Is that the console or PC version?
Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2011]
- Thread starter user542745831
- Start date
-
- Tags
- digital foundry
- Status
Is that the console or PC version?
L. Scofield
Veteran
Can't let propaganda run rampant. It's in my natureLet it go man, just let it go.
PC at console settings. It's even better now, back then there was no object based motion blur activated
Can't let propaganda run rampant. It's in my nature
I hear yah man, I'm exactly the same way, but what I've learned in my years in forums (both as a mod/admin and member) is you can't force some people to see what they don't want to see (truth or otherwise). :smile:
PC at console settings. It's even better now, back then there was no object based motion blur activated
It is pretty interesting how far the console version has come. I still remember a year or so back when Crytek said that the console versions wouldn't have OBMB or AA of any kind.
Who cares about convincing a few/single individual. It's all about bringing up info to the public with pics, videos, documents etc for them to make their own judgement instead of public relying on biased propaganda, pure opinions. The public, not the single individual.
Well they said AA as in MSAA and have not mentioned lack of OBM for final game IIRC.
In fact, they did. I played that part of the video multiple times and followed a single particle each time. They all bounce 5 times before rolling a little and then disappearing. Sure, it's done on the GPU, but that makes it even more impressive.That's not what was said on the video, was it?
Game engine design is all about the shortcuts you take. the more tricks they use that you don't realise are tricks, the better, since they then have more time for actual game code. That's why games don't all use costly MSAA, or realtime lighting, or full res transparencies or shadows. Every graphical addon you have costs you in AI or physics, or other graphical addons. That's why it's pointless to compare one developers tradeoffs against another and make some sort of value judgement.
Remember the Crysis engine is designed as middleware. It's meant to be taken by a developer and tweaked for their specific purpose. Something the Killzone engine doesn't have to worry about. You just have to look at Mass Effect and Gears of War to see how the same engine can be used to vastly different effect. I have still not seen another game with better facial animation and fidelity than the Asari in Mass effect.
You must have numbers to make that claim. Out with the numbers else you got nothing to really discuss about X amount of dynamic lights in these games.
Exactly with dark skies they save perfomance by using spotlights placed wher player will move and near surroundings. Though in KZ2 the thunders acted as sun lightsources with some consequences there (MSAA off IIRC). Anyway the exact same applies to C2, why would they use tons of dynamic lightsources when there is no need to?
And C2 needs a sun that is a dynamic light and cast shadows else it would look ankward in a highly dynamic game that cant rely on spotlights during day since the target is semi/realistic looks.
Even sparks from bullet vs metal collision cast lights like in demo.
Supported isn't the same as used in game per frame. Well care about numbers.. else how could one come to the conclusion one game has less than the other when both sports lots of lights of some type?
Atleast for C2 when PC demo hits we will be able to enable debug info to show amount of rendered dynamic lights aswell as LODed lights.
Atleast for C2 when PC demo hits we will be able to enable debug info to show amount of rendered dynamic lights aswell as LODed lights.
Link to document or video then I will be happy.
I haven't posted any videos. But besides scene lights you got bullet lights, impact lights and sparks casting lights.
A fully deferred renderer can support a really large number of lights, that's what it is built for. KZ2 has featured a lot of nighttime levels which really had a huge set of lamps with little overlapping, all the outdoor scenes in the current game are however a bit counterproductive.
I really don't understand why this stupid argument is persisting so long.We are 6 years in the gen and I would partly understand this "contest" it if we were in 2005,but we are not,its 2011.There has been alot of games that have very impressive tech and they use it to enhance the look and feel of certain type of the game.Its obvious that GG has chosen deferred renderer because of the design choice,same like how R* has chosen deferred lighting because the game like GTA has to have it.It has to have dynamic time of day and real time shadowing and their engine reflect design choice of the games they make.So I don't understand why for the love of God would Crytek want to put hundreds of light sources on the mp map that is designed to be played in broad day time?Why?Why even compare it to some night time KZ3 levels?Why even compare the two games when obviously one is going for one thing and the other for another?
