Crysis 3: xbox 360 vs PC compared side by side

[RussianSensation]

Anyway, its now officially confirmed half the people on this forum are blind... This game looks WAY better than Crysis 1, just watch any of the "7 wonders" videos on the youtube page (I dont trust a multiplayer beta to give you the real deal)

The Beta looks nothing like those 7 wonders videos. Since the Beta is all we have, we are basing our comments on what we are seeing. If the multiplayer beta is not representative of how the game will look in final SP campaign, then people will obviously have a more favourable view. Right now C3 looks like C2 with minor improvements, which is not what we were promised.

 

[smakme7757]

I still Think crysis 1 looks just as good. The pc version looked better but it looked more like less compressed textures rather than a game written purely for the pc. I look forward to Crysis 3 though.

Mobile post - Lumia 920

 

[zebrax2]

While i think the graphics of Crysis 3 is slightly better i prefer the atmosphere of the first one. Maybe that fact that Crysis 3 is set in a post apocalyptic world is the reason most aren't really impressed with it?

 

[0___________0]

The Beta looks nothing like those 7 wonders videos. Since the Beta is all we have, we are basing our comments on what we are seeing. If the multiplayer beta is not representative of how the game will look in final SP campaign, then people will obviously have a more favourable view. Right now C3 looks like C2 with minor improvements, which is not what we were promised.

The 7 Wonders videos are composed entirely of in-game C3 assets. The engine tech demo is also in-game footage. I don't see anyone calling that ugly, in fact none of you guys even say that it looks good, when nothing else can touch it. Crytek could cure cancer and you'd still yawn at it, I don't think people even properly remember Crysis, everything we've seen from C3 is noticeably better.

 

[railven]

The 7 Wonders videos are composed entirely of in-game C3 assets. The engine tech demo is also in-game footage. I don't see anyone calling that ugly, in fact none of you guys even say that it looks good, when nothing else can touch it. Crytek could cure cancer and you'd still yawn at it, I don't think people even properly remember Crysis, everything we've seen from C3 is noticeably better.

PC Gamers are like Red Sox fans, they cheer and cheer and when something doesn't go in their favor (Crysis 2 pre DX11 patch), they turn their back on you, hiss, talk trash, and wish the death of your parents.

Yerp, I said it.

Crysis 3, from what I've seen, looks great. Performance handicaps? Sure, I wish it would "run faster on my current hardware" but I remember saying that about a bunch of other games haha.

 

[Spjut]

Minimum System Operating Requirements for PC

* Windows Vista, Windows 7 or Windows 8
* DirectX 11 graphics card with 1 GB Video RAM
* Dual core CPU
* 2 GB Memory (3 GB on Vista)

* Example 1 (Nvidia/Intel):
* Nvidia GTS 450
* Intel Core2 Duo 2.4 Ghz (E6600)

* Example 2 (AMD):
* AMD Radeon HD 5770
* AMD Athlon64 X2 2.7 Ghz (5200+)



A gts 450 is slower than a gtx 260, which is pretty old by today's standards and a core 2 duo 2.4ghz is also old. Anyone who has built a "gaming" PC in the last 4 years can play this game.

The HD 5770 is a bit over 3 years old, and the GTS 450 is soon to be 3 years old. Those minimum requirements are indeed high compared to other games (BF3 minimum is 8800GT), especially when we are talking about games coming for the consoles as well. I hadn't expected Crytek to not make Crysis 3 support DX10.

 

[blackened23]

Red Sox fans. Perfect analogy!

I'll be quite happy if crysis 3 returns to the roots of the series, the excellent gameplay of C1 / WH. I could really care less about having 200 gee-whiz DX11 effects, although the graphics are pretty nice I think. While I can understand some people wanting a return to the days of PC exclusives and PC only features, it's a hard proposition since game development budgets have skyrocketed by millions - multi platform games are a side effect of this; it's the only way for financial viability.

That said, I think crytek is really trying to compromise by giving PC gamers high res textures and some DX11 features. It isn't mind blowing like crysis 1 was in 2007 -- it isn't completely 100% designed for PC GPUs like the first game was. But not many games can claim that these days due to development budgets.

 

[AdamK47]

From what I remember, most people were playing Crysis 1 at 1024x768 and 1280x1024. CRTs were still king then, most people had 17-19 inchers.

I think most people were able to run it fine - I didn't have any issues that I remember, although not many were able to crank it up to ultra high quality.

The one thing I appreciate about Crysis is that the rendering of Foliage and shadows is still excellent even to this day, and the engine is able to render entire worlds which you were free to roam in. I still think Crysis 1 / WH has some of the best foliage you'll find in video games; I really despise Crysis 2 in this respect - even though crysis 2 looks good, the engine is only required to render small bits and pieces because the level are so closed off.

I don't remember too many people still with CRTs back in late '07. Most people switched to LCDs between '02 and '05. In November '07 I was on my 3rd LCD. A 20.1" Samsung.

 

[Dannar26]

19 inch CRT until 2010.

Crysis 2 looked pretty good on my xbox, I thought. Considering the age of the hardware, it's amazing to see that they can do so much with so little.

Trust me, I'm a PC guy through and through. Build 'em myself, and I can barely stand to do FPS without a keyboard and mouse. But when you compare what the xbox is doing with what high end PCs are doing...well... Let's just say you don't get bragging rights for beating up all the kids on the playground when you're a 30 year old man.

 

[brandon888]

people don't forget ... it's still cry engine 3 .... not 4 so it's modified Crysis 2 .... so don't expect jump like from Crysis 1 to Crysis 2 ^_^

 

[notty22]

people don't forget ... it's still cry engine 3 .... not 4 so it's modified Crysis 2 .... so don't expect jump like from Crysis 1 to Crysis 2 ^_^

Where did you get this info? Link? C3 is a dx11 only/native game. C2 launched dx9. So I would think they are quite different.

 

[brandon888]

Where did you get this info? Link? C3 is a dx11 only/native game. C2 launched dx9. So I would think they are quite different.

Crysis 2 got DX 11 patch after few months and also high texture pack ^_^


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crysis_2

DirectX 11 Compatible GPU for the DX11 Texture Pack

:***

 

[0___________0]

C3 is probably using the 3.4 build, C2 was using a much earlier build of the engine. Crytek also has more GPU power to work with now.

 

[MrK6]

The 7 Wonders videos are composed entirely of in-game C3 assets. The engine tech demo is also in-game footage. I don't see anyone calling that ugly, in fact none of you guys even say that it looks good, when nothing else can touch it. Crytek could cure cancer and you'd still yawn at it, I don't think people even properly remember Crysis, everything we've seen from C3 is noticeably better.

Except Crytek did the same thing with Crysis 1. The tech demos looked photorealistic and the actual released product was a step down. It didn't matter as much at the time because it was miles ahead of anything else on the market. The situation is different now because there are graphically competitive games and nothing shown has really pushed Crysis 3 a step above them.

I'm not sure if some of you are just too young and really shouldn't be in this discussion or have an agenda, but go play the demo that's out and then come back.

 

[notty22]

Crysis 2 got DX 11 patch after few months and also high texture pack ^_^


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crysis_2

DirectX 11 Compatible GPU for the DX11 Texture Pack

:***

No kidding? Really. That does not answer my questions, and the points I made.

 

[0___________0]

Except Crytek did the same thing with Crysis 1. The tech demos looked photorealistic and the actual released product was a step down. It didn't matter as much at the time because it was miles ahead of anything else on the market. The situation is different now because there are graphically competitive games and nothing shown has really pushed Crysis 3 a step above them.

I'm not sure if some of you are just too young and really shouldn't be in this discussion or have an agenda, but go play the demo that's out and then come back.

The launch trailer for Crysis looks nearly identical to the actual game. A lot of C3's released single player footage was also done live at a place like E3 or streamed live. We have a lot of true video to look at.

I think the agenda is held by those who keep looking for a reason to hate the consolized Crysis series. Like the sheep who keep repeating the tessellated ocean. That tesselation has no performance impact when occluded, TR or whoever managed to find a couple isolated areas where certain sections aren't occluded. Of course, there's no performance impact during 99.99% of gameplay, but the sheep don't think for themselves and just ran with it.
I've also played both the alpha and the beta.

 

[brandon888]

No kidding? Really. That does not answer my questions, and the points I made.

nah ... im serious ...


Yes crysis 2 was on DX 9 but then got DX 11 and texture pack ... i think everything is clear .... on DX 9 crysis 2 looked worse then crysis 1 of course :0 but then with textures and DX support ... Crysis 2 looked better

 

[dagamer34]

I actually don't know what's worse, the fact that 360 version looks like it has vaseline covering the screen making everything fuzzy, or that the PC version only looks like they added a few more effects.

Of course the PC version looks better, but not $800 better. I want PS2 -> PS3 revelatory changes. Right now, I'd bet a huge chunk of power is going to make sure you get a smooth frame rate. Imagine if a PC game were designed for 30fps with a ton of special effects (too bad because the dominant PC genre is FPS, that will assuredly never happen).

 

[MrK6]

The launch trailer for Crysis looks nearly identical to the actual game. A lot of C3's released single player footage was also done live at a place like E3 or streamed live. We have a lot of true video to look at.

I think the agenda is held by those who keep looking for a reason to hate the consolized Crysis series. Like the sheep who keep repeating the tessellated ocean. That tesselation has no performance impact when occluded, TR or whoever managed to find a couple isolated areas where certain sections aren't occluded. Of course, there's no performance impact during 99.99% of gameplay, but the sheep don't think for themselves and just ran with it.
I've also played both the alpha and the beta.

You're clearly too young to remember or are just rewriting history for some agenda. I'm going with the latter since you keep trying to downlplay and deflect any criticism of the later entries. In either case, thanks for outting yourself so the forum can remember to take what you say with a grain of salt. Here's some reading so that you can catch up on your mistakes:
http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/26730118/is-there-anyway-to-make-crysis-look-like-this

 

[RussianSensation]

I think the agenda is held by those who keep looking for a reason to hate the consolized Crysis series.

When Crytek showed the first trailer for Crysis 1 in March 2006, it looked like a CGI videogame compared to anything else at the time.
http://www.gamespot.com/crysis/videos/crysis-official-trailer-1-6146726/

If you were a PC gamer at that time and you saw early PS3/360 games and then you saw this, your jaw hit the floor after seeing that. I went out and bought a $900 8800GTX Ultra just to play Crysis 1 and that card didn't even make a dent. I was chugging at <25 fps without everything maxed out settings. Considering you need at least a GTX680 OC or HD7970GE to even hit 60 fps in Crysis at 1080P with AA now, back then Crysis 1 stomped all over 8800GTX Ultra SLI.

Even when NV launched a brand new $650 GTX280, Crysis 1 leveled that card too. It could barely get 35 fps, without VHQ settings enabled.

Crysis 1's graphics were absolutely revolutionary at the time. Crysis 2 in stock form failed to not only top Crysis 1, but couldn't even beat other great looking games like Witcher 2 or Metro 2033. It was a dismal failure for Crytek given Crysis 1's legacy. It wasn't just the tessellated ocean, but the fact that Crysis 2 did not look like a next generation game like Crysis 1 did.

My guess is most people skipped Crysis 1 entirely because their GPUs were simply too weak to play the game. Then they ended up playing the game in 2009-2010, at which point it no longer seems revolutionary to them. If you did have the luxury of owning 8800GTX or faster and could get a small glimpse of what Crysis 1 offered in 2007, it was stunning for the time. The only people who seem "butthurt" are those who can't recognize the leap in PC graphics Crysis 1 made because they probably couldn't even play the game in 2007, and thus they start twisting facts and history, pretending Crysis 2 or even 3 are doing the same thing Crysis 1 did. For Crysis 3 to be the same thing, the next generation card from NV like the Titan would be hitting 35 fps at 1080P, not even maxed out...

 

[StinkyPinky]

I thought Crysis 2 with the HD textures and DX11 looked stunning. Better than Crysis imo.

