TLoU didn't looked all that great on ps3. I'll go with God of War 3.The scale of this thing is insane and i was kinda disappointed it got lost with the reboot of the series.
It was a stripped down version with a entire level missing because they couldn't get it to run on console. They literally had to port the game to their new engine to get it to work.Where the hell is KZ2 ?
I voted UC3 but Beyond:TS, UC2, TLOU, GOW3 and Ascension, looked on par. On 360, i would choose Crysis1 over Halo4 but Gears was probably the best looking game overall prior to KZ2/UC2. That serie deserves to be cited here too.
And i should add pre-2010, every PC gamer and his mother argued PS3/360 couldn't run Crysis at all. So much for that.
Yes, but that's cheating. We're talking original releases, not remasters or Microsoft's BC wizardry.
That's something of an oversimplification. "Stripped down" doesn't accurately describe the port. It has much better lighting, more elaborate shadowing, heavily improved shaders (such as sand that glistens properly. From a technical perspective, it's a huge improvement across the board.It was a stripped down version with a entire level missing because they couldn't get it to run on console. They literally had to port the game to their new engine to get it to work.
The most significant improvement is definitely how the single-player campaign is played with the adaption of the nanosuit 2 controls from Crysis 2. Players struggled to utilize the full potential of the first nanosuit with the original control scheme, so by bringing across the improved control functions from Crysis 2, we hoped to help players operate the incredible suit powers with consummate ease. We also received a great deal of fan feedback regarding one of the missions in the original Crysis and discovered that it was really frustrating for players and that they felt it was just not that fun to play. That's obviously the last thing you want to be hearing as a game developer, so we made the decision to remove that particular level completely, and we believe that the game as a whole is actually better for it. Finally, we have spent a great deal of time rebalancing the game and adding completely new features to make sure the entire experience is as tense, challenging, and captivating as it was always meant to be. This new version of Crysis now plays even better than the original, which is why I know people are in for an incredible experience with Crysis on consoles.
I honestly thought Uncharted 3 looked better than The Last of Us. Thats not to say TLOU didn't have breathtaking graphics, but Uncharted 3 is even still just...wow.
Every single game in the poll got remastered, but only the PS4 version of TLOU is fooling people? Even with the low res shadows the screen you shared looks great five years later. Any answer but TLOU is revisionist.
To be fair, the blue tint of the game is not just because it has radiosity but because the white balance is fucked up in how cool it is, in pure 2011 fashion, and that hurts the look of the game just like it hurt other games like Battlefield 3. The response to the Piss Filter was the equally ugly "Too cool and contrasty" filter.That's something of an oversimplification. "Stripped down" doesn't accurately describe the port. It has much better lighting, more elaborate shadowing, heavily improved shaders (such as sand that glistens properly. From a technical perspective, it's a huge improvement across the board.
I have never seen any evidence that Ascension was removed for technical reasons. The official reason for its removal is that players disliked it. I personally think the notion that the level was cut due to technical reasons is just PC fans bitter about the console port being better in a number of areas, or even that it existed in the first place. Kinda like Deus Ex fans who don't like talking about how the PS2 version of Deus Ex has waaaaaaaaaay better animation and arguably better game mechanics. Because Crysis had so much PC master race baggage around it, the fact the console port is a bit of a technical triumph that adds next generation improvements to the original instead of being a simple console port with downgrades didn't fit the narrative. (I mean, a lot of people were in very passionate denial about Crysis 2 being graphically better than Crysis 1 in a vast majority of areas. So much bitterness and head-in-the-sand behavior.) We even reached a point where you had people arguing against radiosity in videogames (one of the most important aspects of realistic lighting) because they preferred Crysis 1's "look", which is extremely flat because, for instance, a clear blue sky does not add a blue tint to the scene, like, at all. And building interiors are completely devoid of indirect lighting.
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/c...e-first-crysis-game-to-consoles/1100-6336621/
Probably Killzone 2 and 3.
Port those over to the PS4 with a simple 4K implementation and they'd likely almost pass as current gen titles.
It didn't help that the game was butt.hey, gears of war: judgement was a looker too back in the days
That is true. While you do get very lovely indirect lighting, the blue tint looks strange in places.To be fair, the blue tint of the game is not just because it has radiosity but because the white balance is fucked up in how cool it is, in pure 2011 fashion, and that hurts the look of the game just like it hurt other games like Battlefield 3.
You know the thing that has always annoyed me? It would be a no-brainer for fans to port Crysis 1 to modern CryEngine, right? Like, that seems like a super obvious thing to do? Well, no. Because EA have exclusive rights over all Crysis assets, and they killed any and all projects involving Crysis assets. The intentional death of the Crysis modding community is one of the most teeth-grating PR bungles in gaming history.Other than that, I wish this version was remastered for the modern systems with good framerate and proper white balance. Especially if it came for the Switch with gyro aiming. (*tots not port-begging here*)
Good points. It's a port that gains in a number of areas, loses in a number of others. That said, I feel the ocean on Crysis 1 for consoles looks remarkably good considering that Crysis 2 didn't even have reflective water. I feel the biggest lighting improvement in the console port is indirect lighting. Oddly, Far Cry 1 had baked radiosity lights, but with Crysis, Crytek's "realtime, all the time" mantra came into effect, and they ended up with a game that looks very strange if there's no direct light sources. The console port fixes that, and it's a huge improvement I feel.WRT to console crysis - having IBL gives the sand its glint (Crysis 1 exists before that was added to CryEngine). I do not think the other shaders are really necessarily superior - some arguably are worse (skin shader). The Per object blur is worse, yet the per pixel screen blur is better for example.
Then you have the ocean looking dramatically worse on console since it does not use FTT or many of the other bespoke shading bits they made for it on the PC release.
Also, I am pretty sure the console release does not use volume ray marched fog lights - making the core level look pretty different!
But I mean, EA could make money from it. It's a straightforward port. The tech exists. It wouldn't even have to be the fans. Of course, EA being EA.That is true. While you do get very lovely indirect lighting, the blue tint looks strange in places.
You know the thing that has always annoyed me? It would be a no-brainer for fans to port Crysis 1 to modern CryEngine, right? Like, that seems like a super obvious thing to do? Well, no. Because EA have exclusive rights over all Crysis assets, and they killed any and all projects involving Crysis assets. The intentional death of the Crysis modding community is one of the most teeth-grating PR bungles in gaming history.
Good points. It's a port that gains in a number of areas, loses in a number of others. That said, I feel the ocean on Crysis 1 for consoles looks remarkably good considering that Crysis 2 didn't even have reflective water. I feel the biggest lighting improvement in the console port is indirect lighting. Oddly, Far Cry 1 had baked radiosity lights, but with Crysis, Crytek's "realtime, all the time" mantra came into effect, and they ended up with a game that looks very strange if there's no direct light sources. The console port fixes that, and it's a huge improvement I feel.
What it comes down to is that both versions have tangible advantages in different areas. I would compare it to the N64 version of Indiana Jones and the Infernal Machine vs the PC version. Yes, the PC version has better textures and better animation overall, but the N64 version has much better lighting and particle effects and so on. It's very painful when there is no definitive version of a game. It's even more painful when the rights holder actively prevents anyone making a definitive version on their own.
EA refused to do remasters until 2016. It's why Mass Effect was never ported to PS4/XBO, for instance. So it was like a double whammy of "No, you're not allowed to use any Crysis assets in CryEngine" and "No, we're not going to remaster any of our games that you actually like." The existence of Crysis for consoles is kinda oddball in the first place because it's kinda-sorta a remaster and EA opposed those. (Maybe they considered it similar to Mass Effect 1 for PS3?) Still, I'm waiting to see whether EA/Crytek ever do a proper remaster or release them as BC titles -- at the very least they could fix the broken version of Crysis 1 on Steam that fans are forced to patch with 64 bit executables manually. Surely that's not too much to ask?But I mean, EA could make money from it. It's a straightforward port. The tech exists. It wouldn't even have to be the fans. Of course, EA being EA.
Oh, looking for sure, but performance was not very good and the v-sync tech introduced input lag so that was achieved by having a huge toll on the hardware.The Last of was incredible looking on PS3 at launch. Amazing attention to detail. The PS4 Pro remaster just enhances that.
hey, gears of war: judgement was a looker too back in the days
The X1 bc release shows how amazing that game was for its time and the respective platform. It just outdid every racer last gen.Forza Horizon pretty much has the best image quality on both 360 and PS3. It looked really clean and good.
The official reason for removing Ascension is that it's a frustrating level that they received a lot of complaints about. They also supposedly received complaints about the original Crysis nanosuit being too difficult to use which is interesting to think about because it possibly reveals a difference in opinion between the hardcore fanbase and the more general casual fanbase. There's an implication that if Crytek had known ahead of time, they wouldn't have designed Crysis 1's nanosuit the way they did.I really don't think Crysis on Consoles is as good as hyped & i wouldn't call it an Indy jones upgrade either, the worse foliage alone is a big hit to the visuals, Cryengine 3's deferred rendering gives it's a buff with lighting/shadows sure, but it loses too much in other areas, plus an entire level.
Because EA banned everyone from using Crysis assets in CryEngine SDK. They killed the community with legal threats. Basically because Crysis 2 didn't have a full fledged SDK. It had okay modding tools, but not good enough. The full fledged SDK came along later -- which was Crytek's standalone CryEngine SDK. The problem is that if you tried porting Crysis to CryEngine SDK, EA would shoot your puppy. CryEngine SDK was 100% Crytek. The assets of Crysis 1/2/3 were 100% EA. It's genuinely bewildering. Crytek games had a flourishing modding community. Contrary to popular perception about CryEngine being "difficult to use", Far Cry 1's Editor was astoundingly simple to use compared to Unreal and Quake and such. The game had a flourishing modding community. As did Crysis. But then things went very sour with Crysis 2 modding and then Crysis 3 was an insulting nail in the coffin -- not only did have you EA's "can't use Crysis assets in CryEngine" nonsense to deal with -- the game's files were all encrypted and no source code was provided or anything like that.Also I'm surprised no one has just ported Crysis 1 to Cryengine 3 already. there were a ton of custom maps for Crysis 2 that were basically that.
Wrong.Put GT6 side to side on a 1080p set, and no one will say its impressive ever, than in small gifs. The engine, on otehr side.l
It kind of was a very reduced form of crysis but yea it was successfully portedWhere the hell is KZ2 ?
I voted UC3 but Beyond:TS, UC2, TLOU, GOW3 and Ascension, looked on par. On 360, i would choose Crysis1 over Halo4 but Gears was probably the best looking game overall prior to KZ2/UC2. That serie deserves to be cited here too.
And i should add pre-2010, every PC gamer and his mother argued PS3/360 couldn't run Crysis at all. So much for that.
Performance was a total mess though and the image quality was truly atrocious. I still managed to play through it and enjoy it but it's certainly not in the running alongside stuff like TLOU and God of War.The Phantom Pain for sure on ps3. Resolution was a bit crappy, but still looked godlike.