Support NeoGAF

[XOMTOR]

You don't compare an open world sandbox game to the highly linear UC series or less constrained (but still linear) halo series. Just like you don't compare Halo to UC.

I don't understand why these comparisons are constantly done.

Edit: nevermind =P

Agreed, but what about Red Dead Redemption or Just Cause 2. I've played RDR and it certainly looks better than this. Never played Just Cause 2 on consoles so have no idea how it looks or runs there.

 

[Reiko]

RDR and JC2 have much better performance compared to FC3.

 

[omonimo]

RDR and JC2 have much better performance compared to FC3.

But those are third person games. Isn't it a negligible difference.

 

[Reiko]

But those are third person games. Isn't it a negligible difference.

It's open world. Only difference is the first person gameplay of FC3.

 

[omonimo]

It's open world. Only difference is the first person gameplay of FC3.

Keep in mind FC3 use more advanced tech of RDR or JC2; furthermore texture, other fine details, are easily less detailed than a third person game. Oh the physic, I think it's a lot more sophisticate in FC3.

 

[The_Lump]

Wow, literally just been playing Crysis 2 on my PC before I came on GAF and this thread. Those first two screen shots look uber fugly*


Shame PS3 is even fuglier than the fugly 360 version. Back to the PC for me...

*relatively speaking, of course.

 

[omonimo]

Wow, literally just been playing Crysis 2 on my PC before I came on GAF and this thread. Those first two screen shots look uber fugly*


Shame PS3 is even fuglier than the fugly 360 version. Back to the PC for me...

*relatively speaking, of course.

ps3 version doesn't seem uglier than the 360 to me. I don't know, maybe I'm just too much tolerant.

 

[Reiko]

Keep in mind FC3 use more advanced tech of RDR or JC2; furthermore texture, other fine details, are easily less detailed than a third person game. Oh the physic, I think it's a lot more sophisticate in FC3.

RDR is using Euphoria

 

[Famassu]

If ever proof was needed these consoles have lasted a few years too long...

There are much better looking games on both consoles that run perfectly fine, the hardware is not to blame for bad end results.

 

[The_Lump]

ps3 version doesn't seem uglier than the 360 to me. I don't know, maybe I'm just too much tolerant.

Well admittedly I was making a half-baked snap judgement based on just those two pics The shadow on the tree just looks gross. WTF is going on there?

 

[omonimo]

RDR is using Euphoria...

& that's all. FC3 calculate the damage in the plant & some objects, plus emulate the flames behaviour, SSAO, I guess higher texture rez, I don't think RDR is to the same 'level' in different features.

 

[AstroNut325]

DAT cinematic experience!

 

[omonimo]

Well admittedly I was making a half-baked snap judgement based on just those two pics The shadow on the tree just looks gross. WTF is going on there?

I don't know. It seems ps3 just tries to emulate the 'smudge' effect present in the pc version, but with less precision causing dithering. Looks to 360 shadow: it's 'unnatural' detailed where on pc the shadow smudge the same details like the ps3 version, but with more precise result.

 

[Riggs]

So glad I have a good pc, no way I could play this on consoles at this framerate.

All three in one, PS3, 360, PC:

Yep, crazy that people still think this generation needs to continue.

 

[SirIgbyCeaser]

In motion the shadow differences between PS3 and 360 are way harder to tell apart. I'd say impossible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JJZs8ZGr5vY

PS3 also seems to load in objects faster in the DF comparison video. Which makes me wonder if the game running on PS3 equipped with SSD is actually even better than 360.

It's entirely noticable during the watch tower reveal. The framerate and loading is faster on ps3, that suddenly the ps3 footage runs ahead of the 360 footage.

SO i'd say neither console can claim victory considering they both struggle on different areas.

 

[apesh1t]

Whats up with disc size?

I just noticed that games are getting smaller. Dishonored is like 4.5 gigs. I thought the max size was 6.8 for 360 and like 25 for PS3? Why are developers not using all the space?

