Blah! Blah! Blah! Ryse and Killzone look just as good and Star Citizen completely wipes it's ass with all three.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Wow, by creating this thread I have convinced people to not only purchase the game, but someone even said that they were going to buy a PS4 this weekend. Sony, you owe me...
I don't know whether Second Son or Crysis 3 has the higher poly count, I don't particularly care either. I'm sure you could find plenty of scenes where Infamous SS is rendering more polys on screen than Crysis 3, and vice versa.
However is largely beside the point of what i was arguing. The problem I was having in this thread, is that you were continually spreading false information. PC game versions do commonly do have higher poly counts than the console versions for a variety of reasons, including LODs.
Another thing you continually gave false information about is modding in games. Mods can be far more than textures and enb mods, despite what you seem to desperately want to believe. There are many, many games that have mods for them that do improve models and poly counts in the scenes. There are plenty of mods that improve shaders, lighting, post processing, particles, etc.
You can go off on any tangent you want to. Currently no game on PC modded or unmodded is as advanced as Infamous: SS. Yes rarely modders will be as zealous as to create some assets and 3D models of their own. If you really delve deeply enough into it one could simply consider and entire game a "mod" really. What is Second Son but a "mod" of the first infamous engine? What is Crysis but a "mod" of Cryengine?
I grow weary of chasing you down this semantic rabbit hole. The crux of the argument remains: Second son is Graphics King with what it's doing in relation to its scope. Taking the game as a whole.
PC will be back on top when it actually gets a next gen title to compete. Until then...
This is not semantics, just you giving false information. If you want to argue Infamous is the best looking game, that is fine. Just don't continuously lie about the competition to support yourself.
What is trying to be said is that the primary LOD 3D models in Infamous Second Son are of greater polygon density than Crysis 3. This is because the the models in Crysis 3 were designed with the PS3 and 360 in mind. There is countless evidence of this if you just play the game on PC. There are rocks that just look out of place with the beautiful lighting and what else. While the draw distance in ISS is nothing ground breaking, just remember the amount of polygons that make up the primary models in the game. Far more than we have seen in any open world game.
People argue about textures being shit which just shows they haven't played it. No unmodded open world game comes close in textures. Nor polygon count, nor lighting, nor particles, nor animation technology. It's a true next gen game of it's genre. What compares? Prototype on PC? The Amazing Spider-Man? None of them.
I've played Infamous SS and the things in the game (e.g. debris, barrels, walls, vegetation etc.) aren't very detailed, that together with the low lod distance don't add up to a very high total poly count.
I don't know whether Second Son or Crysis 3 has the higher poly count, I don't particularly care either. I'm sure you could find plenty of scenes where Infamous SS is rendering more polys on screen than Crysis 3, and vice versa.
However is largely beside the point of what i was arguing. The problem I was having in this thread, is that you were continually spreading false information. PC game versions do commonly do have higher poly counts than the console versions for a variety of reasons, including LODs.
Another thing you continually gave false information about is modding in games. Mods can be far more than textures and enb mods, despite what you seem to desperately want to believe. There are many, many games that have mods for them that do improve models and poly counts in the scenes. There are plenty of mods that improve shaders, lighting, post processing, particles, etc.
You can go off on any tangent you want to. Currently no game on PC modded or unmodded is as advanced as Infamous: SS. Yes rarely modders will be as zealous as to create some assets and 3D models of their own. If you really delve deeply enough into it one could simply consider and entire game a "mod" really. What is Second Son but a "mod" of the first infamous engine? What is Crysis but a "mod" of Cryengine?
I grow weary of chasing you down this semantic rabbit hole. The crux of the argument remains: Second son is Graphics King with what it's doing in relation to its scope. Taking the game as a whole.
PC will be back on top when it actually gets a next gen title to compete. Until then...
This is not semantics, just you giving false information. If you want to argue Infamous is the best looking game, that is fine. Just don't continuously lie about the competition to support yourself.
What is trying to be said is that the primary LOD 3D models in Infamous Second Son are of greater polygon density than Crysis 3. This is because the the models in Crysis 3 were designed with the PS3 and 360 in mind. There is countless evidence of this if you just play the game on PC. There are rocks that just look out of place with the beautiful lighting and what else. While the draw distance in ISS is nothing ground breaking, just remember the amount of polygons that make up the primary models in the game. Far more than we have seen in any open world game.
People argue about textures being shit which just shows they haven't played it. No unmodded open world game comes close in textures. Nor polygon count, nor lighting, nor particles, nor animation technology. It's a true next gen game of it's genre. What compares? Prototype on PC? The Amazing Spider-Man? None of them.
I've played Infamous SS and the things in the game (e.g. debris, barrels, walls, vegetation etc.) aren't very detailed, that together with the low lod distance don't add up to a very high total poly count.
That's not the point. The point is it's rendering more to screen than any open world game regardless of it's draw distance, while having a very high density character model on screen. It essentially has more polygons on screen for the same distance drawn, than any game of it's type. And it's still competing with Crysis 3 in crucial areas. Just boot up Crysis 3 and take note of the geometry of the rocks, and notice how blocky they are compared to say Killzone SF rocks. They are PS3 rocks, not PS4. Crytek weren't going to recreate higher poly density objects just for the enthusiast PC market, no way. They only added assets that were ready available in Cry Engine 3 and of course much higher res textures. But that gun model you see in maxed out Crysis 3 is exactly the same as the PS3 version. Same with characters, pickups, and pretty much all 3D objects. They thickened the foliage, added better shadowing and tessellated the odd leaf here and there, but it's only touching on next gen assets. In fact, Ryse uses more crucial assets of Cry Engine 3 than Crysis 3. Crysis 4 should fully utilize the next gen tech found in Cry E3, where the objects, character models, geometry, animations and AI will all be several times better because they won't make a PS3 version. The new consoles have raised the bar. It's obvious, but some of you PC people don't like to admit it. You like to think that a few graphics mods will make a game next gen no matter how limited the core code of the game is, sure, the end user will be more impressed by it's visuals, but it's un-optimized addons to the game graphics and in no way makes the game more advanced. Use your brains a little. Consoles drive the whole market unfortunately.
Any way, it's stupid to compare Crysis 3 to ISS in the first place because they have different focus points. You could say the water in Crysis 3 destroys ISS, which it does, but then so does the PS3 version even. I never said ISS looks better than Crysis 3, I said it's fundamentally more advanced. You will disagree, but I bet if it got a PC release, you wouldn't.
You won't like this, but Killzone Shadow Fall is more advanced than Crysis 3 in many ways also. The geometry is much higher, animations are much better, textures are just as sharp, lighting is just as good with better sun shafts, and sparks when you shoot metal are also volumetric and interact with the ground. What Crysis 3 notably beats it with is foliage and water technology. But again, so does even the console versions, because that's a focus point that Cry Engine 3 has. If you look at the grass in KZSF, it's not too advanced. It doesn't interact with the player or NPC's. This is something the Cry Engine has done since CE2. And the only water I remember seeing in KZSF is the river you can't access without dying in the forest level. It's purely cosmetic and is in no way dynamic. I also like the post processing DOF in Crysis 3 much better.
Crysis 3 might require a much more powerful PC to run than the PS4's hardware, but it's badly optimized to be honest. If i was neatly coded to the metal and optimized, It would no doubt run on PS4 on max. This is heresy among PC gamers of course, but perfectly understandable among developers ironically.
This is the point I've been trying to get across. All the PC elitists think that I'm saying that the PS4 is more powerful than a top of the line gaming PC. Of course it's not. The gap we will see between PC games and the new consoles won't happen until "next-gen" games are being released for both consoles and PC. This will probably happen pretty soon with Watch Dogs, so calm down everyone and let Infamous have its moment of glory.
pretty much all pc games not coded by carmack are poorly optimized
Very true. Doom 3 ran like a dream when it first came out, which was awesome considering how good it looked at the time. The source engine is pretty well optimized too, at least for Valve games (Titanfall should run a lot better than it does). As amazing as Half Life 2 looked when it first came out, it too ran absolutely great.
I don't know whether Second Son or Crysis 3 has the higher poly count, I don't particularly care either. I'm sure you could find plenty of scenes where Infamous SS is rendering more polys on screen than Crysis 3, and vice versa.
However is largely beside the point of what i was arguing. The problem I was having in this thread, is that you were continually spreading false information. PC game versions do commonly do have higher poly counts than the console versions for a variety of reasons, including LODs.
Another thing you continually gave false information about is modding in games. Mods can be far more than textures and enb mods, despite what you seem to desperately want to believe. There are many, many games that have mods for them that do improve models and poly counts in the scenes. There are plenty of mods that improve shaders, lighting, post processing, particles, etc.
You can go off on any tangent you want to. Currently no game on PC modded or unmodded is as advanced as Infamous: SS. Yes rarely modders will be as zealous as to create some assets and 3D models of their own. If you really delve deeply enough into it one could simply consider and entire game a "mod" really. What is Second Son but a "mod" of the first infamous engine? What is Crysis but a "mod" of Cryengine?
I grow weary of chasing you down this semantic rabbit hole. The crux of the argument remains: Second son is Graphics King with what it's doing in relation to its scope. Taking the game as a whole.
PC will be back on top when it actually gets a next gen title to compete. Until then...
This is not semantics, just you giving false information. If you want to argue Infamous is the best looking game, that is fine. Just don't continuously lie about the competition to support yourself.
What is trying to be said is that the primary LOD 3D models in Infamous Second Son are of greater polygon density than Crysis 3. This is because the the models in Crysis 3 were designed with the PS3 and 360 in mind. There is countless evidence of this if you just play the game on PC. There are rocks that just look out of place with the beautiful lighting and what else. While the draw distance in ISS is nothing ground breaking, just remember the amount of polygons that make up the primary models in the game. Far more than we have seen in any open world game.
People argue about textures being shit which just shows they haven't played it. No unmodded open world game comes close in textures. Nor polygon count, nor lighting, nor particles, nor animation technology. It's a true next gen game of it's genre. What compares? Prototype on PC? The Amazing Spider-Man? None of them.
I've played Infamous SS and the things in the game (e.g. debris, barrels, walls, vegetation etc.) aren't very detailed, that together with the low lod distance don't add up to a very high total poly count.
That's not the point. The point is it's rendering more to screen than any open world game regardless of it's draw distance, while having a very high density character model on screen. It essentially has more polygons on screen for the same distance drawn, than any game of it's type. And it's still competing with Crysis 3 in crucial areas. Just boot up Crysis 3 and take note of the geometry of the rocks, and notice how blocky they are compared to say Killzone SF rocks. They are PS3 rocks, not PS4. Crytek weren't going to recreate higher poly density objects just for the enthusiast PC market, no way. They only added assets that were ready available in Cry Engine 3 and of course much higher res textures. But that gun model you see in maxed out Crysis 3 is exactly the same as the PS3 version. Same with characters, pickups, and pretty much all 3D objects. They thickened the foliage, added better shadowing and tessellated the odd leaf here and there, but it's only touching on next gen assets. In fact, Ryse uses more crucial assets of Cry Engine 3 than Crysis 3. Crysis 4 should fully utilize the next gen tech found in Cry E3, where the objects, character models, geometry, animations and AI will all be several times better because they won't make a PS3 version. The new consoles have raised the bar. It's obvious, but some of you PC people don't like to admit it. You like to think that a few graphics mods will make a game next gen no matter how limited the core code of the game is, sure, the end user will be more impressed by it's visuals, but it's un-optimized addons to the game graphics and in no way makes the game more advanced. Use your brains a little. Consoles drive the whole market unfortunately.
Any way, it's stupid to compare Crysis 3 to ISS in the first place because they have different focus points. You could say the water in Crysis 3 destroys ISS, which it does, but then so does the PS3 version even. I never said ISS looks better than Crysis 3, I said it's fundamentally more advanced. You will disagree, but I bet if it got a PC release, you wouldn't.
You won't like this, but Killzone Shadow Fall is more advanced than Crysis 3 in many ways also. The geometry is much higher, animations are much better, textures are just as sharp, lighting is just as good with better sun shafts, and sparks when you shoot metal are also volumetric and interact with the ground. What Crysis 3 notably beats it with is foliage and water technology. But again, so does even the console versions, because that's a focus point that Cry Engine 3 has. If you look at the grass in KZSF, it's not too advanced. It doesn't interact with the player or NPC's. This is something the Cry Engine has done since CE2. And the only water I remember seeing in KZSF is the river you can't access without dying in the forest level. It's purely cosmetic and is in no way dynamic. I also like the post processing DOF in Crysis 3 much better.
Crysis 3 might require a much more powerful PC to run than the PS4's hardware, but it's badly optimized to be honest. If i was neatly coded to the metal and optimized, It would no doubt run on PS4 on max. This is heresy among PC gamers of course, but perfectly understandable among developers ironically.
Saying that KZSF has textures and lighting is on par with Crysis 3 is just a lie. Can you provide a credible link proving Infamous SS total poly count? So far it's just speculation. While Infamous SS looks really good, nothing in the game (apart from main character) looks highly detailed (look closely at a car wheel, debris, vegetation, barrels etc) and that together with the low lod distance really don't add up to a very high total poly count. Not saying that Crysis 3 has a higher total poly count but many things are more detailed in Crysis 3, there is no denying that.
By you logic Crysis 1 is more advanced than Crysis 3 since Crysis 1 was designed with more powerful hardware in mind than the ps360.
Sony drones are still defending Famous for no shadows? I can bet none of the cows that are bragging about higher poly count even know what is the total poly count of Famous for no shadows. Such a shame that no 900pStation game came even close to Crysis 2 from 2011.
Only idiots think that a tablet CPU and 2010 level GPU of 900pStation could compete with PC.
I've never seen such colossal amounts of butt hurt from the hermits, what a game.
