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

Forums - Gaming - CryEngine 3 showing 360parts vs ps3parts

shinyuhadouken on 25 March 2009
SpartanFX said:
@shinyuhadoken

not really in jungles X360 is blurry and less detailed.

here are the comparison shots:

just look at the grass and mountains in both version.youll see

http://www.eurogamer.pt/gallery.php?article_id=491444#anchor

Those are some shitty screenshots you provided me with. They're both somewhat washed out.

 



Not a 360 fanboy, just a PS3 fanboy hater that likes putting them in their place ^.^

Around the Network
PullusPardus on 25 March 2009
forevercloud3000 said:
Baggins said:
forevercloud3000 said:

I still dont think this engine trumps KZ2's engine in all areas. For the most part I think KZ2 still looks better. Some of the physics, While they try to bring a sense of reality, dont look believable at all. Take the scene when the player shoots the tree and it falls sideways. The fall was weak and laggy. The explosion effect was cool. The best scenes came around 2:00 on, where is showed the waterfall and floral decor (during the PS3 side). I also really like the ground textures and so forth but let me remind you, KZ2 had equal to better ground textures as well.

And the gun that is shown in the vid is down right horrid looking. There is really no polygonal shape to it that exceeds cube shapings. It was very poorly implemented. The hand almost looks tacked on at the last minute. I am seriously thinking the creators cut some serious corners to make this engine appear to create an unseen level of graphics on console, when in reality this is little more then a glorified CG clips with a believable console running graphics. Mark my words, If any game in the future uses this engine we will see a sharp reduction of quality when implemented in a real game.

Yet the engine from what we have seen def looks good. Physics wise it is very believable and unmatched.

 

As far as PS3 vs 360 is concerned...

All bias aside, the PS3 version looks a tad better. Even though the video is mostly comprised of the 360 footage(weird for a comparison video, no?) the PS3 version still pulls a bit ahead in certain scenes. I noticed the difference in the water the most.

...Unbiased opinion.......hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

 

 

Am I right or am I wrong?

You are right actually, i think in screen shots CryEngine look very good , but in gameplay it look jaggy and like you said lifeless in some parts.

 



SpartanFX on 25 March 2009

before you do comparison people ,,this is just a tech demo,,,lets wait for a game on this engine and compare then.



 

 

 

Loud_Hot_White_Box on 25 March 2009
PullusPardus said:
forevercloud3000 said:
Baggins said:
forevercloud3000 said:

I still dont think this engine trumps KZ2's engine in all areas. For the most part I think KZ2 still looks better. Some of the physics, While they try to bring a sense of reality, dont look believable at all. Take the scene when the player shoots the tree and it falls sideways. The fall was weak and laggy. The explosion effect was cool. The best scenes came around 2:00 on, where is showed the waterfall and floral decor (during the PS3 side). I also really like the ground textures and so forth but let me remind you, KZ2 had equal to better ground textures as well.

And the gun that is shown in the vid is down right horrid looking. There is really no polygonal shape to it that exceeds cube shapings. It was very poorly implemented. The hand almost looks tacked on at the last minute. I am seriously thinking the creators cut some serious corners to make this engine appear to create an unseen level of graphics on console, when in reality this is little more then a glorified CG clips with a believable console running graphics. Mark my words, If any game in the future uses this engine we will see a sharp reduction of quality when implemented in a real game.

Yet the engine from what we have seen def looks good. Physics wise it is very believable and unmatched.

 

As far as PS3 vs 360 is concerned...

All bias aside, the PS3 version looks a tad better. Even though the video is mostly comprised of the 360 footage(weird for a comparison video, no?) the PS3 version still pulls a bit ahead in certain scenes. I noticed the difference in the water the most.

...Unbiased opinion.......hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

 

 

Am I right or am I wrong?

You are right actually, i think in screen shots CryEngine look very good , but in gameplay it look jaggy and like you said lifeless in some parts.

 

 

The facts have a PS3 bias.

Ah, Steven Colbert.



Loud_Hot_White_Box on 25 March 2009
tmbh said:
headshot91 said:
Loud_Hot_White_Box said:
tmbh said:
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/47150.html

Looks good.

Moments to compare are:

0.53
1.19

 

Whatever credibility you may have had or ever built up, nuked.

why?

 

 

Yeah, please explain!

 

ARE YOU KIDDING?

There were inside vs. inside shots to compare from each console, one right after the other.  There were outside vs. outside shots to compare, one right after the other.

What you did, pathetic as it was, was to take what you thought was the worst PS3 shot (probably was among the least impressive) and say to compare it to one of the most impressive outdoor 360 shots.  But PS3 had beautiful outdoor shots as well.

