-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Crysis 2 |OT| This is what happens Larry...
- Thread starter MickeyKnox
- Start date
eso76
Member
on X360 it looks better than KZ2 to me, not to mention areas are a lot larger and much more complex in structure.
Haven't played KZ3 yet, but i read somewhere that they dropped object based motion blur ? if that's the case that's too bad, because like i stated previously, motion blur adds a lot to the overall look of a game
does KZ3 run smoother than its prequel ? Because KZ2 wasn't smoother than Crysis 2 at all.
I don't understand how KZ2 never raised framerate complaints, i swear there were entire chapters struggling to achieve 20fps on my Ps3.
Haven't played KZ3 yet, but i read somewhere that they dropped object based motion blur ? if that's the case that's too bad, because like i stated previously, motion blur adds a lot to the overall look of a game
does KZ3 run smoother than its prequel ? Because KZ2 wasn't smoother than Crysis 2 at all.
I don't understand how KZ2 never raised framerate complaints, i swear there were entire chapters struggling to achieve 20fps on my Ps3.
Nanosuit Ninja said:actually I use a custom difficulty which I call Epsilon which is considerably harder then Delta
you might prefer this one instead of Cryhard 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y5KiJt9oxg
your videos are ridiculously entertaining!
Barack Lesnar
Banned
Yup, it's basically a PR move from Crytek/EA. Having "low" or even, god forbid, "medium" settings would lead to the same stigma Crysis 1 had being attached to the sequel. It's kind of insulting that they think we're that dumb.mbmonk said:
Anyway, my copy just arrived. What a glorious day this will be...
lol
Nizz
Member
Nanosuit Ninja said:actually I use a custom difficulty which I call Epsilon which is considerably harder then Delta
you might prefer this one instead of Cryhard 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y5KiJt9oxg
I loved your reaction in this vid, lol! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osI4qpfwzjU
petethepanda
Member
I have a q6600 at stock speed, 9800gtx at stock speed, 4gb ddr2 ram. Playing on Very High (ie Medium) I hover around 30fps. Drops to 25ish sometimes in crowded outdoor scenes, but mostly sticks around 30. Looks really good. Edit: 1680x1050.Corky said:
I'm missing the small things from 1. Manually picking up weapons/ammo, the "interactivity" of the environment (explosions rocking everything around it), etc. The AI is pretty dumb, too.
plagiarize
Banned
yeah, ign are mad. unless these LOT screens are mislabelled (and i doubt they can be because the PS3 ones do look lower res) the lighting and shadows in the PS3 version seem to be superior. some textures better on PS3 also.
When I wrote my post, I never meant for it to be a long, detailed list of pros and cons between the engines of the two games. It was just to briefly state my belief that all these arguments about Crysis 2 "looking better," or being a match graphically/technically for KZ3, should be put to rest. Mind you, I didn't list EVERY single way in which Killzone 3 is technically superior either; there are few other advantages I didn't mention for brevity's sake.plagiarize said:
Insofar as things Crysis 2's engine does under the hood that's better than KZ3 (again, comparing the console versions only), the only thing that I can notice is that Crysis 2 uses a deferred radiosity technique (a form of global illumination), as compared to the pre-baked GI model of KZ3... which is a pretty cool, fresh bullet point on Crysis 2's side, I must admit.
----------------------------------------------------
It was a deliberate artistic decision on the developers' part to make the motion blur less overbearing or obvious; it is in no way of lower quality, let alone "missing." This would be akin the them tweaking the shutter speed of the camera in the engine to deliberately reduce or increase the amount an object blurs (or for how long) when in motion.BeeDog said:
To be honest, the only reason I think Guerilla toned down the motion blur from KZ2 was because they (wrongly) listened to the jabs by ignorant fanboys who insulted Killzone 2's for being "too blurry."
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
That seems to favor the PS3 version outside of resolution issues. The lighting on PS3 looks much better. They should have thrown in some PC shotslunlunqq said:
-bakalhau-
Member
Would anyone be so kind to tell me how the *PC* version plays on *multiplayer* with a 360 controller?
They disabled auto-aim I know - I understand it for obvious reasons - but it saddens me because I was loving being able to play normally. Did they, maybe, lower the auto-aim, and not disabled it completely?
Can anyone tell me if you can play decently, or if you are spreading bullets all over the place comparing to the demo?
They disabled auto-aim I know - I understand it for obvious reasons - but it saddens me because I was loving being able to play normally. Did they, maybe, lower the auto-aim, and not disabled it completely?
Can anyone tell me if you can play decently, or if you are spreading bullets all over the place comparing to the demo?
petethepanda
Member
Whoops. 1680x1050.Corky said:
I got my PS3 copay!!! People are saying 360 looks nicer but I still refuse to pay for multiplayer and besides, we know that Gaffers, being the wealth of knowledge that they are, can get a bit too nit-picky when it comes to graphics.
This whole KZ3 vs. Crysis 2 is a bit silly. I have KZ3 and I love it but above anything else it is a very cinematic game. Powerful, yes but it looks over the top because of some very adroit tricks. They nailed their style but it's made for planet Vekta and the Killzone story.
Crysis 2 on the other hand is a technical showcase. They want that engine out there in other devs. hands and so I think it will have more variablity right off the bat to say nothing of it being multiplatform.
But why even talk about this? Why can't we just love it all? Do you realise that this has been one of the best seasons in video game history? Dead Space 2, Killzone 3, Bulletstorm, and now we get this beast of a game on a console.
