[L. Scofield]

http://www.lensoftruth.com/?p=27215

The most noticeable enhancement when using deferred rendering is how it handles lighting and post processing effects. As seen in our images below, Killzone 2 and Crysis 2 have some killer lighting effects that can only be appreciated in real-time, but there are some differences we noticed. We felt that Killzone 2’s lighting seemed more aggressive throughout, for example, when we tossed a grenade and watched it explode the light that was created from the explosion also emitted a slew of different lighting and soft particles effects that left you in awe. Where not saying that Crysis 2 explosions looked bad, its just that Killzone 2’s explosions and soft particle effects looked more fluid and robust. Moving onto native resolutions.

Lastly, both Killzone 2 MP and the Crysis 2 MP demo utilized a Real Time Soft Particle System. This system simplifies the creation of extremely complex explosions, fire, smoke, and other special effects using next generation soft particles. This in turn can be affected by: collisions with any other objects, forces such as wind or gravity, and can also interact with lights and shadows.

I can't believe people actually take this site seriously *mega facepalm*

[kagemaru]

Originally Posted by Nebula

Since there is some tiny amount of tearing the vsync option for 360 might be soft-vsync (EDRAM limitation?) while PS3 has regular vsync with tripplebuffering?

I'm not sure they would want to use tripplebuffering with people already complaining about laggy controls in the 360 version.

Originally Posted by Kameradschaft

I can't see how anyone can say that Crysis 2 will be the best looking console game...isn't it a bit early? because from what we've seen sure the game looks nice and tech-features wise might be impressive for a console game but it also has some serious shortcomings - mainly the ugly IQ, the annoying LOD and the low resolution particles which btw all 3 areas are worse than you average high-profile game.

From what I've played all the good and impressive things that this game does (GI, OMB, HDR e.t.c.) are dragged down mainly by the IQ and LOD problems...in it's current state I don't think that Crysis 2 will hold a candle against games like Killzone 3, Uncharted 3 and Gears of War 3 IMO.

Not sure why you're mentioning low resolution particles when plenty of high-profile games like KZ2, GoW3, and Uncharted use them.

Also I'd wait to see how the single player looks before making any claims just yet. IIRC the MP was toned down pretty significantly in Crysis and Crysis warhead MP modes.

Besides, I'm never one to label any one game "the best" in anything. It's too much of a general statement when too many factors don't allow an accurate or fair comparison.

Originally Posted by Karamazov

i don't know if it's because i play too much black ops, but the framerate of the demo is not smooth at all, it feels like it's under 30fps, more like 20-25, the blur effect when moving makes it worse, i thought motion blur was supposed to smoothe the animation ?

According the frame rate analysis, it's pretty rock solid, though I'll admit the video wasn't the most action packed play through I've seen.

It's still been solid for me when playing and this is while I'm protecting the crash site with grenades flying near my feet left and right.

[L. Scofield]

Originally Posted by kagemaru

Besides, I'm never one to label any one game "the best" in anything. It's too much of a general statement when too many factors don't allow an accurate or fair comparison.

Exactly. Though I'd argue that in the lighting departament C2 is indeed the best by far

[Lucid_Dreamer]

Originally Posted by L. Scofield

http://www.lensoftruth.com/?p=27215

I can't believe people actually take this site seriously *mega facepalm*

I take it that you don't agree, huh? Personally, the HDR lighting and GI seem to stand completely on it's own. In other words, I don't see any real lighting interactions on a smaller scale (i.e. light interactions from explosions, gun fire, etc.). Like I said in the tech section, it seems like Crytech went for a multitude of tech with very low quality instead of a bit less tech with much higher quality (i.e. animations, audio, AA, character facial details, characters on screen, LOD, draw distance, etc).

[Lucid_Dreamer]

Originally Posted by L. Scofield

Exactly. Though I'd argue that in the lighting departament C2 is indeed the best by far

I argue that the lighting in C2 is tied with MLB: The Show. It could be argued that the lighting in MLB: The Show is better because it does it at twice the framerate.

[ct03]

Originally Posted by L. Scofield

http://www.lensoftruth.com/?p=27215

This site is so insanely clueless.

[L. Scofield]

Originally Posted by Lucid_Dreamer

I take it that you don't agree, huh?

I don't mind if they like KZ2's graphics better than C2's. What I take issue with is the incorrect information they spread.

Originally Posted by Lucid_Dreamer

Personally, the HDR lighting and GI seem to stand completely on it's own. In other words, I don't see any real lighting interactions on a smaller scale (i.e. light interactions from explosions, gun fire, etc.).

? There's lighting from muzzleflashes, explosions, etc...

Originally Posted by Lucid_Dreamer

Like I said in the tech section, it seems like Crytech went for a multitude of tech with very low quality instead of a bit less tech with much higher quality (i.e. animations, audio, AA, character facial details, characters on screen, LOD, draw distance, etc).

