Ok,slightly above average
.I'm surprised someone on B3D is claiming sub hd with its poor AA is as clean as can be.256 MAG for instance, looks much cleaner.
B3D News Item: Challenge: Find Differences between Crysis 2 Console SKUs
- Thread starter KKRT
- Start date
.I'm surprised someone on B3D is claiming sub hd with its poor AA is as clean as can be.256 MAG for instance, looks much cleaner.
[Mod - No insults thank you]
as excellent as the game does with its lighting, the IQ is its main weakness out of all things considered especially compared to the like of GoW3. Sub hd, TAA, ghosting, unpredictable AF, are a far cry from "as clean as console can be" mate. Let's be reasonable here.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yep I agree, out of all things the IQ of Crysis 2 is the weakest area and its behind a lot of other games.
Btw we know that its the smaller objects/objects that are further away which get affected the most due to lower pixel density, but the overall softness due to the upscale also hurts the clarity of textures close by, which is why I want to ask whether using a high frequency detail map on top of these textures be of any help in situation like these, so as to give a fake sense of sharpness?
Btw we know that its the smaller objects/objects that are further away which get affected the most due to lower pixel density, but the overall softness due to the upscale also hurts the clarity of textures close by, which is why I want to ask whether using a high frequency detail map on top of these textures be of any help in situation like these, so as to give a fake sense of sharpness?
(((interference)))
Veteran
Ah missed "console" part.
Legit? Supposedly from retail. This goes beyond the 3 previous presets, "gamer", "advanced" and "hardcore". Btw FYI I said a v.h mode would be called "extreme" month ago.
What really bothers me is that you can't seem to tweak much of the advanced settings besides resolution and overall graphics quality. Is that just a problem with the PC demo or is it the same with the final game?
djskribbles
Legend
comparison video:
I still don't get how people point to good/bad "IQ" without going into further detail. Am I missing something, or shouldn't Image Quality just refer to a sum of other factors. Factors that need to be dissected individually for a proper tech discussion?
So what is the specific problem that people see with Crysis 2 IQ to trail behind "a lot of other games"?
Is it textures? resolution? AA method? dynamic range? scene complexity? visual fidelity? polygon count? something else?
For me at least, image quality means how good the game looks on the pixel level. Prime influences here are resolution and AA method (texture and filtering matters too, but we can generally (not always) distinguish these from the rest and say that texturing or filtering is bad).
I think most people complain about it because the rest is pretty decent. You can see good textures in the game, lighting and shadows look good to excellent. Polygon count is not great, but the artists have worked pretty hard to get that right. On the PS3 though, the resolution and AA method just don't do the game many favors, and the good lighting brings out these issues more.
Gorgeous flythrough of one of the seemingly better MP maps, at least to me. It looks really beautiful.
A guy playing this same map on the PlayStation 3:
Looking at the map I wonder if Global Illumination is really off for Multiplayer as stated in the config files, because it looks great regardless.
Or maybe they just activate SSAO for multiplayer but not GI, since with Global Illumination you shouldn't need SSAO at all, because the shading projected by objects affects the surroundings in real time.
A guy playing this same map on the PlayStation 3:
Looking at the map I wonder if Global Illumination is really off for Multiplayer as stated in the config files, because it looks great regardless.
Or maybe they just activate SSAO for multiplayer but not GI, since with Global Illumination you shouldn't need SSAO at all, because the shading projected by objects affects the surroundings in real time.
Resolution isn't everything, nor it is AA, although they both really help. If developers rendered everything at 480p this generation they could try a lot of stunning features and graphics techniques at the same time -oddly enough they are achieving this in games like Crysis 2 and Battlefield 3 running at 720p, or very close to-.
Nothing beats crisp graphics and nice environments with a good art style!
i.e. according to the numbers, cold numbers.., Halo Reach is sub-HD because the HD standard is set at 1280x720p, while the game runs innerly at 1152x720p.
