Support NeoGAF

[mrklaw]

Ahh, haven't seen one of the "PS3 devs are cheating" posts in some time.

Isn't that the point though? Isn't all optimised games graphics 'cheating'? its not a badge of honour to do things 'properly' but dog slow. Cheat and get the same end result running quickly is called 'optimisation' isn't it?

 

[plagiarize]

Lol, lean and prone are gone? Goodness me.

lean at least is still in there in a fashion. if you stand next to the edge of something you get the option to lean out with the use key (i think it's the use key anyway). saw it in some of 'those videos' on youtube.

 

[bobbytkc]

Isn't that the point though? Isn't all optimised games graphics 'cheating'? its not a badge of honour to do things 'properly' but dog slow. Cheat and get the same end result running quickly is called 'optimisation' isn't it?

To think that programming a graphics engine is anything but that is simply a juvenile way of thinking. ALL of graphics rendering is smoke and mirrors.

 

[plagiarize]

Isn't that the point though? Isn't all optimised games graphics 'cheating'? its not a badge of honour to do things 'properly' but dog slow. Cheat and get the same end result running quickly is called 'optimisation' isn't it?

depends on what we're talking about. if we're talking about which game looks better, take whatever shortcuts you want so long as the end result is pretty. high resolution textures can make a very technically unimpressive game look great for example.

if we're talking about whether or not something is impressive on a technical level though, you have to try and rule out 'art'. doing everything in real time IS technically impressive even if it doesn't always look better than the alternative.

that said i'm in the camp that thinks Crysis 2 isn't as technically impressive as Killzone 3. but then again i think that CryEngine 3 is incredibly impressive as a multiplatform developement platform.

 

[MarkMclovin]

one of the most recent trailers for Crysis 2 showed a lot of that type of thing. just because you CAN play crysis as a straight forward shooter doesn't mean that's all it is. even as a straight forwards shooter, it's up there in quality.

Oh no doubt. But with this being a console release, and not having played Crysis at all, I just can't help but compare to other console shooters currently out there and this just doesn't appeal. Certainly not from the footage so far anyway. And I feel that the MP doesn't have much going for itself but I'll wait for more on that.

I'm going be on the fence with this I think and see what gafs impressions are like.

 

[StuBurns]

Crysis doesn't provide a CoD like scripted experience, at least not that that degree, it gets more narrow in the second half.

If you're the kind of person who hates the Halo gameplay, I don't think Crysis 2 is going to win your heart.

 

[Windom Earle]

Isn't that the point though? Isn't all optimised games graphics 'cheating'? its not a badge of honour to do things 'properly' but dog slow. Cheat and get the same end result running quickly is called 'optimisation' isn't it?

Of course. The point is that all devs do it to the best of their knowledge. But lets better not derail the thread with this.

 

[universalmind]

lean at least is still in there in a fashion. if you stand next to the edge of something you get the option to lean out with the use key (i think it's the use key anyway). saw it in some of 'those videos' on youtube.

That's gross.

 

[sajj316]

In watching the video, the game play looked "smooth" although its hard to tell what frame rate its running at. I would take the 1024x768 resolution if it ran at 30 fps w/o a hitch.

 

[StuBurns]

1024x720 you mean.

Vanquish is the same, is very smooth 30fps and no screentear and I think it looks really great. Although it doesn't have tempAA.

 

[Corky]

1024x720 you mean.

Vanquish is the same, is very smooth 30fps and no screentear and I think it looks really great. Although it doesn't have tempAA.

wow really? I just bought vanquish and I think it feels like a blurry mess running at 10fps. I cannot comprehend that vanquish and games like uncharted 2 are supposed to be running at the same framerate.

 

[StuBurns]

wow really? I just bought vanquish and I think it feels like a blurry mess running at 10fps. I cannot comprehend that vanquish and games like uncharted 2 are supposed to be running at the same framerate.

