Crysis 3: xbox 360 vs PC compared side by side

[f1sherman]

There are differences.

Look at the pipe on the left, 2 rings are completely missing on low. Also shadows are missing on the trees at the back.

They are missing on V. HIGH. As well as some other details.
Anyway this is with Low Textures, and some of them missing on max. setting.

Ze German surely **** this up

From what's left... more precise lightning/shadows, better AO, DOF, less aggressive LOD

 

[OlafSicky]

I must say I am impressed more with the xbox than the PC. The X box is old and cheap vs the cost of the PC. Yes I can see PC graphics are better but so what game play will be the same.

 

[Insomniator]

I pretty much find this statement unbelievable, it looks a LOT better

Yes but its all relative... it does look a lot better but... it should be like comparing a corolla to a lambo.

A AAA PC game that 'is ahead of everything for the next 2 years' shouldn't even be able to run on an xbox, even if the xbox is blurry.

 

[dragantoe]

it should be like comparing a corolla to a lambo.

I disagree with this statement, because $30,000 can make your corolla as fast as any lambo.

 

[SickBeast]

I'm impressed that the Xbox 360 can even run that game and have it look as good as it does. Think about all the modern PCs that can't.

 

[tviceman]

I'm impressed that the Xbox 360 can even run that game and have it look as good as it does. Think about all the modern PCs that can't.

Minimum System Operating Requirements for PC

* Windows Vista, Windows 7 or Windows 8
* DirectX 11 graphics card with 1 GB Video RAM
* Dual core CPU
* 2 GB Memory (3 GB on Vista)

* Example 1 (Nvidia/Intel):
* Nvidia GTS 450
* Intel Core2 Duo 2.4 Ghz (E6600)

* Example 2 (AMD):
* AMD Radeon HD 5770
* AMD Athlon64 X2 2.7 Ghz (5200+)



A gts 450 is slower than a gtx 260, which is pretty old by today's standards and a core 2 duo 2.4ghz is also old. Anyone who has built a "gaming" PC in the last 4 years can play this game.

 

[MrK6]

I'm impressed that the Xbox 360 can even run that game and have it look as good as it does. Think about all the modern PCs that can't.

And that's evidence as to how bloated/poorly optimized the game is on PC's. When I tried the demo earlier today I took some random screenshots with Afterburner. I'm playing 2560x1600 with everything on Very High, no AA. At these settings I'm at 30-50FPS generally. The SMAA 4x option would take me under 30FPS which made playing MP difficult. I find that a hefty penalty and might try an SMAA injector and see how that fares.


More: http://postimage.org/gallery/9cd67fzk/

Isn't that the point? Look the same except one looks better? The pc one looks amazingly better and I was actually disappointed with the xbox one considering games like Battlefield 3 look halfway decent on it. Crysis 3 on the xbox almost looks like it was rendered 6 years ago with the hardware. For the pc it doesn't look bad (it's actually pretty good), but I would be a little happier if it looked as good as the hardware demands suggested.

Except it's 2013 and the game looks 2009 (reminds me of Unreal Tournament 3). There are better and more advanced ways to improve graphics on the PC. Higher resolution and better textures are the absolute bare minimum. Better shaders would be a big improvement. There's no reason there's so little an increase in graphics improvement despite an order of magnitude (and higher) increase in computing power.

 

[blackened23]

I don't think we can make generalized statements about how optimized it is yet IMO, it is still beta and multiplayer at that. I am anxious to see how the final product turns out, Crysis 1 / WH are 2 of my favorite shooters of all time so i'm very hopeful.

I personally don't even care about the graphics that much although I think they're nice.

 

[SickBeast]

It doesn't matter how optimized it is. The consoles are making PCs look like bloated pieces of junk. The simple fact that one of these 7 year old boxes can run the same game as a modern PC is a travesty. This is one of the big reasons why I sold my desktop rig and went to a laptop, tablet, and smartphone. You pay $500+ for GPUs that really do similar things to the consoles because they are so inefficient. It's not just the games that are bloated. It's the OS, the drivers, and DirectX.

 

[notty22]

Looks great on the PC, and bland on xbox360, that is no surprise.

AMD is teasing something on twitter.
https://twitter.com/AMDGaming
Are you ready? 02/04/13

Find out how to optimize your rig for the #Crysis3 beta here http://bit.ly/XeMjde

It looks like the new 3DMark is being announced tomorrow?
http://3dgeeks.com/articles_pages/3dmark_preview,1.html

From AMD Blog.

AMD Gaming Evolved welcomes Crysis 3

Maybe AMD is tesselating ocean! In the desert!

 

[DiogoDX]

It doesn't matter how optimized it is. The consoles are making PCs look like bloated pieces of junk. The simple fact that one of these 7 year old boxes can run the same game as a modern PC is a travesty. This is one of the big reasons why I sold my desktop rig and went to a laptop, tablet, and smartphone. You pay $500+ for GPUs that really do similar things to the consoles because they are so inefficient. It's not just the games that are bloated. It's the OS, the drivers, and DirectX.

Agree. If you look the video the versions have the same physics, level design and gameplay only better gfx effects.

We're stuck with the same gameplay experience that a 7 year old console can offer.

Can't wait for next gen.

 

[AVP]

And here I just want a better game.

