[PSman]

Which one is more impressive technically?

I have always feel that KZ2 and KZ3 are the best looking consoles FPS right now.and are two of the best looking games this gen. Crysis 2 for consoles is also a very pretty looking shooter with its larger and more open ended environment and great lighting. Unfortunately, Crysis 2 also have many technical issues like: sud-HD, inconsistent textures quality, textures pop-in, slow down/frame rate drop, very long load time, average character models and stiff/choppy animations. So in all I feel that KZ2 and KZ3 are much more technically impressive games.

What is your guys take on this?

[Jedi2016]

My initial reaction would be that KZ is built natively for PS3, while Crysis is a port. Hardware compatibility will always make a difference. Exclusives in general, on both sides, tend to outperform cross-platform games.

Beyond that, I wouldn't be in a position to provide any actual comparisons, since I haven't played Killzone, and I've only played Crysis on Xbox (beta) and PC (retail).

[JB9861]

Are you blown away by KZ or something? I glanced at the thread where you compared the CG trailer and the final product. I'd go with KZ2 because I prefer the art look to the other two options. There isn't any particular bullet points or tech achievements that really sways me between the choices overall so I'll just fall back to art.

I'm more impressed by the original Crysis PSN port because I thought performance and environment detail would be worse than what it turned out to be on PS3 and was surprised. And Battlefield 3 because of the scale, amount of dynamic lights, and destruction. Effects, LOD and texture quality aren't very good compared to PC but I liked the fidelity relative to other games on the current platforms. That's my brief take.

[Gitaroo]

a lot of the modern tech or standard these days that were said to be in the KZ games never made it in. Like SSAO from KZ2 slides didn't even make it into KZ3 beside their recorded vid cut scene and it didnt even look that good. GG said they were doing some research or dynamic radiocity or something, never seen anything out of that. KZ3 has some very sharp texture, one of the better on from console FPS, great art, but the low res buffer is too distracting and ruined the overall graphic consistency to me in KZ3. They looks like 2d bitmap and lacks depth and detail. I actually thought KZ2 smoke and explosion looks a lot better than 2.

[Arwin]

I think Crysis 2 didn't use SPUs to alleviate RSX bottlenecks yet. And it only had a generic model for running jobs on either PPU or SPU. For the port of the original Crysis, they may have improved this, as it would almost certainly be running on a never version of the engine.

What I personally loved about Killzone 3 was the sum of all parts, especially from about chapter 5 onwards. I have actually never even been a big fan of the art style. I actually think that one of the reasons Killzone hasn't reached Halo or CoD status yet is because its art style isn't good and consistent enough. But the overal aliveness of the environment, the size and draw distance, quality of the textured and so many things going on, seas, flags, snow, wind etc. at the same time really made it stand out to me. Combined with the absolute brilliant and standard setting Move implementation it is currently still my favorite fps since the doom and quake days.

[Kameradschaft]

Of course the Killzone games are the most impressive - Crysis 2 on the consoles runs really bad, PS3 in particular runs at a low resolution and has temporal AA which hurts even more the IQ.

Personally not a fan of the Killzone series as far as gameplay and art-direction goes but the tech/engine Guerilla made is undoubtedly amazing.

[ultragpu]

I think KZ3 has the best balance in graphical features, image quality and performance when compared to the other two. It has an immediate leap over KZ2 in terms of high res textures, more polygons on screen, much bigger scale and better character models. Speaking of particles, yes they have cut back from the rather amazing looking volumetric particles in KZ2, but still they are very abundant on screen and definitely more so than in KZ2.
On the other hand the darker and grittier style of KZ2 along with that shadow casting muzzle flash, volumetric particles and more prominent OMB brings out the unique KZ look more.
As for Crysis 2 it's got the longest laundry list of tech features but strongly hindered by an equally long list of technical issues. Sub HD, sever pop ins, ghosting, blurry textures, less than stellar AA and low fps really drag it down.
Personally I would pick KZ2 to showcase the tech mainly due to its unique look and no game does a "theater of war" as surreal as this game does.

[Billy Idol]

For me, KZ2 is definitively champion for me when factoring in art, design and graphics!

Technically, it's BF3.

[Laa-Yosh]

The KZ games are also making significant compromises, just not in the resolution. The color precision is terrible and all the post processing makes it even worse.

But it doesn't really matter as I also expect this thread to be closed just as the other one about the CG trailer was.

[PSman]

Originally Posted by Laa-Yosh

The KZ games are also making significant compromises, just not in the resolution. The color precision is terrible and all the post processing makes it even worse.

But it doesn't really matter as I also expect this thread to be closed just as the other one about the CG trailer was.

What is wrong with the post precessing? KZ2 has a great film-like look to it and KZ3 image quality is second to none. . As for the the color I think the KZ games portray the war torn setting very well and the color suit them.

