For real. I would like to know from someone at crytek why the console versions look so bad compared to Crysis 1 and 2?
Wasnt it Cervat who said that not even 1% is left? I dont see anything that proves that Crysis 3 maxes out the consoles.
Games like Halo 4 on 360 or Killzone on PS3 look better than this.
Prove me wrong crytek, but im dissapointed after all that PR nonsense :/

It's because it technically, pretty much as far as they can take the graphics on consoles and if you believe it would look anything like their false marketing videos then you were sold a dummy. Look better is subjective but probably technically it beats Halo and Killzone.

Lots of tricks involved as well, which filters to the PC version where you can see the gun hiding the background and why the guns fill a lot of the screen at a 55-65 FOV.

my guess SP looks better than mp in graphics

That's a red herring, MP uses the same resources as SP anyway, it's just SP game looks better more to do with design. Doesn't seem any logic why MP would look worse because performance can be scaled the same way as MP, MP doesn't have any AI to deal with as well.

what beta have you played where the graphics were identical in the retail?

people complained about BF3's beta and it turned out much better..

this beta isn't even 2 gigs and there's glitches all over the place..

think its pretty safe to say the retail will look better

It's because it technically, pretty much as far as they can take the graphics on consoles and if you believe it would look anything like their false marketing videos then you were sold a dummy. Look better is subjective but probably technically it beats Halo and Killzone.

Lots of tricks involved as well, which filters to the PC version where you can see the gun hiding the background and why the guns fill a lot of the screen at a 55-65 FOV.
Stop defend it.
Its seriously not a Tech issue. Its the Developer who is incompetent to max out the console hardware. And CryEngine 3 on CONSOLES beats nothing. Halo 4 looks better and has a better looking and clean IQ (FXAA). Same goes to Killzone 3.

@Raulo
I hope so, but after that beta? I'm sceptical :/

@CaMMo
U cant call that a Beta so close to release (in 2,5 weeks). Most betas i played were more polished and looked better than crysis 3 beta. I dont get why some people defend this mess.

It's because it technically, pretty much as far as they can take the graphics on consoles and if you believe it would look anything like their false marketing videos then you were sold a dummy. Look better is subjective but probably technically it beats Halo and Killzone.

Lots of tricks involved as well, which filters to the PC version where you can see the gun hiding the background and why the guns fill a lot of the screen at a 55-65 FOV.
Stop defend it.
Its seriously not a Tech issue. Its the Developer who is incompetent to max out the console hardware. And CryEngine 3 on CONSOLES beats nothing. Halo 4 looks better and has a better looking and clean IQ (FXAA). Same goes to Killzone 3.


Yet you don't have any technical answers to what I've said other than they look better. which is subjective. Also, FXAA, meh, I guess adding more softness to console graphics people won't pick up on because FXAA is known to blur the textures image but as if AF x4 on consoles isn't bad enough.

I'm on a high end machine and I have both a PS3/Xbox 360. I don't mind the graphical quality, it actually looks pretty good (for consoles that is).

The REAL problem is the frame rate, it does NOT float at 30 FPS. CoD is successful because it's smooth at 60 FPS and creates a smooth gaming experience. Both Crysis 2 and Crysis 3 lack this.

CoD is about as technically good as a game from 2006 that's why.

compare Crysis 2 on consoles with Crysis 3, Crysis 2 looks so much better, what gives? I just played the demo of Metal gear rising and it looks much better then crysis 3, no BS.