Support NeoGAF

[Barack Lesnar]

Judging from the demos, the lighting did not impress once but the image quality certainly disappointed.

Okay man, the lighting isn't impressive. Whatever...

Why does it matter if he or someone else thinks crysis 2 360 or ps3 versions don't look as good as some ps3 exclusives? It's just their own opinion.

You even alluded to in your previous post these sort of debates aren't even interesting anymore..yet you keep engaging in these debates. So..some gaffers think certain ps3 games look better. Good for them.

Seriously, this is why we need a separate gfx comparison thread.

If he had just said that... that Uncharted or whatever looks better, I wouldn't care, but to downplay C2 at the same time is kinda lame, don't you think? It's got real-time lighting and shadowing technology that's never been done before on consoles to this scale and fidelity while maintaining everything else at a super high level... yet it "did not impress once"? Just comes off disingenuous and I felt like commenting on it. Crytek deserves props. All we need is DX11 patched in and we're good.

 

[professor_t]

The demo was locked before they had a chance to test everything. It should be slightly above the 6850.

Keep in mind this is at the lowest settings (Gamer). Still, 5850 should run it very well. Game also still looks really good...Hardcore doesn't look that much better (see above, PC vs consoles), and runs at about 1/2 of the speed.

Thanks. The original Crysis ran fairly well on my rig, but I didn't get it to truly sing until I found a couple of superb custom config files.

The naming conventions are a little goofy -- in what world does something labeled 6850 underperform something called the 5850? I'm sure there's a rationale, but they're just begging for confusion.

 

[Truespeed]

I can't recall when LOT was hammered this hard. Note to DF, get off your ass and put something up - however minimal. Also, the lighting on those 360 screens is just fucked up.

 

[NullPointer]

Man, 51 pages of this same stuff.

 

[Metroid-Squadron]

Isn't it like 1160x720? Is that really something to kill the game over? Or how about the fact that Crysis 2 has real-time lighting and shadows while those other games bake it? Should that huge technical achievement be ignored because the res is 1160x720 instead of 1280x720? Which would you rather have: lighting tech that's never been done before on a console or 100sq more pixels?

Indeed. With such oversimplification we might as well say COD is better than C2, KZ3, etc.. because 60fps > 30fps lol.

 

[Norml]

Okay man, the lighting isn't impressive. Whatever...


If he had just said that... that Uncharted or whatever looks better, I wouldn't care, but to downplay C2 at the same time is kinda lame, don't you think? It's got real-time lighting and shadowing technology that's never been done before on consoles to this scale and fidelity while maintaining everything else at a super high level... yet it "did not impress once"? Just comes off disingenuous and I felt like commenting on it. Crytek deserves props. All we need is DX11 patched in and we're good.

Might be impressive technically,but lighting wasn't a standout at all to me when the whole image was not good.
I don't see what the problem is.I said direct feed looks much worse than youtube where those details can't be seen.
PS3 shot

 

[Brandon F]

Metro 2033 superior looking to Crysis 2? Mayhaps.

 

[scitek]

Metro 2033 superior looking to Crysis 2? Mayhaps.

Too bad the animations in Metro are shit.

 

[SapientWolf]

Indeed. With such oversimplification we might as well say COD is better than C2, KZ3, etc.. because 60fps > 30fps lol.

I don't think you want to open that can of worms. For what it's worth, I plan on dropping my rez to 720p to run at a locked 60fps.

 

[WhiskeyKnight]

yeah, pretty shitty how this is apparently embargoed until after release. I hate being reminded how ridiculous the industry is sometimes.

When reviews are embargoed for movies, it means the movie is bad. For some reason this isn't true of games though, which doesn't make much sense. If you've got something good on your hands, don't you want people to know about it?

 

[See You Next Wednesday]

Might be impressive technically,but lighting wasn't a standout at all to me when the whole image was not good.
I don't see what the problem is.I said direct feed looks much worse than youtube where those details can't be seen.
PS3 shot
http://www.irshell.org/img/crysis2/cloak2.png

Yeah, it may be impressive from a technical point, but it doesn't really look all that great.
I'd take the "baked" lighting of MW2 over this any day.