Yet developers managed to make the game look very crisp -you can see how vibrant the graphics are when looking at the ship's wing-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7E1XvZR3Nw&t=1m45s&hd=1
Compared to a full-fledged 720p game like Fable 3, Halo Reach looks a lot more vivid and sharp than Fable 3, for instance (at least to me anyways, while Fable 3 looks dull and rather faint in comparison). And the same can be said about God of War 3 being so crisp compared to Killzone 2.
Hope you have a good week! :smile2:
Does it really say GI is turned off for the console versions? Why was everyone making comments about it being in the Beta and demos?
Also, if it wasn't for the stretched out HUD, pixel counter, and config file, I wonder how many people would really notice the resolution difference between the two versions. Granted I'm only going by Youtube vids (which I realize isn't the best source) but I don't notice any major difference in aliasing or blurriness. Of course my opinion may change when I get a chance to see both versions in person.
Also, if it wasn't for the stretched out HUD, pixel counter, and config file, I wonder how many people would really notice the resolution difference between the two versions. Granted I'm only going by Youtube vids (which I realize isn't the best source) but I don't notice any major difference in aliasing or blurriness. Of course my opinion may change when I get a chance to see both versions in person.
As far as I know GI is off for multiplayer maps but I am not quite sure about that. In the Pier 17 map I remember Scott_Arm (I think) saying that he could see a GI artifact after watching a Youtube video.
I looked carefully and it seemed to be the case. So maybe GI is on in MP too. Everything is lit with the typical Crysis 2 look, I mean not prebaked, even in MP.
I think it was in the console config files that GI is off for mp but honestly, I can't say exactly if that's the case.
IQ in SP is similar to Reach.some Crysis 2 levels look as crisp as Reach if not more,especially in darker levels.Its much better IQ than say BC2 that is 720p with no AA and there is absolutely no problems with it.
I played MP and people can see from my old post that I was kinda shocked at IQ,but SP has very clean look.
Sigfried1977
Legend
Wow. This actually looks like it might be fun after all.
Yes they do.Especially when you come to Alien levels which seem to be more organic.
One thing that I noticed is when you replay mission some times TOD changes,and shadows are set totally different than the last time you played it.I guess thats another reason why they went with all in real time...
Do we know if this config file was pulled from the final game? I just find it odd that people here have been looking at config files for the game since the beta was released and yet now it supposedly states GI is off for the MP.
There is a spawn point under the white stairs in the Skyline map. While people are in there, it looks as though parts of their body facing ground are slightly illuminated. I always assumed this was GI at work, am I wrong?
Also excuse the ignorance in my question, but what's the difference between software occlusion culling and just occlusion culling?
Also to add to my comment above, I wonder how much the motion blur is adding to the blurry look of the game to some people. I've read plenty comments around the net of people saying it was overdone.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mmm
terrible shadow pop in on the ps3 compared to 360, in the palace on the left, in the first minute; it's just my impression, or it seem suffer a little more the fps during the shooter session on the 360... I mean, I'm not talking of incredible differences, but gives me this sensation. Another thing: why the ligth siren is activated on the ps3, in the final part & not on the 360?
Last edited by a moderator:
LOT screenshot comparison of retail version: http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2hea...d2head-crysis-2-retail-screenshot-comparison/
Some strange differences.
Warning: Spoiler on the second page
Some strange differences.
Warning: Spoiler on the second page
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2hea...d2head-crysis-2-retail-screenshot-comparison/
Interestingly some of the PS3 shots look marginally better. Look at the logo on the guys arm for example. Well defined on PS3 but very blurry on 360. More detail in the darker areas on PS3 also. Still, will count for nothing if the framerate stinks!
This analysis further muddies the water also. I look forward to my US & A buds giving their 2 pennies worth in the morning.
Interestingly some of the PS3 shots look marginally better. Look at the logo on the guys arm for example. Well defined on PS3 but very blurry on 360. More detail in the darker areas on PS3 also. Still, will count for nothing if the framerate stinks!
This analysis further muddies the water also. I look forward to my US & A buds giving their 2 pennies worth in the morning.
