Naught Dog vs DICE vs Crytek vs Guerrila Games

some people believe that Naught Dog is capable of doing magic with limited hardware

so lets compare 4 different shooters running on PS3

to make a fair comparison, lets avoid trailers, CG, tech demos and corridor single player

wich developer delivers the best looking games?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmQI1n3P_QE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqCkyHHOXLg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XT7_W1IppdY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7xmYX_SdT0

dice is far away in dead last. they are some of the worst and most talentless coders in gaming history.

Out of those, Crytek, then Naughty Dog, then Guerrilla, then DICE.

Naughty Gods destroy those other puny devs.

ive played this game and got really disapointed with the visuals, it looks worse than sandbox games like assassins and gta4

but blind fanboylism is capable of miracles

im also really angry with DICE (EA in truth) for battlefield 4

but bf3 is imo the best looking one and it is the only with destructable enviorement and 24 players, i think they are the most talented devs with the worst bosses

Uncharted? All three games look amazing still to this date, and that's coming from someone who is primarily a PC gamer.

Yeah, let's forget the technological miracles they brought us over the years and throw it all away because of one poorly launched/done game.

Naughty Dog takes the cake for production value, but I find the artistic design uninspired. It's like the COD games when it seems their game design is based around "insert exotic foreign location here", then they work the story in around that. Guerilla games is decent on the production value end as well, not as much as Naughty Dog, but they've created a much more original world for their games, rustic worlds of monolithic industrial structures. Of the available choices I'll say Guerrilla, since it might be my last time to do so as I think the future of the studio and the Killzone games might be in question.

blaming EA for this is absurd. the problems with bf4 and almost all dice games have nothing to do with EA and everything to do with the general incompetence of dice as a development studio.

@The_Stand_In technical miracles? lol do tell.

If we're debating visuals alone, Crytek by far.

going by those videos, KZ destroys Crysis and BF.

judged by graphics

ND>>guerrilla>>>>>crytek>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>dice

gameplay

ND>>>>>>>>>>>>>>guerrilla=crytek>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>dice

i played all those games on my ps3 and i had great hopes for uncharted 3

its not only the videos, those are the videos found in the first place of a simple youtube search like "bf3 multiplayer ps3" or "uncharted 3 multiplayer" the impression i got from all those games are very well reflected in these videos

ps4 owners can expect naught dog to deliver very crappy visuals on Uncharted 4 just like it did in U3, but still have all the hype and bribed jousnalists to say its the graphics king

not a sony fanboy for sure,

check with your doctor, fanboylism is very bad for your eyes

wow sherlock comparing pc devs against console devs, no wonder they look better

Still naughty dogs is better than any of those devs.

Ryse looks better than anything. If they can make that game on the less powerful X1.

Dice are really bad at codding games for consoles.

If this is all about graphics then crytek. Of that group they have clearly made the best looking game. They haven't had one hand tied behind their back by consoles.

The Crytek from 2007.

If we are judging by graphics alone I don't know how anyone can say Naughty Dog with a straight face. Now if Crytek and Naughty Dog got together we would see one hell of a game.

because what ND has done relative to the hardware they are developing on far outclasses anything crytek has ever done. give naughtydog a 680 and i7 intel processor and theyd make something many orders of magnitude more impressive than crysis 3

If you are talking about Visuals then no one can beat Crytek , then after that , DICE .

dice...LOL bf4 says hi

Naughty Dog all day everyday, not even close.

This thread is pointing out the sony fanboys from the realists... crytek wins the cake.

@leandrro: We have another butthurt hermits ladies and gentlemen.

Out of the videos you posted, only Dice and Crytek were subhd on consoles.

the ones who brought upon us The Graphics God.

Naughty Dog o7

Naughty DOGGGGGG hands up and hands down....because they in-game dont have long download after press continue

damn i feel like playin Uncharted 3 again after seeing that mp gameplay..

Naughty Dog>DICE>Crytek>Guerrilla

But there are far better devs than all of them.

This thread seems more about graphics though, in which case it's

DICE>Crytek>Guerilla>Naughty d\Dog

You may be refering to which is best at PS3, but that's kind of unfair to Crytek and DICE since they can't really dedicate all their work to one system and the PS3 wasn't the most powerful machine you could develop for so it really means nothing

Killzone 2 still blows my mind when I look at it. Guerilla Gods must have used some sort of sorcery to make it look like that.

And that is why when Crysis 2 hit consoles every all the press was praising Crytek over Crysis 2 even the OPM. Wanna compare the technical merits of the two games Sherlock on consoles?

All of them are pretty mediocre in recent years, GG always sucked, DICE have fallen since BF2, ND since Crash & Jak & Crytek since FC1 & Crysis 1

nah id rather just see which game won more graphic awards between the uncharted and crysis series.. hint, neither crysis 2 nor crysis 3 have ever won a graphics award(or any award for that matter). bye bye kiddo

Says who? Crysis 2 and 3 both won many technical graphics awards. Bye bye Sony drone.

I don't see why people are bitching at DICE. Frostbite was one of the first--if not the first--engine to truly support multicore systems. Very few games runs as well as BF3/BF4 while looking anywhere near as good--they also happen to be one of the few devs that have managed to implement incredibly efficient, high quality ambient occlusion in their games. Blaming them for BF4's technical problems is very misguided, as I am sure if they were given the choice, they wouldn't have released it as is, but EA wanted to make sure they shipped the game out before CoD.

link

@cfisher2833 the AO in all frostbite 2 and 3 games is horrid, what are you talking about. bf3 was a fluke, as evidenced by the fact that every other battlefield game is a technical mess and runs very poorly for its graphical quality.

hahaha! Oh, that's cute. You wanna see bad AO? Look at Far Cry 3 or Dark Souls 2. Frostbite's AO is subtle, yet impactful, just as AO should be, with none of the asinine halo effects you get with shitty AO implementations. You can read more about BF3's AO here

Bad Company 1 and 2 also ran well btw, and BF4 was obviously rushed out by EA, so I really don't get why you'd blame DICE for that; were they supposed to overrule EA? And how many devs can brag about hitting 900p60fps on the PS4 with a game that has 64 man multiplayer matches?

im well aware of what hbao is, but thx. if haloing, dithering, flickering, and precision artifacts are your idea of great AO, then i suppose frostbites implementation is indeed a winner.

I absolutely agree with this. Far Cry 3's AO implementation was horrendous, they didn't give you any options to lower the occlusion. You could just turn it off.

Frostbite's AO is good. I'd be more impressed if developers just stopped using AO for now and looked forward to indirect shadows, TLOU faked them perfectly.

Too bad that, that was the only thing that stood out. The game looked like a pile of crap.

all developers have deadlines to hit, dice isnt in some magical position that no other studio is in. its also not like bf4 is some big original project with tons of new features. its more of the same. theres nothing revolutionary or even evolutionary in the game over bf3 to necessitate such technical failure. its actually a regression in many ways

When it comes to multiplayer graphics Guerrilla are the best. They proved it on PS3. KZ multi just looks plain better than uncharted multi. On PS4 it was another story. KZSF was a super rushed game but still it looks good. ND in the other hand have all the time to make Uncharted 4.

Naughty Dog is definitely the most talented when it comes to squeezing tech.

It would be awesome if they would share some tips with from software.

I would put GG at the top. ND do have better artists though.

I can agree with that, but also realize only two of the choices (ND and GG) work exclusively on the same platform, using a singular engine. That really allows them to tweak things further than the other devs can.

Didn't Crysis 2 win Gamespot's Technical Graphics award for 2011?

... seriously OP? Denial much?

Naughty Dog is the best dev right now. They weren't always, but with PS3 they really brought their A game.