Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2011]

[ultragpu]

So, how many in Crysis 2?

Also, how many of those in the KZ shots are lightmapped?

Guess what, I dont know the exact number. Nor do I know how many are in GTA4, Dead sapce or pong. The point is take a look around and just accept the obvious.

 

[NotTarts]

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.

What other AAA shooters? Killzone 3? Halo Reach? I can accept that they look better, but what's not on is people coming in here and smashing it like it's completely below par. It doesn't look as good as Killzone 3, so what? Doesn't mean it's instantly the worst looking console game out there.

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?

RDR has real-time shadowing, though at a pretty short view distance. Not sure why not many seem to recognise how great it looks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pROWml_4sYQ

Oblivion and Fallout 3 don't even have shadowing, AFAIK.

 

[ultragpu]

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.

Exactly.

 

[L. Scofield]

Guess what, I dont know the exact number. Nor do I know how many are in GTA4, Dead sapce or pong. The point is take a look around and just accept the obvious.

There's nothing obvious about it.

But thanks for finally admitting to making factual statements without evidence. That's all I wanted

What other AAA shooters? Killzone 3? Halo Reach? I can accept that they look better, but what's not on is people coming in here and smashing it like it's completely below par. It doesn't look as good as Killzone 3, so what? Doesn't mean it's instantly the worst looking console game out there.

+1

 

[Tap In]

The point is take a look around and just accept the obvious.

you mean accept someone else's OPINION

 

[kagemaru]

I have to say I consider myself lucky to not think in terms of absolutes. I think Reach, KZ, and Crysis are all gorgeous games and can appreciate each one in their own way.

Maybe I'm a glass half full kind of guy.

 

[ultragpu]

There's nothing obvious about it.

But thanks for finally admitting to making factual statements without evidence. That's all I wanted

Hehe that's cute, by your rationale I can simply say Half life has more dynamic lights than killzone 3 because I don't have the exact number to back it up so we can give it the benefit of doubt. You just sound so desperate now.

you mean accept someone else's OPINION

I have provided solid evidence to the matter so it's in your liberty to believe it or not .

 

[(((interference)))]

I don't understand all these pop in issues (gamebreaking?)

Maybe some people played with hosed HDDs or whatnot because short of Maybe some 2 seconds when the game first starts, I never saw it.

No, thats Gears you're thinking about - which actually I have no problem with (i kinda like watching all the hi-res textures stream in when a match is about to start.)

And i'm certainly not imagining it all:

We were slightly disappointed with the significant pop-in we encountered in the demo, with small objects such as rubble, boxes and pot plants popping into existence right in front of us. Given that this is mostly limited to minor environmental detail it’s not as noticeable as you would expect, but it does happen with alarming frequency and we wonder how the engine will cope with the larger environments we are all expecting in the full game. The engine also dynamically adjusts the quality of certain assets and textures, particularly foliage, depending on your proximity. The problem is that the transition between low and high quality assets is very noticeable, with no phasing used to disguise the process. Environmental shadows were also prone to significant pop-in and the overall effect is that of a world being drawn around you.

http://www.digitalscrutiny.com/content/2011/01/360-crysis-2-demo-impressions/

Observations from your average player:

Pop up is a major issue in general though. The way small objects pop up in the game is horrid, it's so noticable because they only pop in so close.

http://www.eurogamer.net/forum_thread_posts.php?thread_id=199583&start=150

Every single time..It's actually pretty insane how bad the texture pop in and how bad the game looks overall. Very very disappointed. I remember Crytek going on about how it's going to show what consoles can really do..The game doesn't even come close to Uncharted 2, or even Black Ops for that matter..

http://au.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/crysis2/show_msgs.php?topic_id=m-1-57964876&pid=960491

#
I've been looking at other opinions on the internet because at the moment I think there's something wrong with my eyes. To me it looks awful, but most places seem to think it's fine. I've even seen it described as looking fantastic which just boggles my mind. I'm not sure what I was expecting really, but something that at least comes close to Killzone 2. Is it just down to the fact it's a demo? I don't know, in graphical terms I wasn't impressed at all. Also, yes I know it will look better on the PC, before anyone points that out. I just thought this was Crytek trying to prove what they can do on consoles?

