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

Forums - Gaming - New Crysis 3 console gameplay. Looks to be 360 in this instance.

Andrespetmonkey on 24 December 2012
selnor said:
ZaneWane said:
best graphic of 2013 confirmed


I think so. Nothing comiing out next on year consoles looks this good. Unless Watchdogs is somehow done on console or Star Wars 1313.

I'm pretty sure it won't look better than some next gen titles.

Looks fucking incredible on console though... for sure best looking.

edit: if that is in fact console footage



My Music

Around the Network
ishiki on 24 December 2012
Pemalite said:
DirtyP2002 said:
looks really really good. Now show me a 7 years old PC that can run this game.

A 7 year old PC can run Crysis 2 just fine, albeit with massively reduced quality settings, Crysis 3 won't be that much demanding that tweaking couldn't fix.
However, you don't buy a AAA game to run it worst than a console, it's the leading edge in terms of graphical fidelity, why settle for anything less than at max?
Sure it's not cheap, but it's well worth it.
For instance, show me a console that can run this at 5760x1080 or higher with 8x AA/AF with everything on max.


Actually no 7 year old PC will be able to run Crysis 3 from a literal perspective. Unless it's videocard has been upgraded.

Crytek made Crysis 3 DirectX11 only (On PC atleast), and DX11 didn't exist 7 years ago.



man-bear-pig on 24 December 2012

^ Axumblade and Kantor's the deputy



My prediction threads:

Wii U will sell under 40m units (made on 14th September 2012)

PS Vita will sell under 20m units (made on 30th September 2012)

Wii U will sell under 7m in 2013 - I was right

Halo 4 first 9 weeks sales prediction

PS4 to be down YOY in 2015

Barozi on 24 December 2012

Calm down he was banned for that post.

Just not very long, because he doesn't have a very long mod history.



Pemalite on 24 December 2012
ishiki said:
Pemalite said:
DirtyP2002 said:
looks really really good. Now show me a 7 years old PC that can run this game.

A 7 year old PC can run Crysis 2 just fine, albeit with massively reduced quality settings, Crysis 3 won't be that much demanding that tweaking couldn't fix.
However, you don't buy a AAA game to run it worst than a console, it's the leading edge in terms of graphical fidelity, why settle for anything less than at max?
Sure it's not cheap, but it's well worth it.
For instance, show me a console that can run this at 5760x1080 or higher with 8x AA/AF with everything on max.


Actually no 7 year old PC will be able to run Crysis 3 from a literal perspective. Unless it's videocard has been upgraded.

Crytek made Crysis 3 DirectX11 only (On PC atleast), and DX11 didn't exist 7 years ago.

That doesn't matter.
All you need someone to do is re-write the shaders.
For example Oblivion was strictly Shader model 2 (Direct X9) and some clever chaps rewrote the shaders so it was able to run on a Geforce 3/Radeon 8500  (Shader model 1.0, Direct x8). - Aka. Oldblivion.
Same thing happened with the origional Bioshock with the Shadershock mod.

Failing that you also have 3danalyze and Swiftshader to emulate them.

Crysis 3 runs on the exact same engine as Crysis 2, so it should be relatively trivial to do, bonus is that CryEngine is very well known and is also very open, if there was a demand, people would do it, but who runs antiquated Direct X 9 hardware that's in-line with consoles these days? Even Steam survey shows it's a trivial amount at only 4.5% of PC users and dropping.




www.youtube.com/@Pemalite

Around the Network
dj2one on 24 December 2012

I really enjoyed Crysis 2 at first, but the story went off track and the characters weren't very interesting by the end of the game I just wanted to finish. I will def pick up C3 but not Day 1, graphics will be great but hope they step up the campaign story as the MP will never foster a large community.



ishiki on 24 December 2012
Pemalite said:
ishiki said:
Pemalite said:
DirtyP2002 said:
looks really really good. Now show me a 7 years old PC that can run this game.

A 7 year old PC can run Crysis 2 just fine, albeit with massively reduced quality settings, Crysis 3 won't be that much demanding that tweaking couldn't fix.
However, you don't buy a AAA game to run it worst than a console, it's the leading edge in terms of graphical fidelity, why settle for anything less than at max?
Sure it's not cheap, but it's well worth it.
For instance, show me a console that can run this at 5760x1080 or higher with 8x AA/AF with everything on max.


Actually no 7 year old PC will be able to run Crysis 3 from a literal perspective. Unless it's videocard has been upgraded.