It's fucking awesome! What shit are you shooting at? I am shooting all the motherfucking shit!
This whole KZ3 vs. Crysis 2 is a bit silly. I have KZ3 and I love it but above anything else it is a very cinematic game. Powerful, yes but it looks over the top because of some very adroit tricks. They nailed their style but it's made for planet Vekta and the Killzone story.
Crysis 2 on the other hand is a technical showcase. They want that engine out there in other devs. hands and so I think it will have more variablity right off the bat to say nothing of it being multiplatform.
But why even talk about this? Why can't we just love it all? Do you realise that this has been one of the best seasons in video game history? Dead Space 2, Killzone 3, Bulletstorm, and now we get this beast of a game on a console.
It's fucking awesome! What shit are you shooting at? I am shooting all the motherfucking shit!
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
Are we looking at the same pictures? I see little to no difference in the lighting in that shot.kitch9 said:
plagiarize
Banned
you only listed the things that KZ3 did better than Crysis 2. by not listing the areas in which they are equivalent or the areas in which Crysis 2 surpasses KillZone 3, how do you expect to put anything to rest?sTaTIx said:
the argument can be made one way or the other as to which is ultimately more impressive, and i'd say technically kz3 is probably more impressive, however as a mature and exclusive engine on the PS3 you'd expect that. that Cry Engine 3 looks this good on the first attempt on a multiplatform game is pretty much mind blowing.
and taking the final effect into account i'd give it to Crysis 2 personally, because lighting for me is a huge deal, and i prefer that 'look' of it to the 'look' of KZ3. but then i was one of those crazy people that praised Halo 3's graphics because of how amazing the lighting in that game was for the time.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Hardly any PC impressions so far. Hmm.
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
That's true but otherwise the res is the only difference.iam220 said:
No one cares about that portLovingSteam said:
This is a console game now :/
plagiarize
Banned
most people are still downloading i thinkLovingSteam said:
i haven't picked up my copy from the store yet and won't be able to until later on this evening. i'll post them when i have them though.
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
Interestingly enough the lens of truth has more votes for the PS3 version looking better despite the lower res.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
The issue I have with these type of competitive face-offs is that they are so busy trying to isolate the differences as a point-scoring exercise you get very little real sense of how impacting to the overall experience (or not) they are.
If a port is egregiously poor, I see the reason in highlighting the fact and maybe deducting review points. However it seems like most of the time it boils down to the writer looking to arbitrarily call "winner" and "loser".
Not helpful at all in my opinion.
If a port is egregiously poor, I see the reason in highlighting the fact and maybe deducting review points. However it seems like most of the time it boils down to the writer looking to arbitrarily call "winner" and "loser".
Not helpful at all in my opinion.
LiquidMetal14 said:
I think he's referring to that metal stuff missing or not showing in the PS3 pic. But it seems like the LOT guys are a bit lazy when grabbing screens. They should be putting in some extra effort when taking screenshots from scenes with a lot of animation (flashing lighting, water animation etc.), if they don't then the grabs are basically useless. That badge-pic of theirs is f.ex. already "debunked".
LiquidMetal14 said:That seems to favor the PS3 version outside of resolution issues. The lighting on PS3 looks much better. They should have thrown in some PC shots
Which makes that water picture above even more confusing.
Nearly ever PS3 pic in these shots look slightly better.
It's there. It's just hard to see in that screenshot because it's not being lit up by the spark of light at that particular frame in time, unlike the 360 version.iam220 said:
Having seen HD footage of that scene on both consoles, I would say that the distortion effects you're seeing are simply due to the water running down on the player's face at that particular point in time. The same water distortion effect is present in both the 360 and PS3 versions.iam220 said:
People complaining which version is better haha HAHAHAHA...seriously guys the game looks almost entirely the same unless you go at it with a microscope or pixel zoom...give it a rest...iam220 said:
PS3 has extra effects trurned on? (picture distortion to left and right). Or is that just a bad screenshot taken with the water effect on the screen?
I remember when gamers didnt know what IQ was...now it seems to be the ultimate deal breaker... there is always away to complain I guess
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
Which makes their findings more confusing as everyone seems to be shouting from the rooftops that the 360 version looks better. I don't think there's a doubt about the resolution but the rest has been very alarming.BeeDog said:
plagiarize
Banned
their screenshots are consistant with the other PS3 screens i've seen in that the PS3 seems to have lighting more akin to the PC version (and more aesthetically pleasing at least to my eyes anyway).BeeDog said:
it could be down to selective screenshotting, but i don't think so at this point.
well, the obvious differences favour the 360. better framerate and less blurry visuals are the sort of things you can spot without putting the games side by side. differences in lighting aren't so easy to discern that way, but are readily apparent when you put two screenshots side by side.LiquidMetal14 said:
given that the LOT screenshots give you no idea about framerate, that should be your answer there.
Just a heads up to crossfire users, there is a extreme flickering issue when running crossfire. So far I have seen people with 4,5,and 6 series cards reporting it. I have a 5970 and had to disable one GPU to get around it for now. You would think between ATI and Crytek someone would have caught this :O
SolidSnakex
Member
xion4360 said:
LoT hates texture pop in and tends to focus on it a lot. In their Homefront comparison they have a similar pic but point out that they showed the 360 screen the way they did because it takes a lot longer for the texture to pop in.