There's some pretty horrendous pop-in and aliasing. The former is something I'd expect from a beta so I'm hoping it will be fixed. In general, though, it looks really average, and Crytek declaring its game engine to be teh best evar!!! has not helped with expectations. I think I will cancel my order after all.

http:
//rockpapershotgun.com/rpsforum/topic.php?id=3999

Graphically the game looks good, but not amazing. There’s a lot of texture pop in and some of the scenery looks a little muddy. Since most of the footage I've seen of the game before has looked incredible, I'm going to assume that those videos were of the PC version and not the Xbox 360. Again, it’s not bad looking or anything, but if you’re the kind of person who wants to see some amazing graphics I'd say stick with the PC version.

The graphics for this game are a mixed bag. While more often than not Crysis 2 looks gorgeous, it suffers from a nasty case of Mass Effect 1-itis, that is, texture pop-in. Every time I would spawn, it would take several seconds for my gun texture and the surrounding metallic and plastic textures to resolve themselves. For a company that prides themselves on excellent graphics, this is kind of odd. There's no point in pushing console graphics boundaries when the suspension of disbelief is ruined every time you re-spawn and have to watch the engine re-skin everything.

http://www.giantbomb.com/forums/crysis-2/3779/crysis-2-multiplayer-demo-thoughts/478219/
http://www.giantbomb.com/crysis-2/61-26754/crysis-2-xbox-360-demo-impressions/35-478953/

After playing the Bulletstorm demo it makes you question exactly how great the Cry Engine is on consoles.
Bulletstorm looks great and runs really smooth. Crysis 2 had texture pop ins, sluggish controls and it looked to me like there wasn't much AA either.

http://www.yougamers.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1508006

I just played some as well. The gameplay was nothing new but I didn't mind how they decided how to use it, even though a lot of tweeking on a lot of the detection all around wouldn't hurt. I didn't find the graphics to be too bad of a problem either, except the pop-in textures and objects from CROUCHING!?!?!?!?!?!?!

I just played 2 rounds on 360 on my 1080p TV. The graphics are good about a meter in front of you, other than that, not so much. Lots of pop-in and you can see textures get worse/better depending on a distance that really isn't far away from you.

http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1730752

Graphically, it's okay, I don't really see the big deal. The lighting is good, but everything else is just okay. The texture pop-in is annoying. Maybe I'm just so focused on the problems with gameplay that I can't really admire the graphics, but good graphics don't make a good game.

http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=55794603&postRepeater1-p=2#55797201

Oh and the controls are also pretty terrible - yes even compared to KZ2, trying to connect a melee is pretty much random.

 

[Tap In]

We were slightly disappointed with the significant pop-in we encountered in the demo, with small objects such as rubble, boxes and pot plants popping into existence right in front of us. Given that this is mostly limited to minor environmental detail it’s not as noticeable as you would expect, but it does happen with alarming frequency and we wonder how the engine will cope with the larger environments we are all expecting in the full game. The engine also dynamically adjusts the quality of certain assets and textures, particularly foliage, depending on your proximity. The problem is that the transition between low and high quality assets is very noticeable, with no phasing used to disguise the process. Environmental shadows were also prone to significant pop-in and the overall effect is that of a world being drawn around you.

I didn't see that at all on my machine...is what I'm telling you. Albeit the first few seconds.

 

[(((interference)))]

I didn't see that at all on my machine...is what I'm telling you. Albeit the first few seconds.

Well perhaps you have a slim and it has a faster HDD (not that i've heard/read anything on 360 S HDD being anything more than a repackaged regular 360 drive)

Or maybe you just can't notice pop in or LOD shifts? Perhaps it's like aliasing which sometimes people don't notice unless someone points it out and they start looking for it.

 

[NotTarts]

Pop-in and IQ really seem to be the issues here, both pretty elementary issues, and also noticable in Crysis. Look at Halo:Reach - it has proper fading for object LODs (there was a reason Crytek couldn't do this in their engine, not sure where they said it) and even at 1152x720 with Temporal AA it still looks sharper than most games out there. Not to mention the great texture filtering.

Really hope Crytek improves all this, though.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Hehe that's cute, by your rationale I can simply say Half life has more dynamic lights than killzone 3 because I don't have the exact number to back it up so we can give it the benefit of doubt. You just sound so desperate now.

I have provided solid evidence to the matter so it's in your liberty to believe it or not .

Seriously you call that evidence. You don't even know if 5%, 10%, 20%, however many of the lights you posted are dynamic lights, static point lights, or lightmapped.

And you are claiming you have somehow posted evidence?

"Hehe that's cute," by your own rationale you are doing exactly what you just said. You are claiming something with no facts to back up your claim and expecting everyone to take it for fact.