Wasn't Gears of War 2/3 maxed out? Those still remain as some of the best looking games.

 

[Ahasverus]

Whats up with disc size?

I just noticed that games are getting smaller. Dishonored is like 4.5 gigs. I thought the max size was 6.8 for 360 and like 25 for PS3? Why are developers not using all the space?

Wasn't Gears of War 2/3 maxed out? Those still remain as some of the best looking games.

360 max size is 7.5 gb (+1gb for system stuff) That's a lot of underutilized space, but it comes maybe from reussing assets (Skyrim was like 3gb if I'm not wrong)

 

[XOMTOR]

RDR and JC2 have much better performance compared to FC3.

Thanks for confirming.

& that's all. FC3 calculate the damage in the plant & some objects, plus emulate the flames behaviour, SSAO, I guess higher texture rez, I don't think RDR is to the same 'level' in different features.

So you're saying FC3 is a more ambitious game? Perhaps, but it comes with a serious cost in performance and looks. Maybe they should have scaled back on the SSAO or used a different form of AA. Something... anything to get better performance.

As far as RDR, I'm primarily a PC gamer and it certainly impressed me (that lighting). FC3 on consoles? Not so much. Anyway, I'll pick up FC3 on PC for sure.

 

[Foliorum Viridum]

There are much better looking games on both consoles that run perfectly fine, the hardware is not to blame for bad end results.

Keep telling yourself that and you might believe it.

Game after game is underperforming and the hardware specs are time blame. The time for a refresh has been and gone. We're way in to overtime.

 

[omonimo]

Thanks for confirming.



So you're saying FC3 is a more ambitious game? Perhaps, but it comes with a serious cost in performance and looks. Maybe they should have scaled back on the SSAO or used a different form of AA. Something... anything to get better performance.

As far as RDR, I'm primarily a PC gamer and it certainly impressed me (that lighting). FC3 on consoles? Not so much. Anyway, I'll pick up FC3 on PC for sure.

Not ambitious but surely more expensive. I don't think a third person game use the same setting of a first person visual, I don't know is even worthy to compare.
In a third person, texture & others fine details are a lot less pronounced, RDR texture could be atrocious in a first person view (like a lot of the other games).

 

[Reiko]

Not ambitious but surely more expensive. I don't think a third person game use the same setting of a first person visual, I don't know is even worthy to compare.
In a third person, texture & others fine details are a lot less pronounced, RDR texture could be atrocious in a first person view (like a lot of the other games).

That's not a good way to measure detail.

Skyrim for example can switch to third person gameplay if desired.

That game was very ambitious and ran with a acceptable framerate on 360.

PS3 too... Until the RAM bug.

 

[omonimo]

That's not a good way to measure detail.

Skyrim for example can switch to third person gameplay if desired.

That game was very ambitious and ran with a acceptable framerate on 360.

PS3 too... Until the RAM bug.

Uh, why not? Skyrim is developed with both visuals in mind, so I don't use it how example, of course you can't notice the difference. In any case, I'm talking of RDR & JC2, simply is not worthy to compare to FC3. We can compare Skyrim, but I don't know the tech behind.

 

[Alexios]

I get similar performance on my pc...

Almost regardless of settings too.

 

[Majanew]

The low frame rate and bad screen-tearing means I'll pass.

 

[Stallion Free]

I understand what you mean, but probably I'm too much optimist to think next generation not need of that 'cheap' features.

Most engines use deferred rendering now and MSAA is absurdly demanding with that style of rendering. Super-sampling is out of the question.

Maybe if the game was 60fps.

But it's not even 30fps... It's 25fps. You'll notice the jaggies more.

Jaggies don't become magically less noticeable as the framerate increases.

 

[Reiko]

Most engines use deferred rendering now and MSAA is absurdly demanding with that style of rendering. Super-sampling is out of the question.


