Thank you for accepting that Crapzone: Shadow Failis crap in the eyes of everyone except cows. And definitely industry's opinion will always be better than the raging sony drones fantasies.
Have fun raging and living with the truth that Ryse > Crapzone: Shadow Fail.
The same industry that fellates mobile games and thinks Nintendo should go third party? The same industry consisting of Arthur Gies, Ben Kuchera, Adam Sessler and Marcus Beer? Good to know I'm on the side of the good guys and not lems, Cevat Yerli, corrupt journalists or lem enablers like you. :)
Damn, I thought TLOU won the most GOTY awards by the same industry. I'm glad I choose to stick with PC since consoles are associated with corrupt people.
And KZ3 is closed as **** on PS3 and pre-baked everything, No HDR, no realtime Physics. Anyways, we got over this already. Should I link the thread where I owned your ass on it and you ran away? I can link it. Heck I resurrected it to remind all of you cows of your tall claims but the mods locked it from further discussion.
I agree that Ryse will definitely look and run better on PS4, but that wasn't even the point. My point is plain and simple: DF called Ryse the best looking console game. Do you have any credible source to counter it or should I believe your fanboy gibberish. If you have bring forth otherwise STFU the industry has spoken and I would take DF's word over any Sony drone.
Oh and by the way, I was referring to the PC version of Crysis 2 when I said Crysis 2 from 2011 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crapzone: Shadow Fail. Crapzone: Shadow Fail must be so awful that you even think I was talking about the Crysis 2 console version.
Oh and I don't even own any Xbox or any console for that matter.
WTF...hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Killzone 3 has no real time physics.? Hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Graphics: The first thing we need to remember about these two games is that they have two very different styles. Killzone 3 seems to be shooting for a very realistic, yet strong, sci-fi feeling with both setting and character models while Crysis 2 tries to capture a more true to life realism. Needless to say, both versions set out to do what they aim for. Everything from character detail to the texture of the terrain is done perfectly. While the difference is so minimal that it will go unnoticed, Killzone 3 seems to have a resolution advantage here. While Killzone 3 runs at full native 720p, Crysis2 runs in very SLIGHT sub HD resolution of 1152 x 720. However Crysis 2 doesn’t hesitate to hit back with slightly better HDR lighting throughout.
Furthermore, both Crysis 2 and Killzone 3 have a slew of next generation rendering techniques that only high end PC’s with decked out SLI graphics cards are able to achieve. For example, the physics engine handling the water and fluid effects, as well as destructible environments react in a very realistic manner. Although both games had these effects implemented, they both handled them slightly different - let us explain. For starters, environments in Killzone 3 seemed more destructible throughout. In some scenes you can literally make entire buildings collapse if certain support beams were destroyed. In addition, walls, concrete pillars, and even bathroom toilets could be obliterated. On the flip side, Crysis2 had its fair share of destructible objects, but the selection was a much less than those found in Killzone 3. Instead, Crysis 2 focuses on allowing players the option of interaction with a slew of objects. For example, almost any object in a scene can be picked up and used as a weapon, and there were tons of them in every level.
Finally, what really got our attention, and what sets Killzone 3 apart from the competition are its’ in-game cinematics. Aside from Killzone 3′s opening cut scene, all others used in-game props, and were rendered using Killzone 3′s in-game graphics engine. Let us just say, they look amazing. As for Crysis 2, we were really disappointed with the FMV’s it presented. To be honest, a few of the cut scenes looked down right ugly showing signs of compression and pixelation (reference the image below). This is something we haven’t seen since the 32bit era. Overall, the graphics in Killzone 3 were more polished throughout.
