Killzone: Shadow Fall vs. Crysis 3

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
E

EricJohn2004

Honorable
Feb 13, 2014
89
0
10,660
I've been owning a high end PC for the last 2-3 years. My current PC has a 3570k@4.7Ghz, a GTX780, and a 27 inch 1080p Gloss IPS monitor. I LOVE gaming on my PC. And PC no doubt has the best performance in any and ALL multi platform games. That's a GIVEN.... PC can be a LOT more powerful.

So needless to say I took the plunge and got a PS4 so I could game on the couch, and the first game I played on my PS4 was Killzone: Shadow Fall. And let me tell you, I was IMPRESSED! The game looks SO good, it even rivals Crysis 3 on MAX settings on PC, or does it?

[u]ANALYSIS..... [/u]

Both games look fairly similar, maybe being that they are both sci-fi shooters. I almost thought they were based on the same engine until I looked closer. And both games take place in some of the same environments so we can easily compare the two. Killzone: Shadow Fall has the best looking lighting I've seen, far better than Crysis 3, and second to only Metro: LL. And the textures everywhere are SO detailed, obviously more so than Crysis 3, and the world is also very open, just as open as Crysis 3 is. It does have small fall backs, like peoples faces don't look nearly as good as in Crysis 3 nor do their mouths while talking. And Crysis 3 does have a little better looking plant life, although Killzone's plant life looks amazing too and is far better than most PC games. The AI enemy's in both games both look good, like the Helghast for Killzone and the Aliens and Cell in Crysis 3, but the Helghast look more detailed and the orange light glowing from their eyes just looks amazing.

In both of these games a lot of the gameplay is on platforms, and the platforms look SO much more detailed in Killzone than in Crysis 3. The rocky structures and rock textures look better in Killzone too and are more detailed. Crysis 3 does have better looking weather, when the game is wet or rainy like at the beginning of the game, Crysis 3 takes the win there. Killzone has some rainy scenes too that like out right stunning, but Crysis 3 does win in this regard. At night time the clear winner is Killzone strictly because of it's lighting and the way light bounces off of objects.

VERDICT....

I know a LOT about graphics, but I'm still not an expert. But to me, Killzone: Shadow Fall is the better looking game overall, and I think it's fairly obvious. It's surely not because the PS4 is more powerful, far from it, it has less than half the teraflops of my GTX780. But I DO have an explaination.....

Killzone: Shadow Fall was designed for ONLY the PS4, which has the same amount of cores and memory bandwidth as a GTX760(a powerful mid range PC graphics card). Meaning the devs didn't have to include lower res textures or lighting for weak PC's. They didn't have to include any assets for PS3, Xbox 360, or Xbox One. All they had to do was design the game around ONE, fairly powerful, SET piece of hardware. And they didn't even know the specs 3 years ago when they started making it. Which just says it can get even better. The devs even said the game was some 300GB large before compressing it I believe.

But Crysis 3 did have to include assets for low spec PC's, Xbox 360, and PS3. In fact, Crysis 3, although it looks TONS better on PC, was really designed for the weak 7 year old PS3 and 360. And by looking at the game compared to Killzone: Shadow Fall, you can tell some of the structures and buildings and lighting don't look as good as Killzone: Shadow Fall. And it's really no surprise at all that Killzone looks better.

WHY WE SHOULD ALL BE HAPPY......

If you haven't noticed yet, next gen console games ported to PC look a HELL of a lot better than games from 6-12 months before. If you compare NFS: Rivals to NFS: Most Wanted, the difference is night and day. Same thing with BF3 and BF4. Imagine if Bioshock Infinite had been for next gen consoles, it would look MUCH better. It's because of these next gen more powerful consoles we are getting better PC graphics. So no matter if you like consoles or not, you should be happy that the next gen machines have come out and that they are fairly powerful, at least the PS4 is.


So I just don't understand all the HATE towards console owners. And PC owners calling next gen consoles "weak". You should be PULLING for consoles to succeed and be powerful, not pulling against them. So wise the hell up won't you?

Am I Wrong? What's your opinion? And don't you think that next gen consoles are great for gaming regardless of if you have a PS4 of Xbox One?

Now, I know a LOT about graphics, but I'm not an expert.
 
