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

NinjaKido on 31 March 2009

If SE made the game based on the strengths of the PS3 might that be something that the 360 might not be able to properly replicate ( I know the PS3 excells at things such animations , phsycics , activity etc ) .



Around the Network
slowmo on 31 March 2009

I can't be bothered reading the entire thread to find how why we're discussing Crysis and KZ2 in this thread which is completely off topic now.

On topic, just another developer boasting how bad they are at code optimisation in this day and age.

@radha - You certainly have a good point, development wise, I respect dev teams who get more with less. This probably has more to do with me starting out the Spectrum where some of the ports made were mind boggling how they retained their playability and likeness to the original arcade games.



selnor on 31 March 2009
Aldro said:
perpride said:
selnor said:
perpride said:
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.

 

????

I seriously dont knowhat to say. I think PS3 is a great machine, but comments like this? I will just leave the thread. It makes me churn to hear fanboy comments like this. There is no point even discussing it. I'm truly lost for words. ( cue PC gamers the world over ROFL)

 

This has absolutley nothing to do with the PlayStation 3 or fanboyhsm. It's a comparison of two first person shooters, one of which has nothing to do with the console war.

 

You read my mind ^.

 

I never mentioned PS3 vs another console, why you put words in my mouth. I was referring to PS3 fanboy comments. You want to believe so much that KZ2 is that amazing it beats Crysis. Crazy fanboys dont need another console to make fanboy comments. Why cant some people just accept that KZ2 looks awesome and leave it at that. It's when people start touting it does x, y and z better than a game which is photorealistic that it turns absolutely stupid. Crytek have done us all a favour and showed us there is plenty more to come from the PS3. That was the original point I was making.

The fact that CRYEngine 3 looks so bloody good is EXCELLENT for PS3 owners. It means there is better to come. But people threw in the whole KZ2 looks better statement, and you know why? Because it's a third party engine. Meaning other consoles and PC will have this awesome graphics to. And fanboys cant stand that so they say KZ2 looks better. If CRYEngine 3 looked exactly as it does but was a Sony inhouse exclusive engine comments would be so different from fanboys.

The majority of reasonable people can see how could CRYEngine 3 is. People seriously need to get out more.

 



Aldro on 31 March 2009
selnor said:
Aldro said:
perpride said:
selnor said:
perpride said:
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.

 

????

I seriously dont knowhat to say. I think PS3 is a great machine, but comments like this? I will just leave the thread. It makes me churn to hear fanboy comments like this. There is no point even discussing it. I'm truly lost for words. ( cue PC gamers the world over ROFL)

 

This has absolutley nothing to do with the PlayStation 3 or fanboyhsm. It's a comparison of two first person shooters, one of which has nothing to do with the console war.

 

You read my mind ^.

 

I never mentioned PS3 vs another console, why you put words in my mouth. I was referring to PS3 fanboy comments. You want to believe so much that KZ2 is that amazing it beats Crysis. Crazy fanboys dont need another console to make fanboy comments. Why cant some people just accept that KZ2 looks awesome and leave it at that. It's when people start touting it does x, y and z better than a game which is photorealistic that it turns absolutely stupid. Crytek have done us all a favour and showed us there is plenty more to come from the PS3. That was the original point I was making.

The fact that CRYEngine 3 looks so bloody good is EXCELLENT for PS3 owners. It means there is better to come. But people threw in the whole KZ2 looks better statement, and you know why? Because it's a third party engine. Meaning other consoles and PC will have this awesome graphics to. And fanboys cant stand that so they say KZ2 looks better. If CRYEngine 3 looked exactly as it does but was a Sony inhouse exclusive engine comments would be so different from fanboys.

The majority of reasonable people can see how could CRYEngine 3 is. People seriously need to get out more.

 

He said :

''This has absolutley nothing to do with the PlayStation 3 or fanboyhsm. It's a comparison of two first person shooters, one of which has nothing to do with the console war. ''

 So your basically saying its impossible for anyone to find Killzone 2 more beautiful then Crysis? Even if someone like himself stated:

''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.''