There's no reason for this thread to be close, it's a legitimate thread.

[Kameradschaft]

Originally Posted by Laa-Yosh

The KZ games are also making significant compromises, just not in the resolution. The color precision is terrible and all the post processing makes it even worse.

But it doesn't really matter as I also expect this thread to be closed just as the other one about the CG trailer was.

Doesn't almost every console game make some significant compromises? See Halo 4 which looks amazing IMO but lacks SSAO and motion blur when compared to Reach for example to achieve a better IQ, it's fixed hardware that we're talking about so I guess that's expected.

Thing is that even if Crysis 2 does some really impressive things on the consoles (which surely does) the most disappointing thing is that the frame-rate doesn't hold up even if they went sub-HD with a cheap AA solution.

Personally I can't consider a game where the frame-rate goes down to 18-25fps a lot of the time a technical marvel even if it does things that no other game does but that's just me.

Originally Posted by PSman

What is wrong with the post precessing? KZ2 has a great film-like look to it and KZ3 image quality is second to none. . As for the the color I think the KZ games portray the war torn setting very well and the color suit them.

There's no reason for this thread to be close, it's a legitimate thread.

KZ3 IQ is second to none? you're clearly overreacting...if anything the IQ and MLAA in particular is a mixed bag on KZ3, there are places that are very clear while in others the shimmering is really apparent.

I'd say that KZ2 even if it has QAA and has a slight blur when compared to KZ3 has better IQ IMO, in fact it's a rare case where QAA actually fits the art direction and the overall look of the game resulting in a more CG like look.

[Billy Idol]

Originally Posted by Kameradschaft

Doesn't almost every console game make some significant compromises? See Halo 4 which looks amazing IMO but lacks SSAO and motion blur when compared to Reach for example to achieve a better IQ, it's fixed hardware that we're talking about so I guess that's expected.

Thing is that even if Crysis 2 does some really impressive things on the consoles (which surely does) the most disappointing thing is that the frame-rate doesn't hold up even if they went sub-HD with a cheap AA solution.

Personally I can't consider a game where the frame-rate goes down to 18-25fps a lot of the time a technical marvel even if it does things that no other game does but that's just me.



KZ3 IQ is second to none? you're clearly overreacting...if anything the IQ and MLAA in particular is a mixed bag on KZ3, there are places that are very clear while in others the shimmering is really apparent.

I'd say that KZ2 even if it has QAA and has a slight blur when compared to KZ3 has better IQ IMO, in fact it's a rare case where QAA actually fits the art direction and the overall look of the game resulting in a more CG like look.

I agree, KZ3 IQ is not good, and AA is a clear step back compared to KZ2. MLAA does not work at all, except for the jungle level, where it works really good.

With respect to KZ2, the postprocessing is indeed the feature what makes it special to me. What I like best: if you watch the KZ2 making of, all the developers talked about what their goal was with the post processing, what the call the 'analogous' look - if find it astounding that they did all this on purpose and everything they intended actually clicked with me the same way they wanted...

But technically, I think the lack of some form of HDR rendering is a really dramatic compromise...

Technically, it must be BF3, because they have destruction. In my opinion, destruction is one of the most important features an action game should have...but only DICE seems to understand...that is why for me, all other games are just one league below.

PS: if only people who actually played the considered games would offer an opinion about those very games, lot's of threads wouldn't get derailed and hence closed.

[Prophecy2k]

Originally Posted by Billy Idol

I agree, KZ3 IQ is not good, and AA is a clear step back compared to KZ2. MLAA does not work at all, except for the jungle level, where it works really good.

With respect to KZ2, the postprocessing is indeed the feature what makes it special to me. What I like best: if you watch the KZ2 making of, all the developers talked about what their goal was with the post processing, what the call the 'analogous' look - if find it astounding that they did all this on purpose and everything they intended actually clicked with me the same way they wanted...

But technically, I think the lack of some form of HDR rendering is a really dramatic compromise...

Technically, it must be BF3, because they have destruction. In my opinion, destruction is one of the most important features an action game should have...but only DICE seems to understand...that is why for me, all other games are just one league below.

PS: if only people who actually played the considered games would offer an opinion about those very games, lot's of threads wouldn't get derailed and hence closed.

Did you ever play Red Faction guerilla? That game is technically one of the greatest games of the gen for me, if only because of how satisfyingly brilliant the destruction was.

Imho, KZ2 & 3 impress me more, both in what they are doing technically, in performance (on PS3) but mostly due to their superior art direction. I LOVE the art in the KZ universe, although I think KZ2 was more consistent than 3.

