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

DF Face-Off: Far Cry 3

Honestly, yes, I think they are that bad. I played it first on Wednesday night and immediately went online to see if concerns had been raised about the PS3 version. Was amazed to find nothing other than here say. Astonished more wasn't made of it in the reviews.

I guess I'm lucky my PC is just about able to run such games. Perhaps without that I might have persisted with the PS3 version but I doubt it. It has a detrimental effect on the gameplay.
 
dark10x said:
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.
Click to expand...

How's this exclusive to western devs? Did you play MGS 4, Dark Souls, Resident Evil 5, or Shadow of the Colossus? Or countless other Japanese games with sub par frame rates.
 
Well, this thread is worrying. I was planning on buying it on PS3 as soon I have some spare cash, but now I'm not sure.

I know nothing about specs. This is just what I'm reading from the sticker on my laptop :P

Intel Core i7 2630QM 2GHz
AMD Radeon HD 6850M
8GB DDR3 Memory

Will I run it okay?
 
Looks like poop on consoles unfortunately. When you get up really high and look over a huge vista it's quite disappointing it doesn't look better.

Everything else is awesome, though. Loving the game to death.
 
I'm disappointed in MS and Sony. Their next-gen consoles are still not among us. Damn it! Far Cry 3 has THE best atmosphere of any open world FPS I have ever played. This game is so good and feels alive!

I'll be honest, Far Cry 3 makes me want to have a monster PC. Too bad it is so ridicules expensive compared to a console.

Please Ubisoft, port this game to the next-gen consoles and I will buy it. As for now I have to do it with the 360 version (not really the superior console version, but has better shadows and slightly better framerate than the PS3 version).
 
shinnn said:
gaf user changed the PC pic for another one

DF comparison:

PC_021.png


360_021.png
Click to expand...

It is clear that the DF pic is not running at max settings.

The other pic has much higher res textures for one(look at the leaves on the trees).
 
MrCookiepants said:
Well, this thread is worrying. I was planning on buying it on PS3 as soon I have some spare cash, but now I'm not sure.

I know nothing about specs. This is just what I'm reading from the sticker on my laptop :P

Intel Core i7 2630QM 2GHz
AMD Radeon HD 6850M
8GB DDR3 Memory

Will I run it okay?
Click to expand...

Decent
 
GANGSTERKILLER said:
I'm a disappointed in MS and Sony. There next-gen consoles are still not among us. Damn it! Far Cry 3 has THE best atmosphere of any open world FPS I have ever played. This game is so good and feels alive!

I'll be honest, Far Cry 3 makes me want to have a monster PC. Too bad it is so ridicules expensive compared to a console.

Please Ubisoft, port this game to the next-gen consoles and I will buy it. As for now I have to do it with the 360 version (not really the superior console version, but has better shadows and slighly better framerate than the PS3 version).
Click to expand...


Far Cry 3 Instincts Orbis/Durango

Believe
 
I'm guessing if I try running this I'll have to low ball on the setttings. 555m and i7-2670.

Will probably just live with fxaa only and kill the shadows.

I hope they put a demo up.
 
I could complain, but honestly. I've got it on the 360 and aside from a little screen tearing, I haven't noticed any problems at all. It's not the best looking game out there, but it's still pretty decent for what it is.
 
None of the Crysis games are an open world games. They have nothing in common with farcry.

I really wish ppl would stop with the PC comments in a thread about console comparisons. It brings nothing to the conversation.
 
ii Stryker said:
None of the Crysis games are an open world games. They have nothing in common with farcry.

I really wish ppl would stop with the PC comments in a thread about console comparisons. It brings nothing to the conversation.
Click to expand...


All 3 versions are being compared though with DF recommending the PC version.
 
ii Stryker said:
None of the Crysis games are an open world games. They have nothing in common with farcry.

I really wish ppl would stop with the PC comments in a thread about console comparisons. It brings nothing to the conversation.
Click to expand...

The article compares the PC version and even recommends it.
 
ii Stryker said:
None of the Crysis games are an open world games. They have nothing in common with farcry.

I really wish ppl would stop with the PC comments in a thread about console comparisons. It brings nothing to the conversation.
Click to expand...

It's a face off between all versions, hence why the PC is being discussed.

The PC talk is perfectly legitimate in that case and I don't believe inaccurate, the PC version is indeed country miles ahead of the PS360 versions.
 
360 version is definitely not as bad as Crysis performance wise.

Once your eyes adjust it's not too bad, but going from a game like Call of duty to this is jarring.

Even if you've got a shitty-ish pc it's a no brainer to get it for that.
 
Eideka said:
Whether or not it should be expected is not what is at stakes.

We are merely pointing objective differences.
Click to expand...
Because of the PC's scalability the PC version of games should really never be compared to the console versions because its not a 1 to 1 comparison. It's not realistic nor fair.
 
Not surprising as the game is pretty poorly optimized on PC as well and it is a Ubisoft open world game. I'm still getting it next week. Hopefully it isn't too bad.
 
If you're a little zoomed out of the 360 and PS3 comparison. PS3 shadows look darker and more realistic, while 360 shodows look transparent. The dithering looks awful though, so if you're playing upclose like on a PC monitor, I guess PC > 360 > PS3 on this one. Also lol at 6 pixel size difference wtf?
 
ii Stryker said:
Because of the PC's scalability the PC version of games should really never be compared to the console versions because its not a 1 to 1 comparison. It's not realistic nor fair.
Click to expand...

What should it be fair ? I don't care if it's unfair, I just want the facts.

It's about objective differences after all. I want to know to what extent is the PC version more advanced and this is what I get.

And I'm glad they include the PC in their comparisons. :)
 
GANGSTERKILLER said:
I'm disappointed in MS and Sony. Their next-gen consoles are still not among us. Damn it! Far Cry 3 has THE best atmosphere of any open world FPS I have ever played. This game is so good and feels alive!

I'll be honest, Far Cry 3 makes me want to have a monster PC. Too bad it is so ridicules expensive compared to a console.

Please Ubisoft, port this game to the next-gen consoles and I will buy it. As for now I have to do it with the 360 version (not really the superior console version, but has better shadows and slightly better framerate than the PS3 version).
Click to expand...

Save the money you'd spend on a next-gen console and put it towards a PC. Trust me, it's the best gaming decision you will ever make. Sure there's upgrades, but you don't need them as often as you might think. Plus, you'll save tons of money when it comes to actually buying games.
 
If I never play the PC version, I think I will be okay with Far Cry 3 on console. I know this doesn't mean much, but both the 360 and PS3 have higher aggregate scores than the PC version.
 
Why they have used MSAA? :/ With FXAA probably the 'extra' ram would be used for vsyncred/better fps on console, what a stupid weird choice...
 
Guerrillas in the Mist said:
Save the money you'd spend on a next-gen console and put it towards a PC. Trust me, it's the best gaming decision you will ever make. Sure there's upgrades, but you don't need them as often as you might think. Plus, you'll save tons of money when it comes to actually buying games.
Click to expand...

In the case of Far Cry Instincts... The game could have a new mechanic to drive up interests. It's a win win situation. IMO
 
ii Stryker said:
Because of the PC's scalability the PC version of games should really never be compared to the console versions because its not a 1 to 1 comparison. It's not realistic nor fair.
Click to expand...

So because it's an upgradable platform that has moved far beyond the ancient consoles it's not allowed to be part of the comparison? What rubbish. It's a gaming platform, clean and simple and thus it's perfectly valid in part of a platform comparison of the same game. There is no such thing as realistic or fair in this market, PC gaming is available to everyone just like console gaming is. So let's get over this PC fear and realize it's as much part of gaming as the consoles are. Fair my ass, this isn't a sporting event.

You've already admitted you're just salty over the console versions.
 
Smeghead said:
360 version is definitely not as bad as Crysis performance wise.

Once your eyes adjust it's not too bad, but going from a game like Call of duty to this is jarring.

Even if you've got a shitty-ish pc it's a no brainer to get it for that.
Click to expand...

If you don't care about the tearing galore, of course.
 
omonimo said:
Why they have used MSAA? :/ With FXAA probably the 'extra' ram would be used for vsyncred/better fps on console, what a stupid weird choice...
Click to expand...

They have another game released pretty much at the same time with TXAA. They had the ability to natively implement SMAA which allows better anti-aliasing beyond the injectors 1x.

I really don't understand why developers are so afraid of native SMAA implementation, yet keep using that trash FXAA.
 
Steve McQueen said:
You're right but it's gets tiresome.
Click to expand...

If the framerate was more refined at the 30fps cap I wouldn't even bother looking at the PC version. But giving us an average of 25fps in a open world FPS is unacceptable.

Because usually the PC version is for people who want the best performance.
 
Sethos said:
They have another game released pretty much at the same time with TXAA. They had the ability to natively implement SMAA which allows better anti-aliasing beyond the injectors 1x.

I really don't understand why developers are so afraid of native SMAA implementation, yet keep using that trash FXAA.
Click to expand...

Because it save enough RAM to have more features (on console). P.S: Ah you said SMAA, sorry.
 
Sethos said:
They have another game released pretty much at the same time with TXAA. They had the ability to natively implement SMAA which allows better anti-aliasing beyond the injectors 1x.

I really don't understand why developers are so afraid of native SMAA implementation, yet keep using that trash FXAA.
Click to expand...

Probably because SMAA doesn't work all that well with the shader models used on consoles, although Crytek has it in for Crysis 3. It took FXAA a long time to catch on for native support so hopefully SMAA becomes a standard soon, at least for next gen. So much better than FXAA and it would be a great solution for consoles.
 
omonimo said:
Why they have used MSAA? :/ With FXAA probably the 'extra' ram would be used for vsyncred/better fps on console, what a stupid weird choice...
Click to expand...

omonimo said:
Because it save enough RAM to have more features (on console).
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about the consoles here, talking about the PC ports as a native implementation of something like SMAA isn't exactly the hardest thing in the world. Just like a studio managed to do TXAA with AC3.

You can actually add the injector's simple 1x version and see results, imagine a native implementation with more than 1x.
 
Guerrillas in the Mist said:
What performance hit does SMAA cause compared to FXAA?
Click to expand...

They are very close, SMAA is extremely light on resources just like FXAA yet has a much better results, a lot less edge blurring and smudge which leaves a much cleaner image.

Obviously going beyond 1x will change the performance ratio between the two a bit but compared to say MSAA, which is a performance hog nightmare, SMAA is very attractive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Far Cry 7 info…PvP you say?
2
61
163
Durin replied
Official Far Cry X account hinting at a Far Cry 3 60fps patch for current-gen consoles
Game Dev Platform  2 3
129
3K
IbizaPocholo replied
New Far Cry & Ghost Recon games' development has been abysmal, struggling as Ubisoft makes changes
News  2
51
863
Pelao replied
  • Poll
PS1 racing graphics face-off
48
2K
roosnam1980 replied
Ubisoft is testing generative AI in Far Cry 7 for R&D and “it looks like shit”
Rumor Game Dev 
30
691
Gambit2483 replied
Top Bottom