Jump to content

Crysis 2


Tyler

Recommended Posts

http://www.lensoftruth.com/?p=27725

 

We already saw that KZ2 MP pwned Crysis 2 MP. Now here we have, total pwnage, with KZ3 beta vs Crysis 2 demo:

 

Although this is a performance analysis, we would like to express that the graphics in Crysis 2 and Killzone 3 appear bars above the competition. First off, it’s clear that Killzone 3 graphics engine has received some major tweaking from it’s predecessor. Considering how bad a*s Killzone 2 looked we expected Killzone 3 to look slightly better, but that’s simply not the case. The amount of Deferred lighting, particles and post-processing effects occurring the entire time you’re playing are absolutely mind blowing. Killzone 3 has set the graphical bar once more, and the attention to detail is on a level of its own. Let it be known, Killzone 3 has dethroned Killzone 2 as the best looking First Person Shooter plain and simple. On the other hand, Crysis 2 by no means is not a graphical slouch and Honestly, Killzone 3’s graphics can’t be matched by any other games far. So, the only question that remains, with Killzone 3 being a graphical powerhouse that it is, “what type of performance levels should we expect”? Well, we have the answers you’re looking for.

 

First up, its Crysis 2, as we observed in our analysis video, Crysis 2 runs almost perfectly by sporting a very stable 30 FPS most of the time. We noticed slight performance dips while engaged in some chaotic fire fights, but the frame rate never fell low enough to ever notice. However, what we did notice was Crysis 2 had some screen tearing occurring throughout the upper part of the screen. As observed in our analysis video below, Crysis 2 screen tearing was very minor and occurred mostly in the upper top section of the screen and most likely won’t be noticed while playing. But the fact still remains, that Crysis 2 has screen tearing. Below are the average framerate and screen tearing percentages our analyzer captured.

 

As seen in the graph above, Killzone 3 has absolutly zero screen tearing to record. Furthermore, Killzone 3’s frame rate was locked at 30 FPS even in the most intense battles. If we went ahead and reviewed Killzone 3’s performance and graphics department, the way it stands, we would most certainly give it 10’s across the board. Point being, Killzone 3’s performance levels were absolutely perfect, while Crysis 2’s performance levels were almost perfect. Again, we’re analyzing old code so anything could happen and that means for the better, or for the worse. Right now the future for both games is looking bright.

 

 

I hope this will silence some people for good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lens of truth again ? <_<

 

 

***********

 

DF

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-tech-analysis-crysis-2-demo

 

This shouldn't be too surprising. As we mentioned in our original piece, one of the key enhancements Crytek has been working on has been adapting to a many-core architecture. Crysis on PC didn't really leverage anything over a dual core CPU, but in the Xbox 360 .cfg file contained in the demo we see that at least five of the six hardware threads supported by the triple-core Xenon CPU are being utilised.

 

Apparently CryEngine 3 does have more to offer than just scaled back settings for console compatibility.

 

 

 

Lighting_001.bmp.jpg

CryEngine 3 supports real-time global illumination and HDR lighting and it's fair to say that this produces a look that is a key part of the game's visual appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...