I believe the performance is a little weaker on 360, it's not vsync'd there either, so maybe it's that, but the PS3 version is pretty much 30 yeah. Uncharted 2 has a nice motion blur that really helps with that perception of fluidity, longer more natural animations too.

There's a lot outside of the actual framerate that can impact that sense of motion.

 

[Jonsoncao]

I believe the performance is a little weaker on 360, it's not vsync'd there either, so maybe it's that, but the PS3 version is pretty much 30 yeah. Uncharted 2 has a nice motion blur that really helps with that perception of fluidity, longer more natural animations too.

There's a lot outside of the actual framerate that can impact that sense of motion.

Uncharted 2 has v-sync but the side effect is atrocious input lag

no MW2 level fluidity

 

[StuBurns]

Uncharted 2 has v-sync but the side effect is atrocious input lag

no MW2 level fluidity

MW2 has v-sync.

Uncharted 2 isn't anywhere near as crisp as MW2, that's true, but v-sync isn't at fault.

 

[JaseC]

Uncharted 2 has v-sync but the side effect is atrocious input lag

no MW2 level fluidity

133ms isn't "atrocious".

 

[sTaTIx]

In all fairness, I believe that the CryEngine 3.0 is just as advanced as, if not more feature-packed than, the Killzone 3 engine.

However, based on everything we've seen, Crysis 2 (on consoles) is a far less polished game than Killzone 3. Crysis 2 on runs at sub-HD on both the PS3 and 360, has a terribly inconsistent framerate that drops to ~15 fps on many occasions, a lot of aliasing issues, and SEVERE pop-in. KZ3, on the other hand, runs at a mostly smooth 30 fps, is full 1280x720p, has amazing MLAA, and is overall a much more polished and smooth presentation.

Obviously, the CryEngine 3.0 tech still has a lot of maturing to do on the consoles. I'm impressed that they're able to pull off a lot of graphical features, such as object-based motion blur, real-time radiosity (I think), and dynamic shadows/lighting, in a multiplatform engine and game... but the overall result is too messy/raw, all things considered.

 

[iam220]

133ms isn't "atrocious".

Jesus. I would not accept 133 as network lag let alone input lag ...

 

[plagiarize]

133ms isn't "atrocious".

it's a matter of opinion.

that's only 17 ms quicker than Kinect sports.

personally the input lag in GTA4 and KZ2 (at launch) didn't bother me... but it bothers others.

 

[sTaTIx]

Jesus. I would not accept 133 as network lag let alone input lag ...

Well, you'd better get used to it, or quit playing any game except COD from now on, because nearly every 30-fps game that gets released has input lag that hovers around that mark.

 

[plagiarize]

MW2 has v-sync.

and higher framerate, which reduces the input lag.

 

[StuBurns]

You can get about 100ms on a 30fps game, Uncharted 2 is pretty laggy, it doesn't feel crisp.

MW is about 70, some times lower, for reference.

Burnout Paradise is like 50 at it's best.

 

[iam220]

Well, you'd better get used to it, or quit playing any game except COD from now on, because nearly every 30-fps game that gets released has input lag that hovers around that mark.

ahem, PC.

 

[nelsonroyale]

In all fairness, I believe that the CryEngine 3.0 is just as advanced as, if not more feature-packed than, the Killzone 3 engine.

However, based on everything we've seen, Crysis 2 (on consoles) is a far less polished game than Killzone 3. Crysis 2 on runs at sub-HD on both the PS3 and 360, has a terribly inconsistent framerate that drops to ~15 fps on many occasions, a lot of aliasing issues, and SEVERE pop-in. KZ3, on the other hand, runs at a mostly smooth 30 fps, is full 1280x720p, has amazing MLAA, and is overall a much more polished and smooth presentation.

Obviously, the CryEngine 3.0 tech still has a lot of maturing to do on the consoles. I'm impressed that they're able to pull off a lot of graphical features, such as object-based motion blur, real-time radiosity (I think), and dynamic shadows/lighting, in a multiplatform engine and game... but the overall result is too messy/raw, all things considered.

