good game code relies on good development
good optimization relies on skilled developers

Maybe you can't read between the lines but i can & im feed up with their lies & if the game can't live up to the hype respectively then im not buying it it's that simple!

Sony guy, the ps3 version will look the same but will likely have a higher average framerate than the 360 version. That's all the ps3 is getting. It's the nature of multiplatform games, the ps3 is not some magical box of unicorns and rainbows, it's effectively the same power as the 360 for the parts of the coding that don't require far too long.

I'm sure if they spent an extra 6 months on the ps3 you'd gain one extra 'medium' setting thrown in from the PC version. You have to remember that crytek are PC developers, they aren't as knowledgeable in all the sneaky tricks console developers have to use to make their games look anyway half decent. Yet they've still managed to make probably the best multiplatform engine there is. I'm very sure that if this engine took off we'd see even better graphics on consoles from console orientated developers. But you can't expect them to invest inordinate amount of time on the ps3 version, especially since it has the smallest userbase.

Still, the console versions just aren't that interesting, considering what the PC version will bring. Consoles are the low settings!

They'll look the same

ps3 has the worse programming ever that is why itsn't such a big hit as ps1 and ps2 was.Also xbox has a modification of cell cpu so its not much of a big difference.Ps3 is slightly better but no much of big diffrence t owhine about crysis being a port.They both gonna be the same and maybe ps3 a little better

Multiplatform games on PS3 and Xbox 360 always look the same no matter what, id still grt the 360 version becase PSN is just plain crap, the interface is crap and I understand its free but 360 is much more community orientated which to me is a big part of gaming.

last two people dont know what they are talking about

multiplatform games NEVER look or run the same one either runs at a lower resolution screen tearing low res textures missing items etc

and the ps3 does not have the worse programming ever its just more advanced than what devs are used to today it breaks the mold of putting graphics intensive processes on gpu and cpu intensive processes on cpu it forces you to use both cpu+gpu in unison to create the final image


at the begginng of this generation multplatform devs didnt work on the ps3 like its supposed to they were using the ppe power processing to create games it would be like the equivalent of a single process chip trying to do what they forced onto it and not the spus

and no the ps3 cpu and 360 gpu are not that similar its modified version of the cell chip correct but the difference is

xbox 360 xenos is using the ppe part of the cell chip with hyper threading

ps3 cell is a 3.2 ghz ppe using 7 spe also at 3.2 ghz one locked out

ps3s architecture is more similar to what amd is doing with trying to bring together both cpus and gpus to increase the capabilitys of each part

Hm what about assasins creed then?:>.Difficult programming=worse programming.Everybody can read wikipedia ,the result is the ps3 is nothing of graphical marvel and putting new technology to a console doesnt always mean that this technology is meant for games.Lets see if ps4 has a cell .im sure it wont

http://www.bruceongames.com/2008/06/10/is-the-gpu-holding-the-ps3-back/

Wow... the same consoleflamewarshiat as always.
The only thing we learn from all this is that the Ps3 isnt a technical wonder compared to the 360.
Its all old and low end hardware and games on that platforms are not able to blow away anyone anymore.
And if a real high end developer tries to use the hardware to the max no fanboy will be pleased.
Boring.. and sad.. keep living in your own world were cheap consoles can surpass high end Pcs.

huh guys can you get over this ? im bored to see people who just dont know how hardware works pull out fancy theory on the Y chips take better coding, and the why the Z one is Incredibly superior to the other one....

Computing has a performance unit, its called a FLOP

Microsoft argue the xbox has a power of 1 TFLOPs
Sony said the PS3 has 2 TFLOPs
For refence, a Nvidia GTX 580 has 1.58 TFLOPs alone and a radeon 6950 has 2.25TFLOPs

Now thats cool, but if you can compute so much data, it has to go somewhere after behing calculated. Xbox has 512mb of ram +10mb for gpu, PS3 use a shared 512mb, both use DDR3. These ammount are ridiculously small compared in todays computer. next place to store/load stuff is the hard drive, but heck, its damm slow compared to ram, and i suppose they dont give you the fancy 7200rpm hdd either. Both system face massive bottleneck in term of texture and polygon quality, maps size and the like. Performance of both are similar due to these common weakness (the weakest link of the chain). Now the debate can be, would installing an SSD drive on these system increase performance ?

@ julienjj

Youre comparing the power of the whole console(s) to the power of a grfx card? And high end CPUs dont add anything to what modern Pcs are capeable of? The amount of FLOPS are not essentially necessary for how much FPS you will get in games. Its not like 2TFLOPS equal 50 FPS etc...
FLOPS are a measure of a computer's performance, especially in fields of scientific calculations that make heavy use of floating point calculations.
But in multimedia applications like games its also relying on the single power of each CPU and GPU.. their amount of MHZ, Clockspeeds etc etc...

Computing has a performance unit, its called a FLOP
Now thats cool, but if you can compute so much data, it has to go somewhere after behing calculated. Xbox has 512mb of ram +10mb for gpu, PS3 use a shared 512mb, both use DDR3. These ammount are ridiculously small compared in todays computer. next place to store/load stuff is the hard drive, but heck, its damm slow compared to ram, and i suppose they dont give you the fancy 7200rpm hdd either. Both system face massive bottleneck in term of texture and polygon quality, maps size and the like. Performance of both are similar due to these common weakness (the weakest link of the chain). Now the debate can be, would installing an SSD drive on these system increase performance ?

im pretty sure the xbox has 512MB@700Mhz and 10MB of edram

and the ps3 has 256MB@700 Mhz on gpu and 256MB@3.2Ghz on the cpu

also note unlike pcs consoles dont have to deal with demanding operating systems and back ground processes

and you can replace the ps3 hdd with one that is 7200 rpm but it hasnt shown any real improvement in anything related to graphic fidelity but it has shown an decrease in install times thats about it

This video was probably posted before but its pretty impression

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbwZwQeGvD8

P.S. By all means this isn't me trying to prove a point of PS3 VS PC VS 360 this is just something i thought that would be interesting to some as to how much Crytek was able to push the PS3 hardware. (remember this is still just a tech demo...)

try to watch the whole video..

