Crysis 2 Face-Off PS3 vs 360 [Digital Foundry]

[epicurean]

Reasonable said:

epicurean said:

Lazthelost said:

ClassicGamingWizzz said:

kowenicki said:

 

In short, then, Xbox 360 benefits from a 25 per cent resolution boost over the PlayStation 3 version of the game. That's a pretty stark statistic, and while it is true that the action generally looks clearer and not quite so blurred on the Xbox 360, it's also the case that when the game is in full flow, the amount of post-processing effects in play, including camera and object-based motion blur, tends to equalise the visuals somewhat. Quite why there is a resolution difference at all is intriguing. Having fewer pixels to process obviously helps reduce fill-rate concerns, but curiously, notes left within the config files suggest that RAM was also a consideration: apparently 14MB of memory is saved by dropping res (which seems to suggest a hell of a lot of internal buffers being used to compose each frame).

There's little doubt that the Xbox 360 is the cleaner, crisper experience and for the most part it commands a small but significant frame-rate advantage and fewer little glitches; especially outside of combat scenarios, the game just seems to run that much more smoothly. However, there are parts of the game that seem to be brutally unoptimised, bringing the performance level crashing down to the point where the afflicted sections become almost unplayable - a variable 15-20FPS update in an intense fire-fight is hugely disorientating, and this makes Crysis 2 one of the most inconsistent performers released in recent times.

In these situations, it seems that it is the Xbox 360 version that has the most difficulties, though there's no mistaking that both platforms seem to lag badly in much the same areas. Interestingly, the really poor-performing sections do seem isolated to specific areas in the campaign, and from the hive infiltration level onwards things seemed to improve, but it's quite difficult to believe that those areas of the game got through QA without someone, somewhere raising the red flag.

The key to progression through these troublesome areas is to employ stealth rather than a balls-out frontal assault, but in a game that places so much weight on presenting different tactical strategies for potential flashpoints, it's disappointing that it's technical issues that are effectively narrowing down the available options. In conclusion, it's fair to say that Crytek has done enough to prove that Crysis can run on consoles - either of them in fact - and certainly the issues the game has in terms of bizarre glitches, performance drops, geometry pop-in and such-like are hardly exclusive to one platform. On balance, 360 has the edge in terms of visuals and general performance, but PS3 more than holds its own, bettering the Microsoft platform in some areas.

 

The crucial thing is that both are phenomenally attractive games, producing effects quite different and in many ways more advanced than anything we've seen elsewhere on console. We all wanted Crysis on console to be an event, a showcase release: by and large, Crytek has delivered, and those cutting edge visuals are backed by a truly impressive game design. However, there's the nagging feeling that a few more months in development could perhaps have ironed out the issues both versions of the game have..

 

Come on, lets call this right.... 360 slightly edges it.

Read that without tinted specs of either hue and "overall" the 360 just about wins.  No that it matter, its good for both, it seems we have a new 360 king in thew FPS genre visual stakes.  At times sure it dropsthe ball a bit but that is because it is trying to achieve a higher standard... 

So the best looking 360 FPS thus far.... is a multiplat.  hoorah.

fixed

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_uuCqsyqQObY/S9Zm3xjP0oI/AAAAAAAABEg/PM0Q00O5V0g/s1600/You_mad_grimace.jpg

Some people just can't handle the truth. This game is out, it has been reviewed and examined up and down. The 360 version of Crysis 2 is the best looking game on consoles. As in all consoles. Sorry buddy.

You have to be insanely close-minded if you think this is undoubtately the truth.  Ugh.  Why do people act like this.  

I presume you're talking to yourself with that last statement?

Anyway, there is no - I repeat no - way to call a single best graphical game due to the wide variety of engines and gameplay types.  If I go by what most posters are using here - resolution, etc - and accept that when you push the HW some graphical hitches are to be excepted then GT5 is arguably the best graphics on console, with 1080p resolution vs the 720p for Crysis 2 (which is a much bigger difference than the Crysis 2 360 to Crysis 2 PS3 resolution gap) with 2xAA and absurdly good looking preimium cars.  1080p vs 720p?  Clearly GT5 must be the best, right?

But I wouldn't call GT5 the best because how the heck to I compare it to a FPS engine?  Or vice versa how the heck to I compare Crysis 2 to GT5?  I can tell you the car models in GT5 look better but the character models in Crysis 2 look better - but so what?  What does that mean?

As to the reviews, so far only a handful of the total even claim it looks the best - and I wouldn't exactly trust evey game reviewer to know his shaders from his texture filters anyway let alone produce a professional review in the first place - with most noting it's up in the top ranks but has some annoying niggles such as the big frame rate drops and pop in.

Personally, I think the DF analysis nails it.  Crysis 2 is good looking, has some unfortunate rought edges and outright glitches the stop it being truly amazing, and plays and looks almost identical on each console.

But hey, you drink the kool aid and feel the need to declare a winner with no actual critera for how to even make that judgement.

What the hell are you accussing me of?  I agree with absolutely everything you just said?  I'm not declaring anything a winner or a non-winner, like the person I was replying to did.  READ WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID BEFORE POINTING FINGERS NEXT TIME.