Performance:This category had some noticeable differences. For the most part Killzone 3 ran a consistent 30 FPS with a few occasional, and very slight, drops with no screen tearing at all. Crysis 2 on the other hand dropped FPS noticeably more than Killzone 3 however. The worst of these drops seem to happen in the heavier fire fights more often than anywhere else. Also there was some very slight screen tearing at the top of the screen in Crysis 2, but it was so slight that it will go mainly unnoticed. Another problem that Crysis 2 seemed to have that was absent from Killzone 3 is a few random pop-ins. While the game looks fantastic, pop-ins can take from the beauty of even the best looking games. Luckily however, they aren’t that bad and you probably won’t notice them in action therefore they won’t take away from the experience overall. In the end however the differences are there, no matter how small they may be. Killzone 3 takes the win here with a better average in FPS with little to no pop-ins or tearing.
My own two eyes versus the opinion of corrupt scribblers about a movie game no one will remember in six months. Sorry, lem enabler, but you're lost this one.
Thank you for accepting that Crapzone: Shadow Failis crap in the eyes of everyone except cows. And definitely industry's opinion will always be better than the raging sony drones fantasies.
Have fun raging and living with the truth that Ryse > Crapzone: Shadow Fail.
See when you talk like this you truly show how bitter and sad you really are about Killzone,the game looks incredible and the only thing that doesn't do better than Ryse is characters,everything else Killzone takes a dump on Ryse from resolution to frames,from openness to effects...
Keep holding to DF we all know how much they cheer lead for the xbox one and their secrete sauce..
It’s also worth noting that, ultimately, there might not be any real-world difference at all. Most games are developed with cross-platform, lowest-common-denominator compatibility in mind. Developers are unlikely to create a game that runs well on the PS4, but chugs along on the Xbox One and PC. As long as both consoles can run modern games at 1920×1080 (1080p) @ 30 fps, which the Xbox One and PS4 are more than capable of, you probably won’t notice any difference at all.
With these representative rigs set up, Digital Foundry ran a variety of game benchmarks and recorded the different frame rates posted by the simulated consoles. Depending on the game, the PS4 was between 17 and 33% faster than the Xbox One. Not quite 50%, but still a fairly sizable lead for the PS4.
I surely do funny enough the performance delta now is as big as 77% claim DF,but when the PS3 is running at 60FPS and the xbox one is running at 30 FPS the difference is actually 100%.
The only thing Ryse has on Killzone is characters models nothing more.
And KZ3 is closed as **** on PS3 and pre-baked everything, No HDR, no realtime Physics. Anyways, we got over this already. Should I link the thread where I owned your ass on it and you ran away? I can link it. Heck I resurrected it to remind all of you cows of your tall claims but the mods locked it from further discussion.
I agree that Ryse will definitely look and run better on PS4, but that wasn't even the point. My point is plain and simple: DF called Ryse the best looking console game. Do you have any credible source to counter it or should I believe your fanboy gibberish. If you have bring forth otherwise STFU the industry has spoken and I would take DF's word over any Sony drone.
Oh and by the way, I was referring to the PC version of Crysis 2 when I said Crysis 2 from 2011 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crapzone: Shadow Fail. Crapzone: Shadow Fail must be so awful that you even think I was talking about the Crysis 2 console version.
Oh and I don't even own any Xbox or any console for that matter.
WTF...hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Killzone 3 has no real time physics.? Hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Graphics: The first thing we need to remember about these two games is that they have two very different styles. Killzone 3 seems to be shooting for a very realistic, yet strong, sci-fi feeling with both setting and character models while Crysis 2 tries to capture a more true to life realism. Needless to say, both versions set out to do what they aim for. Everything from character detail to the texture of the terrain is done perfectly. While the difference is so minimal that it will go unnoticed, Killzone 3 seems to have a resolution advantage here. While Killzone 3 runs at full native 720p, Crysis2 runs in very SLIGHT sub HD resolution of 1152 x 720. However Crysis 2 doesn’t hesitate to hit back with slightly better HDR lighting throughout.