When you are constantly getting owned and can't prove something wrong, start calling the opposing party butthurt and leave with your tails between your legs - Famous quote by sony drone ReadingRainbow4.
I don't know whether Second Son or Crysis 3 has the higher poly count, I don't particularly care either. I'm sure you could find plenty of scenes where Infamous SS is rendering more polys on screen than Crysis 3, and vice versa.
However is largely beside the point of what i was arguing. The problem I was having in this thread, is that you were continually spreading false information. PC game versions do commonly do have higher poly counts than the console versions for a variety of reasons, including LODs.
Another thing you continually gave false information about is modding in games. Mods can be far more than textures and enb mods, despite what you seem to desperately want to believe. There are many, many games that have mods for them that do improve models and poly counts in the scenes. There are plenty of mods that improve shaders, lighting, post processing, particles, etc.
You can go off on any tangent you want to. Currently no game on PC modded or unmodded is as advanced as Infamous: SS. Yes rarely modders will be as zealous as to create some assets and 3D models of their own. If you really delve deeply enough into it one could simply consider and entire game a "mod" really. What is Second Son but a "mod" of the first infamous engine? What is Crysis but a "mod" of Cryengine?
I grow weary of chasing you down this semantic rabbit hole. The crux of the argument remains: Second son is Graphics King with what it's doing in relation to its scope. Taking the game as a whole.
PC will be back on top when it actually gets a next gen title to compete. Until then...
This is not semantics, just you giving false information. If you want to argue Infamous is the best looking game, that is fine. Just don't continuously lie about the competition to support yourself.
What is trying to be said is that the primary LOD 3D models in Infamous Second Son are of greater polygon density than Crysis 3. This is because the the models in Crysis 3 were designed with the PS3 and 360 in mind. There is countless evidence of this if you just play the game on PC. There are rocks that just look out of place with the beautiful lighting and what else. While the draw distance in ISS is nothing ground breaking, just remember the amount of polygons that make up the primary models in the game. Far more than we have seen in any open world game.
People argue about textures being shit which just shows they haven't played it. No unmodded open world game comes close in textures. Nor polygon count, nor lighting, nor particles, nor animation technology. It's a true next gen game of it's genre. What compares? Prototype on PC? The Amazing Spider-Man? None of them.
I've played Infamous SS and the things in the game (e.g. debris, barrels, walls, vegetation etc.) aren't very detailed, that together with the low lod distance don't add up to a very high total poly count.
That's not the point. The point is it's rendering more to screen than any open world game regardless of it's draw distance, while having a very high density character model on screen. It essentially has more polygons on screen for the same distance drawn, than any game of it's type. And it's still competing with Crysis 3 in crucial areas. Just boot up Crysis 3 and take note of the geometry of the rocks, and notice how blocky they are compared to say Killzone SF rocks. They are PS3 rocks, not PS4. Crytek weren't going to recreate higher poly density objects just for the enthusiast PC market, no way. They only added assets that were ready available in Cry Engine 3 and of course much higher res textures. But that gun model you see in maxed out Crysis 3 is exactly the same as the PS3 version. Same with characters, pickups, and pretty much all 3D objects. They thickened the foliage, added better shadowing and tessellated the odd leaf here and there, but it's only touching on next gen assets. In fact, Ryse uses more crucial assets of Cry Engine 3 than Crysis 3. Crysis 4 should fully utilize the next gen tech found in Cry E3, where the objects, character models, geometry, animations and AI will all be several times better because they won't make a PS3 version. The new consoles have raised the bar. It's obvious, but some of you PC people don't like to admit it. You like to think that a few graphics mods will make a game next gen no matter how limited the core code of the game is, sure, the end user will be more impressed by it's visuals, but it's un-optimized addons to the game graphics and in no way makes the game more advanced. Use your brains a little. Consoles drive the whole market unfortunately.
Any way, it's stupid to compare Crysis 3 to ISS in the first place because they have different focus points. You could say the water in Crysis 3 destroys ISS, which it does, but then so does the PS3 version even. I never said ISS looks better than Crysis 3, I said it's fundamentally more advanced. You will disagree, but I bet if it got a PC release, you wouldn't.
You won't like this, but Killzone Shadow Fall is more advanced than Crysis 3 in many ways also. The geometry is much higher, animations are much better, textures are just as sharp, lighting is just as good with better sun shafts, and sparks when you shoot metal are also volumetric and interact with the ground. What Crysis 3 notably beats it with is foliage and water technology. But again, so does even the console versions, because that's a focus point that Cry Engine 3 has. If you look at the grass in KZSF, it's not too advanced. It doesn't interact with the player or NPC's. This is something the Cry Engine has done since CE2. And the only water I remember seeing in KZSF is the river you can't access without dying in the forest level. It's purely cosmetic and is in no way dynamic. I also like the post processing DOF in Crysis 3 much better.
Crysis 3 might require a much more powerful PC to run than the PS4's hardware, but it's badly optimized to be honest. If i was neatly coded to the metal and optimized, It would no doubt run on PS4 on max. This is heresy among PC gamers of course, but perfectly understandable among developers ironically.
Saying that KZSF has textures and lighting is on par with Crysis 3 is just a lie. Can you provide a credible link proving Infamous SS total poly count? So far it's just speculation. While Infamous SS looks really good, nothing in the game (apart from main character) looks highly detailed (look closely at a car wheel, debris, vegetation, barrels etc) and that together with the low lod distance really don't add up to a very high total poly count. Not saying that Crysis 3 has a higher total poly count but many things are more detailed in Crysis 3, there is no denying that.
By you logic Crysis 1 is more advanced than Crysis 3 since Crysis 1 was designed with more powerful hardware in mind than the ps360.
Well Crysis 1 does have more going on onscreen as far as objects being rendered. Much bigger world and all the rest of it. Crysis 3 has more modern effects though. Now ISS is open world, Crysis 3 is not. For an open world game of it's type, it's impressive compared to any other.
As for KZSF textures. (Open both in separate tabs because the 'insert image' button isn't working)
KZSF textures.
http://static.gamespot.com/uploads/original/349/3494045/2451710-ibblzescmge5qj.jpg
Crysis 3 textures
http://i.imgur.com/W7NtSOl.jpg
Both were random ground textures. Not much in it to be fair. The myth that "PS4 is a console so it's textures automatically are shit" is quite silly.
The ground textures in that Crysis 3 shot looks worse than I remember them, maybe they are "hurt" by depth of field while looking at the leaf through the iron sights. I never said that KZSF has bad textures, just that Crysis 3 has better.
http://www.abload.de/img/crysis32013-02-2020-0nqrpg.png
@zeeshanhaider: How many fucking times are you going to say 900pstation (one game runs in 900p), "famous for no shadows" (even though it clearly has shadows and you've been proven wrong over and over throughout this thread," and all your other little sayings that you've used in EVERY post? You've still never played the game, so stop spouting off lame ass comments that aren't true and making yourself sound like a 14 year old idiot.
