Crysis 2 PS3 'performs better than 360 version'

[Smashing Pumpkin]

Ohhh dear this threads off course.

[AbandonedTrolley]

Ohhh dear this threads off course.

[Massiveterra]

While I don't take message boards or video gaming too seriously, I do think we have silent trolls in the midst of GH, who post things for the sole purpose of extracting certain emotions from certain people. It's very easy to tell which posts are genuine and which has ulterior motives, and while some people defend other people or attack other people it really doesn't matter because what's obvious is obvious. And some people may know the forum rules inside and out so moderators really can't do anything about it.

Another thing, I really don't understand why some people carry strong feelings toward a certain platforms over the other. Because when it comes down to it, these companies really don't care about you. And while hardware specs may be a good measure as far as a discussion, when it comes down to it, we like what we like.

[George P Global Moderator]

I don't think the topic went off at all. It's about gaming performance, which is often seen as graphics quality. That then lead to which games people think look the best on console atm, then that lead to why and why something like KZ2 is fake with loads of technical reasons. Anyone who knows a bit about 3D work can agree with those points, if you don't agree it's fine, but you can't actually disprove them either. This just made it go in circles between hawkman and AB.

Look at the CryEngine videos for christs sake, they have a very lengthy console only video of the engine running in real-time on both PS3 and 360, if you can notice anything feel free to fill me in, because I can't actually, (well, it's some minor lighting/color differences I'd say). Performance can mean anything, it doesn't automatically mean it'll look better though. It could just as well mean they can get 5fps more on the PS3, ok?

[Smashing Pumpkin]

While I don't take message boards or video gaming too seriously, I do think we have silent trolls in the midst of GH, who post things for the sole purpose of extracting certain emotions from certain people. It's very easy to tell which posts are genuine and which has ulterior motives, and while some people defend other people or attack other people it really doesn't matter because what's obvious is obvious. And some people may know the forum rules inside and out so moderators really can't do anything about it.

Another thing, I really don't understand why some people carry strong feelings toward a certain platforms over the other. Because when it comes down to it, these companies really don't care about you. And while hardware specs may be a good measure as far as a discussion, when it comes down to it, we like what we like.

This is all so very very true. People pledge allegiance to their hardware to cloud the fact that they're just secretly jealous of the other systems few and far between advantages but can't justify to afford it along with it's accessories, games etc. To the companies you're just another number. It's fascinating how there is such a rivalry in the gaming industry amongst not just hardcore fans but just everyday console owners. Capitalism at it's greatest.

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

This is all so very very true. People pledge allegiance to their hardware to cloud the fact that they're just secretly jealous of the other systems few and far between advantages but can't justify to afford it along with it's accessories, games etc. To the companies you're just another number. It's fascinating how there is such a rivalry in the gaming industry amongst not just hardcore fans but just everyday console owners. Capitalism at it's greatest.

[Smashing Pumpkin]

snip

And there you show how you're able to live by such a statement. You own both :)

[Sethos]

And you people were moaning about off-topic :rolleyes: ?

[Max_Payne_UK]

Why, because you don't share the same passion?

If it bothers you, there's an excellent ignore feature (Y)

No, not at all. This isn't passion, it's pathetic.

I've said my piece now, so that's it. As for the ignore feature, I shall not be using that.

[Tha Bloo Monkee]

I think I can confidently say that this will look best on a PC. PC whoops a consoles ass anyday of the week.

That's definitely true - IF your PC can handle it. For a PC game to look and perform better than a console it's going to cost you A LOT more than buying a console.

PS3 is what? Roughly $300? A PC to handle Crysis 2 and play better than a console would easily cost $1000+.

Edit: Whoa just realized I quoted somebody from the first page and this is the 13th page, lol.

[Smashing Pumpkin]

Yes, I was. And?

My point was a general discussion topic not bitching about whose friends and who isn't.

[Sethos]

No, not at all. This isn't passion, it's pathetic.

I've said my piece now, so that's it. As for the ignore feature, I shall not be using that.

Registering new accounts constantly and pretending to be new is even more pathetic.

Oh well, never mind.

Yes, I was. And?

My point was a general discussion topic not bitching about whose friends and who isn't.

So you're off-topic discussion is fine while ours isn't - Gotcha.

