Crysis 2 Maxing Out PS3

[Ammugonevil]

Yeah I was hoping to get a rise out of you....

Sorry Dude..

 

[TheMailMan78]

Yeah I was hoping to get a rise out of you....

Sorry Dude..

Postman, Mailman its all the same. I'm one bad MOTHERF#@KER. (Turns on Pulp Fiction and begins fapping)

 

[Ammugonevil]

'Fapping'...???

 

[Chryonn]

i'm surprised no one's mentioned the fact that both consoles use upscalers to display their "HD."
whereas they probably have a thumbnail image which is created on the board, PCs output raw pixel for pixel HD. i thank you

 

[TheMailMan78]

i'm surprised no one's mentioned the fact that both consoles use upscalers to display their "HD."
whereas they probably have a thumbnail image which is created on the board, PCs output raw pixel for pixel HD.

I wish I could get my wife to say she wants some "Raw pixel for pixel HD" I would have a third kid for sure.

 

[joshiers8605]

the first crysis looks amazing, let alone number 2

 

[-1nf1n1ty-]

Sounds to me all you people care about is graphics...where as I am only concerned on how a game plays which is why I do not care if someones say "oh if the ps3 is so high and mighty lets see it compared to a new i7 blah blah blah" I dont give a shit. I know consoles dont have great graphics, Im not retarded,and your just telling me things I already know, but that goes to show that its not always about graphics, and PC gamers always have their heads up so far up their asses and hating on console gamers.

Well thats not the PCs fault
Also you cannot tell me FPS or RTS are better with a controller than a mouse and keyboard.

I didnt say that, but I do enjoy more games on a console than I would on a pc. I play Counter Strike source, world of warcraft, warcraft 3, bioshock, etc. and I realize theres seems to be only 2 genres of games on a pc and thats RTS and FPS and the occasional MMO. I dont care what a PC can output I dont care how bad the graphics are on a console....as long as I'm having fun and enjoying the game then its fine by me but I still think PC gamers are the worse kinds of people out there due to their greediness. I would STILL rather spend money on a console than a PC. A GTX 295 costs as much as a ps3........I wouldnt pay for it even if I had the money. but other people may disagree and I am fine with that everyone is entitled to their own opinion

and another thing why are people always comparing the ps3 to a PC when its... obvious who the winner will be? its....pretty stupid

 

[Ammugonevil]

Hey dude i enjoy consoles only problem is that in my house its like... cant u use your computer and let us use they tv.. blah blah... your so selfish etc etc...

And trust me i would only play certain games on consoles.. beat em ups no way would i play on pc... and there is no way that i would play a rts on a console....

 

[-1nf1n1ty-]

Hey dude i enjoy consoles only problem is that in my house its like... cant u use your computer and let us use they tv.. blah blah... your so selfish etc etc...

And trust me i would only play certain games on consoles.. beat em ups no way would i play on pc... and there is no way that i would play a rts on a console....

oh yeah I totally agree, and I understand the situation I just dont like "PC gamers" bashing on "console gamers" because then it will never end that fact of the matter is even though these consoles have some kind of PC hardware in it doesnt mean its as powerful as the PC you have currently etc. I just dont like people bashing a console cause "oh the graphics arent as good as my PC"....well no shit, all I can really say is look at what you get out of a console over a PC sure not the greatest graphics but then again if you care about graphics so much that just shows how greedy you are. but again I use to have the same problem, when I couldnt play on the tv cause people wanted to use it etc.

 

[Chryonn]

I wish I could get my wife to say she wants some "Raw pixel for pixel HD" I would have a third kid for sure.

well, ok maybe i was exaggerating for effect. but my basic point remains.

 

[1Kurgan1]

Yeah? All those games are ported FROM the console. Not TO the console so yeah they are going to look the same. Lets see the original Crysis on one of them consoles. You really think a PS3 can hang with an i7, duel 295's in SLI and 4gigs of DDR3?

@HalfAHertz shared doesn't count.