The KZ3 engine is obviously capable of more though as well...just check out the rendered cutscences...they could probably get the game looking like that or better on pc...Whatever engines are capable of, we have to go on what the companies show... If they could up the res, I actually think the game would look in the same league...there is a ton of detail there and the textures like like crysis on High settings, with some custom stuff

 

[sTaTIx]

Well of course, 100 ms is reportedly the best-case scenario for a 30 fps, but your mentioning MW2 or COD is irrelevant, as those games run at higher that 30 fps. 133 ms (if that figure is even true) is not that far off from 100% ideal, considering that Uncharted 2 is one of the most graphically accomplished games of the generation.

Having played through Uncharted 2 numerous times, I never once noticed any input lag, let alone was bothered by it. And yet Killzone 2 bothered me for a long, long time with its horrendous and significant feeling of input lag, so don't make the claim that I'm just one of those people who "don't notice it."

ahem, PC.

Are people thick, or have reading comprehension issues around here? I said 30-fps [capped] games. Obvious if you have a PC capable of running a game higher than 30 fps, you'll possibly achieve input latency of ~100 ms or below.

The KZ3 engine is obviously capable of more though as well...just check out the rendered cutscences...they could probably get the game looking like that or better on pc...Whatever engines are capable of, we have to go on what the companies show... If they could up the res, I actually think the game would look in the same league...there is a ton of detail there and the textures like like crysis on High settings, with some custom stuff

Crytek would have to up the high-frequency textural detail, up the resolution, smoothen out the framerate, and significantly reduce the noticeability/frequency of pop-in on the console versions of Crysis 2 in order for me to consider them in the same league.

In Killzone 3, the level of up-close textural detail is just insane. You could zoom all the way into a rock or boulder w/ your M82SE or scoped STA-14, and the fine detail texture will still look like a real rock.

 

[JaseC]

Jesus. I would not accept 133 as network lag let alone input lag ...

Generally speaking, a 133ms ping is infinitely more noticeable than 133ms of input lag.

it's a matter of opinion.

that's only 17 ms quicker than Kinect sports.

personally the input lag in GTA4 and KZ2 (at launch) didn't bother me... but it bothers others.

GTAIV is the one game in which I've noticed input lag, due to the wildly varying framerate.

 

[StuBurns]

The KZ3 engine is obviously capable of more though as well...just check out the rendered cutscences...they could probably get the game looking like that or better on pc...Whatever engines are capable of, we have to go on what the companies show... If they could up the res, I actually think the game would look in the same league...there is a ton of detail there and the textures like like crysis on High settings, with some custom stuff

I think the difference is, if you there was a PC version of KZ3 it would still have that inert feel to it, the environment doesn't feel organic. That's the whole focus of Crysis is to provide a world that feels alive, with it's lighting and destructibility etc.

KZ3 at 1080p and 60fps, it would look beautiful but it'd look like a better version of PS3 game, Crysis on PC with the higher settings really looks a world a way from Killzone.

Those are mostly subjective observations, but the focus of the two games is radically different. And although KZ3 looks better on console (to me at least) that's more because Crytek decided to move their vision of what gaming should focus on from PC to consoles without compromise.

Kingdoms is when real comparison can be done, a game that is being built for a console exclusively by Crytek using their engine.

 

[sTaTIx]

Kingdoms is when real comparison can be done, a game that is being built for a console exclusively by Crytek using their engine.

I seriously doubt Crytek will be able to squeeze much more performance out of the 360 than they currently have w/ Crysis 2. They're pulling off a ton of rendering techniques and graphical effects that the 360 normally isn't taxed by in the vast majority of its games; if Project: Kingdoms is to achieve a higher level of perceived visual detail (or performance) than they would need to make SOME sort of compromise--whether that be in the form of decreased physics/AI computations, decreased environmental/polygonal detail or draw distance, or the use of a scripted uncontrollable camera, what have you. My theory is that Crysis 2 was already developed with a heavy focus on the 360 version as a priority, and getting that version to work well, despite Crytek's claims that everything was simultaneously developed and muliplatform focused, with no one version being a port of another.