Solution
Avocade
Consoles generally now hinder the growth of enhanced development as they have design games for lower grade system instead of pushing the envelope and publishers are hurting it in addition by limiting development time for profit due to the the greed of shareholders
Sort by date Sort by votes
A

Alec Mowat

Honorable
Jan 8, 2014
3,244
0
13,460
A PS4 is just a PC with a different operating system. The game graphics might be blurred a bit to look better, but it's not comparable.

The only advantage a console has is that is designed to run games, and only games. PC's are designed to be workstations, and they can also run games. This means game programmers can take full advantage of the game consoles hardware, where as PC is required to run an operating system in the background.

The PS4 is just running an APU with DDR5 system memory. It's really not impressive hardware. Your PC is faster.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
E

EricJohn2004

Honorable
Feb 13, 2014
89
0
10,660
Dude did you even read the whole article. Do you NOT think I already know what you just said?

Your a typical Bias PC owner, and close minded as ever. If you don't think a PS4 is powerful, then you must not think a GTX760 is powerful either, since they both have 1152 cores and 256 bit memory buses.

And a PS4's CPU is a little more powerful than an FX4300. In Cinebench the PS4 scores 3.2 while the FX4300 scores 3.13. So it's hardware actually is quite powerful. Maybe not compared to 2000$ PC's like mine, the PS4 only costs 399$ and that's one hell of a deal for an FX4300 and a GTX760.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A

Alec Mowat

Honorable
Jan 8, 2014
3,244
0
13,460


Well, you are saying that PC games will get better because Consoles will push programmers to push the limits a bit further.

I disagree. Console hardware didn't surpass current PC hardware. The only reason PC has gained in popularity in the last few years, was the age of the PS3 and 360. Both systems were getting old and programmers wanted to make better games, like Titanfall.

New Console games only look better because they were originally designed for PC. These games are not console exclusives.
Now that these consoles are on the market, PC is going to end up with more 30FPS limited ports, more games with bad controls and less PC exclusives again.

It's repeating. When consoles get old, PC games increase and become better. When new consoles come out, no one develops for PC anymore.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A

Alec Mowat

Honorable
Jan 8, 2014
3,244
0
13,460


It runs an APU with an integrated GPU, and it uses DDR5 system memory. I don't need a benchmark, I know exactly what chip it is. It's similar to the A10-7850.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
E

EricJohn2004

Honorable
Feb 13, 2014
89
0
10,660
I'm also an Intel and an Nvidia fan. But I'm not so close minded to not even give AMD a chance. I actually really like AMD now that I see how good the PS4 performs.

If your a hard core PC fan, LIKE I AM, then just try not to be closed minded. Before I saw Killzone: Shadow Fall on my 65 inch 3000$ Samsung TV, I thought "NO WAY it's better looking than Crysis 3", but I kept an open mind, and I ended up thinking that in my OPINION, Killzone: Shadow Fall looks better. And to me it's fairly obvious. So just try not to be bias when you read this and take everything I said into consideration.

And the PS4 does have an APU, but you can't really think it's remotely close to the 7850k? You'd have to be stupid to think that, so I'm sure that's not what you meant. The PS4 has about 3x's as many cores, and of couse the PS4 has GDDR5 with a 256bit bus for the GPU andddd the CPU, which is pretty damn cool in itself with the unified memory.

And I'm now wondering, why does it matter that it's an APU? Isn't that a GOOD thing that the CPU and GPU can share GDDR5 memory and not have to copy and paste things from DDR3 to GDDR5 all the time? As long as the iGPU has just as many cores as the dGPU and the same memory bus, they should be IDENTICAL.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A

Alec Mowat

Honorable
Jan 8, 2014
3,244
0
13,460
Closed minded?

I'm on an A10-7850k right now, my other rig in a FX-8350

You sure do like jumping to conclusions :)

Is it good? It's OK. It's not as powerful as a modern workstation PC, but it's OK.

It's using a newer engine, which is why it looks better.
http://www.develop-online.net/news/umbra-3-rendering-technology-available-on-ps4/0114258

Crysis 3 isn't really a benchmark graphics game, nothing compared to Crysis (at the time).
Try comparing to Battlefield 4 at Ultra. It's a newer engine.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
fudoka711

fudoka711

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2012
1,308
0
19,960
I think an issue you touched upon is what base-line caliber of system each game was designed for. PC games are almost always designed to operate on a wide range of combinations of different hardware combinations (and sometimes OS). PS4/XBONE games are designed just for those consoles.

The Killzone series has, to me, always looked better than pretty much any other console game. I don't know how its coded, but it just looks better and more crisp. It's only designed for the PlayStation and that gives it a huge advantage over other games. Even though they're all using the same x86 architecture, consoles will have this coding/efficiency advantage over PC games for the foreseeable future.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Avocade

Avocade

Honorable
Apr 12, 2013
1,002
0
11,460
Actually not much you said makes much sense developers can make games look gorgeous on old outdated hardware its just optimizing for the hardware generation. Look at UE3 superiorly optimized engine still be utilized and still not extended to its maximum. Than you have companies like dice, crytek, and so on who developed proprietaries thaT sacrifice optimization for aesthetic appearance instead of working them together to rush products out the door. Killzone had lots of years of development the engine and filters wjer in write back in the middle of the last generation so they had time to make the game run smooth with high aesthetic value its not the hardware but the time developers put into games as as hardware gets more complex so does programming but they try to keep the same time frames which hurts the product
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
E

EricJohn2004

Honorable
Feb 13, 2014
89
0
10,660
And to say that next gen consoles don't make a difference in the way games look on PC is crazy. Just look at the difference in NFS: Most Wanted compared to NFS: Rivals. Those titles are only 1 year apart, yet NFS: Rivals looks 10x's better because it was developed for the Xbox One and PS4. If the PS4 and Xbox One never came out, then NFS: Rivals would have been made for PS3 and 360, thus it would STILL look like CRAP. How can you not get that?

And that's not the only example, look at how much better BF4 looks, look at how much better COD: Ghosts looks than COD Black Ops 2. Night and day differences even though most of those games are barely a year apart.

If you can't understand the validity of these statements or understand that they make PERFECT sense, then maybe you need to re-examine your thoughts.

Whether you like it or not, console games are the priority for devs. It'll be that way for a while at least. So the better console we have, the better looking games EVERYONE will get.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A

Alec Mowat

Honorable
Jan 8, 2014
3,244
0
13,460


You are missing a major point of our comments.

When the PS3 and the Xbox 360 came out, they were built with impressive hardware. They were significantly faster than most workstation PC's. The PS3 has a 7 core CPU, which is still uncommon on PC's today.

They were top end hardware with a low price point.

The PS4 and Xbone are not top end hardware. They are mid tier gaming systems. The hardware might look good but it can't handle much performance wise. Computer hardware is not comparable performance wise. An i7 4670K with a GTX Titan will outperform both consoles. You can create an 8 GB RAM disk on 18 GB of DDR3 with little effort. The new Intel chips will be using DDR4 and catching up to both consoles very quickly.

That's the main point here. They might look OK today, but they are not pushing hardware limits at all. PC is way ahead of this generation of Consoles.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
E

EricJohn2004

Honorable
Feb 13, 2014
89
0
10,660
Explain to my why NFS: Rivals looks 10x's better than NFS: Most Wanted in the time frame of only 1 year? And the same for COD: Ghosts, and to some extent BF4? What other reason was there for the graphics quality to shoot up MASSIVELY within only one year?

And I've done TONS of research, probably more than you've done yourself. I think I know all the ins and outs of graphics as well as all the graphics cards specs from Nvidia and AMD. I never miss a new article on Tom's Hardware, I probably read 20-50,000 words a day on tech online everyday.

If you don't think that's so, then you must think NFS: Rivals would have looked JUST as good if it was made for the PS3 and 360 primarily huh? I PROMISE you that if the PS4 and Xbox One wouldn't be out, these games I mentioned wouldn't look as good.

If you compare games from 2012-2013, there wasn't that big of a difference, but when you go from 2013-2014, all of a sudden, like MAGIC, games look WAY better than they did the year before, and you don't think that had something to do with the next gen consoles?

Clearly your a console hater, but why hate? I've been strictly a PC gamer for 2-3 years, however I just bought my PS4 and I love it. If I had an Xbox One with a 7770 equivalent GPU with only DDR3 memory that ran games in 720p, HELL NO I wouldn't be happy. Thankfully the PS4 is powerful enough to give me 1080p and a smooth experience.

So it's not that I can't tell a decent experience from a great one, it's that the experience on the PS4 is great. I don't notice a severe downgrade in graphics going from my PC to my PS4. And why would you expect there to be a downgrade when the PS4 has fairly powerful PC GPU?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Avocade

Avocade

Honorable
Apr 12, 2013
1,002
0
11,460
I work for and independent game developer and am in my 4th and final year of game art and design so no you don't know more than me graphics and programming and game development are literally my life
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
E

EricJohn2004

Honorable
Feb 13, 2014
89
0
10,660
Hey lol, I can DEFINATELY agree with you with COD: Ghosts. Game looks like ASS. It's my LEAST played PS4 game and I will sell it. But it does look a LOT better than that BOXY Black Ops 2. You gotta give it that.

So, from your comment it looks like your agreeing with me that newer consoles did indeed improve PC graphics? That's what it sounds like your saying? I get your points too, if there were NO consoles at all, SURE that would be AWESOME for PC's, since everyone would HAVE to get a PC to game on, so EVERYONES games would look better. But since there ARE consoles, it's a LOT better to have powerful ones than weak ones... Agree?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
E

EricJohn2004

Honorable
Feb 13, 2014
89
0
10,660
And another point is that if there weren't consoles, probably not NEARLY as many people would game. I think that much is obvious. So overall, if consoles didn't exist, I don't think PC would get nearly the amount of good games it gets now. So consoles are a good thing for PC gaming I think, and more powerful consoles are even way better than that.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Avocade

Avocade

Honorable
Apr 12, 2013
1,002
0
11,460
Consoles generally now hinder the growth of enhanced development as they have design games for lower grade system instead of pushing the envelope and publishers are hurting it in addition by limiting development time for profit due to the the greed of shareholders
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
E

EricJohn2004

Honorable
Feb 13, 2014
89
0
10,660
What do you think is the best looking PC game to you? I think Metro: Last Light is the clear cut winner here. I think Metro: LL is the best looking game that has ever been made period. That lighting is just awesome, and the details. It's definitely a unique looking engine they have. The people and creatures all look sort of shiny, like they are made out of wet rubber. I actually like that. The games also just fan as hell to play. I've beat it 3 times and played all the DLC over and over. Great game.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
E

EricJohn2004

Honorable
Feb 13, 2014
89
0
10,660
I can agree with you that consoles do hinder development to a high degree. That's without a doubt true. But without consoles, I don't think there would be many games because a lot of people wouldn't buy PC's to go play their game in the corner of the room. Maybe they would all get HTPC's or something, but surely they wouldn't upgrade once every 2 years to keep their system up to date.

So regardless, your always going to have something holding development back. There's always going to be the low specs machines that need to developed for. In this case, it's consoles that are the low specs machines, so at least we have decently powerful consoles now and not 7 year old ones. And the quicker we get an even newer generation of consoles, the better.

Since after all, most of the games made, especially AAA titles are made specifically for consoles, not PC. And since your a developer or graphics engineer, you'll probably be making games for PS4 and Xbox One too.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
E

EricJohn2004

Honorable
Feb 13, 2014
89
0
10,660


Didn't even notice your comment until just now. And yes, Killzone looks fantastic. I was so impressed as you can see that I thought I would write a post on it. It just amazed me how far this new "next gen" console has pushed graphics quality up in a short amount of time. Which actually goes to show how much consoles hinder graphical improvement as we were discussing. I think the solution to that is to come out with a new console every 4 years instead of every 8. And also since we now are all on x86, the games should definitely be backwards compatible. I wouldn't mind having to pay 399$ every 4 years for a lot better looking games as long as I could play my old games too. But they would have to make it where once the new console comes out, you have to stop making games for the old one. Otherwise that "bottleneck" of a low spec machine would still exist as devs would have to put time towards the older machine too. Of course some people MIGHT have a problem with paying 399$ every 4 years instead of every 7-8 years. But to me, that's the price to pay to enjoy gaming.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom