• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

[DF] Demo showdown: Crysis 3 multiplayer beta. A "cinematic" feast for the eyes?

Reiko

Banned
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-crysis-3-multiplayer-beta-demo-showdown


Bolded points of interest...

Compared to the stock release of Crysis 2, it's clear that there have been no compromises where this sequel is concerned, to the point where even running in low settings on PC yields a vastly superior visual experience to either console. The downside is that you'll need a dual GPU set-up to max out the game using the 'very high' preset while running at steadily playable frame-rates (though Nvidia's upcoming single GPU Titan hardware might have something to say about that). Our Radeon 7870 test rig managed between 20-50FPS when running the game on its highest setting in 720p, although dialling back a few settings to medium or low, along with tweaking other options - such as motion blur - allowed for a ballpark 1080p60 without feeling short-changed on the quality of the visual experience.

As you may expect, there are some significant downgrades in the console versions of Crysis 3 as Crytek attempts to transplant the ambitious visuals to significantly less powerful hardware. Foliage is considerably pared back, the geometry complexity of the environments is reduced, and lower quality artwork is employed throughout the two maps available in the beta. The end result is that the world rendered on the consoles doesn't appear quite as organic and alive as it does on the PC, although the general atmosphere is retained.

The main point of difference between the console versions revolves around streaming and rendering resolution. In terms of the former, the PS3 has an obvious advantage (particularly at the beginning of each round and after respawns) in terms of more quickly streaming artwork, though during gameplay the two are more evenly matched. For its part, the 360 features improved texture filtering and slightly longer draw distances in general - particularly where shadow rendering is concerned.

Resolution remains identical to that of Crysis 2 (1152x720 on 360 and 1024x720 on the PS3) but the use of the firm's 'post AA' has been jettisoned in favour of what we believe to be shader model anti-aliasing (SMAA) which uses a different kind of temporal filter that features less double image 'ghosting' artifacts on fast-moving scenes and objects. Some texture blurring is apparent on both consoles, as are shimmering jaggies on more finely detailed parts of the environment, but the 360 game regularly comes across as the sharper of the two.

Crytek appears to be carrying out a fine balancing act in bringing the more ambitious environments to console hardware while still retaining a decent level of performance. That said, the inclusion of large locations fleshed out with more natural, organic detail does have some noticeable repercussions. The mostly solid 30FPS update found in Crysis 2's multiplayer modes is compromised by frequent drops in frame-rate, particularly during hectic scenes involving lots of players and transparent alpha effects.


Thankfully, the overall downgrade in fluidity here is less severe than the sub-20FPS drops during Crysis 2's campaign mode, although the dips in performance can be a little off-putting. Frame-rates are generally lower during matches situated on the museum stage, where the inclusion of water effects, environment reflections and foliage cause more of a performance hit. This is a much more significant issue on the PS3 in both maps, where the level of fluidity tends to drop even lower when the engine is heavily stressed. Both versions have their own performance issues, although we see the 360 gaining a small advantage with slightly higher frame-rates on average overall.

360_002.png


PS3_002.png


PC_002.png


Like squeezing blood from a stone. I hope the SP fares better on console.
 

RoKKeR

Member
Crysis 3 |OT| RROD for everyone.

Going from PC to console in Crysis 3 is terrifying. It's a near generational leap. We need next gen.
 
no mention on the lack of object motion blur?

For shame.

misnaming SMAA?
Mentioning that the console versions have reflections? (when they only have ridiculously basic cube mapping)
DF article seems kinda amateurish...
 

Reiko

Banned
no mention on the lack of object motion blur?

For shame.

Right here. Didn't want to copy pasta the entire article.

Perhaps in order to combat this, object blur is dropped on console Crysis 3 (in multiplayer at least) with just a camera-based effect remaining, resulting in more noticeable judder. However, even the camera effect appears to be used sparingly: post-processing only seems to be employed on faraway detail, while it is not in effect at all on anything in the foreground - spinning around while stationary demonstrates this quite clearly.
 
1: wow why did they even bother, the game looks horrendous from those screenshots, much worse than a lot of other console games. Crytek embarrasing themselves.

2: I'll say it again, this game is aestethically garbage ,they need to hire some artists or something.
 

Represent.

Represent(ative) of bad opinions
Christ it looks fucking horrible on consoles, especially PS3. SP should look better though
 
Cuz SneakyStephan knows all about art, and Crytek doesn't.

Are you saying it looks good? Peer pressure to pretend anything with the name crysis on it looks good aside.

Because the color scheme looks really bad, everything also looks really incoherent and out of place.
It's the equivalent of the homer simpson car.

According to scitek you have to be a platinum selling musician to understand that the sound of drowning cats and symbals mixed with some nails on a chalkboard doesn't make for a good tune.
 

Durante

Member
That "PC" screenshot looks infinitely worse than anything I've seen from this demo in our screenshot thread.
 
Are you saying it looks good? Peer pressure to pretend anything with the name crysis on it looks good aside.


Because the color scheme looks really bad, everything also looks really incoherent and out of place.
It's the equivalent of the homer simpson car.

According to scitek you have to be a platinum selling musician to understand that the sound of drowning cats and symbals mixed with some nails on a chalkboard doesn't make for a good tune.

Other than the sky being too dark I don't see anything wrong with it art-wise. Any specifics?
 

epmode

Member
The DF computer tends to be 486 in power.

Also... they play the games and have screenshots which are 720p... :(

Yeah, I don't understand that either. You can't really compare money spent on a console with money spent on a PC so why are they so interested in these unrepresentative comparisons? At least throw a high-spec PC into the mix!

edit: The people who care about something like Digital Foundry are precisely the kind of people that would appreciate the benefits of a good gaming PC.
 

