3 and 360 are guilty to equal degrees. Frame-rate is also a big drag too, and we'd hoped for better than the 20-30FPS fluctuations we're getting from both platforms during gunplay - though 360 fares slightly better here overall. There are stability issues with the PC release too but given the right hardware specs this is undeniably the road to take for a tear-free experience.

Huh.
 
Considering Crysis came out 5 years ago and still looks better, all 3 versions look terrible.

Comparison (last is Far Cry 2):

iwI9z80aYHV2i.png

ibkdmwWTLohzUF.png

itJm2WqGYx0Pj.png


It's not that much better in a jungle setting. But the water and characters are much much better in Crysis, and has more destructability.
 
It's not that much better in a jungle setting. But the water and characters are much much better in Crysis.

And the LoD switching, textures, a lot of the vegetation, the DoF, rubbish distant blur mask, AA implementation etc. speaks against FC3.

FC3 has so many problems.
 
Crysis, still the most technically impressive FPS regardless of platforms so many years after its release.

Amazing.

Edit : Hum, Crysis 2 DX11 tops it though.
 
FC3 looks more visually appealing to me than C1 because of the artstyle and bright colors despite the small technical niggles.
 
Top Bottom