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

Forums - Gaming - CryEngine 3 showing 360parts vs ps3parts

tmbh on 26 March 2009
Loud_Hot_White_Box said:
tmbh said:

 

All I did was point out two points from that video where the same section is shown on both consoles as a comparison.

I make no claims whatsoever as to which looks better!

 

Ok, so you were saying check both the 360 and PS3 versions around :53, then check them both around 1:19?  I'll believe you.  Though, note that what is onscreen at those two moments are: the PS3 inside shot at :53, then the 360 outside shot at 1:19.  It really seemed from your post like you were comparing them, rather than comparing similar shots from each console.

I didn't even notice a PS3 analog for that particular 360 shot, either...which may have compounded the confusion.  Anyway, my apologies, since you weren't claiming what I thought you were.

Yeah you got it.  Maybe I could of explained myself a bit better.  Timing I referred to are from gametrailers HD version so there might be a few seconds difference to the Gamersyde clip.

I will go on record saying that the first sequence thats an interior or alleyway looks better on 360, but the exterior shot as he comes out of the hut looks better on PS3.

Anyway its early days for the engine, looks good so far though with many inprovements to come!



Around the Network
Squilliam on 26 March 2009
dahuman said:
Squilliam said:
I think the PS3 version will outperform the PC version if we compare performance from the perspective of someone who appreciates the power of the cell.

 

na, the amount of memory and the difference in graphic chip performance are quiet big at this point, you don't need a CPU as powerful because your video card is doing a lot of the work, not to mention the new quad cores are pretty beasty by themselves.

LIES!!!

I still get emotional over the emotion engine.

Toy Story Graphics > Crysis and the PS2 can achieve Toy Story graphics so therefore the PS2 > a modern high end PC.

 

 



Tease.

Baggins on 26 March 2009
dahuman said:
Squilliam said:
I think the PS3 version will outperform the PC version if we compare performance from the perspective of someone who appreciates the power of the cell.

 

na, the amount of memory and the difference in graphic chip performance are quiet big at this point, you don't need a CPU as powerful because your video card is doing a lot of the work, not to mention the new quad cores are pretty beasty by themselves.

 

 

He's being sarcastic mate :)

The PC graphics cards are 2 generations ahead of the PS3, nearly 4 years (long time in PC world) Memory is basically unlimited (I have 12GB in my PC). Most gamers have at least 4GB. The Cell is nowhere near as powerful as even an old Intel Q6600, would wipe the floor with it in all but the most 7 thread optimised applications...which don't actually exisit for normal people.



Squilliam on 26 March 2009

Pretty much ^, Besides this thread is BS as said so by a developer @ crytek and I don't feel like linking it SO THERE!

HD 4670

2* shader power
3* texture performance

when compared to the Xenos.

Rv790 (Yes it does exist)

probably ~1.5 Scaryflops of crysis eating performance.



Tease.

dahuman on 26 March 2009

I know, but I still feel I need to clarify because some people will actually believe you lol.



Around the Network
Griffin on 26 March 2009

Looks ok i guess, nothing special though.



Baggins on 26 March 2009
dahuman said:

I know, but I still feel I need to clarify because some people will actually believe you lol.

 

 

So very true...and so very sad.

We are the chosen ones, the ones who can tell the difference between a woman and a blowup doll.



ssj12 on 26 March 2009
vlad321 said:
ssj12 said:
vlad321 said:
ssj12 said:
vlad321 said:
ssj12 said:
looks good but there are some hang-ups the PC version of the engine wont have.

 

Considering it's been out for the PC for 2 years, I'd hope so.

 

No, both Crysis games run on CryEngine 2. This is CryEngine 3 which farther improved that engine.

 

Well, I must be missing something, but this looks more like CryEngine 2.25 to me.

 

incremental updates for many engines are pretty much bug fixes and they add some minor features that were nearly finished for the main build but missed deadline.

Crysis used CryEngine 2

Crysis Warhead used CryEngine 2.?

 

I will straight up say that CryEngine 3 passed Crysis Warhead in graphics and physics even on the two HD consoles. I can't wait to see what it can do on say a Core i7 650 or 750 with Tri-Sli or CrossFireX.

 

Ok, THIS is incrementation of engines:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/81/Unreal_Engine_Comparison.jpg

Not what you showed me. THat's CE2.25.

You do realize there is an Unreal Engine 1.5, UE2.1, UE2.5. UE2XBE, UE3.1, UE3.2 right?

There really isnt much the CryEngine 3 can improve on except for texture detail, physics, and other things that affect the overall feel of a game. It seems it accomplishes this.

 



PC gaming is better than console gaming. Always.     We are Anonymous, We are Legion    Kick-ass interview   Great Flash Series Here    Anime Ratings     Make and Play Please
Amazing discussion about being wrong
Official VGChartz Folding@Home Team #109453
 
vlad321 on 26 March 2009
ssj12 said:
vlad321 said:
ssj12 said:
vlad321 said:
ssj12 said:
vlad321 said:
ssj12 said:
looks good but there are some hang-ups the PC version of the engine wont have.

 

Considering it's been out for the PC for 2 years, I'd hope so.

 

No, both Crysis games run on CryEngine 2. This is CryEngine 3 which farther improved that engine.

 

Well, I must be missing something, but this looks more like CryEngine 2.25 to me.

 

incremental updates for many engines are pretty much bug fixes and they add some minor features that were nearly finished for the main build but missed deadline.

Crysis used CryEngine 2

Crysis Warhead used CryEngine 2.?

 

I will straight up say that CryEngine 3 passed Crysis Warhead in graphics and physics even on the two HD consoles. I can't wait to see what it can do on say a Core i7 650 or 750 with Tri-Sli or CrossFireX.

 

Ok, THIS is incrementation of engines:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/81/Unreal_Engine_Comparison.jpg

Not what you showed me. THat's CE2.25.

You do realize there is an Unreal Engine 1.5, UE2.1, UE2.5. UE2XBE, UE3.1, UE3.2 right?

There really isnt much the CryEngine 3 can improve on except for texture detail, physics, and other things that affect the overall feel of a game. It seems it accomplishes this.

 

You just prooved my point. Epic didn't call UE2.5 UE3, they called it UE2.5. CryEngine 3 shouldn't even be Cryengine 3, it should be much closer to 2. Hell they even use the same friken models (the nanosuit) in 3 as they did in 2.

 



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

richardhutnik on 26 March 2009
PullusPardus said:
Btw im still waiting for Crytek to release Time Splitters =]

Time Splitter on

Cry Engine Tripple!

FTW!