RoboPlato

I'd be in the dick
Really surprised that they didn't mention how many effects were cut compared to Crysis and Crysis 2 on consoles.
 

Radec

Member
Is Crytek touting this as the best looking game on consoles like they did with Crysis 2? Because if so, they're full of shit.

They still talk too much but they toned down abit on Crysis 3 after the 2's reception.

I hope next gen they'll shut up and let their games do the talking.
 

Boss Man

Member
It's a near generational leap.
I think that's reaching a bit...

Console versions do look ugly, PS3 especially. Definitely not that much of a difference though. Why do they look so bad? We've seen better graphics than that from these consoles.
 

Tzeentch

Member
Well, at least the PR spin here doesn't try too hard to turn the garbage console port graphics into a positive.

Game looks ace on PC though. Can't wait to see the single player.
 
Are you saying it looks good? Peer pressure to pretend anything with the name crysis on it looks good aside.


Because the color scheme looks really bad, everything also looks really incoherent and out of place.
It's the equivalent of the homer simpson car.

According to scitek you have to be a platinum selling musician to understand that the sound of drowning cats and symbals mixed with some nails on a chalkboard doesn't make for a good tune.

I can see the "out of place", but where is the incoherent? This is the only game where the foliage of tress looks any way close to real light hitting leaves. The only game where shadows have natural looking penumbras, and one of the few games where objects looks naturally dark against a bright sky. Artists are the ones behind all those details.

If you have a problem with how things are put together then you have a problem with the art director, but the general artists behind the graphics are incredibly talented.
 

SapientWolf

Trucker Sexologist
Lol not generational leap at all. You guys must not know what that kind of leap looks like.
The leap from last wave to next gen launch usually isn't very dramatic. The exceptions tend to be first party games rather than multiplatform ports. So with that in mind, Cry3 maxed out with better IQ is something appropriate for a next gen launch.
 

Hypron

Member
No, but they deliberately try to go for console-like settings for a completely even, across-the-board comparison.

I still don't get why they do that. What's the point of comparing different versions if you cripple one of them? This "fairness" argument doesn't make any sense.

Also, (almost) no one plays in 720p on PC. 720p's effects on IQ goes further than just diminishing the number of pixels displayed, because AA techniques tend to perform better when they have more pixels to sample from.
 

JaggedSac

Member
I still don't get why they do that. What's the point of comparing different versions if you cripple one of them? This "fairness" argument doesn't make any sense.

Also, (almost) no one plays in 720p on PC. 720p's effects on IQ goes further than just diminishing the number of pixels displayed, because AA techniques tend to perform better when they have more pixels to sample from.

~ 25 or 30% on PC play at 720p or lower based on the steam hardware stats page.
 

i-Lo

Member
This is one of the ugliest looking console games I have ever seen.

Purely from playing airport map and this late into the generation where expectations have changed since the launch days, I definitely agree.

I think the worst part is the blur which forms an unnatural soft outline around objects that are against the open backdrop which itself is blurred beyond saving. There are so many better ways of using blur and this is such a disservice to that function.
 

Smokey

Member
After reading the OP I expected a bigger difference. The difference is still minor IMO.

If you're comparing it to that low setting pc crysis 3 pic then maybe

but on full blown very high vs the consoles it's fucking laughable.
 

Hypron

Member
~ 25 or 30% on PC play at 720p or lower based on the steam hardware stats page.

I'm going to take a blind guess and say these people are probably not the ones playing the latest releases. They're probably the ones still playing CS for example.
 
I can see the "out of place", but where is the incoherent? This is the only game where the foliage of tress looks any way close to real light hitting leaves. The only game where shadows have natural looking penumbras, and one of the few games where objects looks naturally dark against a bright sky. Artists are the ones behind all those details.

If you have a problem with how things are put together then you have a problem with the art director, but the general artists behind the graphics are incredibly talented.

Incoherent as in the environments don't look like a place, it looks like a bunch of stuff thrown together in an editor, like legos from a grab bin.

That and the color grading shitting all over the look of the scenes.

High res shadows and penumbra (shadows losing focus over distance) is a technical thing, not an artist thing.
Look at technically far inferior games like deus ex HR or dishonored or the interiors in mafia2... they look way more appealing and they don't look out of place or like something thrown together in an editor.

Again the best comparison I can come up with is The homer

Give an eight year old a 200 dollar set of pencils and you get what you see in the crysis 3 beta maps.
They remind me of the maps on crymod that would get less than 200 views.
 
Incoherent as in the environments don't look like a place, it looks like a bunch of stuff thrown together in an editor, like legos from a grab bin.

That and the color grading shitting all over the look of the scenes.

High res shadows and penumbra (shadows losing focus over distance) is a technical thing, not an artist thing.
Look at technically far inferior games like deus ex HR or dishonored or the interiors in mafia2... they look way more appealing and they don't look out of place or like something thrown together in an editor.

Again the best comparison I can come up with is The homer

Give an eight year old a 200 dollar set of pencils and you get what you see in the crysis 3 beta maps.
They remind me of the maps on crymod that would get less than 200 views.

It isn't. Crunching number doesn't magically create the settings in the engine, It is the artist's knowledge of light what makes it look accurate.
And the 200 dollar pencil analogy doesn't work, even if it made sense (stamps fit much nicely), because it is also Crytek who manufactures the pencils. Unless we are dividing the company into its different studios, but I don't recall if it other than Crytek Frankfurt who makes the multiplayer. Nonetheless, in your previous post it didn't seem like you were specifically talking about the multiplayer.
 
Top Bottom