-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
DF Face-Off: Far Cry 3
- Thread starter NBtoaster
- Start date
To be fair, Far Cry 3 is actually an open world game while Crysis was not.
Crysis had very poor AA implementation and plenty of its own issues to deal with as well.
Hey, here's one for the PS3 only owners:
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/161291
It seems the PS3 version at the very least, has anisotropic filtering.
edit: had the wrong one
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/161291
It seems the PS3 version at the very least, has anisotropic filtering.
edit: had the wrong one
Phonomezer
Banned
Sudden deforestation! PS3 seems to have issues rendering trees and foliage in a number of games. What an eco-terrorist.
fixed
The only games which have run flawlessly are genreally exclusives like halo 4 and horizon
Check the edit
HollovVpo1nt
Banned
Didn't Crysis 1 have a similair performance on consoles? I remember it looking more impressive than FC3 though.
The shadowing is impressive for an open world game.
alexandros
Banned
Dear God, the console versions look terrible in terms of image quality. The loss of detail is simply staggering.
Yeah if you look at the patch of ground just above the monkey in the OP's screens, you can clearly see how much better it looks on PS3 compared to 360. No AF is basically indefensible, it completely ruins the graphics of most games. One of the settings that matter most.
Absolutely.
This has always been a trait of western developers, for better or for worse. They attempt to push things without taking performance into consideration. Hitting a stable framerate requires a lot of work on the part of everyone, but it really should be given a priority.
The shadow dithering is disgusting beyond words.
But I guess if you sit further away from your TV those graphical issues are solved.
On a technical level maybe (but barely when both games are on highest settings). But on an artistic level and sheer gameworld scale level, FC3 knocks Crysis out of the ball park completely.
And lets not forget, Crysis was designed purely to stress high end PC hardware at the time. FC3 was designed to run on 7 year old console hardware. I'm sure if Ubisoft had set out to fully utilise highest end PC hardware TODAY it would look significantly better =0) I think they have done an awesome job all things considered.
Crysis DOES have much nicer water shaders though. No argument there.
The shadow dithering is disgusting beyond words.
But I guess if you sit further away from your TV those graphical issues are solved.
:v
Looks better if you sit away
but still FC3 does look bad atlleast AC 3 looked better
Majmun
Member
AuthenticM
Member
wtf, was Far Cry 2 really this brown all the time ?
Phew, we're saved !
On consoles ? I don't think so, both FC 3 and AC3 suffer heavily from framerate issues.
It's not perfect on PC either but AC3 runs perfectly on my rig, 1080p/40-60fps is a immense relief after playing the PS3 version.
Yep, we need new consoles.
The fourth comparison demonstrates a dramatic loss of AF in the X360 version
Well that looks nice.
Yes. It was always very brown and full of muddy looking textures.
Performance wise both sucks.
Graphically AC 3 looks better.
But TBH Yeah we need new console and hopefully most next big ubisoft will be on them
grimshawish
Banned
Expected this from the Giant Bomb QL - looked kinda horrible.
Gen is pushing it.
Don't worry it'll be on WiiU as wel-
What? Whats wrong gaf? GAF? GAF?!
I might get a new PC when Watch Dogs comes out. Poor new gen; your pushing it too late.
Gen is pushing it.
Don't worry it'll be on WiiU as wel-
What? Whats wrong gaf? GAF? GAF?!
I might get a new PC when Watch Dogs comes out. Poor new gen; your pushing it too late.
It will be bad obviously [i believe its a cross gen game anyways], so pretty much all cross gen game will have terrible version 360/ps3 version
It's confirmed to land on PS3/360 by Ubisoft.
This, we definitely need new hardware but blaming the pure frame-rate on the consoles alone is laughable...performance must be the number one priority especially in a FPS game - instead they kept the SSAO, they went with MSAA instead of FXAA and choose to keep the resolution close to 720p instead of dropping it or use dynamic resolution which should help a lot with the performance.
The game sounds fun and all but with a frame-rate as shitty as this I simply won't bother with the game at all.
All three in one, PS3, 360, PC:
Look like a different game. A generation apart.
legacyzero
Banned
Yep. I've all but stopped playing mine because of it.
Combichristoffersen
Combovers don't work when there is no hair
Not surprising, a guy involved with the game basically admitted the console versions are shite.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
The PS360 versions of Watch_Dogs are going to be so, so bad. Like SNES Doom or Xbox HL2.
banjoted
Member
I got this initially on PS3 and I have to say it's the first console game I've ever played where I felt the performance was so poor I couldn't deal with it. Shocking framerate, appalling tearing - and I'm not normally one to worry about that sort of stuff. Got it on PC now and it's so much better - and my rig is nothing special.
I thoroughly disagree
Steve McQueen
Member
Got the 360 version this morning. My PC sucks monkeyass, so can't play it on that.
Getting a bit tired of the comments that the PC version is the best. Sure it is. You can't compare 7 year old tech to a PC nowadays. So...yes...all PC people that play this game are right: The best version is the PC version. You've made your point. Now please carry on.
Getting a bit tired of the comments that the PC version is the best. Sure it is. You can't compare 7 year old tech to a PC nowadays. So...yes...all PC people that play this game are right: The best version is the PC version. You've made your point. Now please carry on.
banjoted
Member
The point isn't that the PC version is best - that's a given. The concern is that, for the first time IMO (haven't played ACIII), the console versions are of an unacceptable quality.
Take Battlefield 3, for example. PC version obviously miles ahead by the console versions were technically both very competent. I honestly don't think you can say that of FC3. As I said, it's the first console game ever I've felt unable to play due to technical concerns. Real shame.
Take Battlefield 3, for example. PC version obviously miles ahead by the console versions were technically both very competent. I honestly don't think you can say that of FC3. As I said, it's the first console game ever I've felt unable to play due to technical concerns. Real shame.
Think about what you're saying.
The game is screen tearing at 25fps. The game even drops to the teens.
grimshawish
Banned
What else do you want people to say?
Come into these threads - thats what your going to get.
Is it that bad? I can see these issues causing a lot of problems in an open world game. There always 'there' so to speak. It'd get tiring trying to ignore them and compensate for them.
Poor frame rates offend me, but screen tearing brings murder to mind.