By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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

The only thing that PS3 does better than XBOX360 on CRYSIS 2 are the shadows in a close distance. 



Around the Network
ethomaz said:

So...

- IGN is bias.
- 360 overall better.
- PS3 hold fps better.
- Crysis 2 is not graphic king on consoles.

Good read... thanks DF.

Crysis 2 is not graphic king on PS3.  ;)



Nice words twisting some of you got going on in here..



eliasg said:
ethomaz said:

So...

- IGN is bias.
- 360 overall better.
- PS3 hold fps better.
- Crysis 2 is not graphic king on consoles.

Good read... thanks DF.

Crysis 2 is not graphic king on PS3.  ;)

No... on consoles... Uncharted 2 > Killzone 3 > Crysis 2 (360)... there are inconsistencies in Crysis 2 like DF show.

And there are just 6 reviews saying it is graphic king.



in matters like these, LIVE is the main factor.

in any online multiplayer game, cross game chat, party system, and being able to access your friends a lot more seamlessly then PSN gives the edge to the 360 version every time. 



Around the Network

I think it is safe to say there is not a dramatic enough difference to go batshit crazy saying one version is truly superior. All this proves is that other developers should be trying to improve overall graphics for their games. It will probably not happen though since most games do not come close to crysis 2's level so they can continue to do just good enough in order to make games that sell.

This would not please Josh at all. I want the best graphics because I like things sexy.



Well, framerate drops and texture issues are its' biggest flaws obviously. I almost finished Crysis 2 now and I agree with that, but it still looks amazing though.

I only own the 360 version, so I can't really compare it to the PS3 one, but after reading DF's analysis the differences aren't as big as I thought.



2012 - Top 3 [so far]

                                                                             #1                                       #2                                      #3

      

Well, that's kind of interesting result given all the recent rumbling about this.

A final result that's essentially a tie in experience although technically it sounds like the 360 slightly comes out better overall, mainly down to the higher resolution although it's clear that with the way other affects are applied you're rarely aware of the difference and in places the PS3 is actually going to look better - such as the better close up shadowing and texture filtering in places.

PS3 overall a bit smoother - a steady slightly lower fps being preferable to a much more variable one that can drop lower - which actually surprises me, but unfortunately the article doesn't contain enough detail to give clues as to why the 360 manages to have a better fps most of the time (which implies the code is running just that bit better on it) but then handles some spots worse.

And as expected rough edges with a first console game.  I don't believe you can crown a graphics king as there's no way to compare different engine types (for example how do you compare this to GT5 engine or Forza?  Asnwer, you can't really and the whole graphics king concept is a sham) but even if I did the engine is clearly too uneven in performance, particularly - and rather oddly I'd say - on the 360.

If I had to pick an FPS winner on tech alone it'd probably still be Killzone 3.  Solid fps, better 3D and less rough edges all round - the AI on Crysis 2 for example can be a lot flakier.

Still, I'm impressed. Crytek clearly took the time to actually alter and balance to each console as best they could given what they were trying to push through the hardware.  The results on both PS3 and 360 are very good overall, and while I had doubts Crytek could do it, they've produced a - mostly - graphical powerhouse on consoles.

Personally, I think it's fitting that, just like Crysis before it on PC, there's the clear sense the game is trying a bit too hard to push a bit too much through the hardware of the time, as well as the sense that here and there Crytek just couldn't quite optimize the code enough.

For me it joins GT5 in the "totally amazing in parts but just a bit too uneven in places to really consistently call the best" category.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

Reasonable said:

Well, that's kind of interesting result given all the recent rumbling about this.

A final result that's essentially a tie in experience although technically it sounds like the 360 slightly comes out better overall, mainly down to the higher resolution although it's clear that with the way other affects are applied you're rarely aware of the difference and in places the PS3 is actually going to look better - such as the better close up shadowing and texture filtering in places.

PS3 overall a bit smoother - a steady slightly lower fps being preferable to a much more variable one that can drop lower - which actually surprises me, but unfortunately the article doesn't contain enough detail to give clues as to why the 360 manages to have a better fps most of the time (which implies the code is running just that bit better on it) but then handles some spots worse.

And as expected rough edges with a first console game.  I don't believe you can crown a graphics king as there's no way to compare different engine types (for example how do you compare this to GT5 engine or Forza?  Asnwer, you can't really and the whole graphics king concept is a sham) but even if I did the engine is clearly too uneven in performance, particularly - and rather oddly I'd say - on the 360.

If I had to pick an FPS winner on tech alone it'd probably still be Killzone 3.  Solid fps, better 3D and less rough edges all round - the AI on Crysis 2 for example can be a lot flakier.

Still, I'm impressed. Crytek clearly took the time to actually alter and balance to each console as best they could given what they were trying to push through the hardware.  The results on both PS3 and 360 are very good overall, and while I had doubts Crytek could do it, they've produced a - mostly - graphical powerhouse on consoles.

Personally, I think it's fitting that, just like Crysis before it on PC, there's the clear sense the game is trying a bit too hard to push a bit too much through the hardware of the time, as well as the sense that here and there Crytek just couldn't quite optimize the code enough.

For me it joins GT5 in the "totally amazing in parts but just a bit too uneven in places to really consistently call the best" category.

good post 1

i think they both have thier ups and own with 360 prolly edgeing due to resolution, but that would be a mute point as your not going to notice during standard gameplay. whats worrying is the mention is frame rates dipping to unplayable ie 15fps in sections. i wouldnt really call that best grafix this gen.

il have my copy on ps3 tomorrow and going to try 360 version, some friends have already said they look and play same with mabey 360 looking more saturated colours.

stuff like better shadows etc on ps3 and steadier frames during certain segment i dont think people will bother TBH

for a 1st time console development i think crytek has done well so its a win for everyone. anyone who claims otherwise is being a fanboy



...not much time to post anymore, used to be awesome on here really good fond memories from VGchartz...

PSN: Skeeuk - XBL: SkeeUK - PC: Skeeuk

really miss the VGCHARTZ of 2008 - 2013...

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.