 

[sleepykyo]

Okay man, the lighting isn't impressive. Whatever...


If he had just said that... that Uncharted or whatever looks better, I wouldn't care, but to downplay C2 at the same time is kinda lame, don't you think? It's got real-time lighting and shadowing technology that's never been done before on consoles to this scale and fidelity while maintaining everything else at a super high level... yet it "did not impress once"? Just comes off disingenuous and I felt like commenting on it. Crytek deserves props. All we need is DX11 patched in and we're good.

Think it was turOK or something that mentioned that MLB: the Show had real time GI. Also the second part is off, they didn't maintain everything else. The resolution is off in the PS3 version and off in a manner that the aspect ratio is 4:3 instead of 16:9. And the performance gave. For all anyone knows Epic might have been able to achieve similar results if they were willing to compromise as much on playability.

 

[Barack Lesnar]

I think the worst aspect of that PS3 shot is the blur and low-res, not the lighting. Dynamic lighting, shadows and reflections need to be seen in motion to be appreciated, not in a static screenshot. But yeah, that is blurry as hell lol.

I mean look at this:

I'm skeptical that's even the console version.

 

[Brandon F]

I think the worst aspect of that PS3 shot is the blur and low-res, not the lighting. Dynamic lighting, shadows and reflections need to be seen in motion to be appreciated, not in a static screenshot. But yeah, that is blurry as hell lol.

I mean look at this:

I'm skeptical that's even the console version.

Pretty certain it's the OnLive version.

 

[Barack Lesnar]

Pretty certain it's the OnLive version.

Any idea what specs/res that runs at?

 

[aegies]

Pretty certain it's the OnLive version.

The cross-hair indicates it's the 360 version, from the size and width (and yes, I've been staring at Crysis 2 long enough for the past 3 weeks to know that).

 

[dark10x]

Might be impressive technically,but lighting wasn't a standout at all to me when the whole image was not good.
I don't see what the problem is.I said direct feed looks much worse than youtube where those details can't be seen.
PS3 shot

That looks good. I mean, it's definitely on the blurry side, but it's not particularly jaggy. The image quality is fairly smooth.

 

[Barack Lesnar]

I think the Onlive guy was making a joke because it's not out on it yet lol

 

[OG_Original Gamer]

I think the worst aspect of that PS3 shot is the blur and low-res, not the lighting. Dynamic lighting, shadows and reflections need to be seen in motion to be appreciated, not in a static screenshot. But yeah, that is blurry as hell lol.

I mean look at this:

I'm skeptical that's even the console version.

I'm just amazed at the level of detail on that rocket launcher, though I do wonder if that copter crash position can change based on when and where you hit it.

 

[nib95]

On the topic of technical prowess vs artistic or optimised direction, I do think we should have a graphics tech comparison thread of some kind. Something I actually wanted to discuss with you guys was for example, KZ3's use of LDR (pseudo HDR) and Clamped Highlights (supposedly offers more artistic creativity) as a lighting option vs Crysis 2's full HDR. One is obviously technically better (proper HDR), but I guess the question is, is there even a noticeable difference? That's one artistic argument, then there's the argument based on cost. Imo, KZ3 has considerably better IQ, (textures, resolution, sharpness, AF, AA etc) than Crysis 2 (consoles), and I wonder how much of the compromises to Crysis 2 were because of the lighting engine. If the real world differences between such lighting options are negligible, or come at the expense of many other IQ additions, which is the more intelligent design choice?

Obviously this is a purely subjective thing, but I personally think IQ basics and a stable frame rate not only look/play better, but offer a more balanced design.

That said, there is no telling as to how costly C2's lighting engine was. The slightly more open world nature of the game could have been just as if not more responsible. But then there are obviously many segments in Crysis 2 that aren't quite so open.

 

[Barack Lesnar]

I'm just amazed at the level of detail on that rocket launcher, though I do wonder if that copter crash position can change based on when and where you hit it.

