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

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

mantlepiecek on 24 March 2011
Nsanity said:
mantlepiecek said:
Nsanity said:
Nsanity said:

How many of you have actually read the article?



I read the article twice. I skipped over the 3D parts in a hurry though.

Why you ask twice?

Hurry? you may start quoting parts or copy the entire article becuse i aint going through another 10 pages of misinformed rambling.

I gave them the link. Not my fault if they don't want to read through 3 pages of technical writing.

They should have read the article, no? And copying the whole article is kinda discouraged here so I didn't.



Around the Network
Badassbab on 24 March 2011
mantlepiecek said:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-crysis2-face-off

Couple of things, here.

No. 1, Richard agrees that Killzone 3 and Motorstorm Apocalypse are the best 3D games out there, even better than Crysis 2.

No. 2:

Both versions are supposedly the same, 360 seems to run at 1280x720p so the demo code was an older build. The PS3 version, however runs at 1024 x 720 but the differences are minor, due to blur effects.

The PS3 version seems to have better 3D effects from what I have read. I maybe wrong so you may want to check it out.

The PS3 version maintains its frame rate throughout the whole game perfectly even though its lower than the 360 version. The 360 version however has frame-rate going below 20 fps in some scenes. What this means is that the PS3 version operates more consistently then the 360 version, but the 360 version seems to hit 30 fps a lot more.

There is no screen tearing visible on either consoles.

Which is why he seemed to think that either versions are equally good.

No. 1 Ok....thought this was about Crysis H2H but if that's how you want to start it off fine.

No. 2 The implementation of 3D is better on PS3 due to HDMI 1.4 which 360 can't do. It's also since been established both games are upscaled to 720p via hardware, 360 using it's dedicated scaler and PS3 using it's GPU. 360 has a 12.5 % resolution advantage, PS3 has superior texture filtering. 360 is double buffered with soft v-sync, PS3 is triple buffered (not sure if it's v-synced as it might not need it). 360 has correct shadow implementation while PS3 has what appears to be an offset bias issue but has PCF which looks better than the blocky 360 shadows up close. Now according to DF the PS3 may have more bugs in the implementation of lighting but we don't really know if that is the case as is the water using the 360 tessellator, we don't know yet.

No game maintains frame rate perfectly. During general gameplay the 360 commands a lead in frame rate hovering closer to 30fps while PS3 hovers closer to 25fps however during the chaotic scenes the PS3 commands a lead unfortunatley we are talking 20fps vs the 360's 15fps so neither are that respectable in this instance.

Another point worth mentioning is the supeior sound on PS3 if you have the set up.

All in all it's a very close call so probably it's a tie taking all things into account but I believe the 360 is doing more work due to the increased res and the double buffered v-sync approach (I believe it has no choice in this matter due to the eDRAM size).

And PC version will be best. As usual.






mantlepiecek on 24 March 2011
Badassbab said:
mantlepiecek said:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-crysis2-face-off

Couple of things, here.

No. 1, Richard agrees that Killzone 3 and Motorstorm Apocalypse are the best 3D games out there, even better than Crysis 2.

No. 2:

Both versions are supposedly the same, 360 seems to run at 1280x720p so the demo code was an older build. The PS3 version, however runs at 1024 x 720 but the differences are minor, due to blur effects.

The PS3 version seems to have better 3D effects from what I have read. I maybe wrong so you may want to check it out.

The PS3 version maintains its frame rate throughout the whole game perfectly even though its lower than the 360 version. The 360 version however has frame-rate going below 20 fps in some scenes. What this means is that the PS3 version operates more consistently then the 360 version, but the 360 version seems to hit 30 fps a lot more.

There is no screen tearing visible on either consoles.

Which is why he seemed to think that either versions are equally good.

No. 1 Ok....thought this was about Crysis H2H but if that's how you want to start it off fine.