 

[Greenlepricon]

So many people here want a completely different game between the console and pc... That just doesn't make sense to me at all. If they want to change the coding to improve the physics and maps between the two, they're nearly making the same game twice in a row. I can understand wanting shaders or something, but wanting them to completely throw one market segment out of the picture is a little weird. What would have been nice would have been if this game was going on the next generation consoles and they could make everyone happy, but because it's this current generation they can only do so much.

 

[SickBeast]

Agree. If you look the video the versions have the same physics, level design and gameplay only better gfx effects.

We're stuck with the same gameplay experience that a 7 year old console can offer.

Can't wait for next gen.

On February 20th the PS4 is rumored to be announced. Of all the new consoles, I have heard the most buzz about the PS4 being a hardware beast. I don't believe the rumors that it will have a 7770 GPU.

 

[lopri]

I think the original Crysis looks better.

 

[videogames101]

i want another crysis 1, where even the top end SLI'd 7800GTXs couldn't get playable framerates on very high.

 

[blackened23]

i want another crysis 1, where even the top end SLI'd 7800GTXs couldn't get playable framerates on very high.

From what I remember, most people were playing Crysis 1 at 1024x768 and 1280x1024. CRTs were still king then, most people had 17-19 inchers.

I think most people were able to run it fine - I didn't have any issues that I remember, although not many were able to crank it up to ultra high quality.

The one thing I appreciate about Crysis is that the rendering of Foliage and shadows is still excellent even to this day, and the engine is able to render entire worlds which you were free to roam in. I still think Crysis 1 / WH has some of the best foliage you'll find in video games; I really despise Crysis 2 in this respect - even though crysis 2 looks good, the engine is only required to render small bits and pieces because the level are so closed off.

 

[frozentundra123456]

The Xbox view looks blurry as hell compared with the PC version.

The xbox version looks absolutely terrible compared the the PC in the video. I have never used an xbox, although my grandson had one when he lived with us for some years, and I dont recall xbox looking that bad.

However, I have to admit that the PC version looks very similar to me on high vs low. Yes there are differences, but nothing that would really make me enjoy the game at high and not at low.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Agree. If you look the video the versions have the same physics, level design and gameplay only better gfx effects.

We're stuck with the same gameplay experience that a 7 year old console can offer.

Can't wait for next gen.

There is a huge difference between the console and PC versions. The problem to me is that after you get on the PC, adding huge amounts of extra money seems to add very little extra quality, as evidenced between the screenshots comparing low and high.

To me, the difference between the visual quality of the low and high screenshots would not really affect my enjoyment of the game, but the difference between the xbox and pc versions certainly would, not to mention I much prefer m/kb control system.

 

[Haserath]

Maybe AMD is tesselating ocean! In the desert!

Oceans of sand.
---
>50x raw power nets that tiny gain in fidelity.

I bet they made the PC versions textures first to be able to scale them down to the 360 and it made the 360 version look worse overall.

I love the hunter mode though. That alone might get me to buy this game early.

 

[Corporate Thug]

You guys are kidding yourself if you think this makes the PC look good. The game basically looks the same on an 8 year old xbox.

Its just a higher res, and brighter. Meanwhile multiple GTX 680's are required to max this thing out. Xbox is basically the same game on what, a crippled x1800xt?

It depends on what your opinion of maxing out is, but even the alpha was running over 60 FPS on a HD7950 / High Quality / 1900 x 1080.

 

[3DVagabond]

I think you both needs your eyes checked !

Random rant, not directed at either of you: i'm so sick of PC snobs complaining about their games not having a checklist of 200 DX11 features in games. Sometimes I feel like there is a subset of PC users who don't actually game, but just stare at graphics and benchmarks....it's like this entire subset of PC gamers don't even care about a core game being good. If it doesn't have tessellation it sucks. If they can't use it for benchmarks it sucks. Gameplay doesn't matter to these people.

I think the graphics are pretty awesome in the PC version That isn't my primary concern however. I want good gameplay as in C1/CWH, and NOT crysis 2.

I feel the same about people who spend $1k on video cards and connect them to a <$200 monitor.

P.S. I have no idea what monitor you use. So, it's not directed at you.

 

[MrK6]

If they were just like "yeah, we're focusing on a great campaign experience," then I would have held my judgment for the campaign/reviews. The only reason I make a point of it is because they kept going on and on about how Crysis 3 was "going to melt your PC" and they failed to deliver IMO. They really haven't improved the graphics over Crysis 1 (over 5 years later mind you), they just changed the art direction/style a bit. That's not impressive, especially from a company that seems to think it pushes graphic boundaries.

 

[3DVagabond]

Maybe AMD is tesselating ocean! In the desert!

LOL I'm curious to see if the invisible tessellated ocean is still there, and what the two brands proponents will say in either case.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

http://3dgeeks.com/articles_pages/3dmark_preview,1.html[/URL]

Wow, did you see that Icestorm video? Its awful, lol looks like a game from 2005
3dmark was never that impressive but that was terrible

Anyway, its now officially confirmed half the people on this forum are blind... This game looks WAY better than Crysis 1, just watch any of the "7 wonders" videos on the youtube page (I dont trust a multiplayer beta to give you the real deal)

Everything from textures to lightning to geometry is leaps above the original (and 2 as well)
The game just feels much more alive in general, since there is so much detail everywhere

Either way, with next gen consoles about to be released, it will be interesting to see what kind of visuals we will be getting in the next year or two