Probably all scripted

 

[GrizzNKev]

I'm just amazed at the level of detail on that rocket launcher, though I do wonder if that copter crash position can change based on when and where you hit it.

I've seen this section played in two videos, and the copter crashed in the same place in both of them. So I'd say, most likely not.

 

[-tetsuo-]

I'd take the "baked" lighting of MW2 over this any day.

I would have never guessed.

 

[SapientWolf]

Yeah, it may be impressive from a technical point, but it doesn't really look all that great.
I'd take the "baked" lighting of MW2 over this any day.

Real time day and night cycles might be a lot easier with that tech. It would make for nice DLC, at any rate.

 

[SolidSnakex]

I can't recall when LOT was hammered this hard. Note to DF, get off your ass and put something up - however minimal. Also, the lighting on those 360 screens is just fucked up.

I don't even get the LOT hate. I like their style of laying out the resolution, framerate/screen tear average over various scenes, and load times average over various scenes. They also tend to hold back their personal opinions until the very end of the comparisons. That helps them avoid laughable comparisons like the one DF did for FFXIII (which is still far and away the worst comparison i've ever read). Leadbetter was shredded by many people for that bullshit.

 

[shinobi602]

Might be impressive technically,but lighting wasn't a standout at all to me when the whole image was not good.
I don't see what the problem is.I said direct feed looks much worse than youtube where those details can't be seen.
PS3 shot

Still shots don't do this game justice. The 360/PS3 footage is jaw dropping in motion.

 

[TUROK]

On the topic of technical prowess vs artistic or optimised direction, I do think we should have a graphics tech comparison thread of some kind. Something I actually wanted to discuss with you guys was for example, KZ3's use of LDR (pseudo HDR) and Clamped Highlights (supposedly offers more artistic creativity) as a lighting option vs Crysis 2's full HDR. One is obviously technically better (proper HDR), but I guess the question is, is there even a noticeable difference? That's one artistic argument, then there's the argument based on cost. Imo, KZ3 has considerably better IQ, (textures, resolution, sharpness, AF, AA etc) than Crysis 2 (consoles), and I wonder how much of the compromises to Crysis 2 were because of the lighting engine. If the real world differences between such lighting options are negligible, or come at the expense of many other IQ additions, which is the more intelligent design choice?

Obviously this is a purely subjective thing, but I personally think IQ basics and a stable frame rate not only look/play better, but offer a more balanced design.

That said, there is no telling as to how costly C2's lighting engine was. The slightly more open world nature of the game could have been just as if not more responsible. But then there are obviously many segments in Crysis 2 that aren't quite so open.

The thing with real-time GI is that it is a HUGE benefit for the artists. Before if, you wanted to say, destroy a giant building in front of you, you would have to pre-calculate the lighting before the building was destroyed, and after it was destroyed, because most static light sources are pre-baked. With real-time GI, you wouldn't have to worry about this, as the lighting would just update itself automatically, in laymans terms.

There's also the visual benefits to this, but to me, the biggest benefit seems to be for the developers.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I think the Onlive guy was making a joke because it's not out on it yet lol

No hes saying it looks like its being streamed. IE bad quality and hes right.

 

[THRILLH0]

I'm skeptical that's even the console version.

The way the cursor is moving suggests that it is the console version unless it's the PC version being played with a controller.

Also, I know that embargoes have been done to death on this board and on many podcasts but why doesn't the industry just band together and fuck the embargoes all together?

What's going to happen if IGN/Gamespot/Eurogamer/1up etc decide to grow up and quit being held hostage by publishers.

"You won't get a review copy next time" doesn't hold much sway if you're in the majority.

Sure, it would hurt smaller sites who have to buy their own copies anyway but that's the price of being in business.

 

[strata8]

You know what, I'm just going to wait for the DF analysis.

 

[nib95]

The thing with real-time GI is that it is a HUGE benefit for the artists. Before if, you wanted to say, destroy a giant building in front of you, you would have to pre-calculate the lighting before the building was destroyed, and after it was destroyed, because most static light sources are pre-baked. With real-time GI, you wouldn't have to worry about this, as the lighting would just update itself automatically, in laymans terms.