You're not talking about the Crysis 2 demo that just ended are you? If so that's pretty cool though I never really stood still long enough to notice.
If you're talking about a video demo, I wouldn't mind seeing that.
Maybe I'm off here, but doesn't both KZ2/3 and Crysis 2 use a type of deferred lighting model? Shouldn't the end result be somewhat similar with both having their own advantages and drawbacks?
You're not talking about the Crysis 2 demo that just ended are you? If so that's pretty cool though I never really stood still long enough to notice.
If you're talking about a video demo, I wouldn't mind seeing that.
In one of the videos one can see it for 360 multiplayer demo. I am sure there was a screenshot to somewhere.
Yes, Crytek even showcased it in one of their C2/CE3 techdemos.
350+ dynamic lights on screen at one time in kz2's level. But here's to prove my point a little bit better.
Oh nice, I'll have to see if I can find that vid or screenshot later.
Also yeah, Crytek's first tech demo video showcased their deferred lighting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22s10YHzl9Y
I'll give you credit for trying to find pics that look similar between each game, but we've seen vids (street map and central station gameplay maybe?) that show more lights than what's shown in those Crysis 2 pics you picked, so that makes this comparison pointless. I highly doubt Crytek went the deferred approach with their lighting just to show the low amount of lights seen in those pics.
Why not just be happy that there are two great looking shooters coming out within the first few months of this year and leave it at that? This pissing contest you insist on carrying out has grown tiresome.
(((interference)))
Veteran
It's not so much the SDF trolling a game that looks better than a PS3 exclusive that it is the simple fact that from the demo at least, C2 simply does not look better than KZ2/3, or even Halo Reach.
I have played both the KZ3 demo and this one back to back and it is readily apparent which is the better looking game, and if you ask a casual observer which looks better they will concur.
While I am sure that C2's realtime GI is an impressive accomplishment on a console, the simple fact is that the vast majority of people will be unable to tell the difference between their GI solution and regular baked lighting, especially when the time of day for the scene doesn't change and there is hardly any destructibilty on the map.
What people will notice however is the poor AA, low res textures, ghosting and the constant pop in of geometry, textures, shadows - I seriously have never played a console game with more LOD issues than Crysis, even in GTA4 which has a huge amount of pop in has far less than Crysis if you're travelling around at similar speeds to you do in C2.
It's incredibly distracting, far more so than any not quite correct lighting issues that you would get with your regular lighting solutions.
So I really don't see how people can think (at this stage at least) Crysis 2 is visually more impressive than other AAA shooters.
Also, how do other open world games like RDR/GTA4, Assassins Creed, Fallout 3 etc. handle time of day changes, do they just switch between different sets of light and shadowmaps?
I have played both the KZ3 demo and this one back to back and it is readily apparent which is the better looking game, and if you ask a casual observer which looks better they will concur.
While I am sure that C2's realtime GI is an impressive accomplishment on a console, the simple fact is that the vast majority of people will be unable to tell the difference between their GI solution and regular baked lighting, especially when the time of day for the scene doesn't change and there is hardly any destructibilty on the map.
What people will notice however is the poor AA, low res textures, ghosting and the constant pop in of geometry, textures, shadows - I seriously have never played a console game with more LOD issues than Crysis, even in GTA4 which has a huge amount of pop in has far less than Crysis if you're travelling around at similar speeds to you do in C2.
It's incredibly distracting, far more so than any not quite correct lighting issues that you would get with your regular lighting solutions.
So I really don't see how people can think (at this stage at least) Crysis 2 is visually more impressive than other AAA shooters.
Also, how do other open world games like RDR/GTA4, Assassins Creed, Fallout 3 etc. handle time of day changes, do they just switch between different sets of light and shadowmaps?
L. Scofield
Veteran
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Deleted member 11852
- Gaming Technology
- Locked