Crysis 2 PS3 'performs better than 360 version'

[CGar]

I've noticed that all of our replies saying KZ2 is mediocre looking are backed up by facts, whereas everyone saying it's the best looking FPS have no idea why they think that.

+1 to Sethos, he knows his ****

I think that's the beauty of Crytek's games, it's very rare that they cut corners with graphical implementations, even if it means taking a performance hit. They do every thing to be as real as possible, none of these matte painting, 2d backrop, flat texture crap. Obviously this isn't the best decision to make commercially, but it's a miracle for us graphics enthusiasts.

Hell, they pretty much added expensive volumetric clouds for the luls (which you only see when parachuting in the intro level of Crysis), need I say more?

I have a feeling this philosophy might change with Crysis 2 which saddens me, but I have hopes that the PC version won't be too limited by the consoles (game/level design, not graphics)

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

yo mean, the first word "yes" wasn't an answer ? l2r :p

as I've said to you about five hundred times, you don't actually need to won a PS3 yourself to play one, not with friends that have them and when you have one at work.

Also why are you suddenly limiting it to FPS games when we where talking about best looking console games.

As for games looking better, even Gears2 looked better. a lot because it actually had details instead of fake flat detail that just looks wrong. Stylistically it's also probably the closest game to KZ2. it also doesn't have **** smoke effects covering everything up. Thene there's of cours AC2, ME2, the MW games though the multiplatform.

I also think overall Force Unleashed looks better, not for the small individual details perhaps, but because like most of the star Wars FPS/3PS games, the levels have such an awesome grand scale. And it's not a dead bland scale, but even when you're in a massive shaft, there's detail work showing you the scale and detail all the way up and down the shaft.

If you don't need a PS3 to judge then you'll love youtube, I've posted this a few times, but KZ2's engine is better than Gears

Saying MW running at 600p looks better than Killzone 2 is a laugh and a half.

[Hedon]

Lens of Truth: Jessica Alba vs. Megan Fox

Many people will have different opinions on which one is better looking than the other. Does their opinion equate to fact?

[Massiveterra]

Remember the fire effects in killzone 2?

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Many people will have different opinions on which one is better looking than the other. Does their opinion equate to fact?

I think it's quite easy to see the models are more detailed in KZ2, the lighting is better and explosions/gunshots and particle effects are more detailed.

[KoL Veteran]

Now you need a lot of colors for a game to look good? I prefer games with colors like UC2 and FFXIII but saying that KZ2 looks bad or is mediocre looking... :laugh:

It doesn't matter what you use or do if they final product works and looks good. Everyone do stuff different ways.

[Hedon]

I think it's quite easy to see the models are more detailed in KZ2, the lighting is better and explosions/gunshots and particle effects are more detailed.

Does KZ2 have co-op and splitscreen? What was the most amount of AI on the screen at once in KZ2? You are talking better particle effects, but what about other effects, which GOW2 accelerated at?

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Does KZ2 have co-op and splitscreen?

No, because as it was already posted they focussed on graphics, the talking point of this whole topic....

I cannot be bothered carrying this discussion on any more, KoL summed it up well, and I don't believe any other FPS on a console looks as good as KZ2. Even the Crysis devs were pinpointing it as the title they said Crysis 2 would beat, wonder why?

[bob_c_b]

Does KZ2 have co-op and splitscreen? What was the most amount of AI on the screen at once in KZ2? You are talking better particle effects, but what about other effects, which GOW2 accelerated at?

:sleep: Stretching....

[Hedon]

No, because as it was already posted they focussed on graphics, the talking point of this whole topic....

I cannot be bothered carrying this discussion on any more, KoL summed it up well, and I don't believe any other FPS on a console looks as good as KZ2. Even the Crysis devs were pinpointing it as the title they said Crysis 2 would beat, wonder why?

GOW2 is not a FPS. Doesn't splitscreen effect graphics? If so, why is that not part of the topic? Are particles/physics not part of the graphics? Then why can't we talk meat cube physics/graphics?

Why is it selective based what you want to discuss?

:sleep: Stretching....

Of course Bob. BTW, I'm flattered that you follow all my posts letting me know of your opposing opinion. It's cute.