@zeeshanhaider: How many fucking times are you going to say 900pstation (one game runs in 900p), "famous for no shadows" (even though it clearly has shadows and you've been proven wrong over and over throughout this thread," and all your other little sayings that you've used in EVERY post? You've still never played the game, so stop spouting off lame ass comments that aren't true and making yourself sound like a 14 year old idiot.
Nope I have proved that more than one game runs in 900p as matter of fact is subHD and I already quoted the developer on the lack of shadows. It's you sony drones who have yet to prove what this game has over Crysis 2 from 2011. Show me a single damn post where you or anyone proved me wrong about any damn thing. I dare you. It's not my problem that the facts about weak ass 900pStation makes you mad. By the way, why are you mad over the fact that that 900pStation is made up of cheap ass tablet CPU and a GPU barely matching a mid range 570 from 2010. Are you a sony drone too?
Take a good look here again:
For the fools who claim Infamous has no dynamic shadows, maybe play the game first. It's true not every light source casts shadow, but neither does Crysis 3 or every other game ever been made. So don't even start to claim Crysis 3 does.
This no dynamic shadow BS has got to stop, so fkn pathetic.
Stop talking out of your ass. Just because your precious 900pStation games doesn't have it doesn't mean all other games suffer from the same problem. And LOL at your cherry picked shots. There are many situations where Famous for no shadows don't cast any shadows and have very low resolution textures which looks like complete shit. Fucking pathetic for a game in 2014.
Anyways, every single damn light in Crysis 2/3 casts shadow and reflection. Not just lights even particles casts light and shadows and also being reflected. Hell even the particle receive shadows in Crysis 2/3. Go and read DF articles on it if you can't make the difference your self. And I haven't even included the real time Physics yet. Crysis 2/3 does so much that it's not even fair to compare them to 900pStation. It's a fucking disgrace to Crysis and Crytek.
Now go and keep crying that the cheap ass tablet CPU and a 570 level GPU from 2010 couldn't even handle games with dynamic shadows. No matter how many times you try to spin it, Crysis 2 will forever remain a benchmark for these outdated consololes to be measured against.
You are a fucking idiot. How many times are you going to use the term 900pStation and talk about the tablet CPU/570 level GPU? You've said this in pretty much every single post. And GPUking just owned you by showing you in those screenshots that YES, the game does have shadows. Amazing shadows. Of course it's going to have shadows, it's 2014. Every console game since the mid 2000's or earlier has had shadows. And don't talk about cherry-picking, every single Crysis or Witcher screenshot has been cherry-picked. I could take some screenshots right now of Crysis 3 or the Witcher 2 where they don't look that great. Every game has moments where it looks better in some areas than others. And arguing with you is like arguing with a retarded person. How old are you, 14?
Why? It's not my problem that 900pStation was touted by cows to be super computer that will beat Tri SLI 680's in power when in reality it consists of a tablet CPU and a 2010 level GPU. I will show continue to highlight the reality of that outdated consolole. Be mad at sony for letting you down.
Are you saying that the game doesn't suffer from the lack of shadows? Famous for no shadows in many situations have no shadow and when it does only one light source cast it as evident by the cherry picked shots. No matter how much you sony drones cry, you will not change that fact about Famous for no shadows when the devs admitted it missing shadows. LMAO!
Graphics Programmer Matthijs De Smedt also explained the lack of dynamic shadows revealed by the latest gameplay footage, In other words, the reason why only the global light sources (the sun and the moon) actually cast shadows in the game:
I’d like to make every light cast shadows : ). But there’s always tradeoffs in games, and there’s a lot of streetlights.
Source
It's time for you to start hyping up UC4 because Crapzone and Famous for no shadows failed to live up to Crysis 2 from 2011.
I don't know whether Second Son or Crysis 3 has the higher poly count, I don't particularly care either. I'm sure you could find plenty of scenes where Infamous SS is rendering more polys on screen than Crysis 3, and vice versa.
However is largely beside the point of what i was arguing. The problem I was having in this thread, is that you were continually spreading false information. PC game versions do commonly do have higher poly counts than the console versions for a variety of reasons, including LODs.
Another thing you continually gave false information about is modding in games. Mods can be far more than textures and enb mods, despite what you seem to desperately want to believe. There are many, many games that have mods for them that do improve models and poly counts in the scenes. There are plenty of mods that improve shaders, lighting, post processing, particles, etc.
You can go off on any tangent you want to. Currently no game on PC modded or unmodded is as advanced as Infamous: SS. Yes rarely modders will be as zealous as to create some assets and 3D models of their own. If you really delve deeply enough into it one could simply consider and entire game a "mod" really. What is Second Son but a "mod" of the first infamous engine? What is Crysis but a "mod" of Cryengine?
I grow weary of chasing you down this semantic rabbit hole. The crux of the argument remains: Second son is Graphics King with what it's doing in relation to its scope. Taking the game as a whole.
PC will be back on top when it actually gets a next gen title to compete. Until then...
This is not semantics, just you giving false information. If you want to argue Infamous is the best looking game, that is fine. Just don't continuously lie about the competition to support yourself.
What is trying to be said is that the primary LOD 3D models in Infamous Second Son are of greater polygon density than Crysis 3. This is because the the models in Crysis 3 were designed with the PS3 and 360 in mind. There is countless evidence of this if you just play the game on PC. There are rocks that just look out of place with the beautiful lighting and what else. While the draw distance in ISS is nothing ground breaking, just remember the amount of polygons that make up the primary models in the game. Far more than we have seen in any open world game.
People argue about textures being shit which just shows they haven't played it. No unmodded open world game comes close in textures. Nor polygon count, nor lighting, nor particles, nor animation technology. It's a true next gen game of it's genre. What compares? Prototype on PC? The Amazing Spider-Man? None of them.
I've played Infamous SS and the things in the game (e.g. debris, barrels, walls, vegetation etc.) aren't very detailed, that together with the low lod distance don't add up to a very high total poly count.
That's not the point. The point is it's rendering more to screen than any open world game regardless of it's draw distance, while having a very high density character model on screen. It essentially has more polygons on screen for the same distance drawn, than any game of it's type. And it's still competing with Crysis 3 in crucial areas. Just boot up Crysis 3 and take note of the geometry of the rocks, and notice how blocky they are compared to say Killzone SF rocks. They are PS3 rocks, not PS4. Crytek weren't going to recreate higher poly density objects just for the enthusiast PC market, no way. They only added assets that were ready available in Cry Engine 3 and of course much higher res textures. But that gun model you see in maxed out Crysis 3 is exactly the same as the PS3 version. Same with characters, pickups, and pretty much all 3D objects. They thickened the foliage, added better shadowing and tessellated the odd leaf here and there, but it's only touching on next gen assets. In fact, Ryse uses more crucial assets of Cry Engine 3 than Crysis 3. Crysis 4 should fully utilize the next gen tech found in Cry E3, where the objects, character models, geometry, animations and AI will all be several times better because they won't make a PS3 version. The new consoles have raised the bar. It's obvious, but some of you PC people don't like to admit it. You like to think that a few graphics mods will make a game next gen no matter how limited the core code of the game is, sure, the end user will be more impressed by it's visuals, but it's un-optimized addons to the game graphics and in no way makes the game more advanced. Use your brains a little. Consoles drive the whole market unfortunately.
