Crytek Calls Out PS3/Xbox 360 Comparisons

The truth is, it’s easy to bag a few thousand hits if you simply play the Console War card – claiming one game looks better on one format over another and pinging that comment off to aggregators like N4G is a sure-fire way to get some easy traffic.  And sometimes it’s justified, or, at least, reasonably true – there’s a few games that look superior on (say) the Xbox 360 than the PS3 and, of course, the same is often the case in reverse.

At the beginning of the month, though, IGN posted an article stating that the PS3 version is “not so great, unfortunately,” adding that the “performance is pretty underwhelming.”

– ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW –

“The framerate is frequently low and choppy. There are jagged lines everywhere, and shadows are especially messy. There’s a muddiness to the graphics that’s hard to stomach in the wake of the PS3’s other flagship showpieces, and worse, the variable framerate really hurts controller response.”  Sounds like it’s definitely the Xbox 360 version for us, then.  Right?  Well, not according to Crytek.

Speaking on the PlayStation Blog, Crytek’s Executive Producer Nathan Camarillo replied to these statements, saying “if you stick PS3 and 360 side by side [he] would challenge anyone to find any meaningful difference.”  Of course, he’s on the Crytek team, so it’s in his interest to be more balanced.

But he’s supported by PSM3 magazine who followed up IGN’s original article with a story disputing what the American site had claimed.  “I’ve played multi-player with the maximum number of players,” said the magazine, “and noticed no slow-down, jaggies or screen tearing. The frame-rate held solid too. It sounds like the version others have been playing is a build that hasn’t been optimized and (possibly) several months out of date.”

But what’s everyone seemingly forgetting, including the rack of follow-ups hitting the web after the PlayStation Blog article?  That the build IGN played was potentially, and admittedly, quite old.  “This build could be a few weeks to a few months old,” it said at the end of the report, “and optimisation is often rapid and pronounced toward the end of a game’s development period.”

It is a curse then to get early access to a game that’s so anticipated?  Why wasn’t IGN informed about the state of the preview version, and why would one day have made such a difference to the version tested?  Is it really that big of a difference between console versions or should we all just buy the PC version and be done with it?

Whatever the truth is, the game’s out next week and we’ll be all over it.

– PAGE CONTINUES BELOW –

59 Comments

  1. One day TSA, One day you will be the top of the gaming website pile, shining like a beacon.

    When that day comes shit like IGNorant wont even matter. Xbots are everywhere and it pains them as they threw all their eggs in the same basket, talking shit everytime dependant on the year. Smear Campaign is just a huge FAIL in my opinion, I mean look at how well Heavy Rain has done despite the Xbots tac tics.

    Metacritic is a tool they also use to try and ruin a game lol.

    The thing is due to this behaviour style, proper gamers who know have no respect for them and slowly are looking elsewhere for honest, non flame bait opinions so as a result of this they are having to talk further shit to get hits.

    Simply matter is this, the PS3 is the best gaming console of the 3 big hitters. Take Gears and Halo away from the 360 and it sits there being as pointless as Oly Murs.

    PS3 FTW!

    Morning everybody by the way :-)

    • Not an Xbox fan, then?

      • Gears and Project Gotham were my fave 360 titles. Both great on and offline.

      • i have to agree… I wouldnt say im a PS3 fanboy, but i really cant see the need for the 360 apart from a stop gap when the PS3 was too expensive for people. Gears is cool, but thats it really. The only thing the 360 has done is take a share of the market, leading to devs having to develop games on 360 and then porting to PS3… If all the 360’s in the world blew up(or RROD for the 10th time), and never got replaced tomorrow, we would have such great games out this time next year from all dev’s, not just the Sony first party stuff.

        If you take the quality of games like GT5, LBP, MGS, Uncharted, Heavy rain, GOW etc etc and put that level of finish and quality to all games, and not hold back or just port titles as we do now due to 360, we would all be happier gamers IMO.

        Again, not a sony fan boy, and im sure lots of xbox people will jump out their chairs and start ranting at me now, but just how i look at the situation on stories like this one. Always comparing, and 9 times out of 10, the PS3 comes in at 2nd place… Cant see how i can get amazement out of GOW3 on my PS3 and then put a muliplat game on and it looks so bad in comparison.