[Smashing Pumpkin]

So you're off-topic discussion is fine while ours isn't - Gotcha.

I don't mean any quarrel man I'm just saying, I didn't ever once refer to your discussion specifically.

What I meant was the impression I was receiving from glancing over the thread was that some people were just whining about other users. That's not discussion at all.

[Sethos]

I don't mean any quarrel man I'm just saying, I didn't ever once refer to your discussion specifically.

What I meant was the impression I was receiving from glancing over the thread was that some people were just whining about other users. That's not discussion at all.

I was speaking on behalf on those involved, the discussion about who's friends or not started just recently - Go check it out :)

Most of the thread has been on key and was a fair discussion, going a bit off-topic happens and starting to post pictures and commenting every time the thread

isn't EXACTLY on topic gets old quickly - No offence ( Know you weren't the only one involved ). Didn't mean anything by it but discussions do veer to the left

and right some times (Y)

[andrewbares]

Untill it moves

say you have a baked skylight with a character in a standard position hands down at the sides. you get the typic clay model rendering, looks really impressive for the laymen, nice shading and all.

then you raise his arms up as if someones pointing a gun at him... oh wait.. the shading stays the same, for sime reason his sides are still shades as if his arms where blocking light.... oooh impressive.

the sad thing is of course, that a lot of people wouldn't even notice this shading flaw and thing the shadows still look impressive.

that's untill you pyt it side by side(like that video) to a scene with actual dynamic shading, the shading isn't as smooth, or crisp, but it's moves accurately and for some reaosn you can't really explain (unless you've actually eorked with 3D and shading and know the difference) despite the slightly uglier shadows, the whole thing looks better. it's suddenly got "life"

Show me one instance where what you said in bold happens in Killzone 2. Shadows match exactly what the characters are doing....just like they should.

About dynamic lighting in KZ2, show me one game that actually creates shadows from the muzzle flashes of a gun! There is no game like that, I am quite sure. If that isn't dynamic lighting for you (a true light source - muzzle flash - casting shadows on surrounding players), then I don't know what is.

And the lens glare, or bloom as I think you called it, is completely dynamic too. An explosion will create that lens glare, as will sunlight, and even if a ship flys over the sun, that will be reflected in the lens glare perfectly, which is entirely dynamic. Static would be where the sky always creates the same lens glare no matter what buildings/objects are in front of it.

Killzone is heavy on ATMOSPHERE. You are meant to feel like you're on a different planet, where everything IS bleak, since this is the ENEMY planet. If everything was holly-jolly with pretty roses all over, you're not going to feel a great motive to kill these evil fellows. So when people say that the environment is bleak, that's exactly the intention. What brings it to life is the dynamic lighting, dynamic lens glares, and the dynamic shadows that illuminate a dark passageway when you fire off your weapon, casting shadows that are relative to your guns position and the objects around you.

[Emn1ty]

About dynamic lighting in KZ2, show me one game that actually creates shadows from the muzzle flashes of a gun! There is no game like that, I am quite sure. If that isn't dynamic lighting for you (a true light source - muzzle flash - casting shadows on surrounding players), then I don't know what is.

Most shooters have muzzle flare which casts shadows...

And the lens glare, or bloom as I think you called it, is completely dynamic too. An explosion will create that lens glare, as will sunlight, and even if a ship flys over the sun, that will be reflected in the lens glare perfectly, which is entirely dynamic. Static would be where the sky always creates the same lens glare no matter what buildings/objects are in front of it.

Most shooters do this too, its not that impressive. The difference is the lighting will actually change depending on environment, where most of Killzone 2's environment is painted, not real. Still, a majority of the detail in the environment is not present in the characters themselves. If you look at that Gears comparison vs. Killzone, the Gears character models are far more detailed even if they aren't as "real". Then you look at the environments in both and then the number of enemies per encounter, Gears is far above Killzone 2.

Killzone is heavy on ATMOSPHERE. You are meant to feel like you're on a different planet, where everything IS bleak, since this is the ENEMY planet. If everything was holly-jolly with pretty roses all over, you're not going to feel a great motive to kill these evil fellows. So when people say that the environment is bleak, that's exactly the intention. What brings it to life is the dynamic lighting, dynamic lens glares, and the dynamic shadows that illuminate a dark passageway when you fire off your weapon, casting shadows that are relative to your guns position and the objects around you.

Bleak isn't five shades of grey. Thats bland. Its an excuse to save power to increase poly count. But even then, all the other factors come down to the skimped portions of the other game just to achieve that look. There are few enemies per encounter, color palate is poor and uninteresting (not even close to what reality would have it be, CoD and Gears 1 are more colorful than Killzone 2) and lastly the gameplay is fairly average. Even the dynamic movement they incorporated is a bit gimpy and inconsistent making play all the harder.

The biggest problem with this discussion is that we are discussion ENGINE POWER, not how good the game looks. Power is far more technical than the relative opinions of what does and does not look good. Sure, Killzone 2 looks good, but the engine sacrafices most gameplay features just to be so.

[Kreuger]

I dont care that it performs better as I have no interest in it but the fact they said the PS3 is not any harder to develop for is pretty interesting

[Massiveterra]

The quoted article in the original post has nothing to do with graphics LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

So that means EVERYTHING is off topic

[WastedJoker]

Most shooters have muzzle flare which casts shadows...

Most shooters do this too, its not that impressive. The difference is the lighting will actually change depending on environment, where most of Killzone 2's environment is painted, not real. Still, a majority of the detail in the environment is not present in the characters themselves. If you look at that Gears comparison vs. Killzone, the Gears character models are far more detailed even if they aren't as "real". Then you look at the environments in both and then the number of enemies per encounter, Gears is far above Killzone 2.

Bleak isn't five shades of grey. Thats bland. Its an excuse to save power to increase poly count. But even then, all the other factors come down to the skimped portions of the other game just to achieve that look. There are few enemies per encounter, color palate is poor and uninteresting (not even close to what reality would have it be, CoD and Gears 1 are more colorful than Killzone 2) and lastly the gameplay is fairly average. Even the dynamic movement they incorporated is a bit gimpy and inconsistent making play all the harder.

The biggest problem with this discussion is that we are discussion ENGINE POWER, not how good the game looks. Power is far more technical than the relative opinions of what does and does not look good. Sure, Killzone 2 looks good, but the engine sacrafices most gameplay features just to be so.

which gameplay features was it lacking? :wacko:

[Draken]

It's a list of those who contribute the most to think they own the gaming forums except and must include DM it seems.

Fixed :rofl:

Mines shorter, but yes, Neowin became magically lighter (Y)

[HawkMan]

Fixed :rofl:

Mines shorter, but yes, Neowin became magically lighter (Y)

Then he's missing some, though I don't think it'd be possible for him to put at least one of them on the list...

[George P Global Moderator]

The quoted article in the original post has nothing to do with graphics LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

So that means EVERYTHING is off topic

It said "performance", as far as games go or console hardware that shows in the graphics. So they go hand in hand. Nothing was off topic really. Then again "performance" as they state could just be a matter of one having a few more frames per second over the other, but they'll look the same.

[soniqstylz]

That was fun to read. Completely inaccurate on everything you said, but fun. it's like little random PS3 hardware comments from random forums on the web thrown together in a bowl mixed together and sort of patched together into a post :)

Actually, you've been completely innaccurate this entire thread.

edit: at least up until page 6... by that point this thread had devolved into such internet fan-drivel (on all sides) I stopped reading.

[Draken]

Then he's missing some, though I don't think it'd be possible for him to put at least one of them on the list...

yup, you can't block yourself sadly :cry:

btw I was not talking about you ;)

and back on topic............. hey ! there's no topic :ermm:

[andrewbares]

Most shooters have muzzle flare which casts shadows...

How about you answer the question. Show me one shooter that casts shadows from muzzle flashes. None that I have played, except Killzone 2, do this. MANY shooters will "illuminate" the area around the gun, but if you actually look closely, it's simply increasing the brightness on the objects in a certain radius, it does NOT create shadows.

So, if you're shooting next to a pillar, in most shooters, a circle on the ground and the pillar will be illuminated. Even the area behind the pillar will be increased in brightness, which doesn't make sense, because there's a pillar blocking that light! Try the same thing in Killzone, and you will see that that area is actually in a shadow. I haven't seen any other games do this, even Uncharted 2 doesn't, and Gears of War 2 doesn't, and Modern Warfare 2 also doesn't do it. I think Crysis may have had this, but it was a while ago that I played it. So, answer my question, will you?