Any way, it's stupid to compare Crysis 3 to ISS in the first place because they have different focus points. You could say the water in Crysis 3 destroys ISS, which it does, but then so does the PS3 version even. I never said ISS looks better than Crysis 3, I said it's fundamentally more advanced. You will disagree, but I bet if it got a PC release, you wouldn't.
You won't like this, but Killzone Shadow Fall is more advanced than Crysis 3 in many ways also. The geometry is much higher, animations are much better, textures are just as sharp, lighting is just as good with better sun shafts, and sparks when you shoot metal are also volumetric and interact with the ground. What Crysis 3 notably beats it with is foliage and water technology. But again, so does even the console versions, because that's a focus point that Cry Engine 3 has. If you look at the grass in KZSF, it's not too advanced. It doesn't interact with the player or NPC's. This is something the Cry Engine has done since CE2. And the only water I remember seeing in KZSF is the river you can't access without dying in the forest level. It's purely cosmetic and is in no way dynamic. I also like the post processing DOF in Crysis 3 much better.
Crysis 3 might require a much more powerful PC to run than the PS4's hardware, but it's badly optimized to be honest. If i was neatly coded to the metal and optimized, It would no doubt run on PS4 on max. This is heresy among PC gamers of course, but perfectly understandable among developers ironically.
Saying that KZSF has textures and lighting is on par with Crysis 3 is just a lie. Can you provide a credible link proving Infamous SS total poly count? So far it's just speculation. While Infamous SS looks really good, nothing in the game (apart from main character) looks highly detailed (look closely at a car wheel, debris, vegetation, barrels etc) and that together with the low lod distance really don't add up to a very high total poly count. Not saying that Crysis 3 has a higher total poly count but many things are more detailed in Crysis 3, there is no denying that.
By you logic Crysis 1 is more advanced than Crysis 3 since Crysis 1 was designed with more powerful hardware in mind than the ps360.
Well Crysis 1 does have more going on onscreen as far as objects being rendered. Much bigger world and all the rest of it. Crysis 3 has more modern effects though. Now ISS is open world, Crysis 3 is not. For an open world game of it's type, it's impressive compared to any other.
As for KZSF textures. (Open both in separate tabs because the 'insert image' button isn't working)
KZSF textures.
http://static.gamespot.com/uploads/original/349/3494045/2451710-ibblzescmge5qj.jpg
Crysis 3 textures
http://i.imgur.com/W7NtSOl.jpg
Both were random ground textures. Not much in it to be fair. The myth that "PS4 is a console so it's textures automatically are shit" is quite silly.
The ground textures in that Crysis 3 shot looks worse than I remember them, maybe they are "hurt" by depth of field while looking at the leaf through the iron sights. I never said that KZSF has bad textures, just that Crysis 3 has better.
http://www.abload.de/img/crysis32013-02-2020-0nqrpg.png
Comparing the Crysis 3 image you posted and comparing the KZSF image I posted, I'd say there isn't much in it. No good cherry picking on either game to win one over. They are both sufficient ground textures lets just say. Crysis 3 has effects that are not found in Killzone, but are found in Ryse because it's the same engine. Different engines have different focus points, which is why a game will never beat another on all fronts. Just saying that when you take into account polygon count, character models, animations and AI, both KZSF and ISS beat crysis 3. In the case of ISS draw distance, it draws more things to screen for the same distance drawn than any other open world game of it's type. Is this so out of whack what I'm saying? I never said it's lighting and foliage is better, but since when did games like that ever excel at stuff like that?
Say what? Your Crapzone: Shadow Fail and Famou for no shadows is not even a match for Crysis 2 let alone Crysis 3. What is the total poly count of Crapzone and Famous for no shadows that you are bragging about? Everything you are saying is totally out of your ass. The last I checked even your precious exclusives lost to Ryse let alone Crysis 2 and yes even DF has agreed that none of the consololes has the horepower to match Crysis 2. Can youy even tout a single damn source about Crapzone and Famous for no shadows having any fucking damn feature over Crysis 2 let alone Crysis 3?
Get your head out of sony's ass and think for a second that how on earth the cheap ass tablet CPU and 570 level GPU of 900pStation could match a game which gets even the fastest GPU's of today to their knees.
I've never seen such colossal amounts of butt hurt from the hermits, what a game.
When you are constantly getting owned and can't prove something wrong, start calling the opposing party butthurt and leave with your tails between your legs - Famous quote by sony drone ReadingRainbow4.
Oh that delicious Irony.
I've never seen such colossal amounts of butt hurt from the hermits, what a game.
When you are constantly getting owned and can't prove something wrong, start calling the opposing party butthurt and leave with your tails between your legs - Famous quote by sony drone ReadingRainbow4.
Oh that delicious Irony.
Still waiting for you to tell me something Famous for no shadows have over Crysis 2, sony drone.
I've never seen such colossal amounts of butt hurt from the hermits, what a game.
When you are constantly getting owned and can't prove something wrong, start calling the opposing party butthurt and leave with your tails between your legs - Famous quote by sony drone ReadingRainbow4.
Oh that delicious Irony.
Still waiting for you to tell me something Famous for no shadows have over Crysis 2, sony drone.
I don't know whether Second Son or Crysis 3 has the higher poly count, I don't particularly care either. I'm sure you could find plenty of scenes where Infamous SS is rendering more polys on screen than Crysis 3, and vice versa.
However is largely beside the point of what i was arguing. The problem I was having in this thread, is that you were continually spreading false information. PC game versions do commonly do have higher poly counts than the console versions for a variety of reasons, including LODs.
Another thing you continually gave false information about is modding in games. Mods can be far more than textures and enb mods, despite what you seem to desperately want to believe. There are many, many games that have mods for them that do improve models and poly counts in the scenes. There are plenty of mods that improve shaders, lighting, post processing, particles, etc.
You can go off on any tangent you want to. Currently no game on PC modded or unmodded is as advanced as Infamous: SS. Yes rarely modders will be as zealous as to create some assets and 3D models of their own. If you really delve deeply enough into it one could simply consider and entire game a "mod" really. What is Second Son but a "mod" of the first infamous engine? What is Crysis but a "mod" of Cryengine?
I grow weary of chasing you down this semantic rabbit hole. The crux of the argument remains: Second son is Graphics King with what it's doing in relation to its scope. Taking the game as a whole.
PC will be back on top when it actually gets a next gen title to compete. Until then...
This is not semantics, just you giving false information. If you want to argue Infamous is the best looking game, that is fine. Just don't continuously lie about the competition to support yourself.