I'd probably go as far as to say with the DX11 patch and the HD texture pack it's probably the best graphics currently available on the PC. Although The Witcher 2 beats it in some regards (the textures in witcher 2 are amazing)

 

[0___________0]

You're clearly too young to remember or are just rewriting history for some agenda. I'm going with the latter since you keep trying to downlplay and deflect any criticism of the later entries. In either case, thanks for outting yourself so the forum can remember to take what you say with a grain of salt. Here's some reading so that you can catch up on your mistakes:
http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/26730118/is-there-anyway-to-make-crysis-look-like-this

I see that the sheep remark about the tessellation got your panties in a knot, take it easy. Shall we take everything you say with a grain of salt since you don't even know how the engine works? As I said, we have plenty of actual single player footage.

I only came into this thread because people can't even successfully change the graphics settings to make screenshot comparisons. I'm not making threads nor I have I previously gone around deflecting criticism or anything. I've also only talked about graphics, I think the gameplay of 2 had a lot of problems, no need to get so uptight and make ignorant comments.

 

[MrK6]

I see that the sheep remark about the tessellation got your panties in a knot, take it easy. Shall we take everything you say with a grain of salt since you don't even know how the engine works? As I said, we have plenty of actual single player footage.

I only came into this thread because people can't even successfully change the graphics settings to make screenshot comparisons. I'm not making threads nor I have I previously gone around deflecting criticism or anything. I've also only talked about graphics, I think the gameplay of 2 had a lot of problems, no need to get so uptight and make ignorant comments.

Then it looks like I hit the nail on the head about you being to young to remember, especially with your above outburst. Everything from reviews to user experiences to screenshots, as I and others have posted, clearly proves the opposite of what you're trying to sell.

 

[SPBHM]

The HD 5770 is a bit over 3 years old, and the GTS 450 is soon to be 3 years old. Those minimum requirements are indeed high compared to other games (BF3 minimum is 8800GT), especially when we are talking about games coming for the consoles as well. I hadn't expected Crytek to not make Crysis 3 support DX10.

the Alpha version worked relatively well on my 5750, even without using the lowest possible settings,

I think something slower, like a 8800GT can runs this in 720p over 30fps (if the game supports dx10 or dx9).

 

[notty22]

When Crytek showed the first trailer for Crysis 1 in March 2006, it looks a CGI videogame compared to anything else at the time.
http://www.gamespot.com/crysis/videos/crysis-official-trailer-1-6146726/

If you were a PC gamer at that time and you saw early PS3/360 games and then you saw this, your jaw hit the floor after seeing that. I went out and bought a $900 8800GTX Ultra just to play Crysis 1 and that card didn't even make a dent. I was chugging at <25 fps without everything maxed out settings. Considering you need at least a GTX680 OC or HD7970GE to even hit 60 fps in Crysis at 1080P with AA now, back then Crysis 1 stomped all over 8800GTX Ultra SLI.

Even when NV launched a brand new $650 GTX280, Crysis 1 leveled that card too. It could barely get 35 fps, without VHQ settings enabled.

Crysis 1's graphics were absolutely revolutionary at the time. Crysis 2 in stock form failed to not only top Crysis 1, but couldn't even beat other great looking games like Witcher 2 or Metro 2033. It was a dismal failure for Crytek given Crysis 1's legacy. It wasn't just the tessellated ocean, but the fact that Crysis 2 did not look like a next generation game like Crysis 1 did.

My guess is most people skipped Crysis 1 entirely because their GPUs were simply too weak to play the game. Then they ended up playing the game in 2009-2010, at which point it no longer seems revolutionary to them. If you did have the luxury of owning 8800GTX or faster and could get a small glimpse of what Crysis 1 offered in 2007, it was stunning for the time. The only people who seem "butthurt" are those who can't recognize the leap in PC graphics Crysis 1 made because they probably couldn't even play the game in 2007, and thus they start twisting facts and history, pretending Crysis 2 or even 3 are doing the same thing Crysis 1 did. For Crysis 3 to be the same thing, the next generation card from NV like the Titan would be hitting 35 fps at 1080P, not even maxed out...

Which is it? You seem to flip flop, from C3 not melting cards to the performance is not good enough. Ignoring it's a beta. Or a beta-beta as a AMD rep wrote. I can't wait to read your opinion on Tomb Raider 2013 and Bioshock.

Maybe you are spoiled/effected from watching Bitcoin #'s scroll across your screen and or the heat in the room