 

[iam220]

Are people thick, or have reading comprehension issues around here? I said 30-fps [capped] games. Obvious if you have a PC capable of running a game higher than 30 fps, you'll possibly achieve input latency of ~100 ms or below.

:lol did I offend you?

I was responding to your "quit playing any game except COD from now on".

chill brah

 

[StuBurns]

I seriously doubt Crytek will be able to squeeze much more performance out of the 360 than they currently have w/ Crysis 2. They're pulling off a ton of rendering techniques and graphical effects that the 360 normally isn't taxed by in the vast majority of its games; if Project: Kingdoms is to achieve a higher level of perceived visual detail (or performance) than they would need to make SOME sort of compromise--whether that be in the form of decreased physics/AI computations, environmental/polygonal detail or draw distance, a scripted uncontrollable camera, what have you. My theory is that Crysis 2 was already developed with a heavy focus on the 360 version as a priority, and getting that version to work well, despite Crytek's claims that everything was simultaneously developed and muliplatform focused, with no one version being a port of another.

My point, which I guess I really failed to convey, was Crysis 2 is a PC port, Kingdoms won't be.

KZ3 looks better because it was only ever going to be on PS3, they can target exactly what the console can do and design a game around that. Crysis 2 isn't like that at all, but Kingdoms certainly could be.

 

[sTaTIx]

My point, which I guess I really failed to convey, was Crysis 2 is a PC port, Kingdoms won't be.

KZ3 looks better because it was only ever going to be on PS3, they can target exactly what the console can do and design a game around that. Crysis 2 isn't like that at all, but Kingdoms certainly could be.

No, I did understand what you meant to say. Crytek claimed time and time again that Crysis 2 wouldn't be a port, and that there's no lead platform, and that every single version was developed simultaneously. They have video demonstrations of their multiplatform development process, wherein they drag and drop assets into a map, and it updates the code or data on all three versions of the game simultaneously. You can see them on IGN and Gamespot, I believe.

Of course, what developers say is different from what the reality is. Personally, I do believe Crytek when they say all three versions were developed simultaneously. However, I also personally believe that they put the most focus on getting the game to run on the 360 well, first and foremost; they then did what they could to compromise the PS3 version to get it to run at an acceptable framerate. And with the PC, since the engine is scalable, they allowed the PC version to let you tune many of the settings up to 11, for additional fidelity.

Of course, the latter part of what I wrote above is just my personal conjecture, and it may not be true at all.

 

[StuBurns]

No, I did understand what you meant to say. Crytek claimed time and time again that Crysis 2 wouldn't be a port, and that there's no lead platform, and that every single version was developed simultaneously. They have video demonstrations of their multiplatform development process, wherein they drag and drop assets into a map, and it updates the code or data on all three versions of the game simultaneously. You can see them on IGN and Gamespot, I believe.

Of course, what developers say is different from what the reality is. Personally, I do believe Crytek when they say all three versions were developed simultaneously. However, I also personally believe that they put the most focus on getting the game to run on the 360 well, first and foremost; they then did what they could to compromise the PS3 version to get it to run at an acceptable framerate. And with the PC, since the engine is scalable, they allowed the PC version to let you tune many of the settings up to 11, for additional fidelity.

Of course, the latter part of what I wrote above is just my personal conjecture, and it may not be true at all.

I was talking about game design not engine development.

I think it's too early to say what the game will be like on either. The first 'experience' video showed a 360 version with better native resolution but a completely unacceptable framerate, but then the Gamespot thing showed a greatly improved framerate. This video shows a fine framerate with terrible IQ, but the IQ of the video itself is horrible.

I don't think it's clear cut the 360 version is actually any better yet.

Ultimately CryEngine 2 was running on both systems, so for the full development of this game they have had it running on all three SKUs to some degree.

