Crysis[PC] vs. Uncharted[PS3]

[Saintster]

Is it a better game? Depends on individual preference. I had twice as much fun with Uncharted than I did with Crysis

[Redeemed]

Originally Posted by Xion X2

Yes, because playing FPS's as a slideshow is always barrels of fun. Mouse lag FTW. Really improves your aim.

This is what kills me about some of you guys. You couldn't care less if a game plays like run-over dog $h!t just as long as it *looks good*. If you're not playing a game to play a game, then what the hell are you doing it for? To look at the pretty picture? Well, if you want to take a look at something that *looks good* then just look out your window or put on an HD-DVD or Blu-ray movie. Both of those look even better and run at a better framerate. Neither require a patch or a driver update, either.

Xion, this thread's topic has absolutely *zero* relation to frames per second. It is purely, 100% about *visuals*. Nobody said Crysis was fun or easy to play at less than X fps- that is *not* the topic of discussion here. We're pointing out how you're derailing this thread with your little rant. If you don't like how Crysis performs, take your issues with the game to the appropriate thread- but don't unhash them in here.

From a pure *visuals* standpoint, Crysis dominates Uncharted. Hands down, no contest. From a smooth framerate at max settings standpoint, Uncharted would win as it remains playable even with max IQ settings. But again- *that is not the topic of discussion here*.

If all your wanting to do is rant about the cruddy fps in Crysis at max settings, then take it to the appropriate thread. That's all that we're saying.

[Zeus666]

Sorry Jonelo but those screenshots are SLI....

[Jonelo]

No , has this autoexec

http://rapidshare.com/files/71566845/autoexec1.rar

[ralinn]

Originally Posted by Jonelo

But you played in very high , and compared Crysis in very high with Uncharted ? Those screens are in high , at 1680 x 1050, at 30 fps, like Uncharter at 720p . The people played Crysis in high at 1680 x 1050 with one 8800 GT. Looks worse than Uncharted ?

http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/3...1890x19kx4.jpg



And you have many mods and tweaks for run at more than 30 fps with some settings in very high .

No one here has said Crysis looks worse than Uncharted, so I don't know where you're getting that from. Posting screen after screen of how Crysis looks on your system is not relevant in the slightest. I prefer the STYLE of Uncharted over Crysis. Yes, we all know that Crysis is technically amazing but it doesn't run well for the money you put into it. Uncharted has a fantastic style, great graphics and runs at a stable framerate. Uncharted is not meant to look REALISTIC.

[DoomUK]

Guys, guys....



^ Best looking game, like, ever.

[Jonelo]

Originally Posted by Xion X2

Jonelo is not some kind of guru that has some hidden wisdom about how to optimize Crysis. I've ran the game with high/medium settings without any AA/AF, and it will still struggle when you get open landscapes on the screen with allies/enemies. It does this both in DX10 and in DX9 w/ the DX10 tweaks. And this is with my Ultra overclocked to 702/1800/2300 with high settings, including shadows (medium shadows look terrible, IMO.)

The last page screens at 1680 x 1050 are of a friend, his played in high at , without AA . The framerate not is 60 fos or 30 fps solid stable in all maps , but is playable . In the bech the average is 25- 30 fps with some drops at 15 fps, not is ideal but this is playable . This is the fremerate of many games of console , capped at 30 fps .

I have a high resolution CTR and a videoproyector with the 360 - only at 720 p but accept 1080p - ,, and no problems with the resolution . The high resolution screens for PC gaming not are good , you need a SLI or Crossfire for very high in the most avanced games . But for Crysis or other games in his time like Oblivion , Call of Juarez - in setember of 2006 in Europe . Two GT are more cheap than your Ultra is one solution .

With Shadows in mediiun the Crysis shadows look like Stalker in high but without grass shadows , better than Gears of War- more shadows - and same resolution , better than COD4 - better samplings .

In Crysis we have the artifacts in the shadows at very small distance , but this problem appear in other games with shadows maps like Gears - but Gears is in 3 person - . For this cause, in Stalker , Bioshock or COD4 the caracter not has shadows , with shadows maps is very problematic the shadows system for the caracther in 1 person

My personal screens and videos are with shadows in medium .

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.p...&postcount=210

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.p...&postcount=209

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.p...&postcount=208

In mediun , high or very high you have the tipical artifact in the shadows of the character at small distance -

Very high settings will make around a 10 fps difference on your minimum; it's not a night and day difference like Jonelo is making it out to be. If he really wanted to prove something, then he'd go run a fraps benchmark with recorded logs/frames and post his results like these review sites have done. That will give us a more accurate average and also record the minimums which tell the story of true performance.

All setting in high the perfomance at 1680 x 1050 is this in one GT overclockeck

CPU@3.4Ghz & 8800GT@770x1890x1900:


Harbor , strong map ,

CPU@3.4Ghz (425x8 ) y GPU@770/1890/1900


ICE - a very strong map

-CPU@3.4Ghz-
(GPU@default//GPU@770/1890/1900):
1680x1050 (GPU@default//GPU@770/1890/1900):


And with the autoexec ....
, probe you this autoexec . Is with many settings of the very high in one GT at 1680 x 1050 . Is very playable , see the framerate

http://rapidshare.com/files/71566845/autoexec1.rar





In this autoexec the physic of the vegetation has some limitation

[Jonelo]

Originally Posted by ralinn

No one here has said Crysis looks worse than Uncharted, so I don't know where you're getting that from. Posting screen after screen of how Crysis looks on your system is not relevant in the slightest. I prefer the STYLE of Uncharted over Crysis. Yes, we all know that Crysis is technically amazing but it doesn't run well for the money you put into it. Uncharted has a fantastic style, great graphics and runs at a stable framerate. Uncharted is not meant to look REALISTIC.

This you doing a subjective valuation, on the artistic quality of a game, agrees to your personal preferences.

Do you prefer Picasso's painting or that of Miro ? Or photorealist painting

The this discussion in this area. I think about technical parameters, that we can measure, not artistic. Each one we have our tastes

[mumstheword]

Crysis wins?

[jeffmd]

Xion X2, maybe switch around who does the scaling? I actually did step down to 1280 from 1680 (First game ive ever done it too on my 8800) and I am actually surprised at how the graphics held up. I havn't noticed any jagged edges caused by the upscaling of the monitor (I have my dell 2005 scaling to Aspect). I run the game on very high setting with one change, I manualy changed motion blur from 3 to 1 (While I am not a fan of motion blur, it DOES make the game look smoother when your whipping your head around. It also boost fps by around 5-6).

[Q]

Originally Posted by mumstheword

Crysis wins?

I think from a purely technical standpoint, it does. If you crank the settings up as far as they will go, Crysis is going to own anything on the market at least for a little while longer.

If you start factoring performance and gamplay in, I think the scales tip a bit. I don't want to play a game that looks like **** at 1000 FPS. At the same time, I don't want to play a game that looks incredible at 15 FPS. I think the advantage that COD4 and Uncharted may have over Crysis is the performance to looks ratio. I honestly think that Crysis should run better on our hardware at max settings. COD4 and Uncharted don't look (technically) quite as good as Crysis, but they run anywhere from 2 to 4 times faster with higher resolutions and/or AA and AF.

For example: (Using educated guesses)

Lets say we rate the graphics of Crysis a 10, COD4 a 9, and Uncharted an 8.

At the settings that result in these scores, Crysis averages 20 FPS, COD4 averages 75, and Uncharted averages 30 (it seems higher to me, but I'm going to err on the defendants side).

This is how each would rate in "Q's crazy system of rating based on FPS and looks"

Crysis
10 rating / (1/20fps) = 200
9 rating / (1/20fps) = 180
8 rating / (1/20fps) = 160
7 rating / (1/20fps) = 140

COD4
10 rating / (1/75fps) = 769
9 rating / (1/75fps) = 692
8 rating / (1/75fps) = 615
7 rating / (1/75fps) = 538

Uncharted
10 rating / (1/30fps) = 303
9 rating / (1/30fps) = 272
8 rating / (1/30fps) = 242
7 rating / (1/30fps) = 212

This system I just pulled out my ass OBVIOUSLY needs to be balanced a bit more, but I just wanted to illustrate my line of reasoning. I think that Crysis is playable at 25 FPS whereas COD4 would likely not be playable. That would need to be factored in, as well as several other factors. But what I'm really trying to get at is that Crysis should run just a bit better for how good it looks on the hardware its running on. When you examine a "performance to appearance" ratio, COD4 looks awesome for how it runs. Crysis still looks better in the end, but it requires exponentially more horsepower to get there.

[Xion X2]

Originally Posted by Redeemed

Xion, this thread's topic has absolutely *zero* relation to frames per second.

Wrong. If you take another look at SH64's first post, he clearly addresses performance issues:

Originally Posted by SH64

..top of all it was running smoothly