Maby the comp was crap? Even if its price was 1000$. Its possible isn't it? Just because someone says something doesnt make it a fanboyism attempt. He might have seen it on a retarded PC thats soo ugly that he thought Pokemon on the nintendo 64 looks better :P. Just sayin'...

Everyone is entitled to their opinion even if its said with fanboyism words. For instance;
You said : 'It means there is better to come. But people threw in the whole KZ2 looks better statement, and you know why? Because it's a third party engine. '

Which could be the exact reason why you infact are saying it looks better, because the KZ2 engine is not on the X360 or PC :p. Just stating some stuff i noticed..



Shadowblind on 31 March 2009

Any dev who uses percentages is an idiot. I thought that was already a rather established fact.



GOTY Contestants this year: Dead Space 2, Dark Souls, Tales of Graces f. Everything else can suck it.

Around the Network
selnor on 31 March 2009
Aldro said:
selnor said:
Aldro said:
perpride said:
selnor said:
perpride said:
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.

 

????

I seriously dont knowhat to say. I think PS3 is a great machine, but comments like this? I will just leave the thread. It makes me churn to hear fanboy comments like this. There is no point even discussing it. I'm truly lost for words. ( cue PC gamers the world over ROFL)

 

This has absolutley nothing to do with the PlayStation 3 or fanboyhsm. It's a comparison of two first person shooters, one of which has nothing to do with the console war.

 

You read my mind ^.

 

I never mentioned PS3 vs another console, why you put words in my mouth. I was referring to PS3 fanboy comments. You want to believe so much that KZ2 is that amazing it beats Crysis. Crazy fanboys dont need another console to make fanboy comments. Why cant some people just accept that KZ2 looks awesome and leave it at that. It's when people start touting it does x, y and z better than a game which is photorealistic that it turns absolutely stupid. Crytek have done us all a favour and showed us there is plenty more to come from the PS3. That was the original point I was making.

The fact that CRYEngine 3 looks so bloody good is EXCELLENT for PS3 owners. It means there is better to come. But people threw in the whole KZ2 looks better statement, and you know why? Because it's a third party engine. Meaning other consoles and PC will have this awesome graphics to. And fanboys cant stand that so they say KZ2 looks better. If CRYEngine 3 looked exactly as it does but was a Sony inhouse exclusive engine comments would be so different from fanboys.

The majority of reasonable people can see how could CRYEngine 3 is. People seriously need to get out more.

 

He said :

''This has absolutley nothing to do with the PlayStation 3 or fanboyhsm. It's a comparison of two first person shooters, one of which has nothing to do with the console war. ''

 So your basically saying its impossible for anyone to find Killzone 2 more beautiful then Crysis? Even if someone like himself stated:

''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.''

Maby the comp was crap? Even if its price was 1000$. Its possible isn't it? Just because someone says something doesnt make it a fanboyism attempt. He might have seen it on a retarded PC thats soo ugly that he thought Pokemon on the nintendo 64 looks better :P. Just sayin'...

Everyone is entitled to their opinion even if its said with fanboyism words. For instance;
You said : 'It means there is better to come. But people threw in the whole KZ2 looks better statement, and you know why? Because it's a third party engine. '

Which could be the exact reason why you infact are saying it looks better, because the KZ2 engine is not on the X360 or PC :p. Just stating some stuff i noticed..

 

 

After playing Crysis on Ultra settings, no it's not possible. Both games are going for realism to the letter.

1 game Crysis is photorealsitic when playing, and the other KZ2 is half way there. Seriously The $1000 must of been spent on a $700 monitor, because a $1000 PC could easily run Crysis at Ultra settings. It's like me saying Grid looks better than GT5P. It just isnt.

Now Heavy Rain, thats a game more close to reality like Crysis.



selnor on 31 March 2009
CGI-Quality said:
A bit off topic........LEGENDARY sig selnor, +1 man :D

 

 

Cheers. I have been reading every single article about Heavy Rain lately. Cant wait to get it. To be honest I love graphics to bro. And Heavy Rain is gonna be in the running for graphics of the year. :)



selnor on 31 March 2009
CGI-Quality said:
selnor said:
CGI-Quality said:
A bit off topic........LEGENDARY sig selnor, +1 man :D

 

 

Cheers. I have been reading every single article about Heavy Rain lately. Cant wait to get it. To be honest I love graphics to bro. And Heavy Rain is gonna be in the running for WIN graphics of the year. :)

Just had to make a tiny correction....lol

 


ROFL :)

Aldro on 31 March 2009
selnor said:
Aldro said:
selnor said:
Aldro said:
perpride said:
selnor said:
perpride said:
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.