COD4 and COD WAW are console ports? I'm glad your waiving your PC Pride flag high and defending it's honor. But I'm not trying to argue about this, when your comparing a rig thats got $1000 in videocards, I would say it's pretty obvious it will win. But, what I'm saying is the difference to the eye is negligible. Todays consoles look great, and you can compare them to their PC equivalents (x1950's, 2900's, 2900's) all you want, it doesn't really matter, as any good game for either of the 2 systems will look better than graphics those cards could put out, as the games will be optimized very well for them.

Now if you want to turn the tables a bit and actually throw a comparison that is close to a price match, then I would say your wrong. Which would most likely be a 7750 BE and a 3850, 4GB DDR2. Thats going to be close to PS3 prices, and technically be higher specs, and is almost the exact system my gf has, I would say the PS3 does match that, and thats pretty good.

I mean heck look at my PC mailman (I bought my freaking 4870x2 for $525, thats more than what my PS3 cost me!), and I'm planning an upgrade soon, is it need? No, I'm an avid PC fan (loving blowing the crap out of my wallet), but I like to be able to sit down at my console and relax, sit back on the couch and hit up some games, and enjoy the simplicity and great graphics that now comes in a prebuilt box. Not saying it's the best, but it's damned good.

 

[JATownes]

Just to throw my hat in the ring...I have no problem with consoles...Gamers are Gamers in my opinion...But upgrading/modding/benching will always be the domain of PCs...Consoles are good to sit down and game on...PCs are good to pull every ounce of performance out of the game...tweaking my rig is just fun

 

[Ammugonevil]

Okay there you can give the comparison on cost of system and console but game prices on systems are way cheaper.. £20.. on release almost.. where as £50+ on realease on console..so how do you win out in the long run.. you dont.....

 

[1Kurgan1]

Okay there you can give the comparison on cost of system and console but game prices on systems are way cheaper.. £20.. on release almost.. where as £50+ on realease on console..so how do you win out in the long run.. you dont.....

I already talked about this in a previous thread, but in the US, our games aren't vastly different in prices, I assume they are there because they worry about pirating. Here it's $50 for PC (for anything worth while) and $60 for PS3/360. So that $10 price difference takes a ton, example of the 2x295 rig and an i7 (even the cheapest would be a $1500 rig and maybe more), so to cover that $1000 price difference between an 80GB PS3 and a i7 920/2x 295's you would need to buy 100 games. I've had my PS3 for almost 2 years, I'm not a huge game buyer, I buy the great games, and I enjoy them, I don't go out and buy crap, I have 5 games. I wish I had a few others, but oh well, so in the long run you do win for a simple sit down machine, even if you were to buy a 100 games, in the time you did that, the PC user is most likely looking to upgrade 1 or more parts.

Remember, I use my comp all the time here, and I upgrade all the time, but I'm just saying, what you get for the money (especially the PS3 with Blu-ray) is very much worth it and good graphics.

 

[TheMailMan78]

COD4 and COD WAW are console ports? I'm glad your waiving your PC Pride flag high and defending it's honor. But I'm not trying to argue about this, when your comparing a rig thats got $1000 in videocards, I would say it's pretty obvious it will win. But, what I'm saying is the difference to the eye is negligible. Todays consoles look great, and you can compare them to their PC equivalents (x1950's, 2900's, 2900's) all you want, it doesn't really matter, as any good game for either of the 2 systems will look better than graphics those cards could put out, as the games will be optimized very well for them.

Now if you want to turn the tables a bit and actually throw a comparison that is close to a price match, then I would say your wrong. Which would most likely be a 7750 BE and a 3850, 4GB DDR2. Thats going to be close to PS3 prices, and technically be higher specs, and is almost the exact system my gf has, I would say the PS3 does match that, and thats pretty good.

I mean heck look at my PC mailman (I bought my freaking 4870x2 for $525, thats more than what my PS3 cost me!), and I'm planning an upgrade soon, is it need? No, I'm an avid PC fan (loving blowing the crap out of my wallet), but I like to be able to sit down at my console and relax, sit back on the couch and hit up some games, and enjoy the simplicity and great graphics that now comes in a prebuilt box. Not saying it's the best, but it's damned good.

Yes COD4 and COD WAW are "cross-platform". Also my 4200+ X2 with DDR ram and 1900GT could do anything a console could better WITH AA. How do I know? Because thats what I had and console cannot do AA. I used to play everything maxed out. Anything above those specs now are over kill for games that are cross platform. However you are not going to see better graphics then on the consoles now. You know why? Because the PC has a stigma now of being a pirate ship and developers do not want to risk people flocking back to it because the consoles now look "inferior". Margin of profit is much higher on the consoles also.

 

[1Kurgan1]

Yes COD4 and COD WAW are "cross-platform". Also my 4200+ X2 with DDR ram and 1900GT could do anything a console could better WITH AA. How do I know? Because thats what I had and console cannot do AA. I used to play everything maxed out. Anything above those specs now are over kill for games that are cross platform. However you are not going to see better graphics then on the consoles now. You know why? Because the PC has a stigma now of being a pirate ship and developers do not want to risk people flocking back to it because the consoles now look "inferior". Margin of profit is much higher on the consoles also.

I know those are both cross platform, thats why I mentioned them. But are they console ports, I don't think they are, consoles usually are just missing that "pop" to make a great game that the original version of it has. Either way, when your playing at 1080p, AA is meh. I don't notice any diff with AA until I go into low resolutions. And theres the other issue, were you playing with your 4200+ and x1900GT at 1920x1080? That would drop that setup down quiet a few notches, can't compare that res with 1280x1024.

 

[CDdude55]

360 wasn't to bad, till it died.

Sold my PS3 a while back and still have my Wii.

Consoles are fine, you may not get the best looking, but gameplay wise there are lot of gems in the pile.

The only problem i have is reliability, it seems to have gone done over the years, two 360'd died on me, my PS3 had some problem with its HDD where it wiped it self out. My Wii has been going strong tho. Theres nothing like watching E3 and having the big three unveil new systems, even if the hardware aspects of it aren't up to PC, its truly an exciting time for us gamers.

 

[MatTheCat]

I'm not sure what your talking about games looking way worse. Seems almost anything out for the 360 or the PS3 and PC isn't that far off to me. I wish I have Fallout or Oblivion to compare as the view distances might be a bit diff. But GTA doesn't look too much diff as GTA series hasn't ever been about crazy graphics, moreo n pushing the size limits.

They can make games look good for those as they can optimize it more because it's only going on one setup. I am extremely happy with my PS3, games look great on it.

Ok, for a start, the frame rates are all locked at 30FPS and indeed 25FPS on PS3 for some titles. Secondly, as another poster has pointed out, many console version of games do not have the full graphic effects available to them simply because they can not handle them.

As for some examples of games I have witnessed to clearly inferior when running on console (360 + PS3) other than PC are:

GTA (laughable performance...this must dip to around 15-20fps at times...and that is on LOW settings.
Far Cry 2 (on PS3, this is damn ugly)
GoW
Mass Effect

and even totally undemanding titles such as Pro Ev Soccer 2009.

But this isn't a big surprise as we all know roughly what is inside the consoles and it is all CPU/GPU that are 3-4 generations old by now.

 

[1Kurgan1]

Ok, for a start, the frame rates are all locked at 30FPS and indeed 25FPS on PS3 for some titles. Secondly, as another poster has pointed out, many console version of games do not have the full graphic effects available to them simply because they can not handle them.

As for some examples of games I have witnessed to clearly inferior when running on console (360 + PS3) other than PC are:

GTA (laughable performance...this must dip to around 15-20fps at times...and that is on LOW settings.
Far Cry 2 (on PS3, this is damn ugly)
GoW
Mass Effect

and even totally undemanding titles such as Pro Ev Soccer 2009.

But this isn't a big surprise as we all know roughly what is inside the consoles and it is all CPU/GPU that are 3-4 generations old by now.