I know some people are disappointed because they talked up the game a lot, and it's not looking like the best looking game on PS3, but it's looks pretty good to me. I played Bulletstorm on PS3 the other day and it's fucking hideous, this looks a lot nicer to me.

 

[Zen]

That's a gross over-simplification.

I'd disagree.

http://www.videogamer.com/news/crytek_magic_prevents_crysis_2_3d_performance_issues.html

There's nothing new about the arguably hacked 3D Approach that Crytek is using. It makes flat popouts of the original render frame, it's no a secret, nor magic, nor something that takes a great deal of time to figure out. It's not like the technique was hidden in a tomb and no one else knows about it, because it's well known.

How well they implement it? Well it's Crytek, but their posturing on the matter was nothing but a load of hot air and misrepresentation.

 

[jackdoe]

I know some people are disappointed because they talked up the game a lot, and it's not looking like the best looking game on PS3, but it's looks pretty good to me. I played Bulletstorm on PS3 the other day and it's fucking hideous, this looks a lot nicer to me.

If the 1024 x 720 resolution is accurate, it's not even looking comparable to the 360 version right now, so that was a lot of hot air. You know, that "it's running a little better on the PS3 right now" comment? Looking back at it now, if it was running better, then why the need to compromise resolution?

Of course, assuming that the 1024 x 720 resolution is accurate. Which it probably may not be due to the shit compression of the footage. And if it isn't, I'm sure there are plenty more niggling issues that prevents console parity and pretty much deflates all of CryTek's boasts.

 

[StuBurns]

If the 1024 x 720 resolution is accurate, it's not even looking comparable to the 360 version right now, so that was a lot of hot air. You know, that "it's running a little better on the PS3 right now" comment? Looking back at it now, if it was running better, then why the need to compromise resolution?

Of course, assuming that the 1024 x 720 resolution is accurate. Which it probably may not be due to the shit compression of the footage. And if it isn't, I'm sure there are plenty more niggling issues that prevents console parity and pretty much deflates all of CryTek's boasts.

1024x720 at the framerate that video is running at is almost certainly a greater fill rate than the 360 beta resolution at the framerate of the last week's experience video.

 

[theignoramus]

Well of course, 100 ms is reportedly the best-case scenario for a 30 fps, but your mentioning MW2 or COD is irrelevant, as those games run at higher that 30 fps. 133 ms (if that figure is even true) is not that far off from 100% ideal, considering that Uncharted 2 is one of the most graphically accomplished games of the generation.

Having played through Uncharted 2 numerous times, I never once noticed any input lag, let alone was bothered by it. And yet Killzone 2 bothered me for a long, long time with its horrendous and significant feeling of input lag, so don't make the claim that I'm just one of those people who "don't notice it."



Are people thick, or have reading comprehension issues around here? I said 30-fps [capped] games. Obvious if you have a PC capable of running a game higher than 30 fps, you'll possibly achieve input latency of ~100 ms or below.


Crytek would have to up the high-frequency textural detail, up the resolution, smoothen out the framerate, and significantly reduce the noticeability/frequency of pop-in on the console versions of Crysis 2 in order for me to consider them in the same league.

In Killzone 3, the level of up-close textural detail is just insane. You could zoom all the way into a rock or boulder w/ your M82SE or scoped STA-14, and the fine detail texture will still look like a real rock.

Criterion worked out a method for extremely low input lag in nfs hot pursuit. (30 frames on consoles) pretty sure its under 100 ms, Digital Foundry has an article about it.

 

[jackdoe]

True. There were a BUNCH of problems with the 360 footage from last week in terms of framerate. But to be fair, that footage was also lighting intensive as opposed to the PS3 footage which had downcast skies.

 

[StuBurns]

True. There were a BUNCH of problems with the 360 footage from last week in terms of framerate. But to be fair, that footage was also lighting intensive as opposed to the PS3 footage which had downcast skies.

Indeed, and my point was just a couple days after that footage came out we got video of the 360 build looking considerably better.

If the PS3 version ends up looking shit, fair enough, rim Crytek for their boosts, I just think till we see more it's a little early for the public stoning.

 

[nelsonroyale]

I think the difference is, if you there was a PC version of KZ3 it would still have that inert feel to it, the environment doesn't feel organic. That's the whole focus of Crysis is to provide a world that feels alive, with it's lighting and destructibility etc.

KZ3 at 1080p and 60fps, it would look beautiful but it'd look like a better version of PS3 game, Crysis on PC with the higher settings really looks a world a way from Killzone.

Those are mostly subjective observations, but the focus of the two games is radically different. And although KZ3 looks better on console (to me at least) that's more because Crytek decided to move their vision of what gaming should focus on from PC to consoles without compromise.

Kingdoms is when real comparison can be done, a game that is being built for a console exclusively by Crytek using their engine.

Don't completely agree...the oppressive atmosphere in KZ2 was much more immersive than anything I felt in Crysis... I actually prefered the gameplay in crysis, but just because the game had a more open world and realistic appearance didnt make it more immersive... KZ2 is a more focused experience.

I believe a KZ2/3 geared towards pc hardware would look as impressive as anything crysis related....

 

[TUROK]

A lot of people who are comparing Killzone 3 to Crysis 2 directly are forgetting that Crysis 2 is Crytek's first console game, while Killzone 3 is Guerilla's second PS3 game, running on the same engine as their first PS3 game, no less.

 

[StuBurns]

A lot of people who are comparing Killzone 3 to Crysis 2 directly are forgetting that Crysis 2 is Crytek's first console game, while Killzone 3 is Guerilla's second PS3 game, running on the same engine as their first PS3 game, no less.

That doesn't matter. GoW3 is the best looking game on PS3 and it's the teams first game.

The debate only exists because Crytek said Crysis 2 would be the best looking game on PS3 and the best looking game on 360. If they didn't make those bold claims no one would care I imagine. The comparisons would exists of course, but to each SKU as appose to platform exclusives.

 

[TUROK]

That doesn't matter. GoW3 is the best looking game on PS3 and it's the teams first game.

This statement means very little in regard to what I'm referring to. Best looking doesn't necessarily mean most technically impressive. Not to mention, they're a first party studio that has access to dev tools a studio like Crytek would not have access to.

 

[jackdoe]

This statement means very little in regard to what I'm referring to. Best looking doesn't necessarily mean most technically impressive. Not to mention, they're a first party studio that has access to dev tools a studio like Crytek would not have access to.

Yeah... I could give a rat's ass if a game is technically impressive but doesn't look aesthetically pleasing. I don't know why you keep pushing that.

 

[StuBurns]

This statement means very little in regard to what I'm referring to. Best looking doesn't necessarily mean most technically impressive. Not to mention, they're a first party studio that has access to dev tools a studio like Crytek would not have access to.

If we can't go based on the visual impact the game has, the alternative is to study at a code level what exactly the pipeline is, and I would imagine there is not a single person who has the source code for both of those games and the time to analysis them on that level.

 

[TUROK]

Yeah... I could give a rat's ass if a game is technically impressive but doesn't look aesthetically pleasing. I don't know why you keep pushing that.

I like to give credit to developers where credit is due. Even then, Crysis 2 on consoles is definitely aesthetically pleasing... Not as much as Killzone 3, but it still looks nice.

If we can't go based on the visual impact the game has, the alternative is to study at a code level what exactly the pipeline is, and I would imagine there is not a single person who has the source code for both of those games and the time to analysis them on that level.

Not exactly. You can look at graphical techniques, CPU usage for physics, AI, or fancy PS3 SPU specific things like post-process AA or polygon culling.

Thankfully, Sony devs tend to give a lot of presentations on how they handle all of that, in excruciating detail.

 

[StuBurns]

Not exactly. You can look at graphical techniques, CPU usage for physics, AI, or fancy PS3 SPU specific things like post-process AA or polygon culling.

Thankfully, Sony devs tend to give a lot of presentations on how they handle all of that, in excruciating detail.

Things like usage don't tell you anything though, it tells you what is being used, but as you don't know how well optimized it is, that's meaningless, you don't know how impressive a technical achievement it is.

 

[TUROK]

Things like usage don't tell you anything though, it tells you what is being used, but as you don't know how well optimized it is, that's meaningless, you don't know how impressive a technical achievement it is.

You can infer it. If a game is using real-time radiosity, or actual ambient occlusion rather than just a screen-space implementation, and the rest of the game looks like ass, you can deduce that it probably isn't well optimized.

Anyways, this has spun off into a tangent. I think Crysis 2 on the PS3 looks nice. Can't wait to see it running on my PS3.

 

[methane47]

PS3 developers do smoke and mirrors very well. I'm not knocking the platform. 512mb RAM on a below average GPU and they can still crank out a good looking games like Killzone 3 is a testament to their talent.

Still...I think people should wait until Crysis 2 ships before they go on about how much better looking Killzone 3 is.

Until we can do ray tracing in real time.. isn't everything somewhat of a smoke & mirror hack to simulate an object or lighting?

 

[Commanche Raisin Toast]

this is WAY better than i was expecting, i had this reply window open and ready to complain, but after watching a few times i'm not actually interested in buying this for PS3 instead of spending money on upgrades.

-the ground textures and..... bumping... or whatever the fuck... looks much better than i thought it would. definitely better than that set of screens from the 360 MP demo. (then again it's MP, so it's not going to have all the bells and whistles of SP) i haven't seen any SP videos from 360 builds but i reckon they're about the same as this at least.

-the muzzle flash on the mounted machine gun the player removed from the mount cuts off abruptly. not sure what causes that but it seemed unnatural. (i don't care if the full flash would obstruct the screen, that's part of what makes wielding a mounted machine gun with your strong nano-arms BAD ASS in the first place)

-are we sure that there's an SP demo coming? i thought only an MP demo for PS3 was confirmed...

 

[sTaTIx]

I agree, Crysis 2 looks pretty impressive for a PS3 multiplatform game. Even though it's not state-of-the-art, or exploiting the PS3 to its fullest potential like Uncharted 2 or KZ3 is, I wouldn't mind if more games utilized this engine (Far Cry 3, I'm looking at you).

The only problem, however, is that there is a TON of polishing that needs to be done. The framerate is inconsistent at best, and the pop-in is some of the worst I've seen in a recent game despite the fact that it's not even an open-world game.

With regard to the sub-HD aspect: Yes, it's running at 1024x720, slightly lower than the 360's 1152x720, but I don't mind the compromise, especially if it significantly improves the performance of the game overall (Riddick Dark Athena, MGS4, and Vanquish all used similar resolutions on the PS3, and they ran very well). I read somewhere on the Beyond3D forums that it's advantageous to use a horizontal resolution of 1024, as it can utilize the PS3's built-in horizontal hardware scaling to save on GPU cycles. I've also read that screen resolutions of 1024x1024 or less (1024x720, for example) is a more optimally-sized framebuffer for use on the PS3's GPU, and thus extra performance is reaped as a result.

So, just like there's a good reason the 360 version is running at sub-HD, there are also several good explanations for why 1024x720 is one of the more optimal resolutions at which to run PS3 games. It's not just a matter of Crytek being desperate for extra frames on the PS3 and chopping off pixels all willy-nilly; it's likely a calculated decision to use a specific resolution that's the most optimal and plays to each console's strengths.

 

[phosphor112]

Indeed, and my point was just a couple days after that footage came out we got video of the 360 build looking considerably better.

If the PS3 version ends up looking shit, fair enough, rim Crytek for their boosts, I just think till we see more it's a little early for the public stoning.

I hope you're right.

It's clear the PS3 is capable of wondrous things, and I hope that Crytek can live up to their comments. It's a shame to see the PS3 version (of any game) run worse than it's counter parts, especially since the PS3 has shown, time and time again, that it is capable of having the best graphics on any console.