Crytek made Crysis 3 DirectX11 only (On PC atleast), and DX11 didn't exist 7 years ago.

That doesn't matter.
All you need someone to do is re-write the shaders.
For example Oblivion was strictly Shader model 2 (Direct X9) and some clever chaps rewrote the shaders so it was able to run on a Geforce 3/Radeon 8500  (Shader model 1.0, Direct x8). - Aka. Oldblivion.
Same thing happened with the origional Bioshock with the Shadershock mod.

Failing that you also have 3danalyze and Swiftshader to emulate them.

Crysis 3 runs on the exact same engine as Crysis 2, so it should be relatively trivial to do, bonus is that CryEngine is very well known and is also very open, if there was a demand, people would do it, but who runs antiquated Direct X 9 hardware that's in-line with consoles these days? Even Steam survey shows it's a trivial amount at only 4.5% of PC users and dropping.


I know this. Obviously it "technically" could because they're still more powerful than consoles. 

However at launch, it won't be able to run. I doubt there will ever be demand because most people that want crysis want it heavily for its graphics. And DX11 when coded correctly is more efficient than DX9, so there is little motivation for them to do so.

For instance, has anyone gotten Just Cause 2 to run on DX9? It's a DX10 and DX11 only game.



selnor on 24 December 2012
Badassbab said:
selnor said:
Badassbab said:

We don't know if this is 360 footage but if it is then looks pretty amazing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnRqQDfmQaM <<<< Apparently that's 360 footage right there. But I'm adopting a wait and see policy. Crysis 2 was far too ambitious on current gen with dodgy AA, pop ins and crappy frame rates. Killzone 2 & especially 3 are still FPS technical accomplishment kings overall though one could argue Halo 4 is better looking in some ways but that's mostly due to art direction.

Risking  a war.............

Digital Foundry claim that from there technical analysis Halo 4 >>> KZ3. As thats the only reeal site doing technical tests we really have to go with that from a tech point of view. They claim its arueably the best on  console so far alongside UC3 and GOW3. They rate GOW3 and UC3 also technicaly better than KZ3.

I think you can only say KZ3 is better artistically as an opinion. BUt technically alo 4 is better accordin to their analysis. so thats more fact.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-killzone-3

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-halo-4

DF never said that and I'm a regular at Eurogamer. Sticking to just FPS, KZ3 as a whole is easily the most technically demanding. Just look at the at the later levels with the amount of stuff happening at the same time. There's nothing in any Halo game that can compete with that. The thing Halo has over Killzone is the sandboxy level design, loads of full res alpha effects, light sourcing for weapons i.e light source for every Convenant particle fired and controller lag  (Killzone uses quater res alpha, smaller play areas and slower controller response). In fact both Halo Reach and Killzone 2 pushed each of their respective consoles very hard to the point where they made great advances in the engines for the sequels they also had to make some obvious cut backs. For Killzone 3 they cut back on the post processing and weapon particle effects and for Halo 4 they got rid of SSAO and motion blur as well as draw down the light sourcing.

Check out 5.40 onwards with the Mawler in the background wrecking havoc. There's nothing in a Halo game to compare from an audio visual perspective. Just so much going on explosions, particle effects, smoke density, lighting...and KZ3 does this at a very solid 720p/30fps/triple buffering and MLAA. I understand the play area is small compared to Halo games and the alpha explosions are low res with sometimes dodgy animation but even taking that into account it's still unbelievable.

DF : Halo 4 is fighting it out for best console graphics along with UC3 and GOW3. DF dont even mention KZ2 or 3 when saying the the top spot is between GOW3, UC3 and Halo 4. 

The fact that KZ2 and 3 and Guirella Games are not even mentioned tell you KZ3 is not as technically impressive as Halo 4. Its not either. I have both. Lighting, scale, amount on screen, fidelity, Effects all better in Halo 4.

"Technologically speaking, Halo 4 doesn't put a foot wrong throughout the entire eight to nine hour campaign. The enhancements to modelling, lighting and environments are beautiful and play host to some of the most epic gunplay we've experienced on a home console title."

"In an era where the likes of Naughty Dog and Sony Santa Monica have defined the graphical state-of-the-art with Uncharted and God of War, Xbox 360 finally has its own shot at the title - and it's a genuinely worthwhile, lavish and occasionally even breathtaking experience."