25 - 30 fps is perceived fine by the eyes, 60fps is epeen numbers, but I do agree it leaves them a small margin to lag out. I think you are all reading this wrong, you are looking to directly compare performance of consoles vs PC, but not on a dollar to dollar ratio. I haven't seen one person here claim that the consoles are more powerful. But for the price you spend and the resolution they play at, you will be hard pressed to match their performance. Stop comparing them to things that cost more, or things that play on a lower resolution, you need to compare an equal product.

As far as those games oyu mention, GTA 4 doesn't look at that much worse, it's the view distance thats the killer, but yes it can lag out pretty hardcore. And GoW on PC is a console port isnt it? Either way, I don't think I noticed any difference there, that game looks great on the 360. I haven't played the other 2 on console though. You get what you pay for, they don't make the best graphics, but they put out darn good ones, and are simple to use.

 

[Flyordie]

volatile int i;
while (true)
{
i=i+1;
}

omg i maxxed out the cpu

lol... yep yep.

 

[k0rn_h0li0]

what a funny little code he invented.

he's saying if i = i + 1 i guess 1 meaning the game. he maxxes out everything and causing thus a crash or whatever. maybe i'm getting this maybe i could be wrong but i think thats what he's trying to say

 

[CDdude55]

Who cares, just play the games you like and stfu is basically the main point.

If your a hardware freak then of course your not going to find consoles suitable.

 

[MatTheCat]

25 - 30 fps is perceived fine by the eyes.

The above statement is a statement that many people make and I cannot for the life of me, imagine how anyone could possibly not notice the difference between a solid 60fps and a steady 30FPS.....and I dont give a damn what the scientists say about how many HZ the human eye/brain can decode visual images at. When I am looking at computer monitor running a 3D app there is a world of difference between 60 and 30fps. Infact, I wont even play the likes of a 3d shooter if nots running ar around 60FPS....not worth the migraines and damage it can do to the sight......hence why I think consoles are shit.

 

[1Kurgan1]

The above statement is a statement that many people make and I cannot for the life of me, imagine how anyone could possibly not notice the difference between a solid 60fps and a steady 30FPS.....and I dont give a damn what the scientists say about how many HZ the human eye/brain can decode visual images at. When I am looking at computer monitor running a 3D app there is a world of difference between 60 and 30fps. Infact, I wont even play the likes of a 3d shooter if nots running ar around 60FPS....not worth the migraines and damage it can do to the sight......hence why I think consoles are shit.

If you don't care what studies say, odds are you don't care what anyone says and there is no point in talking about it.

But here's the way I look at it, it has to be a very constant 30 FPS. The reason you notice a difference on a computer is a dip. Some of the top games on the market can't be run maxed out and hold 60fps 100% of the time. And when you dip 20 fps down to 40, that is very noticeable, you just dropped 20fps in a short amount of time.

But when the fps is capped at 30, and those consoles most likely can push more than that most of the time, they really have a large buffer of fps to drop to cause a laggy situation. So when their fps remains constant, it's seen as fine. Where as 60fps to 30fps in the blink of an eye is not.

 

[zaqwsx]

Consoles are nice and all but if you want to play them on a nice big hd tv you have to remember that you have to spend a lot of money to get a nice tv. So console + nice tv comes out to $1000 on the other hand you can get a pc and a nice $200 lcd for $1000 that can run all your games better and on top of that do whatever you want on and with your pc. So imo it can be a win win situation for either system it depends on what you like.

Also all the people the bash consoles you can't say you have never been at a friend’s house or a store and just walked up and started playing a game or played with your friends and had a great time a game is a games it almost always fun on any system when your winning but the opposite when you’re losing.

So it’s basically a win win for both. I on the other hand do bash consoles I can't say I never have but I do it because I know the difference and not many people know that. Also the fact that I can’t afford a console even though my pc is pretty expansive but in a few years I can upgrade my graphics card for way less than a whole console and not lose anything and sell off my old card. All I can say is there is ups and downs for pc’s and consoles.