There's also the visual benefits to this, but to me, the biggest benefit seems to be for the developers.

So it's less work for the developers but more costly to the hardware? Any ideas on just how expensive this is on current hardware? For example, does Crysis 2 PC offer a GI on/off option so we can see the cost it inflicts? I appreciate however, that most modern GPU's in PC's today would completely oust the one's in the PS3 and 360, so it might not be a fair way to gauge the cost involved.

 

[Merguson]

I'm just amazed at the level of detail on that rocket launcher, though I do wonder if that copter crash position can change based on when and where you hit it.

I saw a YouTube video on the helicopter crash before. Someone posted a link to the video in this thread. Same thing happens except that the player is standing on the other side of the room when the helicopter crashes in the same place, so definitely scripted.

Also, it's definitely quite impressive what Crytek has been able to do on the console platforms when you consider that this is their first attempt at developing a game on those platforms.

 

[Neuromancer]

Man, 51 pages of this same stuff.

I know. The signal to noise ratio of people actually talking about the game itself must be 1 to 99.

Hopefully when the Digital Foundry comparison comes out there will be a new thread for that.

 

[TUROK]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y83/radicalnsx/GI_LPV.jpg

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/8506/2010i3d.jpg

Here are some pretty old numbers. I think the GI they were using for this presentation was of a lower quality than what is present in the final game though.

 

[aasoncott]

Sooooo the PC demo doesn't have servers anymore? I just downloaded it to see if it'd run on my computer and the server list is totally empty. This puts me in the worst possible demographic: those with so-so PCs that have no idea whether or not a game will run.

 

[Barack Lesnar]

Most people are probably just waiting for it to release and then will talk about the game. I can't wait to get into the campaign. This thread has been a good way to kill time. About 15 more hours for me... gonna go to bed now and try to sleep for like 14 and a half. Cya

Sooooo the PC demo doesn't have servers anymore? I just downloaded it to see if it'd run on my computer and the server list is totally empty. This puts me in the worst possible demographic: those with so-so PCs that have no idea whether or not a game will run.

Specs?

 

[RoboPlato]

Most people are probably just waiting for it to release and then will talk about the game. I can't wait to get into the campaign. This thread has been a good way to kill time. About 15 more hours for me... gonna go to bed now and try to sleep for like 14 and a half. Cya

I can't play until 5 tomorrow afternoon. It's going to be a long wait. I've been looking forward to this campaign for a while.

 

[aasoncott]

Specs?

i5 2.66GHz, GTX 260, 12gb RAM.

 

[Barack Lesnar]

I can't play until 5 tomorrow afternoon. It's going to be a long wait. I've been looking forward to this campaign for a while.

I don't have a job anymore so I'm lucky... wait... no I'm not lol

i5 2.66GHz, GTX 260, 12gb RAM.

yeah you can run it fine

 

[Mrbob]

i5 2.66GHz, GTX 260, 12gb RAM.

You might want to ask denogg....I believe he has almost the exact same specs as you (less main ram) and told me he was getting in the 40s in the multi demo. I don't remember what resolution he was running at though. Either way I don't anticipate any major issues unless you are running at 2560 X 1600.

 

[RoboPlato]

I don't have a job anymore so I'm lucky... wait... no I'm not lol

I have class and I have to scrub mold off of old dirty books in the library. I'm just going to mutter MAXIMUM MOLD every time I pull out another book.

 

[ArbiterMajor]

According to this article http://n4g.com/news/726438/crysis-2-runs-better-with-the-game-installed-on-your-xbox-360 "Crysis 2 Runs better with The game Installed on your Xbox 360"

 

[Truespeed]

I don't even get the LOT hate. I like their style of laying out the resolution, framerate/screen tear average over various scenes, and load times average over various scenes. They also tend to hold back their personal opinions until the very end of the comparisons. That helps them avoid laughable comparisons like the one DF did for FFXIII (which is still far and away the worst comparison i've ever read). Leadbetter was shredded by many people for that bullshit.