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-halo-4

See no mention of even a glimpse of KZ. Halo 4 has given the 360 its own shot at best visuals of the generation for consoles. Right from DF mouth. KZ2 and 3 arent anywhere near as impressive technically as UC3, GOW3 and Halo 4.



dahuman on 24 December 2012

I think a lot of you are missing the point of Halo 4 and GTA V graphics, it's that a lot of those are cel-shaded based, which based on experience with Wind Waker, is able to defeat the times easier because they are not shooting for realism. Just pay attention to even the Halo 4 CGI stuff, most of those pre-rendered scenes have a lot of cel-shaded style in them.



Badassbab on 25 December 2012
selnor said:
Badassbab said:
selnor said:
Badassbab said:

We don't know if this is 360 footage but if it is then looks pretty amazing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnRqQDfmQaM <<<< Apparently that's 360 footage right there. But I'm adopting a wait and see policy. Crysis 2 was far too ambitious on current gen with dodgy AA, pop ins and crappy frame rates. Killzone 2 & especially 3 are still FPS technical accomplishment kings overall though one could argue Halo 4 is better looking in some ways but that's mostly due to art direction.

Risking  a war.............

Digital Foundry claim that from there technical analysis Halo 4 >>> KZ3. As thats the only reeal site doing technical tests we really have to go with that from a tech point of view. They claim its arueably the best on  console so far alongside UC3 and GOW3. They rate GOW3 and UC3 also technicaly better than KZ3.

I think you can only say KZ3 is better artistically as an opinion. BUt technically alo 4 is better accordin to their analysis. so thats more fact.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-killzone-3

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-halo-4

DF never said that and I'm a regular at Eurogamer. Sticking to just FPS, KZ3 as a whole is easily the most technically demanding. Just look at the at the later levels with the amount of stuff happening at the same time. There's nothing in any Halo game that can compete with that. The thing Halo has over Killzone is the sandboxy level design, loads of full res alpha effects, light sourcing for weapons i.e light source for every Convenant particle fired and controller lag  (Killzone uses quater res alpha, smaller play areas and slower controller response). In fact both Halo Reach and Killzone 2 pushed each of their respective consoles very hard to the point where they made great advances in the engines for the sequels they also had to make some obvious cut backs. For Killzone 3 they cut back on the post processing and weapon particle effects and for Halo 4 they got rid of SSAO and motion blur as well as draw down the light sourcing.

Check out 5.40 onwards with the Mawler in the background wrecking havoc. There's nothing in a Halo game to compare from an audio visual perspective. Just so much going on explosions, particle effects, smoke density, lighting...and KZ3 does this at a very solid 720p/30fps/triple buffering and MLAA. I understand the play area is small compared to Halo games and the alpha explosions are low res with sometimes dodgy animation but even taking that into account it's still unbelievable.

DF : Halo 4 is fighting it out for best console graphics along with UC3 and GOW3. DF dont even mention KZ2 or 3 when saying the the top spot is between GOW3, UC3 and Halo 4. 

The fact that KZ2 and 3 and Guirella Games are not even mentioned tell you KZ3 is not as technically impressive as Halo 4. Its not either. I have both. Lighting, scale, amount on screen, fidelity, Effects all better in Halo 4.

"Technologically speaking, Halo 4 doesn't put a foot wrong throughout the entire eight to nine hour campaign. The enhancements to modelling, lighting and environments are beautiful and play host to some of the most epic gunplay we've experienced on a home console title."

"In an era where the likes of Naughty Dog and Sony Santa Monica have defined the graphical state-of-the-art with Uncharted and God of War, Xbox 360 finally has its own shot at the title - and it's a genuinely worthwhile, lavish and occasionally even breathtaking experience."

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-halo-4

See no mention of even a glimpse of KZ. Halo 4 has given the 360 its own shot at best visuals of the generation for consoles. Right from DF mouth. KZ2 and 3 arent anywhere near as impressive technically as UC3, GOW3 and Halo 4.

In bold- Your kidding right? Anywhere near? That's an OTT use of the phrase if I ever saw one.

Why Richard Leadbetter neglected to mention KZ3 (well he did in one paragraph praising it's interior levels) is beyond me but it doesn't mean Halo 4 is the technically better game. In fact reading the tech analysis of KZ3, RL doesn't mention the phenomenal particle physics fx at all which is a huge oversight.

Anyhow I've posted a video showing what I believe to be a section of the game (and there are more) which is in excess of anything Halo 4 does from an audio visual pov. Why don't you do the same? 

Just for the record as a game Halo > Killzone but technically no.