 

????

I seriously dont knowhat to say. I think PS3 is a great machine, but comments like this? I will just leave the thread. It makes me churn to hear fanboy comments like this. There is no point even discussing it. I'm truly lost for words. ( cue PC gamers the world over ROFL)

 

This has absolutley nothing to do with the PlayStation 3 or fanboyhsm. It's a comparison of two first person shooters, one of which has nothing to do with the console war.

 

You read my mind ^.

 

I never mentioned PS3 vs another console, why you put words in my mouth. I was referring to PS3 fanboy comments. You want to believe so much that KZ2 is that amazing it beats Crysis. Crazy fanboys dont need another console to make fanboy comments. Why cant some people just accept that KZ2 looks awesome and leave it at that. It's when people start touting it does x, y and z better than a game which is photorealistic that it turns absolutely stupid. Crytek have done us all a favour and showed us there is plenty more to come from the PS3. That was the original point I was making.

The fact that CRYEngine 3 looks so bloody good is EXCELLENT for PS3 owners. It means there is better to come. But people threw in the whole KZ2 looks better statement, and you know why? Because it's a third party engine. Meaning other consoles and PC will have this awesome graphics to. And fanboys cant stand that so they say KZ2 looks better. If CRYEngine 3 looked exactly as it does but was a Sony inhouse exclusive engine comments would be so different from fanboys.

The majority of reasonable people can see how could CRYEngine 3 is. People seriously need to get out more.

 

He said :

''This has absolutley nothing to do with the PlayStation 3 or fanboyhsm. It's a comparison of two first person shooters, one of which has nothing to do with the console war. ''

 So your basically saying its impossible for anyone to find Killzone 2 more beautiful then Crysis? Even if someone like himself stated:

''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.''

Maby the comp was crap? Even if its price was 1000$. Its possible isn't it? Just because someone says something doesnt make it a fanboyism attempt. He might have seen it on a retarded PC thats soo ugly that he thought Pokemon on the nintendo 64 looks better :P. Just sayin'...

Everyone is entitled to their opinion even if its said with fanboyism words. For instance;
You said : 'It means there is better to come. But people threw in the whole KZ2 looks better statement, and you know why? Because it's a third party engine. '

Which could be the exact reason why you infact are saying it looks better, because the KZ2 engine is not on the X360 or PC :p. Just stating some stuff i noticed..

 

 

After playing Crysis on Ultra settings, no it's not possible. Both games are going for realism to the letter.

1 game Crysis is photorealsitic when playing, and the other KZ2 is half way there. Seriously The $1000 must of been spent on a $700 monitor, because a $1000 PC could easily run Crysis at Ultra settings. It's like me saying Grid looks better than GT5P. It just isnt.

Now Heavy Rain, thats a game more close to reality like Crysis.

Well thats your opinion but not his I guess. As for the 1000$, What if someone sold a computer thats like 4-5 years old and the guy was a TOTAL retard and bought it. It was on the edge of handling it, Sounds possible to me basing on my views of crysis. It did not stand out to me as much as Killzone 2 did. But then again KZ2 and Crysis are displayed in diffrent environments..

 



ethomaz on 31 March 2009

@selnor

Nobody said that KZ2 has better graphics that Crysis, only said that there are some effects in KZ2 better than in Crysis.

In overall Crysis is better. And the CryEngine 3 demo for console is less than Crysis for PC or some games for console (Killzone 2, Uncharted 2, Heavy Rain, etc).

Crytek has a hard work ahead to overcome this titles.

I suppose that CryEngine 3 for PC should run better than Crysis (CryEngine 2), but not for console.

That is my point (or my opinion).

 

About FFXIII.

I don't believed that FFXIII use 100% of PS3, and also FFXIV too. The Software (games) evolve and there will always be something better tomorrow for the same hardware.