It made me sick.

At least starcraft or Squilliam would have put a little smiley next to their trolling "input."



Around the Network
MikeB on 25 March 2009

@ Garnett

And Halo 3 can have 4 player split screen with a huge draw distance which Killzone 2 does NOT

Halo 3 looks far less realistic and impressive in terms of about anything compared to Killzone 2.

Even many 360 fanboys agree Halo 3's graphics provides very little room for hyping and immediately point at the Gears games instead.

so that means Halo 3 has the same resoultion as KZ2

LOL, it does not. Just 640p rendering in 4 sections. Motorstorm: Pacific Rift is rendering in 720p natively, neither for this game 4 player splitscreen changes this. BTW, I greatly prefer solid full screen online multiplayer over playing on micro screens (losing a lot of detail).

 

 



Naughty Dog: "At Naughty Dog, we're pretty sure we should be able to see leaps between games on the PS3 that are even bigger than they were on the PS2."

PS3 vs 360 sales

tmbh on 25 March 2009
Loud_Hot_White_Box said:
tmbh said:
headshot91 said:
Loud_Hot_White_Box said:
tmbh said:
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/47150.html

Looks good.

Moments to compare are:

0.53
1.19

 

Whatever credibility you may have had or ever built up, nuked.

why?

 

 

Yeah, please explain!

 

ARE YOU KIDDING?

There were inside vs. inside shots to compare from each console, one right after the other.  There were outside vs. outside shots to compare, one right after the other.

What you did, pathetic as it was, was to take what you thought was the worst PS3 shot (probably was among the least impressive) and say to compare it to one of the most impressive outdoor 360 shots.  But PS3 had beautiful outdoor shots as well.

It made me sick.

At least starcraft or Squilliam would have put a little smiley next to their trolling "input."

ARE YOU KIDDING?

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!

You have made an assumption, jumped to a conclusion based on that assumption and then insulted me!

WTF!



DirtyP2002 on 25 March 2009

heck, both look great and I haven't seen any difference at all.

Why can't we just agree that this is something to look forward to? No, techtalk, pixel-counting etc.



Imagine not having GamePass on your console...

Baggins on 25 March 2009
MikeB said:

@ Baggins

I haven't looked but that "cartoony" look you always talk of with regards to the 360 visuals is actually HDR rendering (High dynamic range). It's something the PS3 is incapable of with AA at the same time. Something that the graphics chip on the 360 excells in.


The 360 is not capable of proper real FP16 HDR, only Halo 3 has this sacrificing rendering resolution and anti-aliasing. Games usually use a semi (FP10) HDR (sometimes referred to as MDR) technique only used by the console as a trade off.

Uncharted: Drake's Fortune (2007) for example provides full FP16 HDR together with anti-aliasing, but there's still was a lot of untapped potential according to the developers, so Uncharted 2 will probably push the PS3 hardware much better.

 

 

Completely untrue - all of it.

Lets have some sources please. PS3 graphics chip is based on 7800 series nvidia card, none of that series could do HDR with AA. End of story. It's not even up for debate. Lets have some sources to prove that the PS3 can do HDR better than the 360?

lol, you do realise this is where the 360 trumps the PS3...In graphics horsepower and advanced graphical features?

 

I'll prove you wrong tomorrow if you like, I'm a PC wizard by nature and know full well the limitations of the 7 series geforce cards.



Jo21 on 25 March 2009
Baggins said:
MikeB said:

@ Baggins

I haven't looked but that "cartoony" look you always talk of with regards to the 360 visuals is actually HDR rendering (High dynamic range). It's something the PS3 is incapable of with AA at the same time. Something that the graphics chip on the 360 excells in.


The 360 is not capable of proper real FP16 HDR, only Halo 3 has this sacrificing rendering resolution and anti-aliasing. Games usually use a semi (FP10) HDR (sometimes referred to as MDR) technique only used by the console as a trade off.

Uncharted: Drake's Fortune (2007) for example provides full FP16 HDR together with anti-aliasing, but there's still was a lot of untapped potential according to the developers, so Uncharted 2 will probably push the PS3 hardware much better.

 

 

Completely untrue - all of it.

Lets have some sources please. PS3 graphics chip is based on 7800 series nvidia card, none of that series could do HDR with AA. End of story. It's not even up for debate. Lets have some sources to prove that the PS3 can do HDR better than the 360?

lol, you do realise this is where the 360 trumps the PS3...In graphics horsepower and advanced graphical features?

 

I'll prove you wrong tomorrow if you like, I'm a PC wizard by nature and know full well the limitations of the 7 series geforce cards.

7800 is based, but nvidia did state RSX chip was faster.

killzone 2 > all, except pc games.