And on top of you that attempt to make your point that C2 doesn't use many dynamic lights using a scene that deliberately attempts to portray how a realistic scene at night in NYC after an alien invasion where power might be a problem, people aren't working in the buildings (hence no reason to even have a lot of lights), versus a scene from KZ3 which I presume is from some base where I'm assuming there is a lot of working being done by workers (even though I don't see a many people working there).

So comparing one scene attempting to portray realism with another that just wants to show a lot of bling bling?

Talk about cherry picking your shots in an attempt to back up a viewpoint with no evidence.

Regards,
SB

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

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.
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 are late to the party. I've talked about all this before. I'm not going to continue to go in circles. Some people just want to try to convince people to see what's not there. It's fine. I've said what I had to say and people haven't been able to refute most of it. They just make excuses. I'm done with it. The following posts are the in response to your first sentence:

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1521212&postcount=1315

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1521212&postcount=1319

 

[2real4tv]

Pop-in and IQ really seem to be the issues here, both pretty elementary issues, and also noticable in Crysis. Look at Halo:Reach - it has proper fading for object LODs (there was a reason Crytek couldn't do this in their engine, not sure where they said it) and even at 1152x720 with Temporal AA it still looks sharper than most games out there. Not to mention the great texture filtering.

Really hope Crytek improves all this, though.

Crysis2? If so filtering is one of its problems, but alot of console games have this problem.

 

[L. Scofield]

Hehe that's cute, by your rationale I can simply say Half life has more dynamic lights than killzone 3 because I don't have the exact number to back it up so we can give it the benefit of doubt. You just sound so desperate now.

That's the exact OPPOSITE of my point *facepalm*. You can't make comparisons like that without DATA for BOTH games.

+1 to Silent_Buddha's post.

You are late to the party. I've talked about all this before. I'm not going to continue to go in circles. Some people just want to try to convince people to see what's not there. It's fine. I've said what I had to say and people haven't been able to refute most of it. They just make excuses. I'm done with it. The following posts are the in response to your first sentence:

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1521212&postcount=1315

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1521212&postcount=1319

You're observations ARE wrong, those particles bounce many times both off the truck and on the ground. People told you as much but you simply ignored it.

 

[kagemaru]

You are late to the party. I've talked about all this before. I'm not going to continue to go in circles. Some people just want to try to convince people to see what's not there. It's fine. I've said what I had to say and people haven't been able to refute most of it. They just make excuses. I'm done with it. The following posts are the in response to your first sentence:

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1521212&postcount=1315

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1521212&postcount=1319

No one is convincing anyone of anything since we all know and agree that you are wrong. First you say there isn't any bounce, just to for 90% of the people here telling you you're wrong, then you say that some particles bounce twice and nothing more. You're moving the goal post just to support your blind view. I'd also like to know what "excuses" we are using. "You are wrong, they do bounce" isn't an excuse, it's flat out telling you the truth you refuse to see.

Also something something "That's a good way of saying you can't explain your position." something something.

 

[(((interference)))]

Crysis2? If so filtering is one of its problems, but alot of console games have this problem.

He's talking about Halo Reach, which to me actually is a game that calls out for better AA - as it looks absolutely fantastic in theatre mode with 4xMSAA enabled (check it out yourself).

And I also see the multiple bounces on the sparks, there was also a clip in one of the Vidocs which had a spark shower on a wraith, perhaps have a look at that and see if the sparks bounce there

 

[kagemaru]

He's talking about Halo Reach, which to me actually is a game that calls out for better AA - as it looks absolutely fantastic in theatre mode with 4xMSAA enabled (check it out yourself).

Theatre mode doesn't add any AA, it's straight gameplay, the photos taken during theatre mode however does something with the resolution which cleans up the aliasing.

 

[NotTarts]

I'm not too fussed about the AA, but Reach has a really sharp, detailed look to it:
http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/1/2/6/5/6/6/8/motionblur1.jpg.jpg

Considering it's running at the same resolution as Crysis 2 (which does tend to be muddy in some areas; though I can't find any non-compressed images [argh!]) and using the same AA, it's just pretty impressive. I'm hoping Crytek can reach the same level.

EDIT: pcgames.de had a whole heap of apparently lossless captures from the demo. IQ isn't nearly as bad as some of the other shots made out, though there are a few odd blurry areas and the temporal AA is pretty badly done.

Judge for yourselves:

 

[NotTarts]

I'm just thinking now that's it's really inconsistent.

(hopefully this doesn't count as clutter)