Jaggies don't become magically less noticeable as the framerate increases.

If I'm constantly moving fast and there's some type of motion blur... It's hard to notice on my end.

 

[Stallion Free]

If I'm constantly moving fast and there's some type of motion blur... It's hard to notice on my end.

That's great for you, but it's not a rule of thumb.

 

[hlhbk]

This argument again ? lol

Its not an argument, its a fact. PC games have been held back for at least 3 years due to the aging hardware on consoles.

 

[nOoblet16]

Agreed, but what about Red Dead Redemption or Just Cause 2. I've played RDR and it certainly looks better than this. Never played Just Cause 2 on consoles so have no idea how it looks or runs there.

In all honesty if you have a look at Just cause 2 you'll realize that FC3 has a far superior lighting engine. Also the foliage in FC3 aren't 2D..while they are in JC2 (Tree branches for example).
As for RDR, you have to see how sparse the environments are most of the time compared to the extremely dense and alpha heavy environment of FC3. Shaders is another area where FC3 is ahead of both games.

 

[Seance]

If you look closer everything looks like it has a screen door effect or something going in PS3 version

Especially noticeable on the tree and dirt textures. Weird.

 

[sp3000]

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.

Not this artistic argument again. It always comes up when a game looks like garbage and people are trying to defend it.

There is nothing artistic about FC3. Increasing saturation does not make a game artistic.

 

[Ahasverus]

Its not an argument, its a fact. PC games have been held back for at least 3 years due to the aging hardware on consoles.

People could choose to make PC exclusive games, and how much potential is really tapped? I man, Witcher 2 was the PC gaming trohpy for over a year until it came excatly the same on 360. Nothing besides (short) loading was sacrificed AT ALL and that is what you'd call a PC centric game (not only that, but a pretty HIGH demanding PC centric game)

 

[sp3000]

People could choose to make PC exclusive games, and how much potential is really tapped? I man, Witcher 2 was the PC gaming trohpy for over a year until it came excatly the same on 360. Nothing besides (short) loading was sacrificed AT ALL and that is what you'd call a PC centric game (not only that, but a pretty HIGH demanding PC centric game)

So you haven't played Planetside 2 I'm assuming. Or look at the gimped version of BF3 that leaves many maps feeling empty.

LMAO!!!! Nice opinion.

If you think over saturated lightning is art, ok.

 

[soulassssns]

There is nothing artistic about FC3.

LMAO!!!! Nice opinion.

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

People could choose to make PC exclusive games, and how much potential is really tapped? I man, Witcher 2 was the PC gaming trohpy for over a year until it came excatly the same on 360. Nothing besides (short) loading was sacrificed AT ALL and that is what you'd call a PC centric game (not only that, but a pretty HIGH demanding PC centric game)

Most RTS games would struggle to make it to the current batch of consoles without big cutbacks.

Heck, look at Battlefield 3. 64 players on PC, 24 on consoles.

 

[Nirolak]

It's kind of like one of those "spot the differences" puzzles:

 

[herod]

This was also in the same generation.

looks like world of warcraft

 

[Sethos]

It's kind of like one of those "spot the differences" puzzles:

http://www.abload.de/img/360_190746382570oxb.png

http://www.abload.de/img/ps3_6738059214v4r1s.png

Haha, look at all the trees in the background that disappear on the PS3 version.

 

[Tagg9]

Haha, look at all the trees in the background that disappear on the PS3 version.

The "dot matrix"-esque shadows are even more noticeable.

 

[banjoted]

My rig is pretty average:

AMD Athlon II X4 640 3GHz
ATI Radeon 5760
8GB RAM

And Far Cry 3 runs really nicely on high settings

 

[Nizz]

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.

I couldn't agree more. I'm expecting a nice jump in specs in next gen consoles over what we have now but I'm not expecting miracles. Whatever the next gen brings the power has to fit inside a nice sized shell, with heat and wattage to take into consideration.