Totally agree. They may not nose dive into the technical minutia, as DF likes to do and then spend a couple of pages talking about it, but they make up for it by being so prolific and current with their content. The results may not be as fine grained as DF, but for the most part they're accurate and any bias is reserved for their personal opinions at the end.

DF could learn a thing or two from LOT. Pump out content and constantly update and iterate.

 

[RoboPlato]

Might be impressive technically,but lighting wasn't a standout at all to me when the whole image was not good.
I don't see what the problem is.I said direct feed looks much worse than youtube where those details can't be seen.
PS3 shot
http://www.irshell.org/img/crysis2/cloak2.png[IMG][/QUOTE]
Screens like this always exaggerate resolution differences. Other games that run at lower resolutions than Crysis 2 like Red Dead Redemption don't look anywhere near as blurry as this. This looks like a screen from Black Ops PS3.

 

[Nizz]

I can't play until 5 tomorrow afternoon. It's going to be a long wait. I've been looking forward to this campaign for a while.

I look forward to impressions! Also, maybe someone could answer this.. Amazon has probably already eliminated the release date delivery but does anyone know if they've ever extended the release date delivery price after the day the game comes out?

I traded a game to Amazon and the place should be getting it tomorrow afternoon. After that it's about 2 business days till I get the credit. I could have sworn I saw a game once or twice with release date delivery price still an option after the game came out.

After the terrible demo I wrote off the game but the SP campaign has been looking good. And it doesn't seem like a total disaster on PS3. I'm kind of glad I held off on getting it since reviews go up tomorrow. Plus more GAF impressions should roll in, plus maybe some comparisons from LoT and DF.

But I guess I'm SOL on getting it delivered cheap...

I don't have a job anymore so I'm lucky... wait... no I'm not lol

You're not alone...

 

[Kibbles]

According to this article http://n4g.com/news/726438/crysis-2-runs-better-with-the-game-installed-on-your-xbox-360 "Crysis 2 Runs better with The game Installed on your Xbox 360"

I would assume so. Most every game does (although looks like in this case, even more so). Hopefully reviewers have taken this into account.

Seems like it may run better because of the streaming being faster on the HDD than on disc and this game probably has a shit load of streaming.

Spoiler

I think what I said makes sense, I'm really not that into the technical details.

 

[Zeal]

playing the ps3 version and some of the textures look really washed out and bland, imo.

 

[RoboPlato]

I look forward to impressions! Also, maybe someone could answer this.. Amazon has probably already eliminated the release date delivery but does anyone know if they've ever extended the release date delivery price after the day the game comes out?

I traded a game to Amazon and the place should be getting it tomorrow afternoon. After that it's about 2 business days till I get the credit. I could have sworn I saw a game once or twice with release date delivery price still an option after the game came out.

After the terrible demo I wrote off the game but the SP campaign has been looking good. And it doesn't seem like a total disaster on PS3. I'm kind of glad I held off on getting it since reviews go up tomorrow. Plus more GAF impressions should roll in, plus maybe some comparisons from LoT and DF.

But I guess I'm SOL on getting it delivered cheap...

I'm getting the PS3 version and I've played the 360 demo a decent amount so I'll give as detailed impressions of the tech and gameplay as I can once I pull myself away from it.

 

[DenogginizerOS]

not going to join us console peasants eh?

My computer ran the PC demo at a 1080p with a rock solid 45FPS on the Advanced (?) setting. I can't ignore that and get it on console. Sorry, mate.

 

[TUROK]

Totally agree. They may not nose dive into the technical minutia, as DF likes to do and then spend a couple of pages talking about it, but they make up for it by being so prolific and current with their content. The results may not be as fine grained as DF, but for the most part they're accurate and any bias is reserved for their personal opinions at the end.

DF could learn a thing or two from LOT. Pump out content and constantly update and iterate.

LoT constantly misuses their terminology. It's quite clear that they don't have a grasp on what they're actually talking about. The only thing they do semi-competently is their captures.