[HawkMan]

oh yeah that video is awesome at showign the differences

liek the pre baked lighitng on the characters.

oh and the commenter guy (yeah he's not a KZ2 fanboy pickign the best scenes to compare or anything) "notice how KZ devs wants to show the player how kickass their lighting system is" seriously, god rays is not kick ass lighting, It's there to hide the lack of details, and wow look at all that blur and bloom covering up everything.. AWESOME!!!! NEXT GEN!!!!!!!!

How the gun functions have about zero to do with the graphics. That is purely about the gameplay wich isn't the same in the two games. But that scene did help show off the horrible terrible lame ass KZ2 smoke effects *groan*

"the explosions are arguably the best in any game" ...... O_O..... was he looking at the same shot I was.... well at least he's not a fanboy, makign a youtube video claiming his choice of console is better than the other.... :rolleyes:

Ending the clip with a cinematic showing awesome dynamic lighting on everythign in GW2, while KZ2 shows off... flat pre baked lighting and general dull lifeless characters with zombie skin... Are they zombies ? I don't remember that they where.... And did you see that AWESOME Water in KZ2... looks just like the water I saw in some game back in 2002, right down to the lack of any motion when the giant effing tropp carrier crashed into it creating the lamest water splash effect ever. and also with the bloom again. Everythignis either flat pre baked or bloomed to hell and back.

the gameplay part is irrelevant.

You seriously use THAT clip to claim KZ2 looks better...

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

I couldn't help myself here, but an impressive lighting system is there to hide a lack of detail? This thread is a goldmine for awesome quotes :laugh:

From launch era 360 titles looking on par, to the above comment, thanks HawkMan, you delivered (Y)

[Emn1ty]

If you don't need a PS3 to judge then you'll love youtube, I've posted this a few times, but KZ2's engine is better than Gears

Saying MW running at 600p looks better than Killzone 2 is a laugh and a half.

I think I should bring up Halo 3 in this graphical debate by showcasing a video or two about why I feel Halo 3 has done some amazing things in its engine. Something Killzone and Gears cannot claim to have.

Skybox and atmospheric density example (mute this please, the song is hard to listen to) -

Start watching this video at 2:35 -

Graphics are very relative. Looking good and performing good are the two conditions for a game's graphics to be outstanding. Killzone 2 did look great, but after about 10 minutes the graphical awesome wears off and the game shines through that. Honestly the game was average at best. This is the problem with aiming at a realistic look, in my opinion. Players are looking to escape reality and the closer something looks to that reality the faster they turn off. A good example of this is movies today and fifteen years ago.

Fifteen to twenty years ago movies were largely prop/set based. If there was any CG it was mostly minimal and subtle. But despite the cheesy nature of the props and special effects in the eyes of today they were still extremely believable at the time. Why? Cause they were actually happening on screen. There was no fakeness to it other than the fakeness of the actual rubber or whatever on screen. Now almost everything is done with computer generation. Creatures, stunts, destruction, etc. Only a few movies have really been able to pull this off and a majority of the time people will notice right away, no matter how good it is, that it isn't real. Games need to understand that until the graphical bar is high enough for us to near perfectly mimic reality, realistic looks won't keep people playing.

The game is what matters and honestly when it comes to the graphical argument it is all about what the engine can handle. All Killzone 2's engine could handle was some epic lighting and crap tons of blurring. The rest was really just smoke and mirrors with an extremely easy to render out grey environment. They skimped in color palate to increase resolution and lighting effects.

Halo 3, and for that ODST and Reach have not. Not only do they have brilliant color palates but their engine can render miles of information on the screen. It is all there, in game. Its not some painted backdrop. The clouds exist in the game, the ships, the monumental features in the distance, etc. On top of that, the game looks wonderful. Its crisp, has some great textures, and the particles are outstanding (especially now in Halo Reach).

If this argument about what "you think looks the best", then I would probably say eight time out of ten that Killzone 2, Gears of War 2, God of War 3 or Uncharted 2 will take the claim. But if graphical comparison is not just about looks, but performance and engine power I would gladly hand that trophy to Halo, Gears or Crysis. Their engines are what are pushing the graphical benchmark in more ways than one.

I may not have addresses why I didn't include Uncharted in most of this, nor as one with a brilliant engine. It is like Half Life 2, largely pre-scripted and loosely player Dependant. It is almost on rails and therefore the game has skimped in terms of world to bring you more immersive gameplay. Thats not bad, but the engine probably doesn't give the same amount freedom that the three that I listed above use. I think the game looks great, but that is really all it has going for it. And I hate games that only have looks on their side to be honest.

[CGar]

KZ2 has an impressive lighting system? Er... no

I don't think you understand what is meant when they keep saying "pre-rendered lighting" or "baked lighting"

I'm not 100% sure on this, but those models were absolutely fugly in KZ2, plus look how washed out the textures are compared to the gears armor. I remember reading somewhere that the face poly count for KZ2 is pretty high, but they never mentioned anything about the body poly count (which is like 90% of what you see)

[Sethos]

Well, developers are sure going to like some of the puppets in here - No need to provide stunning environments, great effects and stunning pure visuals; just give them muddy textures, a colour palette from the depths

of hell and extremely confined spaces with like 3 enemies per part of the map and they are a bunch of happy campers. Killzone 2 is not a visual wonder when you actually have eyes in your skull, when you know how they are tricking

the user into thinking everything looks so great but everything is basically an eye-cheat from start till finish - I've never seen anything like it and when you know what to look for, it stands out!

Oh and that GoW / KZ video linked, right off the bat you see an extremely muddy textures soldier in Killzone 2 and then you move on to the PRE-RENDERED god-rays from outside, they are FAKE, they aren't DYNAMIC

they are cheap effects to cover up the rest of the warehouse which is filled with simple geometry, rubbish textures and a really drab design and it's compared to a quite stunning scene from Gears of War where they are

using as much of the engines raw power to create the scene, instead of eye-trickery and hiding the actual level. And the rest has nothing to do with the engine, it's a design choice - Changing explosions, adding dust and debris

from bullet hits and all that is a DESIGN CHOICE - Every freakin' engine can do that.

And that is not saying Gears of War is a marvel either but trying to constantly make Killzone 2 appear to be some visual monster is a joke and that also means, I'm not saying

Killzone 2 looks completely bad, because it does look good but there's too much eye-trickery, effect masking, seriously scripted events and use of special effects for it to be a contender for anything.

And yes, Gears of War 1/2 also uses a lot of techniques to 'hide' engine flaws and drawbacks from the player but Killzone 2 takes the cake and it's at a level that is almost unacceptable.

[HawkMan]

I couldn't help myself here, but an impressive lighting system is there to hide a lack of detail? This thread is a goldmine for awesome quotes :laugh:

From launch era 360 titles looking on par, to the above comment, thanks HawkMan, you delivered (Y)

If you notice what I actually said. I only quoted the fanboy commenter saying it was unimpressive lighting system. I actually said the lighting system itself was a pile of dog crap of pre baked textures. flat shading, lack of actual dynamic lighting. God rays and bloom is NOT, I repeat NOT, and I may repeat again NOT impressive lighting. it's cheap tricks. takes me 2 seconds when I render a 2D scene to add bloom to it, as a bonus, the bloom makes it look slightly more impressive, it also smooth everything out and hides the lack of detail I didn't do yet. bloom is a tool of the lazy.

[Sethos]

And just to add, the only time god rays are impressive or can be classified as being part of a good lighting system is; when they are dynamic! Meaning they will 'interact' with objects, shift as you move

and actually provide to the atmosphere. Having a 5000 watt lightning bulb just showering the scene with completely unnatural light and then sprinkle it with fist sized pieces of dust sprites isn't an impressive lighting system.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Pile of dog crap? Really? I would expect the lighting in Terminator Salvation to be described as that. Jeeez the haters are strong in here, go watch the 3 part Digital Foundry look at Killzone 2 and stop trying to talk about a game you haven't even played HawkMan, it's so blatantly obvious you're trying to bash something you have no real depth of concept in. Although as I've said it's produced some of the best quotes I've seen on Neowin in ages, I'll never forget the 360 launch era titles looking on par with KZ2 :p

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Guerilla Games have produced a technical showcase that maximises the strengths of the PS3 hardware and minimises the weaknesses by factoring in the system's limitations into both the engine design and crucially, the artistic direction. There's nothing else on any other system that looks quite like it, and in motion virtually everything is superbly realised.

[Sethos]

Pile of dog crap? Really? I would expect the lighting in Terminator Salvation to be described as that. Jeeez the haters are strong in here, go watch the 3 part Digital Foundry look at Killzone 2 and stop trying to talk about a game you haven't even played HawkMan, it's so blatantly obvious you're trying to bash something you have no real depth concept of in. Although as I've said it's produced some of the best quotes I've seen on Neowin in ages, I'll never forget the 360 launch era titles looking on par with KZ2 :p

Just funny he's exactly spot-on and I've basically just echoed what he said :rolleyes: He is spot-on with the game and anyone with just a tiny grain of experience in graphic engines can see this game for what it really is;

a graphical illusion from start till finish.

You just link to 40 different videos making this an all-night cinema experience and then you bash Hawk.

[Emn1ty]

There is a difference between actual lighting and mapped lighting with a baked texture. One is real, one is fake.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

There is a difference between actual lighting and mapped lighting with a baked texture. One is real, one is fake.

And?

If it looks impressive, it looks impressive.

[SimplySchizo]

Thanks to you guys I've gained a whole new level of respect for KZ2.

They've managed to convince the world that the devil does not exist.

Here's to the Usual Suspect of console gaming then, Bravo!

[HawkMan]

Pile of dog crap? Really? I would expect the lighting in Terminator Salvation to be described as that. Jeeez the haters are strong in here, go watch the 3 part Digital Foundry look at Killzone 2 and stop trying to talk about a game you haven't even played HawkMan, it's so blatantly obvious you're trying to bash something you have no real depth of concept in. Although as I've said it's produced some of the best quotes I've seen on Neowin in ages, I'll never forget the 360 launch era titles looking on par with KZ2 :p

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Who said that.

I see your back to your usual tactics when you're backed in a corner, lie, deceit bad quotes and simply ignore posts you can't fight.

As was suggested above, I don't think you truly understand what Baked lighting really means. not the first time you would discuss something you obviously don't understand though.

Dog crap might be taking it to the extreme. but compared to the actual dynamic lighting in the side by side comparisons in the video, yes, it's pretty crap. flat, bland, lack of decent shading. and baked, baked to hell and back.

Bakign is nice when it's subtle and not used on the primary lights so it isn't blatantly obvious that you're baking. like for a faint skylight you can bake. They're baking a freaking 50000 watt skylight on everything. Giving the trademark claymodel look, then they slap some lame dynamic specular on top of that.

of course baked shading will always look better than dynamic shading. But it's not dynamic and that kills it the second it's not a screenshot.

And you keep claiming I haven't played it and whatever, it's the only defense you have, and it's not like I can prove it to you so you can keep claiming it forever.

Of course, I know what I have and have not done, I also know what I know and don't know about 3D rendering and game rendering, and I know I can spot fake baked lighting from a mile away.

Arguing with you is like arguing with a Christian whether jesus really did make water into wine.

[Emn1ty]

Arguing with you is like arguing with a Christian whether jesus really did make water into wine.

Watch it. Lets not start this kind of crap.

I will ask you, audio, have you ever worked with a 3D program or a game engine?

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Who said that.

I see your back to your usual tactics when you're backed in a corner, lie, deceit bad quotes and simply ignore posts you can't fight.

As was suggested above, I don't think you truly understand what Baked lighting really means. not the first time you would discuss something you obviously don't understand though.

Dog crap might be taking it to the extreme. but compared to the actual dynamic lighting in the side by side comparisons in the video, yes, it's pretty crap. flat, bland, lack of decent shading. and baked, baked to hell and back.

Bakign is nice when it's subtle and not used on the primary lights so it isn't blatantly obvious that you're baking. like for a faint skylight you can bake. They're baking a freaking 50000 watt skylight on everything. Giving the trademark claymodel look, then they slap some lame dynamic specular on top of that.

of course baked shading will always look better than dynamic shading. But it's not dynamic and that kills it the second it's not a screenshot.

And you keep claiming I haven't played it and whatever, it's the only defense you have, and it's not like I can prove it to you so you can keep claiming it forever.

Of course, I know what I have and have not done, I also know what I know and don't know about 3D rendering and game rendering, and I know I can spot fake baked lighting from a mile away.

Arguing with you is like arguing with a Christian whether jesus really did make water into wine.

You...

but KZ2.... why doe people even mention that along with UC2... it's not even the same class. it didn't even look better than older 360 games at launch.

Congrats HawkMan, another entry to the ignore list, you're number 3 :happy:

Oh and if you actually want to watch the developers make the game and show off the engine and what is really going on, watch this 42 minute documentary with them - www.gamekings.tv/index/videos/minidocu-the-company-behind-killzone-2-full-version-subbed/

There's also a shorter video tech interview here on GT - www.gametrailers.com/video/tech-interview-killzone-2/43388

Maybe then you'll know what to talk about. Adios!