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

Forums - Sony - Final Fantasy XIII aparently to use 100% of PS3's power

Staude on 31 March 2009
selnor said:
ethomaz said:
selnor said:

CRYEngine 3 demo footage blows everything on console away so far, and thats the 360 demo footage.

But Killzone 2 looks better than CryEngine 3 footage.

I think that 100% power is how they know the hardware now, and in the future better games will be make (because they know hardware even more).

So considering the developer in the interview said it looks as good but better in some cases than Crysis on PC, your saying that KZ2 beats Crysis. LOL. Fanboys. Go view the actual footage of the PLAYABLE CRYEngine 3 running on a 360. NOT the CRYEngine 3 trailer. *Sigh*

Make sure you then watch part 2. As again further 360 footage that none of us had yet seen. Simply amazing. This new footage has got everyone realising just how good CRYEngine 3 for consoles really is. You only have to look at other forums and their posts about this new footage compared to the crap trailer from GDC.

 

 

First of all they showed the cry engine 2 on both consoles and said it'd look slightly better on the ps3.

 

Second of all Killzone 2 rapes crysis in particle effects, lightning and atmosphere.. However in other aspects crysis rapes killzone 2.

Third the city used on the cryengine 3 looked terrible. Or well.. far less impressive then the forrests. The cry engine looks to be optimised for things you find in forrests and not really urban areas so i wonder how it's gonna hold op. I really hope it was something they threw together quickly because the AA and textures were pretty damn bad in their urban footage.

 



Check out my game about moles ^

Around the Network
selnor on 31 March 2009
Staude said:
selnor said:
ethomaz said:
selnor said:

CRYEngine 3 demo footage blows everything on console away so far, and thats the 360 demo footage.

But Killzone 2 looks better than CryEngine 3 footage.

I think that 100% power is how they know the hardware now, and in the future better games will be make (because they know hardware even more).

So considering the developer in the interview said it looks as good but better in some cases than Crysis on PC, your saying that KZ2 beats Crysis. LOL. Fanboys. Go view the actual footage of the PLAYABLE CRYEngine 3 running on a 360. NOT the CRYEngine 3 trailer. *Sigh*

Make sure you then watch part 2. As again further 360 footage that none of us had yet seen. Simply amazing. This new footage has got everyone realising just how good CRYEngine 3 for consoles really is. You only have to look at other forums and their posts about this new footage compared to the crap trailer from GDC.

 

 

First of all they showed the cry engine 2 on both consoles and said it'd look slightly better on the ps3.

 

Second of all Killzone 2 rapes crysis in particle effects, lightning and atmosphere.. However in other aspects crysis rapes killzone 2.

Third the city used on the cryengine 3 looked terrible. Or well.. far less impressive then the forrests. The cry engine looks to be optimised for things you find in forrests and not really urban areas so i wonder how it's gonna hold op. I really hope it was something they threw together quickly because the AA and textures were pretty damn bad in their urban footage.

 

Stop stop stop. Forget the stupid crappy CRYEngine 3 trailer footage. I'm talking about the new playable demo footage running behind the interviewer on Gametrailers. Gametrailers state it's fully running on the 360. It blows KZ2 away to be frank. And will people seriously stop saying KZ2 beats Crysis at anything, It's laughable. Seeing Crysis on a trop end PC it absolutely annihilates KZ2 in effects, lighting and detail. Sorry it's true. CRYEngine 3 will destroy any PS360 game this year, apart from maybe Heavy Rain and Alan Wake. Both those games also beat KZ2 especially in lighting. Hell I recently seen a 2006 IDC video of Alan Wake with Volumetric Lighting. 3 years on at this years E3 Alan Wake will look better. That is amazing.

 



blazinhead89 on 31 March 2009

It doesn't matter how powerful a system is , The GC was technically more powerful than PS2, but PS2 had games that looked better. Why? Because PS2 power was optimised more. So KZ2 can look better than Cryengine 3, as KZ2 optimises the strengths of the PS3 better (Atm anyway) . Cryengine 3 does things better than KZ2 Engine like Foliage, Water etc, But KZ2 engine does other things such as lighting, explosions, Animations etc better. Until we see KZ2 Engine do a forest area, we can only speculate what Engine is better in that type of environment.



haxxiy on 31 March 2009

Isn't Crysis main console variables for lighting/effects "e_max_entity_lights = 20" and "g_breakage_particles_limit = 250" on very high?
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but Killzone 2 hasn't optmized such settings to a max of 230 particles with at least 60-70% of them showing dynamic lights, and nearly all surfaces featuring specular maps?

Isn't also a fact that the CE3 demo on the X360 apparently run at a slightly lower definition than the PS3 footage (most likely 1152x640)? And still both had serious issues with texture pop-in, crappy shadowing and uneven framerate?

@ NNN2004: Geforce 7 cards stand between 200-300 gigaflops with 24 texture mapping units and 8-16 rasterization output units, and about 300m transistors. A geforce 200 card has about 900 gigaflops, 32 rasterization output units and 80 texture mapping units packed onto 1.4b transistors. 4-5x stronger is a much closer comparison.




 

 

 

 

 

Gilgamesh on 31 March 2009

Wait Final Fantasy X use 100% of the PS2's power? why does FFXII look much better then FFX? did FFXII use 150% of the PS2's power?



Around the Network
Euphoria14 on 31 March 2009

Crisis Core used 100% PSP power! O.o



iPhone = Great gaming device. Don't agree? Who cares, because you're wrong.

Currently playing:

Final Fantasy VI (iOS), Final Fantasy: Record Keeper (iOS) & Dragon Quest V (iOS)     

    

Got a retro room? Post it here!

selnor on 31 March 2009
blazinhead89 said:
It doesn't matter how powerful a system is , The GC was technically more powerful than PS2, but PS2 had games that looked better. Why? Because PS2 power was optimised more. So KZ2 can look better than Cryengine 3, as KZ2 optimises the strengths of the PS3 better (Atm anyway) . Cryengine 3 does things better than KZ2 Engine like Foliage, Water etc, But KZ2 engine does other things such as lighting, explosions, Animations etc better. Until we see KZ2 Engine do a forest area, we can only speculate what Engine is better in that type of environment.

 

 I cannot believe that people genuinely believe themselves when they say this.

CRYEnigine 2 beats KZ2 on every single front. Least because KZ2 cannot physically do DX10 lighting, effects, etc etc. CRYEngine 3 has further improved lighting, effects etc etc. I have never seen any explosion from a grenade or rocket launcher look anywhere near as the one in CRYEnigine 3. Anyone viewing CRYEnigine 3 physically running the demo on the console (at this point only 360 playable demo) says it's gobsmacking. And from what we have been alowed to see, it's stunning. Not the craptastic trailer, but the full fledged playable CRYEngine 3 demo. It wins so easily it's not funny.

Remember the bridge explosion in KZ2? The fully playable CRYEngine 3 demo shows us how an explosion on a bridge should be done. There is no contest it's funny. CRYEngine 3 is quite a way ahead. And I cant wait to see decent devs give us games on this engine. Hell yes.



blazinhead89 on 31 March 2009
selnor said:
blazinhead89 said:
It doesn't matter how powerful a system is , The GC was technically more powerful than PS2, but PS2 had games that looked better. Why? Because PS2 power was optimised more. So KZ2 can look better than Cryengine 3, as KZ2 optimises the strengths of the PS3 better (Atm anyway) . Cryengine 3 does things better than KZ2 Engine like Foliage, Water etc, But KZ2 engine does other things such as lighting, explosions, Animations etc better. Until we see KZ2 Engine do a forest area, we can only speculate what Engine is better in that type of environment.

 

 I cannot believe that people genuinely believe themselves when they say this.

CRYEnigine 2 beats KZ2 on every single front. Least because KZ2 cannot physically do DX10 lighting, effects, etc etc. CRYEngine 3 has further improved lighting, effects etc etc. I have never seen any explosion from a grenade or rocket launcher look anywhere near as the one in CRYEnigine 3. Anyone viewing CRYEnigine 3 physically running the demo on the console (at this point only 360 playable demo) says it's gobsmacking. And from what we have been alowed to see, it's stunning. Not the craptastic trailer, but the full fledged playable CRYEngine 3 demo. It wins so easily it's not funny.

Remember the bridge explosion in KZ2? The fully playable CRYEngine 3 demo shows us how an explosion on a bridge should be done. There is no contest it's funny. CRYEngine 3 is quite a way ahead. And I cant wait to see decent devs give us games on this engine. Hell yes.


Well, I'm gonna have to disagree. Both Technically and From an art direction point of view, the KZ2 Engine is superior (Atm imo ) . Of course I would love to be able to do a Comparison with Forest environment. KZ2 Engine Beats the Cryengine in Urban areas atm. I would also speculate that KZ2 Engine could give the Cryengine a run for it's money in a Forest environment.

ethomaz on 31 March 2009

Now I really know who is fanboy here .

Crysis humiliates KZ2 in some effects, and KZ2 humiliates in others effects.

And CryEngine 3 not impressed, seems more a light CryEngine 2 for consoles. CryEngine 3 should show its full potential in the PC (I don't expect something much above the CryEngine 2).

I am leave of this thread.



perpride on 31 March 2009
blazinhead89 said:
selnor said:
blazinhead89 said:
It doesn't matter how powerful a system is , The GC was technically more powerful than PS2, but PS2 had games that looked better. Why? Because PS2 power was optimised more. So KZ2 can look better than Cryengine 3, as KZ2 optimises the strengths of the PS3 better (Atm anyway) . Cryengine 3 does things better than KZ2 Engine like Foliage, Water etc, But KZ2 engine does other things such as lighting, explosions, Animations etc better. Until we see KZ2 Engine do a forest area, we can only speculate what Engine is better in that type of environment.

 

 I cannot believe that people genuinely believe themselves when they say this.

CRYEnigine 2 beats KZ2 on every single front. Least because KZ2 cannot physically do DX10 lighting, effects, etc etc. CRYEngine 3 has further improved lighting, effects etc etc. I have never seen any explosion from a grenade or rocket launcher look anywhere near as the one in CRYEnigine 3. Anyone viewing CRYEnigine 3 physically running the demo on the console (at this point only 360 playable demo) says it's gobsmacking. And from what we have been alowed to see, it's stunning. Not the craptastic trailer, but the full fledged playable CRYEngine 3 demo. It wins so easily it's not funny.

Remember the bridge explosion in KZ2? The fully playable CRYEngine 3 demo shows us how an explosion on a bridge should be done. There is no contest it's funny. CRYEngine 3 is quite a way ahead. And I cant wait to see decent devs give us games on this engine. Hell yes.

 

Well, I'm gonna have to disagree. Both Technically and From an art direction point of view, the KZ2 Engine is superior (Atm imo ) . Of course I would love to be able to do a Comparison with Forest environment. KZ2 Engine Beats the Cryengine in Urban areas atm. I would also speculate that KZ2 Engine could give the Cryengine a run for it's money in a Forest environment.

Agreed. I've seen Crysis running on $1000 computer and not look as good as KZ2. Screenshots say differently, but I have yet to see a computer running the game looking that good. I don't know whether its the ussual exhagarration that they do with screenshots or whether there just isn't a GPU that Crysis will laugh at.