No. 2 The implementation of 3D is better on PS3 due to HDMI 1.4 which 360 can't do. It's also since been established both games are upscaled to 720p via hardware, 360 using it's dedicated scaler and PS3 using it's GPU. 360 has a 12.5 % resolution advantage, PS3 has superior texture filtering. 360 is double buffered with soft v-sync, PS3 is triple buffered (not sure if it's v-synced as it might not need it). 360 has correct shadow implementation while PS3 has what appears to be an offset bias issue but has PCF which looks better than the blocky 360 shadows up close. Now according to DF the PS3 may have more bugs in the implementation of lighting but we don't really know if that is the case as is the water using the 360 tessellator, we don't know yet.

No game maintains frame rate perfectly. During general gameplay the 360 commands a lead in frame rate hovering closer to 30fps while PS3 hovers closer to 25fps however during the chaotic scenes the PS3 commands a lead unfortunatley we are talking 20fps vs the 360's 15fps so neither are that respectable in this instance.

Another point worth mentioning is the supeior sound on PS3 if you have the set up.

All in all it's a very close call so probably it's a tie taking all things into account but I believe the 360 is doing more work due to the increased res and the double buffered v-sync approach (I believe it has no choice in this matter due to the eDRAM size).

And PC version will be best. As usual.

That's what I wrote, you just went in a little more detail.

The reason why I started off with the 3D was because there was recently an article here that talked how the crysis 2 3D is the best 3D implementation EVAR. And I thought it would be a good idea to put it in here.

I excluded PC because, well...the writer himself excluded PC.

How is it very PS3 biased I am not sure since I forgot to add the audio advantage for the PS3? OK maybe I shouldn't have started with the 3D stuff at the beginning but that was more in relation to the recent article then PS3 bias.

Also, isn't triple buffering superior to double buffering?



Reasonable on 24 March 2011
epicurean said:
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.


Sorry!  Meant to quote the other person who was declaring an absolute winner.  Checking email and typing on the forum at same time and got wrong person.  If it's any consolation I totally agree with your post.  I was reading your post, shaking my head at his and well... wires crossed in my brain I guess.

Sorry again!



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

LivingMetal on 24 March 2011
NiKKoM said:

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.

 

Now can we all be happy together, hold hands and sings songs..


And some people were doubting the LensOfTruth comparision, waiting for the Digital Foundry comparision, hoping it would give the Xbox 360 version the clear winner.  Thanks, man.  It's all good.

Aw, hell.  Here is the link:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=126324&page=1



Around the Network
Nsanity on 24 March 2011
LivingMetal said:
NiKKoM said:

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.

 

Now can we all be happy together, hold hands and sings songs..


And some people were doubting the LensOfTruth comparision, waiting for the Digital Foundry comparision, hoping it would give the Xbox 360 version the clear winner.  Thanks, man.  It's all good.

Me and many others was hoping for a fair comparision and we got it



Badassbab on 24 March 2011
mantlepiecek said:

That's what I wrote, you just went in a little more detail.

The reason why I started off with the 3D was because there was recently an article here that talked how the crysis 2 3D is the best 3D implementation EVAR. And I thought it would be a good idea to put it in here.

I excluded PC because, well...the writer himself excluded PC.

How is it very PS3 biased I am not sure since I forgot to add the audio advantage for the PS3? OK maybe I shouldn't have started with the 3D stuff at the beginning but that was more in relation to the recent article then PS3 bias.

Also, isn't triple buffering superior to double buffering?

Triple buffering is in some ways superior but it adds latency. Also if you cap the frame rate at a managable level with triple buffer than you won't need v-sync and v-sync is a system hog.






Nsanity on 24 March 2011

 

 

OP wont take quotes from the article then i will

Digitalfoundry

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.

 



Skeeuk on 24 March 2011
Nsanity said:

 

 

OP wont take quotes from the article then i will

Digitalfoundry

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.

 


^thats pretty poor performance for a game a small handful claim best grafix ever!



...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...

Skeeuk on 24 March 2011
LivingMetal said:
NiKKoM said:

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.

 

Now can we all be happy together, hold hands and sings songs..


And some people were doubting the LensOfTruth comparision, waiting for the Digital Foundry comparision, hoping it would give the Xbox 360 version the clear winner.  Thanks, man.  It's all good.

Aw, hell.  Here is the link:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=126324&page=1


ive now worked out why all the crysis 2 fanfare from 360 fans. they need something to win arguments with :)



...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...