What is trying to be said is that the primary LOD 3D models in Infamous Second Son are of greater polygon density than Crysis 3. This is because the the models in Crysis 3 were designed with the PS3 and 360 in mind. There is countless evidence of this if you just play the game on PC. There are rocks that just look out of place with the beautiful lighting and what else. While the draw distance in ISS is nothing ground breaking, just remember the amount of polygons that make up the primary models in the game. Far more than we have seen in any open world game.
People argue about textures being shit which just shows they haven't played it. No unmodded open world game comes close in textures. Nor polygon count, nor lighting, nor particles, nor animation technology. It's a true next gen game of it's genre. What compares? Prototype on PC? The Amazing Spider-Man? None of them.
I've played Infamous SS and the things in the game (e.g. debris, barrels, walls, vegetation etc.) aren't very detailed, that together with the low lod distance don't add up to a very high total poly count.
That's not the point. The point is it's rendering more to screen than any open world game regardless of it's draw distance, while having a very high density character model on screen. It essentially has more polygons on screen for the same distance drawn, than any game of it's type. And it's still competing with Crysis 3 in crucial areas. Just boot up Crysis 3 and take note of the geometry of the rocks, and notice how blocky they are compared to say Killzone SF rocks. They are PS3 rocks, not PS4. Crytek weren't going to recreate higher poly density objects just for the enthusiast PC market, no way. They only added assets that were ready available in Cry Engine 3 and of course much higher res textures. But that gun model you see in maxed out Crysis 3 is exactly the same as the PS3 version. Same with characters, pickups, and pretty much all 3D objects. They thickened the foliage, added better shadowing and tessellated the odd leaf here and there, but it's only touching on next gen assets. In fact, Ryse uses more crucial assets of Cry Engine 3 than Crysis 3. Crysis 4 should fully utilize the next gen tech found in Cry E3, where the objects, character models, geometry, animations and AI will all be several times better because they won't make a PS3 version. The new consoles have raised the bar. It's obvious, but some of you PC people don't like to admit it. You like to think that a few graphics mods will make a game next gen no matter how limited the core code of the game is, sure, the end user will be more impressed by it's visuals, but it's un-optimized addons to the game graphics and in no way makes the game more advanced. Use your brains a little. Consoles drive the whole market unfortunately.
Any way, it's stupid to compare Crysis 3 to ISS in the first place because they have different focus points. You could say the water in Crysis 3 destroys ISS, which it does, but then so does the PS3 version even. I never said ISS looks better than Crysis 3, I said it's fundamentally more advanced. You will disagree, but I bet if it got a PC release, you wouldn't.
You won't like this, but Killzone Shadow Fall is more advanced than Crysis 3 in many ways also. The geometry is much higher, animations are much better, textures are just as sharp, lighting is just as good with better sun shafts, and sparks when you shoot metal are also volumetric and interact with the ground. What Crysis 3 notably beats it with is foliage and water technology. But again, so does even the console versions, because that's a focus point that Cry Engine 3 has. If you look at the grass in KZSF, it's not too advanced. It doesn't interact with the player or NPC's. This is something the Cry Engine has done since CE2. And the only water I remember seeing in KZSF is the river you can't access without dying in the forest level. It's purely cosmetic and is in no way dynamic. I also like the post processing DOF in Crysis 3 much better.
Crysis 3 might require a much more powerful PC to run than the PS4's hardware, but it's badly optimized to be honest. If i was neatly coded to the metal and optimized, It would no doubt run on PS4 on max. This is heresy among PC gamers of course, but perfectly understandable among developers ironically.
Saying that KZSF has textures and lighting is on par with Crysis 3 is just a lie. Can you provide a credible link proving Infamous SS total poly count? So far it's just speculation. While Infamous SS looks really good, nothing in the game (apart from main character) looks highly detailed (look closely at a car wheel, debris, vegetation, barrels etc) and that together with the low lod distance really don't add up to a very high total poly count. Not saying that Crysis 3 has a higher total poly count but many things are more detailed in Crysis 3, there is no denying that.
By you logic Crysis 1 is more advanced than Crysis 3 since Crysis 1 was designed with more powerful hardware in mind than the ps360.
Well Crysis 1 does have more going on onscreen as far as objects being rendered. Much bigger world and all the rest of it. Crysis 3 has more modern effects though. Now ISS is open world, Crysis 3 is not. For an open world game of it's type, it's impressive compared to any other.
As for KZSF textures. (Open both in separate tabs because the 'insert image' button isn't working)
KZSF textures.
http://static.gamespot.com/uploads/original/349/3494045/2451710-ibblzescmge5qj.jpg
Crysis 3 textures
http://i.imgur.com/W7NtSOl.jpg
Both were random ground textures. Not much in it to be fair. The myth that "PS4 is a console so it's textures automatically are shit" is quite silly.
The ground textures in that Crysis 3 shot looks worse than I remember them, maybe they are "hurt" by depth of field while looking at the leaf through the iron sights. I never said that KZSF has bad textures, just that Crysis 3 has better.
http://www.abload.de/img/crysis32013-02-2020-0nqrpg.png
Comparing the Crysis 3 image you posted and comparing the KZSF image I posted, I'd say there isn't much in it. No good cherry picking on either game to win one over. They are both sufficient ground textures lets just say. Crysis 3 has effects that are not found in Killzone, but are found in Ryse because it's the same engine. Different engines have different focus points, which is why a game will never beat another on all fronts. Just saying that when you take into account polygon count, character models, animations and AI, both KZSF and ISS beat crysis 3. In the case of ISS draw distance, it draws more things to screen for the same distance drawn than any other open world game of it's type. Is this so out of whack what I'm saying? I never said it's lighting and foliage is better, but since when did games like that ever excel at stuff like that?
Say what? Your Crapzone: Shadow Fail and Famou for no shadows is not even a match for Crysis 2 let alone Crysis 3. What is the total poly count of Crapzone and Famous for no shadows that you are bragging about? Everything you are saying is totally out of your ass. The last I checked even your precious exclusives lost to Ryse let alone Crysis 2 and yes even DF has agreed that none of the consololes has the horepower to match Crysis 2. Can youy even tout a single damn source about Crapzone and Famous for no shadows having any fucking damn feature over Crysis 2 let alone Crysis 3?
Get your head out of sony's ass and think for a second that how on earth the cheap ass tablet CPU and 570 level GPU of 900pStation could match a game which gets even the fastest GPU's of today to their knees.
Oh hello Mr generic PC elitist. How are you today? Tell me, what makes Crysis 2 (the famous console compromise) better graphics than Killzone Shadow Fall? And that was a bit aggressive for such a mature PC gamer such as yourself. Please try to be more polite next time.
Higher poly count. Realtime GI. Realtime local screen space reflections from every single light source. Particles that not only illuminates but also receive lights and cast shadows. SSDO. Higher resolution textures. Higher draw distance. Scale. Realtime Physics. Realtime tesselated water and water physics. Objects that are interactive. Now tell what does your precious 900pStation exclusives have? Lack of shadows?