Furthermore, both Crysis 2 and Killzone 3 have a slew of next generation rendering techniques that only high end PC’s with decked out SLI graphics cards are able to achieve. For example, the physics engine handling the water and fluid effects, as well as destructible environments react in a very realistic manner. Although both games had these effects implemented, they both handled them slightly different - let us explain. For starters, environments in Killzone 3 seemed more destructible throughout. In some scenes you can literally make entire buildings collapse if certain support beams were destroyed. In addition, walls, concrete pillars, and even bathroom toilets could be obliterated. On the flip side, Crysis2 had its fair share of destructible objects, but the selection was a much less than those found in Killzone 3. Instead, Crysis 2 focuses on allowing players the option of interaction with a slew of objects. For example, almost any object in a scene can be picked up and used as a weapon, and there were tons of them in every level.
Finally, what really got our attention, and what sets Killzone 3 apart from the competition are its’ in-game cinematics. Aside from Killzone 3′s opening cut scene, all others used in-game props, and were rendered using Killzone 3′s in-game graphics engine. Let us just say, they look amazing. As for Crysis 2, we were really disappointed with the FMV’s it presented. To be honest, a few of the cut scenes looked down right ugly showing signs of compression and pixelation (reference the image below). This is something we haven’t seen since the 32bit era. Overall, the graphics in Killzone 3 were more polished throughout.
Performance:This category had some noticeable differences. For the most part Killzone 3 ran a consistent 30 FPS with a few occasional, and very slight, drops with no screen tearing at all. Crysis 2 on the other hand dropped FPS noticeably more than Killzone 3 however. The worst of these drops seem to happen in the heavier fire fights more often than anywhere else. Also there was some very slight screen tearing at the top of the screen in Crysis 2, but it was so slight that it will go mainly unnoticed. Another problem that Crysis 2 seemed to have that was absent from Killzone 3 is a few random pop-ins. While the game looks fantastic, pop-ins can take from the beauty of even the best looking games. Luckily however, they aren’t that bad and you probably won’t notice them in action therefore they won’t take away from the experience overall. In the end however the differences are there, no matter how small they may be. Killzone 3 takes the win here with a better average in FPS with little to no pop-ins or tearing.
Lens of Truth......Hahahahahaahahahaahha..Sorry. KZ3 had no HDR right from the mouth of GG. Pre-baked physics while Crysis 2 was realtime. Lens of Truth are so crap that they compared the pre-rendered cutscenes of KZ3 with realtime Crysis 2.
See the waves in KZ3, looks good. Sorry to break it to you they are pre-baked. They repeat their animation if you notice. So, sorry Crysis 2 > KZ3. Since, you are keen on doing the same $hit let me link you to the thread from where you ran away.
Someone got owned over KZ:SF and Crysis 3.
And you are started getting owned on Crysis 2 here; you need to read the whole conversation up to the end: Link
I remember asking you on another thread to come and answer the questions but you simply ran away. Yeah, my memory is good. Damn, good.
And KZ3 is closed as **** on PS3 and pre-baked everything, No HDR, no realtime Physics. Anyways, we got over this already. Should I link the thread where I owned your ass on it and you ran away? I can link it. Heck I resurrected it to remind all of you cows of your tall claims but the mods locked it from further discussion.
I agree that Ryse will definitely look and run better on PS4, but that wasn't even the point. My point is plain and simple: DF called Ryse the best looking console game. Do you have any credible source to counter it or should I believe your fanboy gibberish. If you have bring forth otherwise STFU the industry has spoken and I would take DF's word over any Sony drone.
Oh and by the way, I was referring to the PC version of Crysis 2 when I said Crysis 2 from 2011 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crapzone: Shadow Fail. Crapzone: Shadow Fail must be so awful that you even think I was talking about the Crysis 2 console version.
Oh and I don't even own any Xbox or any console for that matter.
WTF...hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Killzone 3 has no real time physics.? Hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Graphics: The first thing we need to remember about these two games is that they have two very different styles. Killzone 3 seems to be shooting for a very realistic, yet strong, sci-fi feeling with both setting and character models while Crysis 2 tries to capture a more true to life realism. Needless to say, both versions set out to do what they aim for. Everything from character detail to the texture of the terrain is done perfectly. While the difference is so minimal that it will go unnoticed, Killzone 3 seems to have a resolution advantage here. While Killzone 3 runs at full native 720p, Crysis2 runs in very SLIGHT sub HD resolution of 1152 x 720. However Crysis 2 doesn’t hesitate to hit back with slightly better HDR lighting throughout.
Furthermore, both Crysis 2 and Killzone 3 have a slew of next generation rendering techniques that only high end PC’s with decked out SLI graphics cards are able to achieve. For example, the physics engine handling the water and fluid effects, as well as destructible environments react in a very realistic manner. Although both games had these effects implemented, they both handled them slightly different - let us explain. For starters, environments in Killzone 3 seemed more destructible throughout. In some scenes you can literally make entire buildings collapse if certain support beams were destroyed. In addition, walls, concrete pillars, and even bathroom toilets could be obliterated. On the flip side, Crysis2 had its fair share of destructible objects, but the selection was a much less than those found in Killzone 3. Instead, Crysis 2 focuses on allowing players the option of interaction with a slew of objects. For example, almost any object in a scene can be picked up and used as a weapon, and there were tons of them in every level.
Finally, what really got our attention, and what sets Killzone 3 apart from the competition are its’ in-game cinematics. Aside from Killzone 3′s opening cut scene, all others used in-game props, and were rendered using Killzone 3′s in-game graphics engine. Let us just say, they look amazing. As for Crysis 2, we were really disappointed with the FMV’s it presented. To be honest, a few of the cut scenes looked down right ugly showing signs of compression and pixelation (reference the image below). This is something we haven’t seen since the 32bit era. Overall, the graphics in Killzone 3 were more polished throughout.
Performance: This category had some noticeable differences. For the most part Killzone 3 ran a consistent 30 FPS with a few occasional, and very slight, drops with no screen tearing at all. Crysis 2 on the other hand dropped FPS noticeably more than Killzone 3 however. The worst of these drops seem to happen in the heavier fire fights more often than anywhere else. Also there was some very slight screen tearing at the top of the screen in Crysis 2, but it was so slight that it will go mainly unnoticed. Another problem that Crysis 2 seemed to have that was absent from Killzone 3 is a few random pop-ins. While the game looks fantastic, pop-ins can take from the beauty of even the best looking games. Luckily however, they aren’t that bad and you probably won’t notice them in action therefore they won’t take away from the experience overall. In the end however the differences are there, no matter how small they may be. Killzone 3 takes the win here with a better average in FPS with little to no pop-ins or tearing.
Lens of Truth......Hahahahahaahahahaahha..Sorry. KZ3 had no HDR right from the mouth of GG. Pre-baked physics while Crysis 2 was realtime. Lens of Truth are so crap that they compared the pre-rendered cutscenes of KZ3 with realtime Crysis 2.
See the waves in KZ3, looks good. Sorry to break it to you they are pre-baked. They repeat their animation if you notice. So, sorry Crysis 2 > KZ3. Since, you are keen on doing the same $hit let me link you to the thread from where you ran away.
Someone got owned over KZ:SF and Crysis 3.
And you are started getting owned on Crysis 2 here; you need to read the whole conversation up to the end: Link
I remember asking you on another thread to come and answer the questions but you simply ran away. Yeah, my memory is good. Damn, good.
Lens of Truth......Hahahahahaahahahaahha..Sorry. KZ3 had no HDR right from the mouth of GG. Pre-baked physics while Crysis 2 was realtime. Lens of Truth are so crap that they compared the pre-rendered cutscenes of KZ3 with realtime Crysis 2.
See the waves in KZ3, looks good. Sorry to break it to you they are pre-baked. They repeat their animation if you notice. So, sorry Crysis 2 > KZ3. Since, you are keen on doing the same $hit let me link you to the thread from where you ran away.
Someone got owned over KZ:SF and Crysis 3.
And you are started getting owned on Crysis 2 here; you need to read the whole conversation up to the end: Link
I remember asking you on another thread to come and answer the questions but you simply ran away. Yeah, my memory is good. Damn, good.
As usual let downplay the source..lol...
Crysis 2 has pop in,screen tearing,framed drops and is sub HD...lol Nothing more to say the game was a mess performance wise..
where ever you want to admit it or not is your thing..
And once again calling the crapzone when you are defending Ryse make you look like a complete Moron Ryse is boring bad game,that only has good looking characters and is incredibly enclose.
Fact is all the sacrifices Crytek did with the game are for a reason,for god sake is launch and one of the most talented developers on PC could not make the game run at 30 FPS steady even on 900p let alone 1080p.
The point of the thread is any game the Xflop can run the PS4 will run it better. Stay on topic folks. Ryse has nothing to do with topic as PS4 would run that better as well(native 1080p and a locked 30fps) so stop damage controlling.
Damn, I thought TLOU won the most GOTY awards by the same industry. I'm glad I choose to stick with PC since consoles are associated with corrupt people.
That's a fine choice as long as you don't enable lems in the process.
zeeshanhaider seems to have lost it back there, I think for the safety of everyone - but more [or less] importantly him, we should refrain from encouraging his meltdowns.. Shocking that he has been here since '04.
On topic: No, unless the devs severely butcher the PS4 version in some way to purposefully, the Xbone will probably never surpass the PS4 graphically.
Lens of Truth......Hahahahahaahahahaahha..Sorry. KZ3 had no HDR right from the mouth of GG. Pre-baked physics while Crysis 2 was realtime. Lens of Truth are so crap that they compared the pre-rendered cutscenes of KZ3 with realtime Crysis 2.
See the waves in KZ3, looks good. Sorry to break it to you they are pre-baked. They repeat their animation if you notice. So, sorry Crysis 2 > KZ3. Since, you are keen on doing the same $hit let me link you to the thread from where you ran away.
Someone got owned over KZ:SF and Crysis 3.
And you are started getting owned on Crysis 2 here; you need to read the whole conversation up to the end: Link
I remember asking you on another thread to come and answer the questions but you simply ran away. Yeah, my memory is good. Damn, good.
As usual let downplay the source..lol...
Crysis 2 has pop in,screen tearing,framed drops and is sub HD...lol Nothing more to say the game was a mess performance wise..
where ever you want to admit it or not is your thing..
And once again calling the crapzone when you are defending Ryse make you look like a complete Moron Ryse is boring bad game,that only has good looking characters and is incredibly enclose.
Fact is all the sacrifices Crytek did with the game are for a reason,for god sake is launch and one of the most talented developers on PC could not make the game run at 30 FPS steady even on 900p let alone 1080p.
We got over all this way before. Nothing for me to add anything. The thread is right there for everyone to see that you know jack$hit about realtime graphics.
And at Lens of Truth.....let me laugh again. Hahahahahahahahaha. So, desperate that you bring Lens of truth, hahahahahahahahahahaha. That is ownage right there.
Get over it Tormentos. Ryse > Crapzone: Shadow Fail and this implies that Crysis 2 from 2011 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crapzone: Shadow Fail. Time for you to start hyping UC4. May be just may be, even though I doubt it....but if ND try way too hard they might match Crysis 2 technically. After all Crysis 2 runs on 570 with decent frame rates. SO, yeah, you have a chance there.
Oh and did I forget that on this very site VanOrd in his review compared Crapzone: Shadow Fail to Crysis 2 and called it a failed try to copy crysis 2? Damn....It sucks what Crytek managed to do in 2011 and even with the limitation of that pathetic consoles, GG can't outdo them. :D
zeeshanhaider seems to have lost it back there, I think for the safety of everyone - but more [or less] importantly him, we should refrain from encouraging his meltdowns.. Shocking that he has been here since '04.
On topic: No, unless the devs severely butcher the PS4 version in some way to purposefully, the Xbone will probably never surpass the PS4 graphically.
Whatstating a fact that PS4 is made up of cheap ass tablet CPU and a GPU barely matching a 570 from 2010 is a meltdown? Oh yeah.....Of course it is....for the cows. :D
So butthurt a ps4 launch game looks better than Crysis 3 on max settings.
Not again. Right now you have to worry about Ryse. Come back to me when you have at least a game that is best looking on CONSOLOLES. We will think about talking PC later.
We got over all this way before. Nothing for me to add anything. The thread is right there for everyone to see that you know jack$hit about realtime graphics.
And at Lens of Truth.....let me laugh again. Hahahahahahahahaha. So, desperate that you bring Lens of truth, hahahahahahahahahahaha. That is ownage right there.
Get over it Tormentos. Ryse > Crapzone: Shadow Fail and this implies that Crysis 2 from 2011 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crapzone: Shadow Fail. Time for you to start hyping UC4. May be just may be, even though I doubt it....but if ND try way too hard they might match Crysis 2 technically. After all Crysis 2 runs on 570 with decent frame rates. SO, yeah, you have a chance there.
Oh and did I forget that on this very site VanOrd in his review compared Crapzone: Shadow Fail to Crysis 2 and called it a failed try to copy crysis 2? Damn....It sucks what Crytek managed to do in 2011 and even with the limitation of that pathetic consoles, GG can't outdo them. :D
Say all the sh** you want prove to me that Crysis 2 on xbox 360 even hit 720p then you have a point,is sub HD,with screen taring pop in and frames drops,the same limitation Crytek Faced on xbox 360 GG face them on the PS3 both were last gen console very close,hell Crysis 2 on PS3 is even more sub HD which basically kill your argument about GG not topping Crytek all Killzone games on PS3 are 720p can't say the same about Crysis...lol
Ryse if a boring ass game and you are a moron who get impress by characters models even if all other aspect of the games suck and the game it sells drop to 20 FPS on 900p...hahaha
Ryse is not even close to Killzone SF,1080p from 30 to 45 FPS lol. Ryse can't even keep up 30 while been made like a damn fighting game..lol
@zeeshanhaider said:
@bloodlust_101 said:
zeeshanhaider seems to have lost it back there, I think for the safety of everyone - but more [or less] importantly him, we should refrain from encouraging his meltdowns.. Shocking that he has been here since '04.
On topic: No, unless the devs severely butcher the PS4 version in some way to purposefully, the Xbone will probably never surpass the PS4 graphically.
Whatstating a fact that PS4 is made up of cheap ass tablet CPU and a GPU barely matching a 570 from 2010 is a meltdown? Oh yeah.....Of course it is....for the cows. :D
What table has a 8 core jaguar you brain dead moron.?
Please explain to me how the Tegra 4 which is basically new is not even close to the xbox one CPU let alone the PS4,which is the same but thanks to the PS4 architecture it even performs better than the xbox one CPU even that it is clocked 100mhs slower.
The Core i7 in that graph doesn't even have a 100% advantage over the PS4 one on that test,now the PS4 CPU has what 400% advantage than the Tegra 4.?
It is funny that you flame the PS4 for not having a GPU that powerful enough,and you even bring the 570 which release one late 2010 in fact december 7 it was basically a 2011 GPU and was $350 dollars back then,but you don't flame the xbox one which has the same CPU but perform worse and hasan even weaker GPU..
Congratulations you earn you self the right to be call a closet lemming,yeah you are from those who pretend to be PC gamers,but that can't stop sucking it to MS and their even more inferior console,so how many lemming suits you have on that closet...
Log in to comment