I agree with the IQ and LOD (for some things) but:

-audio is pretty good (with dynamic occlusion)
-character facial details are excellent with detailed textures and SSS (the wall trailer @ 01:12 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34QMA2ykfCc
-MP animations could be better indeed, but SP are very good, specially the alien's.
-SP shows a lot of stuff happening at once too (E3 demo).

Originally Posted by Lucid_Dreamer

I argue that the lighting in C2 is tied with MLB: The Show. It could be argued that the lighting in MLB: The Show is better because it does it at twice the framerate.

So I take it MLB's lighting is calculated in realtime (including GI with indirect shadows)? Link?

Originally Posted by ct03

This site is so insanely clueless.

Indeed.

[patsu]

Originally Posted by L. Scofield

So I take it MLB's lighting is calculated in realtime (including GI with indirect shadows)? Link?

I don't know what people are debating but I found a link:
http://blog.us.playstation.com/2009/...ing-explained/

[L. Scofield]

Originally Posted by patsu

I don't know what people are debating but I found a link:
http://blog.us.playstation.com/2009/...ing-explained/

Interesting. I'm not exactly sure how much of that is precomputed. Light only bounces off the stadium and the ground, not the characters. No indirect shadows either. Does the time of day changes during the matches?

[Lucid_Dreamer]

Originally Posted by L. Scofield

I don't mind if they like KZ2's graphics better than C2's. What I take issue with is the incorrect information they spread.

Then, talk about what was incorrect about their opinion. Of course, that's a tough road to travel.

? There's lighting from muzzleflashes, explosions, etc...

A spark? the muzzle flashes and explosions are very poor. There are muzzle flashes, but what does it do? Does it cast shadows? I didn't see any.

I agree with the IQ and LOD (for some things) but:

-audio is pretty good (with dynamic occlusion)
-character facial details are excellent with detailed textures and SSS (the wall trailer @ 01:12 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34QMA2ykfCc
-MP animations could be better indeed, but SP are very good, specially the alien's.
-SP shows a lot of stuff happening at once too (E3 demo).

It sounded pretty low-end compared to what I'm use to hearing. On another note, doesn't the configuration listing only show a 4.1 setup?

You can see the characters' faces (mouth, nose, etc)? I can't see them in the MP videos.

So I take it MLB's lighting is calculated in realtime (including GI with indirect shadows)? Link?

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2009/...ing-explained/

Indeed.

I agree.

[patsu]

Originally Posted by L. Scofield

Interesting. I'm not exactly sure how much of that is precomputed. Light only bounces off the stadium and the ground, not the characters. No indirect shadows either. Does the time of day changes during the matches?

You mean like GT5, 60fps with changing time of day ?

Not sure if it makes sense in MLB. Stadiums have flood light. Who play ball in pitch dark ? ^_^

EDIT:
What does this mean ?
"We do the same with the crowd (up to 50,000 people lit in place!)"

[Neb]

Originally Posted by patsu

You mean like GT5, 60fps with changing time of day ?

Not sure if it makes sense in MLB. Stadiums have flood light. Who play ball in pitch dark ? ^_^!)

Then it probably is not really fully realtime and not done per frame as the lighting TOD will be static and characters aren't affected is a sign of this else it would look odd on characters having "stuttery"/delayed lighting affecting them.

EDIT:
What does this mean ?
"We do the same with the crowd (up to 50,000 people lit in place!)"

Probably some simple method or else the players would have it to.

[L. Scofield]

Originally Posted by Lucid_Dreamer

Then, talk about what was incorrect about their opinion. Of course, that's a tough road to travel.

Not really.

1) Soft particles have nothing to do with what they described:
http://www.gamerendering.com/2009/09/16/soft-particles/

2)No mention of KZ2's mostly lightmapped environments vs Crysis 2's fully realtime lighting/shadwing, or the GI.

3) About the destructability. Some parts in some walls can be destroyed, trees, plenty of props in the indoors of the Skyline map.

Originally Posted by Lucid_Dreamer

A spark? the muzzle flashes and explosions are very poor. There are muzzle flashes, but what does it do? Does it cast shadows? I didn't see any.

What do they do? They lit the environment around them, duh. What do you mean they're very poor?

Originally Posted by Lucid_Dreamer

On another note, doesn't the configuration listing only show a 4.1 setup?

You'll have to ask Nebula for that one xD.

Originally Posted by Lucid_Dreamer

You can see the characters' faces (mouth, nose, etc)? I can't see them in the MP videos.

Players are wearing masks/helmets. If you can't see their faces how do you know their expressions are poor? LOL.

Originally Posted by patsu

You mean like GT5, 60fps with changing time of day ?