I've never seen such colossal amounts of butt hurt from the hermits, what a game.
When you are constantly getting owned and can't prove something wrong, start calling the opposing party butthurt and leave with your tails between your legs - Famous quote by sony drone ReadingRainbow4.
Oh that delicious Irony.
Still waiting for you to tell me something Famous for no shadows have over Crysis 2, sony drone.
When you are constantly getting owned and can't prove something wrong, start calling the opposing party butthurt or post a silly gif and leave with your tails between your legs - Famous quote by sony drone ReadingRainbow4.
I've never seen such colossal amounts of butt hurt from the hermits, what a game.
When you are constantly getting owned and can't prove something wrong, start calling the opposing party butthurt and leave with your tails between your legs - Famous quote by sony drone ReadingRainbow4.
Oh that delicious Irony.
Still waiting for you to tell me something Famous for no shadows have over Crysis 2, sony drone.
When you are constantly getting owned and can't prove something wrong, start calling the opposing party butthurt or post a silly gif and leave with your tails between your legs - Famous quote by sony drone ReadingRainbow4.
I've never seen such colossal amounts of butt hurt from the hermits, what a game.
When you are constantly getting owned and can't prove something wrong, start calling the opposing party butthurt and leave with your tails between your legs - Famous quote by sony drone ReadingRainbow4.
Oh that delicious Irony.
Still waiting for you to tell me something Famous for no shadows have over Crysis 2, sony drone.
He knows. He's just trolling. But his meltdown is epic and really encapsulates the raging neckbeard persona perfectly.
I've played Infamous SS and the things in the game (e.g. debris, barrels, walls, vegetation etc.) aren't very detailed, that together with the low lod distance don't add up to a very high total poly count.
That's not the point. The point is it's rendering more to screen than any open world game regardless of it's draw distance, while having a very high density character model on screen. It essentially has more polygons on screen for the same distance drawn, than any game of it's type. And it's still competing with Crysis 3 in crucial areas. Just boot up Crysis 3 and take note of the geometry of the rocks, and notice how blocky they are compared to say Killzone SF rocks. They are PS3 rocks, not PS4. Crytek weren't going to recreate higher poly density objects just for the enthusiast PC market, no way. They only added assets that were ready available in Cry Engine 3 and of course much higher res textures. But that gun model you see in maxed out Crysis 3 is exactly the same as the PS3 version. Same with characters, pickups, and pretty much all 3D objects. They thickened the foliage, added better shadowing and tessellated the odd leaf here and there, but it's only touching on next gen assets. In fact, Ryse uses more crucial assets of Cry Engine 3 than Crysis 3. Crysis 4 should fully utilize the next gen tech found in Cry E3, where the objects, character models, geometry, animations and AI will all be several times better because they won't make a PS3 version. The new consoles have raised the bar. It's obvious, but some of you PC people don't like to admit it. You like to think that a few graphics mods will make a game next gen no matter how limited the core code of the game is, sure, the end user will be more impressed by it's visuals, but it's un-optimized addons to the game graphics and in no way makes the game more advanced. Use your brains a little. Consoles drive the whole market unfortunately.
Any way, it's stupid to compare Crysis 3 to ISS in the first place because they have different focus points. You could say the water in Crysis 3 destroys ISS, which it does, but then so does the PS3 version even. I never said ISS looks better than Crysis 3, I said it's fundamentally more advanced. You will disagree, but I bet if it got a PC release, you wouldn't.
You won't like this, but Killzone Shadow Fall is more advanced than Crysis 3 in many ways also. The geometry is much higher, animations are much better, textures are just as sharp, lighting is just as good with better sun shafts, and sparks when you shoot metal are also volumetric and interact with the ground. What Crysis 3 notably beats it with is foliage and water technology. But again, so does even the console versions, because that's a focus point that Cry Engine 3 has. If you look at the grass in KZSF, it's not too advanced. It doesn't interact with the player or NPC's. This is something the Cry Engine has done since CE2. And the only water I remember seeing in KZSF is the river you can't access without dying in the forest level. It's purely cosmetic and is in no way dynamic. I also like the post processing DOF in Crysis 3 much better.
Crysis 3 might require a much more powerful PC to run than the PS4's hardware, but it's badly optimized to be honest. If i was neatly coded to the metal and optimized, It would no doubt run on PS4 on max. This is heresy among PC gamers of course, but perfectly understandable among developers ironically.
Saying that KZSF has textures and lighting is on par with Crysis 3 is just a lie. Can you provide a credible link proving Infamous SS total poly count? So far it's just speculation. While Infamous SS looks really good, nothing in the game (apart from main character) looks highly detailed (look closely at a car wheel, debris, vegetation, barrels etc) and that together with the low lod distance really don't add up to a very high total poly count. Not saying that Crysis 3 has a higher total poly count but many things are more detailed in Crysis 3, there is no denying that.
By you logic Crysis 1 is more advanced than Crysis 3 since Crysis 1 was designed with more powerful hardware in mind than the ps360.
This is very true, but these diehard Sony fanboys will continue to claim it even though they have zero evidence and even when we have reasonably and logically shown why it is false.
@zeeshanhaider: How many fucking times are you going to say 900pstation (one game runs in 900p), "famous for no shadows" (even though it clearly has shadows and you've been proven wrong over and over throughout this thread," and all your other little sayings that you've used in EVERY post? You've still never played the game, so stop spouting off lame ass comments that aren't true and making yourself sound like a 14 year old idiot.
Nope I have proved that more than one game runs in 900p as matter of fact is subHD and I already quoted the developer on the lack of shadows. It's you sony drones who have yet to prove what this game has over Crysis 2 from 2011. Show me a single damn post where you or anyone proved me wrong about any damn thing. I dare you. It's not my problem that the facts about weak ass 900pStation makes you mad. By the way, why are you mad over the fact that that 900pStation is made up of cheap ass tablet CPU and a GPU barely matching a mid range 570 from 2010. Are you a sony drone too?
Take a good look here again:
For the fools who claim Infamous has no dynamic shadows, maybe play the game first. It's true not every light source casts shadow, but neither does Crysis 3 or every other game ever been made. So don't even start to claim Crysis 3 does.
This no dynamic shadow BS has got to stop, so fkn pathetic.
Stop talking out of your ass. Just because your precious 900pStation games doesn't have it doesn't mean all other games suffer from the same problem. And LOL at your cherry picked shots. There are many situations where Famous for no shadows don't cast any shadows and have very low resolution textures which looks like complete shit. Fucking pathetic for a game in 2014.
Anyways, every single damn light in Crysis 2/3 casts shadow and reflection. Not just lights even particles casts light and shadows and also being reflected. Hell even the particle receive shadows in Crysis 2/3. Go and read DF articles on it if you can't make the difference your self. And I haven't even included the real time Physics yet. Crysis 2/3 does so much that it's not even fair to compare them to 900pStation. It's a fucking disgrace to Crysis and Crytek.