    • Yeah, the PS3 rules, but we’re talking about Crysis 2 here.

      And the MP demo is just not mindblowing stuff. Passable at best, but technically outdated even compared to Resistance 2. Crytek hyped their realtime lighting engine so high that you can only be disappointed by the results, which are far inferior to Killzone 2/3.

    • I agree with the comments about TSA – this site really does seem to be largely free of extreme-fanboys, and seems to be a proper community full of sensible people!

      Despite the name and it’s origins I think both consoles are well served by this site, and you get proper articles and not flame bait and hits grabbers – I mean making an article on months old test code, that is just a cheap shot…

      If TSA say a 360 game is better, then fair enough, and likewise if they say the PS3 version is better then happy days – I never feel like there is a hidden agenda behind TSA articles, which is more than can be said for some gaming sites…

  2. The multiplayer demo on PS3 was shocking, no AA, looked like a PS2 game at some points. I’ll pick up Crysis 2 for cheap long after its release date.

    • must of been just as bad on the xbox too then.

    • I thought the gameplay was really fun. It definitely wasn’t stellar graphically though.

      • Remember how stunning the first was though?

      • Nope! Never played it. This demo wasn’t any worse graphically than Blops MP though, a bit rough around the edges.

    • Demos and betas usually have
      1) old, unoptimized code
      2) severely reduced visual quality to allow for smaller file size

      Judging the final product based on that is pointless. They’re good for getting a sense of gameplay, but not graphical quality.

    • Turrican, there was AA, and the game runs at native 720p, so I struggle to realise how it looked like a ps2 game in some points… I do think though that KZ3 has better graphics but the effects (water and invisibility) on Crysis 2 were brilliant. Plus motion blur was implemented very well, imo.

  3. Shiz like this is exactly why I do not like sites like IGN. They’re innaccurate a a lot of the time biased too.

    However one does have to ask, why would someone be given a product to preview, knowing they would be writing an article on it if it wasn’t an accurate representation of what comsumers would be getting? That’s just shooting yourself in the foot.

    But one also has to ask, what sort of low rent reviewer plays an outdated version in order to preview and let that form their definative article.

    • We get stuff all the time but normally with a note to say it’s not final, and we treat it as such. IGN’s article wasn’t a review at all, but it was pitched badly, IMO.

      • ah fair enough.

      • It makes me wonder if some of the team at IGN are on the microsoft payroll because its previews like the one at IGN that influence people on which version they will buy. I myself tend to buy the best looking/playing version between 360 and ps3 and often have to rely on reviews and previews.

  4. Well you only have to look at the comparison videos on Youtube to tell they not the same standard.

    The Crytek guy is telling lies to enable sales I would think. Next week we will see but the Ps3 version I seen is shocking bad compared to the 360 and a terrible advertisement for their multi platform engine.

    I also read that the Haze team are responsible for the multi-player component of the PS3 so maybe the single player aspect is the same as the 360.

      • Really cannot see what you are on about. The only visible difference between the PS3 and 360 version I can see is in the bathroom sections where the lighting is brighter on the PS3 (also on the PC version) than 360, which I like. Plus on the pier example, the mist effect I think looks much better on the PS3 and PC version than the 360. Other than that they all look pretty much equal in my eyes.

      • Couldn’t see much my self either maybe the PS3 version was a bit sharper like the PC version than the 360 but then again that could have just been the screen settings or something

      • After playing both demos for a few hours, they are very similar.

        The PS3 has a more erratic framerate but has some better special effects eg, the hexagon cloaking effect and some muzzle blur/distortion on the gun so it balances out.

        However the 360 demo has been out for a while now (over a month or two) so it might have those added effects in the final build.

        Overall I prefer the brightness of the PS3 version… I think that’s just down to personal taste.

      • That videos just proves what the guy from crytek is saying, the consoles versions look almost identical!!!!

      • Iv’e just checked out the youtube link and imo, the ps3 version looks better than the 360, lighting looks closer to it’s pc counterpart….360 version looks very dark.

      • @Tyrant161; I agree. But I guess it’s all down to personal taste and what you think ‘good graphics’ are. Personally I tend to favout the PS3 as its sharper, washed out colour graphics and brighter lighting, to me are more realistic. On many titles, the 360 has highly saturated colours, which in my opinion make everything look like they are made of rubber, wax and plastic.

      • @ jayjay119…..good point, have you tried forza3? while its a very good racing game (some might say better than GT5 in some area’s) the colours on it almost make the game look like a cartoon racer, the cars especially have too much colour saturation which leaves the game looking a lot less realistic than GT5, even messing around with the in game setting doesn’t help either.

      • Jeez, they all look exactly the same. The only difference is that the 360 version looks a fraction darker than the PS3 and PC versions. Turn up the brightness on the xbox by 1% and they are all identical. Some people really need to get a grip.

      • Only major difference is with the 360 version having what appears to be a limitation in contrast i.e. the weapon looks grey instead of being much darker like in the PS3 and PC counterpart. Could be down to slightly older code like some others here are mentioning.

      • “The only difference is that the 360 version looks a fraction darker than the PS3 and PC versions.”

        The reason for slightly different brightness on the 360 is because of this:
        http://filmicgames.com/archives/586

        It’s hard to make colors exactly the same across platforms with the Xenon’s weird gamma curve.

  5. Making such judgements based on a possibly months old build is meaningless, as is the whole “which version looks better” debate.

  6. Will reserve comment until I’ve played the PS3 demo.

  7. @jayjay119 really?

    You only have to goto the offical PS blog to see the abuse its getting. Alot of people are not happy. The PS3 version is very blurry compared to the sharper looking 360 version. Also its been confirmed the PS3 version is sub-HD where the 360 is 720p.

    Admittedly, this wouldn’t put me off buying the Ps3 version, I have both consoles and prefer my PS3 but its making me think for framerate maybe I should consider the 360.

    • Did you watch that video that you posted? its clear that both console versions look almost identical from that. if the PS3 version is sub HD then so is the 360 version.

      The problem is Lens of truth posted a screenshot comparision that certainly does the PS3 an injustice, i think thats where all the flak on the official blog is eminating from.

      Some off those irate people need to see that video before making judgement!!

      • My above comments are based on the video you priveded only David, I haven’t actually played the game myself. In fact there is not a lot of movement in it so there may very well be a problem with the framerate, but that does not affect the graphical level of the game, at least not in my opinion.

        And whether the PS3 version is Sub HD or not it still looks just as good as the other two versions, which I guess could be considered as a testimony to the PS3 not a negative. Many people who complain about things like framerates etc tend to be hyper-critical. I have played many games on the PS3 where people have said framerate issues were awful and personally not noticed anything, Fallout 3 being an example that springs to mind.

    • something very interesting i have seen is simply that he does claim the PS3 version is Sub HD BUT he also said that it was taken from a video feed so im not convinced its 100% correct another thing is that the video you mentioned posted was the demo not the full build so i wouldn’t completely say that its accurate plus devs don’t usually lie thats the publisher’s job

  8. Well these kinds of “problems” are always the kind of stuff that gamers don’t even notice when they are playing the game and these things won’t ruin the game experience they are just something that the fan boys and girls can use to fight one another pointless i say

    • There is a mixed bag in there, some of the PS3 screens such as the city scaped and the staircase shots are a lot better than their 360 counterparts whilst the greenhouse shots look sharper on the 360. So this proved nothing other than both systems have strength and weaknesses in different areas… which we knew anyway.

    • it looks like they didn’t correctly set their settings on their ps3.

    • I’m sorry but some of those screen-shots are in completely different locations, like the greenhouse ones!

    • well its lensoftruth which has been a bit biased towards the 360 so again not concrete enough

      • Yeah, all they do is get the game (probably just one version) then take a photo and say thats from the 360, then on the TV they turn down the brightness, colour and sharpness, then take another picture and label it as the PS3 version.

        Then they sit back and watch all the other xbot websites and their readers go and start arguments with PS3 gamers over it.

  9. I don’t think any comparisons are worth it unless it’s the retail copy of the game.

    • Agreed. And people who still put any faith in IGN articles are beyond hope anyways.

Comments are now closed for this post.