Not sure if it makes sense in MLB. Stadiums have flood light. Who play ball in pitch dark ? ^_^

I asked because if the sun moves through the sky during a match we could how does that affects (if at all) the GI in the stadium.

Originally Posted by patsu

What does this mean ?
"We do the same with the crowd (up to 50,000 people lit in place!)"

I think it means they too lit the people using the same lighting information as the stadium.

[Antan]

Some people on here really need to take a chill pill. Everyone is entitled to an opinion of course but arguing till blue in the face is probably not good for you're health.

[patsu]

Originally Posted by Nebula

Then it probably is not really fully realtime and not done per frame as the lighting TOD will be static and characters aren't affected is a sign of this else it would look odd on characters having "stuttery"/delayed lighting affecting them.

Probably some simple method or else the players would have it to.

I found the slides in the same link. The players do have the same thing and more.

Originally Posted by L. Scofield

I asked because if the sun moves through the sky during a match we could how does that affects (if at all) the GI in the stadium.

I think it means they too lit the people using the same lighting information as the stadium.

Yap…

Audience and stadium lighting: http://www.flickr.com/photos/playsta...n/photostream/

Players lighting: http://www.flickr.com/photos/playsta...n/photostream/

EDIT:
It seems that there is some sort of time-of-day change (The players screenshots title page says "Dusk").

Confirmed: http://ps3.ign.com/articles/105/1055962p1.html

Sony is also focusing on crowd details in an effort to bring a little more drama to the game. Fans will be given more animations while cheers will be used in more realistic ways to try and break up your concentration. Fans will also get some stadium swag like thunder sticks to try and create some slight visual confusion. The day-to-night effects from last year's game are also returning, meaning the light will change as the game progresses.

[Tap In]

Originally Posted by patsu

EDIT:
It seems that there is some sort of time-of-day change (The players screenshots title page says "Dusk").

not necessarily real time change of day but different starting times of games as some sports titles do. Edit: I see your edit that it changes...

NCAA 11 for example changed on the quarter.

I guess his point was the Crysis 2 GI solution is somewhat different than the methods employed elsewhere and should be recognized as such. It IS an obvious strength of the graphics that raises it to elite status (ON CONSOLES ) and IMO makes most other games I play since appear flat.

[patsu]

Yeah, the global lighting, including changing time-of-day, was introduced in MLB The Show 2009. They retained it in MLB The Show 2010. We'll see what happens in 2011. The games are supposed to be 1080p and 60fps. Back to your regular Crysis 2 programming… ^_^

EDIT: Individual games will do things their own ways since the developers tend to focus on different things.

[Lucid_Dreamer]

Originally Posted by L. Scofield

Not really.

1) Soft particles have nothing to do with what they described:
http://www.gamerendering.com/2009/09/16/soft-particles/

2)No mention of KZ2's mostly lightmapped environments vs Crysis 2's fully realtime lighting/shadwing, or the GI.

3) About the destructability. Some parts in some walls can be destroyed, trees, plenty of props in the indoors of the Skyline map.

1. Granted. They should've just said particle system and left it at that.

2. That's because they seemed to look, purely, at the visual results. They didn't dive deeply into either tech from a lighting perspective.

3. I would call that a "few" things with destructability. It's not total destructability, so I don't see a problem with that.

That's all? They mentioned a lot of things. I guess you agree with everything else. There was a poll with over 2,000 votes. 67% say Killzone 2 looks better. Isn't that the goal (look and functionality)?

What do they do? They lit the environment around them, duh. What do you mean they're very poor?

I'm sure you saw that I mentioned shadows. I mentioned very poor because the light doesn't look anywhere near the color space of light from gun fire.

Players are wearing masks/helmets. If you can't see their faces how do you know their expressions are poor? LOL.

Does anybody or anything in C2 have faces? That eases the rendering burden, too.

I asked because if the sun moves through the sky during a match we could how does that affects (if at all) the GI in the stadium.

Yes, it does.

[Afrikan]

Originally Posted by patsu

Yeah, the global lighting, including changing time-of-day, was introduced in MLB The Show 2009. They retained it in MLB The Show 2010. We'll see what happens in 2011. The games are supposed to be 1080p and 60fps. Back to your regular Crysis 2 programming… ^_^

EDIT: Individual games will do things their own ways since the developers tend to focus on different things.

I wonder how they will achieve 3D for MLB 2011... will it be 720p at 30fps, which I doubt. But how will they be able to do 60fps? Unless they drop the resolution below 720p.

Motorstorm will be 720p in 3D, but the game has always been 30fps. I'm sure Sony San Diago will keep MLB The Show 60fps in 3D, but I wonder what the sacrifices will be....or will I be amazed once again by their tech crew.

for those wondering about the 3D demo at PS Store for 2010, wasn't that just tacked on? Did it run at 60fps?

[kagemaru]

Originally Posted by Lucid_Dreamer

2. That's because they seemed to look, purely, at the visual results. They didn't dive deeply into either tech from a lighting perspective.

They are making comments about tech they don't understand. If they don't want to look foolish then they should not make guesses about the tech behind these effects on screen.

Originally Posted by Lucid_Dreamer

3. I would call that a "few" things with destructability. It's not total destructability, so I don't see a problem with that.

KZ2 doesn't have total destructability either, so it's all meaningless in the end.

Besides, are they at least comparing MP modes in both? Sorry I can't check while I'm at work.

Originally Posted by Lucid_Dreamer

That's all? They mentioned a lot of things. I guess you agree with everything else. There was a poll with over 2,000 votes. 67% say Killzone 2 looks better. Isn't that the goal (look and functionality)?

He was giving you a few examples to how they are wrong with their analysis on the tech behind the games. I see no point in spinning his post around.

Also, the "look" of a game is too subjective. I can think KZ2 is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but my friend can think it's a blurry mess that lacks color or appeal. Neither of us are wrong.

To say LoT is right because the majority of the votes agree with their outcome is silly IMO

[ultragpu]

The more I look at the GI solution in the demo the less I'm being impressed, it's as if the secondary light bounce is made of point light instead of a more natural spread. I guess there's only so much you can do with cheap single bounce GI hack. Granted the effect cab be obvious at certain parts of the scene but mostly it's not very visible or impressive given the current treatment.

[L. Scofield]

Originally Posted by 2real4tv

Is it a technical reason why player count is so low? Doesn't seem like anyone is bothered by this...I mean this seems very low for a FPS.

Apparently it's a gameplay decision. I suppose it's due to Free Radical not having much experience with vehicles/big maps.

Originally Posted by kagemaru

Oh I have no problem saying the same in regards to C2.

My wording was off, I personally have issue claiming any game has the best in a category such as "best graphics", "best gameplay", or especially "best game EVAR!!" One of the best, I'm fine with though.

If an effect can be proven to be the best by a technical measure, then I have no issue with this, even if the tech can still produce ugly results =p

We're in sync then

Originally Posted by patsu

Yeah, the global lighting, including changing time-of-day, was introduced in MLB The Show 2009. They retained it in MLB The Show 2010. We'll see what happens in 2011. The games are supposed to be 1080p and 60fps. Back to your regular Crysis 2 programming… ^_^

EDIT: Individual games will do things their own ways since the developers tend to focus on different things.

Now I want to see a video of it xD Hopefully youtube has some that show off the effect.

Originally Posted by Lucid_Dreamer

2. That's because they seemed to look, purely, at the visual results. They didn't dive deeply into either tech from a lighting perspective.

Not really. They did delve into the tech, they're just wrong and don't understand it.

Originally Posted by Lucid_Dreamer

3. I would call that a "few" things with destructability. It's not total destructability, so I don't see a problem with that.

They didn't mention the concrete structures. Though this is more nitpicking

Originally Posted by Lucid_Dreamer

That's all? They mentioned a lot of things. I guess you agree with everything else. There was a poll with over 2,000 votes. 67% say Killzone 2 looks better. Isn't that the goal (look and functionality)?

They missed the HDR too (big deal). I'm not really sure of the demographics of that site. Besides, it's not the first time they make a comparison full of BS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTvYPiEi4eU

*hyper facepalm*

Originally Posted by Lucid_Dreamer

I'm sure you saw that I mentioned shadows. I mentioned very poor because the light doesn't look anywhere near the color space of light from gun fire.

Yeah, they don't cast shadows. Though, what's the colorspace of gun fire? It's certainly not the deep orange of KZ2.

Originally Posted by Lucid_Dreamer

Does anybody or anything in C2 have faces? That eases the rendering burden, too.

Sure they do have faces. They're under their transparent masks xD.

Originally Posted by Lucid_Dreamer

Yes, it does.

Now it's just a matter of confirming whether it affects the GI dynamically or not

[NotTarts]

Originally Posted by ultragpu

The more I look at the GI solution in the demo the less I'm being impressed, it's as if the secondary light bounce is made of point light instead of a more natural spread. I guess there's only so much you can do with cheap single bounce GI hack. Granted the effect cab be obvious at certain parts of the scene but mostly it's not very visible or impressive given the current treatment.

That's because it is done using point lights. How else would you be able to do it?

What's impressive is that they're doing it at all.

[Laa-Yosh]

Proper global illumination is still hideously expensive in computing power, so don't expect a simple 4-5 year old console to get it done in a fraction of a second and still have it look good. If it was that easy we wouldn't need a render farm

[ultragpu]

I guess using point lights for GI simulation in a deferred renderer would come in handy. Maybe they should use a hybrid solution such as baking the highly detailed GI like in mirror's edge while adding dynamic lights on top of it?