Now go and keep crying that the cheap ass tablet CPU and a 570 level GPU from 2010 couldn't even handle games with dynamic shadows. No matter how many times you try to spin it, Crysis 2 will forever remain a benchmark for these outdated consololes to be measured against.
You are a fucking idiot. How many times are you going to use the term 900pStation and talk about the tablet CPU/570 level GPU? You've said this in pretty much every single post. And GPUking just owned you by showing you in those screenshots that YES, the game does have shadows. Amazing shadows. Of course it's going to have shadows, it's 2014. Every console game since the mid 2000's or earlier has had shadows. And don't talk about cherry-picking, every single Crysis or Witcher screenshot has been cherry-picked. I could take some screenshots right now of Crysis 3 or the Witcher 2 where they don't look that great. Every game has moments where it looks better in some areas than others. And arguing with you is like arguing with a retarded person. How old are you, 14?
Why? It's not my problem that 900pStation was touted by cows to be super computer that will beat Tri SLI 680's in power when in reality it consists of a tablet CPU and a 2010 level GPU. I will show continue to highlight the reality of that outdated consolole. Be mad at sony for letting you down.
Are you saying that the game doesn't suffer from the lack of shadows? Famous for no shadows in many situations have no shadow and when it does only one light source cast it as evident by the cherry picked shots. No matter how much you sony drones cry, you will not change that fact about Famous for no shadows when the devs admitted it missing shadows. LMAO!
Graphics Programmer Matthijs De Smedt also explained the lack of dynamic shadows revealed by the latest gameplay footage, In other words, the reason why only the global light sources (the sun and the moon) actually cast shadows in the game:
I’d like to make every light cast shadows : ). But there’s always tradeoffs in games, and there’s a lot of streetlights.
Source
It's time for you to start hyping up UC4 because Crapzone and Famous for no shadows failed to live up to Crysis 2 from 2011.
what other game is in 900p?
I've played Infamous SS and the things in the game (e.g. debris, barrels, walls, vegetation etc.) aren't very detailed, that together with the low lod distance don't add up to a very high total poly count.
That's not the point. The point is it's rendering more to screen than any open world game regardless of it's draw distance, while having a very high density character model on screen. It essentially has more polygons on screen for the same distance drawn, than any game of it's type. And it's still competing with Crysis 3 in crucial areas. Just boot up Crysis 3 and take note of the geometry of the rocks, and notice how blocky they are compared to say Killzone SF rocks. They are PS3 rocks, not PS4. Crytek weren't going to recreate higher poly density objects just for the enthusiast PC market, no way. They only added assets that were ready available in Cry Engine 3 and of course much higher res textures. But that gun model you see in maxed out Crysis 3 is exactly the same as the PS3 version. Same with characters, pickups, and pretty much all 3D objects. They thickened the foliage, added better shadowing and tessellated the odd leaf here and there, but it's only touching on next gen assets. In fact, Ryse uses more crucial assets of Cry Engine 3 than Crysis 3. Crysis 4 should fully utilize the next gen tech found in Cry E3, where the objects, character models, geometry, animations and AI will all be several times better because they won't make a PS3 version. The new consoles have raised the bar. It's obvious, but some of you PC people don't like to admit it. You like to think that a few graphics mods will make a game next gen no matter how limited the core code of the game is, sure, the end user will be more impressed by it's visuals, but it's un-optimized addons to the game graphics and in no way makes the game more advanced. Use your brains a little. Consoles drive the whole market unfortunately.
Any way, it's stupid to compare Crysis 3 to ISS in the first place because they have different focus points. You could say the water in Crysis 3 destroys ISS, which it does, but then so does the PS3 version even. I never said ISS looks better than Crysis 3, I said it's fundamentally more advanced. You will disagree, but I bet if it got a PC release, you wouldn't.
You won't like this, but Killzone Shadow Fall is more advanced than Crysis 3 in many ways also. The geometry is much higher, animations are much better, textures are just as sharp, lighting is just as good with better sun shafts, and sparks when you shoot metal are also volumetric and interact with the ground. What Crysis 3 notably beats it with is foliage and water technology. But again, so does even the console versions, because that's a focus point that Cry Engine 3 has. If you look at the grass in KZSF, it's not too advanced. It doesn't interact with the player or NPC's. This is something the Cry Engine has done since CE2. And the only water I remember seeing in KZSF is the river you can't access without dying in the forest level. It's purely cosmetic and is in no way dynamic. I also like the post processing DOF in Crysis 3 much better.
Crysis 3 might require a much more powerful PC to run than the PS4's hardware, but it's badly optimized to be honest. If i was neatly coded to the metal and optimized, It would no doubt run on PS4 on max. This is heresy among PC gamers of course, but perfectly understandable among developers ironically.
Saying that KZSF has textures and lighting is on par with Crysis 3 is just a lie. Can you provide a credible link proving Infamous SS total poly count? So far it's just speculation. While Infamous SS looks really good, nothing in the game (apart from main character) looks highly detailed (look closely at a car wheel, debris, vegetation, barrels etc) and that together with the low lod distance really don't add up to a very high total poly count. Not saying that Crysis 3 has a higher total poly count but many things are more detailed in Crysis 3, there is no denying that.
By you logic Crysis 1 is more advanced than Crysis 3 since Crysis 1 was designed with more powerful hardware in mind than the ps360.
This is very true, but these diehard Sony fanboys will continue to claim it even though they have zero evidence and even when we have reasonably and logically shown why it is false.
Those are some terrible screen caps.
Saying that KZSF has textures and lighting is on par with Crysis 3 is just a lie. Can you provide a credible link proving Infamous SS total poly count? So far it's just speculation. While Infamous SS looks really good, nothing in the game (apart from main character) looks highly detailed (look closely at a car wheel, debris, vegetation, barrels etc) and that together with the low lod distance really don't add up to a very high total poly count. Not saying that Crysis 3 has a higher total poly count but many things are more detailed in Crysis 3, there is no denying that.
By you logic Crysis 1 is more advanced than Crysis 3 since Crysis 1 was designed with more powerful hardware in mind than the ps360.
This is very true, but these diehard Sony fanboys will continue to claim it even though they have zero evidence and even when we have reasonably and logically shown why it is false.
All my argument was is that the geometry is still high compared to any game of its type. It doesn't beat every game at everything. But I think it's safe to say that for a game of it's genre, It looks damn good. Obviously a next gen non open world game will beat it in detail, but ISS is to the 8th gen what infamous 1 was to the 7th gen. In other words, no where near the best looking game that will be seen in the generation. But it is still definitely one of the best looking games ever at the moment. And of course you will find low res textures at places, but it's still very good for what it is. Why can't people appreciate that?
I agree with all of this and I have never said otherwise. It is a very good looking game and one of the best looking games currently available. I also agree that it is currently the best looking open world game. I simply don't think that it beats Crysis 3 (and a couple other high end PC games) from a technical perspective. It's colorful and I like the art direction, and it's also technically proficient in general, so it adds up to a very nice looking game for me. I do appreciate the game.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment