Man, even the PC shots look rough. The MP just doesn't look so hot.
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.
Man, even the PC shots look rough. The MP just doesn't look so hot.
DF didn't use enough AA. The shots that dmr87 quoted look fine.Man, even the PC shots look rough. The MP just doesn't look so hot.
~ 25 or 30% on PC play at 720p or lower based on the steam hardware stats page.
DF didn't use enough AA. The shots that dmr87 quoted look fine.
It isn't. Crunching number doesn't magically create the settings in the engine, It is the artist's knowledge of light what makes it look accurate.
And the 200 dollar pencil analogy doesn't work, even if it made sense (stamps fit much nicely), because it is also Crytek who manufactures the pencils. Unless we are dividing the company into its different studios, but I don't recall if it other than Crytek Frankfurt who makes the multiplayer. Nonetheless, in your previous post it didn't seem like you were specifically talking about the multiplayer.
Thanks EatChildren. Add to that, locked 60 fps/higher res.
The lack of AF REALLY hurts the console versions.
The price of a rig running crysis 3 maxed at 1080p60 is laughable. But yes. Wouldn't call it a generational leap though...If you're comparing it to that low setting pc crysis 3 pic then maybe
but on full blown very high vs the consoles it's fucking laughable.
The lack of AF REALLY hurts the console versions.
That 24fps feel.
Consoles versions look good to me. But maybe its because i'm not over obsessed graphics whore.
Wouldn't call it a generational leap though...
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.
Lol, Cevat Yerli is such a liar. Halo 4 looks better than that garbage.
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
I'm going to take a blind guess and say these people are probably not the ones playing the latest releases. They're probably the ones still playing CS for example.
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.
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...
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 560Ti, what are You talking about?
Man, even the PC shots look rough. The MP just doesn't look so hot.
Totally serious. And I want your magic 560ti.
It isn't. Crunching number doesn't magically create the settings in the engine, It is the artist's knowledge of light what makes it look accurate.
And the 200 dollar pencil analogy doesn't work, even if it made sense (stamps fit much nicely), because it is also Crytek who manufactures the pencils. Unless we are dividing the company into its different studios, but I don't recall if it other than Crytek Frankfurt who makes the multiplayer. Nonetheless, in your previous post it didn't seem like you were specifically talking about the multiplayer.
The price of a rig running crysis 3 maxed at 1080p60 is laughable. But yes. Wouldn't call it a generational leap though...
I'm going to take a blind guess and say these people are probably not the ones playing the latest releases. They're probably the ones still playing CS for example.
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.
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
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.
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
There is a FOV option schenmu, but you need to start a match to access it.
They should look bad to anyone with eyes, really.
Not really, its all relative.
Huh? I could run C3 Alpha at 1080p in Ultra settings at an unstable 60 (would drop to 40 or less sometimes) with a 670GTX. Did something change down the road?
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
What Crytek games? We are talking about CryEngine 3 and both games released on this engine are optimized to ground [Crysis 2 and Warface]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.
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.
2: I'll say it again, this game is aestethically garbage ,they need to hire some artists or something.