Crysis 2's art is quite nice (what more can you expect from a realistic modern setting), untill the aliens come on screen (i.e. most of the game) and then it just gets jarring. The Crysis 2 aliens are the single worst artistic deviation this gen for me. They're so inconsistent with the look of the aliens in Crysis 1, and even on their own they look totally uninspired, generic and almost cartoony in what is probably one of the most realistic looking FPS series this gen. It just doesn't work.

[Laa-Yosh]

Originally Posted by PSman

What is wrong with the post precessing?

There are serious precision issues, lack of dynamic range, quantization etc.

There's no reason for this thread to be close, it's a legitimate thread.

It's the same "wanking about PS3" type thread that the other was. Does not belong at B3D.

[Laa-Yosh]

Originally Posted by Kameradschaft

Doesn't almost every console game make some significant compromises?

That was my point...

See Halo 4 which looks amazing IMO but lacks SSAO and motion blur when compared to Reach for example to achieve a better IQ, it's fixed hardware that we're talking about so I guess that's expected.

SSAO is a hack to compensate for low fidelity indirect lighting. Most realtime implementations are way too strong and become a stylized element of the image instead of increasing the realism - I personally can live without it.

Thing is that even if Crysis 2 does some really impressive things on the consoles (which surely does) the most disappointing thing is that the frame-rate doesn't hold up even if they went sub-HD with a cheap AA solution.

See my point about compromises again...

[Laa-Yosh]

Crysis 2 aliens are heavily borrowed from the Michael Bay Transformers robot design... All in all design isn't Crytek's strength at all, I think the nanosuit is totally uninspired as well - but they're pretty good in everything else that's based on real life, like for example military hardware and foliage.

[Billy Idol]

Originally Posted by Prophecy2k

Did you ever play Red Faction guerilla? That game is technically one of the greatest games of the gen for me, if only because of how satisfyingly brilliant the destruction was.

Yep, I did. Just bought this and Red Faction Armageddon now at steam sales...yep, those games and BF games are the best, but than in comparison I think that BF is better than Red Faction series.

I did not play Crysis on consoles, it has good destruction on PC as well, whereas Crysis2 does not have any significant destruction.

In comparison to KZ2, I also think that KZ3 reduced destruction drastically...

[PSman]

KZ3 IQ is second to none? you're clearly overreacting...if anything the IQ and MLAA in particular is a mixed bag on KZ3, there are places that are very clear while in others the shimmering is really apparent.

I personally very much like the way that MLAA is implemented in KZ3. Yes, the jaggies are more apparent in long edges and mechanical settings/environments - since MLAA is more effective in organic setting - but it (MLAA) compensates for that plenty by giving KZ3 a very sharp and crisp look. KZ3 is just so much brighter and more detail compare to KZ2. Not to mention the kickass texture quality - which is the best of any console FPS IMO.

That's what I meant by KZ3's IQ being second to none (on consoles)

It's the same "wanking about PS3" type thread that the other was. Does not belong at B3D.

It isn't at all. But in any case, we should try to steer away from that direction (console war) and focus on discussing the technical aspect of the games instead

[Arwin]

Yeah, personally I often felt like the first time I wore glasses. Wait, am I supposed to be able to see that far, that clearly?

In that sense, no contest from most other games to be honest.

I really look forward to next-gen though, if we can have the quality of colors and shadows of an Uncharted and the liveliness of environments of a Killzone, that'd be a big win.

[kagemaru]

Originally Posted by PSman

I personally very much like the way that MLAA is implemented in KZ3. Yes, the jaggies are more apparent in long edges and mechanical settings/environments - since MLAA is more effective in organic setting - but it (MLAA) compensates for that plenty by giving KZ3 a very sharp and crisp look. KZ3 is just so much brighter and more detail compare to KZ2. Not to mention the kickass texture quality - which is the best of any console FPS IMO.

That's what I meant by KZ3's IQ being second to none (on consoles)

You do realize that the two bolded parts contradict each other, right? MLAA isn't supposed to compensate for the jaggies, it's supposed to cover it up. I'm rarely a fan of QAA, but it fit the look well in KZ2 IMO, and did a much better job cleaning up the screen than MLAA.

Also, there really isn't special with KZ's texture work. Some of it is a bit low res, covered by high-frequency (detail) textures.

Originally Posted by PSman

It isn't at all. But in any case, we should try to steer away from that direction (console war) and focus on discussing the technical aspect of the games instead

He didn't bring console wars or comparisons into the thread, and really it's not in the thread at this point. There's still no need to prop a system or game(s) up on a pedestal when every piece of software has it's own share of sacrifices. Those drawbacks are still there, regardless if you see them or not.

[PSman]

Originally Posted by kagemaru

You do realize that the two bolded parts contradict each other, right? MLAA isn't supposed to compensate for the jaggies, it's supposed to cover it up. I'm rarely a fan of QAA, but it fit the look well in KZ2 IMO, and did a much better job cleaning up the screen than MLAA.

Also, there really isn't special with KZ's texture work. Some of it is a bit low res, covered by high-frequency (detail) textures.

Actually they do not contradict each other at all. What I was saying was that: even though MLAA is less effective in other part of the game (mostly the industrial setting) as a whole it still make up for it plenty by giving the game a very sharp/clear and crisp look, whereas the other AA method sacrifice clarity/image quality - by making it more blur - to reduce jaggies. Please read more carefully

[Kameradschaft]

Originally Posted by Laa-Yosh

That was my point...

SSAO is a hack to compensate for low fidelity indirect lighting. Most realtime implementations are way too strong and become a stylized element of the image instead of increasing the realism - I personally can live without it.

See my point about compromises again...

All games make compromises that's for sure, my point though was that Crysis 2 makes a lot more compromises than Killzone 2/3 IMO by having an inferior IQ AND low frame-rate at the same time in a genre where you need steady frame-rate and actually affects gameplay even if the game does some really impressive stuff visually.

It's all about finding a middle ground...Killzone 2/3, RDR (360), Gears 3 e.t.c. are more impressive than Crysis 2 at least IMO because they look excellent and run pretty good most of the time.

What I'm saying is that I don't care if there is a game on PS3 or 360 that has for example POM, high res textures, high quality motion blur e.t,c, but runs at 20fps most of the time...it may be impressive technically in the papers but if the game is not running decently there is no point in adding all these graphical bells & whistles IMO...that's actually my point of view as someone who loves videogames and enjoys reading stuff about tech/graphics but do not have the tech knowledge that most people here have.

[kagemaru]

Originally Posted by PSman

Actually they do not contradict each other at all. What I was saying was that: even though MLAA is less effective in other part of the game (mostly the industrial setting) as a whole it still make up for it plenty by giving the game a very sharp/clear and crisp look, whereas the other AA method sacrifice clarity/image quality - by making it more blur - to reduce jaggies. Please read more carefully

I read what you said just fine, but it still didn't make sense to me.

IMO the post proc effects made the blur introduced by QAA negligible. Besides, it fit the polluted aesthetics of the game world.

The flaws brought on by the MLAA stand out to me more than the blur filter applied by the QAA in KZ2. It was a less consistent overall image because of it.

But you are the one who thinks the textures are the best of any console shooter out there, so who am I to question your point of view...

Originally Posted by Kameradschaft

All games make compromises that's for sure, my point though was that Crysis 2 makes a lot more compromises than Killzone 2/3 IMO by having an inferior IQ AND low frame-rate at the same time in a genre where you need steady frame-rate and actually affects gameplay even if the game does some really impressive stuff visually.

KZ3 offers a more consistent experience, but it's possible C2 does more and pushes more on the screen. I remember a conversation here when Crysis 2 was near/at release and it was determined it pushed more geometry on the screen (for example), at least within the given scenes compared

While I agree that there are better looking games than Crysis 2, comparing these types of games is pretty much pointless. We usually don't have enough knowledge about what's going on behind the scenes that may be pushing these machines in ways we can't directly see on the screen. Different implementations, levels of optimizations, design goals, exclusive vs. multi-platform, etc. all make game comparisons a lose lose discussion in the end with nothing really to gain from it.

Besides there are people that thought, and still think, games like Shadow of the Colossus was one of the most impressive games last gen, even with it's dodgy frame rate. So I see no point in debating or discussing with people who believe Crysis 2 is more impressive than Games A, B, or C.

/ $.2 cents.

[L. Scofield]

Lighting wise it's no contest. Crysis 2 wins hands down. One of the best HDR implementations in consoles (whereas KZ2/3 are LDR only) coupled with 100% realtime dynamic lights and shadows. There's also image-based lighting support (for indirect lighting and reflections) and of course SSAO.

Originally Posted by ultragpu

I think KZ3 has the best balance in graphical features, image quality and performance when compared to the other two. It has an immediate leap over KZ2 in terms of high res textures, more polygons on screen, much bigger scale and better character models. Speaking of particles, yes they have cut back from the rather amazing looking volumetric particles in KZ2, but still they are very abundant on screen and definitely more so than in KZ2.
On the other hand the darker and grittier style of KZ2 along with that shadow casting muzzle flash, volumetric particles and more prominent OMB brings out the unique KZ look more.
As for Crysis 2 it's got the longest laundry list of tech features but strongly hindered by an equally long list of technical issues. Sub HD, sever pop ins, ghosting, blurry textures, less than stellar AA and low fps really drag it down.
Personally I would pick KZ2 to showcase the tech mainly due to its unique look and no game does a "theater of war" as surreal as this game does.

KZ2 doesn't use volumetric particles. That was just LoT's nonsense. They're sprites.

[Arwin]

I thought C2 on the consoles actually wasn't HDR?