@GALvANIZE Yup they showed the same thing for the 360 so whats your point the Pc is better.

Why the VS. threads? who cares, even if one is better, it will not be by much

I'm trying to reply to everything I've read so far in a circumspect manner, but I own both a 360 and a PS3....I've also seen high end gaming computers in action, and while they're all pretty and each has it's own strengths and weaknesses, none of which are significant enough to put you above anyone else, I don't understand why they inspire feelings of hubris
Why do people insist on bragging about their console/PC (all are computer entertainment systems really...the PC is just much more versatile) and trying to imply someone else is getting a poorer experience? In what way, shape, or form does that help you or I function better day to day? Does it help your ego, your self-esteem?
(And) if so, why? At what point is someone's current living conditions so poor that it gives them any meaningful satisfaction? I wholly understand if you argue which is factually better for technological reasons...but making fun of or trying to pilfer someone else's appreciation for what they have because you have something else that's different (a minor form of day to day entertainment, no less) is sad.
Frankly it's a similar (just much more petty and unimportant) practice as putting yourself above others for having a different religion, or no religion at all, only it's far more insignificant and annoying.
Everyone who reads this (and disagrees) should try and answer my questions or justify anything here, even if you see someone else has already responded, your opinion is just as important.

with one word fanboism

Indeed. Also the graphical differences (if any) the consoles have will be totally eclipsed by the difference with the PC version anyway. So these threads are utterly pointless.

It's the equivalent of debating the graphical differences between an AMD and Nvidia card (i.e. none - 99% of the time).

who cares anymore? i own the ps3 and dont really give a **** about how much better this is than this and so on. enjoy what platform you play out of and stfu. damn you people sound like a bunch of 13 year old girls comparing periods. this is crysis 2 to the masses so we ALL can enjoy it. gotdamnit!! all platforms have their pros and cons. you chose what you did because thats what you like and because someone else think theirs is better is really getting pathetic. grow up people!

To justify their puchase machete? They're just scared their mommy bought them the wrong system at christmas

Personally, i used to have all 3 (but the 360 was dusting over heavily and someone else's broke so i gave it to them), and PC gaming is both cheaper for games and hardware overall since it's all in one, so no additional laptop/PC required. Plus it's going to be a better experience (dedicated servers, graphics that'll make even the original crysis - still the best looking game of all time - cry hopefully and so on), so i'm buying it on that

However, all versions will be good, so people just shouldn't care if someone else will get better graphics. It's like in battlefield 3, console players have generally been fine with 24 players in bad company 2, but now suddenly the PC version gets 64 players (because they're a lot more powerful, seriously, 5-6x easily) in battlefield 3 their sky is falling and DICE are apparently hating on them for no reason.

To justify their puchase machete? They're just scared their mommy bought them the wrong system at christmas

Personally, i used to have all 3 (but the 360 was dusting over heavily and someone else's broke so i gave it to them), and PC gaming is both cheaper for games and hardware overall since it's all in one, so no additional laptop/PC required. Plus it's going to be a better experience (dedicated servers, graphics that'll make even the original crysis - still the best looking game of all time - cry hopefully and so on), so i'm buying it on that

However, all versions will be good, so people just shouldn't care if someone else will get better graphics. It's like in battlefield 3, console players have generally been fine with 24 players in bad company 2, but now suddenly the PC version gets 64 players (because they're a lot more powerful, seriously, 5-6x easily) in battlefield 3 their sky is falling and DICE are apparently hating on them for no reason.

i can agree with you. but if people arent comfortable with what to buy, do some research or whatever, but the fanboyism drives me nuts. if it were financially possible (mind you i have a family of 7) i would own all systems. i just am not comfortable with mouse and keyboard even though it seems the best way to play shooters. but thats my decision and im comfortable with that. just like everyone who plays their platform of choice. just know the pros and cons of what youre getting and if youre not happy with it, then try something else next time around. simple solution in my opinion. im committed to what i have right now and am happy with that decision. so yes, people complaining and comparing who has the bigger "schlong" irritates the **** out of me.

i think ps3 because if you compare eg: gta 4 on xbox with ps3 the ps3 has nicer colours
but from what friends said to me is that crysis 2 on xbox is crap (i don't said that my friends said that just: crap) and they want a ps 3 demo me to because look at kz3(it was a beta but even if it was a demo we could give feedbacks) now the servers are perfect the medic class is perfect the weapons all balanced they nerfed the m82 in power and hip firing and i defenetly buy crysis 2 even if there no demo for ps3 i pre-orderd the limited edition.

Crysis PS3 Gameplay:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzsPr_DqKfc&hd=1

Crysis 360 Gameplay:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHFVaZW0LtI&hd=1

This what your paying for people which means killzone 3 is first on my list!

Muha ha ha.. even the xbox 360 version of Crysis 2 looks better than Killzone 3.
My god how could anyone enjoy these muddy low res textures in a game ? Its already playing in a desert/wasteland scenerey
and still the textures are ugly as hell. Ive played Killzone 3... and yes i go near walls to see what texture size is used.
The new "so called" ps3 reference has sometimes even worser textures than Doom 3 Pc.
So enjoy your further fanboy life... but Crysis 2 will blow anything away ... because New York is alive and breathing..