If next gen turned out to bring essentially what PC versions of multi-plat games are right now, honestly I'd be ecstatic. The PC version of Far Cry 3 looks so good. And it runs so smooth also.

For me, playing games like FC3, AC3, Battlefield 3/4 and more with PC version level textures and effects and 60fps would look plenty next gen to me.

 

[hlhbk]

People could choose to make PC exclusive games, and how much potential is really tapped? I man, Witcher 2 was the PC gaming trohpy for over a year until it came excatly the same on 360. Nothing besides (short) loading was sacrificed AT ALL and that is what you'd call a PC centric game (not only that, but a pretty HIGH demanding PC centric game)

Um yeah right! Lets take a look at the comparsion:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-the-witcher-2-tech-analysis

As you might expect, from a nuts-and-bolts technical perspective, there are some easy wins for the PC: for a start, texture quality and filtering is generally in another league altogether compared to the Xbox 360 game. This is not exactly unexpected. Special cases aside, the standard for multi-platform development these days tends to be a case of targeting artwork for console 720p and then simply offering the option of higher resolution rendering on PC. Not so with The Witcher 2, where the developers are clearly providing superior assets aimed at looking great at 1680x1050 and beyond.

Indeed, there's so much detail in the textures here when running at 720p that there's sometimes a shimmering pixel-crawl effect - a by-product perhaps of the lack of multi-sample anti-aliasing and too much detail being crammed into what is, by PC terms, a fairly meagre level of resolution (if you have the GPU resources to spare, here's where the Ubersampling option comes into its own).

PC also scores easy wins in terms of shadow quality and the number of them being rendered dynamically. Effects work doesn't just benefit from higher-precision buffers, but also from physically higher resolution: performance-sapping alpha effects such as smoke, fog and particles are clearly running at a lower res on the Xbox 360, with intersecting geometry often showing some noticeable jaggies.

In other areas we also see a generally higher quality of presentation on the PC game: both versions employ post-process anti-aliasing, and the effect is patently cleaner on the original release - the Xbox 360 game looks to be utilising console-quality FXAA or something very similar. Texture and geometry pop-in and draw distance also show clear advantages on PC, as you would expect.

So yeah troll harder next time. Anyone who thinks the Witcher 2 was the same graphically on the 360 is in denial.

 

[Salacious Crumb]

Haha, look at all the trees in the background that disappear on the PS3 version.

I can handle the trees, but that dithering, holy fuck...

 

[SirIgbyCeaser]

Haha, look at all the trees in the background that disappear on the PS3 version.

That loaded later than the screen capture, but in cutscenes the ps3's lack of shadow detail is incredibly distracting and upsetting. Kinda like as if its a glitch. Only in gameplay is it not very noticeable. And i'm surprised PS3 players havn't mentioned it themselves prior to this face off.

But In Eurogamer's camparison video you can also spot parts where the ps3 is loading assets faster.

I would like to know how an SSD equipped PS3 handels this game.

 

[nOoblet16]

PS3 version also gets Anisotropic Filtering.

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/161291

 

[Artanisix]

Jesus.

What I'm most shocked about is that people are willing to tolerate 25 fps. Hoooly cow.

 

[Eideka]

It's kind of like one of those "spot the differences" puzzles:

Nice dithering. No doubt it's an artistic choice.

 

[Sethos]

Jesus.

What I'm most shocked about is that people are willing to tolerate 25 fps. Hoooly cow.

Some people seem to be able to tolerate a lot of shit, either they really don't notice or it's some sort of self-convincing act. It surprises me every time.

 

[scitek]

Not this artistic argument again. It always comes up when a game looks like garbage and people are trying to defend it.

There is nothing artistic about FC3. Increasing saturation does not make a game artistic.

C'mon, FC3 doesn't look like garbage.

 

[Smokey]

20-25 fps on the console versions wow what the fuck.

That's hilariously awful.