Technical Comparison - Killzone 2/Killzone 3 vs Crysis 2 (console version)

[PSman]

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 :smile:

 

[Kameradschaft]

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]

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 :smile:

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...

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. :smile:

 

[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.

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?

 

[fearsomepirate]

I thought KZ3 looked better more consistently than KZ2 did. The problem is they just pushed it a little too far in multiplayer. There are way more frame rate drops and general jerkiness in KZ3, and of course, they had to drop the number of players from 32 to 24. But I thought KZ2's campaign was a lotmore fun.

I stand by my theory that you can't achieve COD/Halo levels of success if you're going to reject the collegiate social environment and insist that everyone who experiences your game experiences it alone. A co-op campaign in KZ3 was a nice touch, but that doesn't really work well with "cinematic" campaigns. Works a lot better with Halo and Serious Sam.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

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.

Exactly. Any differences between two AA games at this point can be narrowed down to basically two options:
- different trade-offs in the engine
- quality of the artwork (including how optimized it is)

 

[Laa-Yosh]

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.

I don't fully agree here - C2 does not compromise on color precision and lighting the way KZ2/3 does. Then again 10+ years of CGI work have probably made me a little more sensitive to these issues than the average gamer.

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.

That is of course an opinion. I can not tolerate the color issues in the KZ engines; my preference would be the Uncharted games on PS3 and probably the new Quantic Dream game, Beyond.
Battlefield 3 is also impressive in many ways, although I haven't seen the game up close and there may be some problems during the actual ingame settings. But the tech is probably close to being the most advanced and best optimized rendering engine out there, especially on the multiplatform front.

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..

Frame rate is just another variable in the trade-offs, although it's the one that's the hardest to fix without compromising anything else. COD and Rage are interesting subjects from this point of view...
Also, doesn't KZ3 have some frame rate issues as well?

 

[Laa-Yosh]

While I agree that there are better looking games than Crysis 2, comparing these types of games is pretty much pointless.

Not to mention how little technical comparison there is in this thread - most of it is purely subjective opinion about who prefers what... A technical thread would probably have to start with stuff like the G-buffer layouts, lighting methods and such, but I don't see anything like that here.

 

[fearsomepirate]

In the PS3 version of Crysis 2, your guns don't do much in the way of generating light. I remember one of the most impressive things about KZ2 being the way scenes would light up with gunfire. The LOD is also quite a bit more obvious, especially shadows caused by overhang, where you'd get this really ugly, jaggedy look as you approached. The KZ games overall do a better job of keeping that stuff non-obvious. And I for one really like all the post effects they did, especially in KZ2.

One problem is that graphics are now so complicated that we laymen can't say a whole lot about what effects are and aren't being used. Last gen, it was pretty easy to say, "Oh, this game has gloss maps, motion blur, and light bloom, but it doesn't have normal mapping." Now there's too much to have much of a discussion.

 

[L. Scofield]

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

The thing lacking in the console versions was the dynamic GI. It sucks anyways, it's only calculated for the sunlight and it's very low frequency. The IBL probes handle the indirect lighting just fine.

 

[Delta9]

KZ3 looked much better to me. Crysis2 was very disappointing given the hype and arrived lttp in graphics to give any wow on PS3.

 

[Billy Idol]

In the PS3 version of Crysis 2, your guns don't do much in the way of generating light. I remember one of the most impressive things about KZ2 being the way scenes would light up with gunfire. The LOD is also quite a bit more obvious, especially shadows caused by overhang, where you'd get this really ugly, jaggedy look as you approached. The KZ games overall do a better job of keeping that stuff non-obvious. And I for one really like all the post effects they did, especially in KZ2.

Yep, I liked this as well...and during the campaign, there where a lot of scenes which were really dramatic with the gun lighting up dark areas.

But in KZ3, I totally missed it. I figured, that the effect is still there. But due to the day light settings, it was really hard to notice and had barely a visual effect.

That is the next very important thing for me: if you have a cool technical feature, you should put it in good use to maximise the effect :smile:

 

[Arwin]

I loved the shadows of players in KZ3 though, you could really see them around the corner as a result.

 

[Kameradschaft]

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. :smile:

Don't get me wrong kage I'm not saying that "Crysis 2 is not as impressive as Killzone 2/3 period!"...of course Crysis 2 (especially on 360) is an amazing looking game and some people think that's the most impressive game tech wise on the consoles, I was just saying that I personally find other games more impressive because they offer excellent graphics without compromising something that's important in my (average gamer) opinion in videogames and especially shooters which is frame-rate.

I don't fully agree here - C2 does not compromise on color precision and lighting the way KZ2/3 does. Then again 10+ years of CGI work have probably made me a little more sensitive to these issues than the average gamer.

Well the difference between us is that I'd get terrible color precision over terrible frame-rate...besides I think that frame-rate is a very important part of tech in videogames unless we're exclusively talking about visuals.

Frame rate is just another variable in the trade-offs, although it's the one that's the hardest to fix without compromising anything else. COD and Rage are interesting subjects from this point of view...
Also, doesn't KZ3 have some frame rate issues as well?

The two examples that you brought up are 60fps games and despite the various compromises that they had to do for the higher frame-rate they still look great IMO (especially Rage that almost always runs flawlessly at 60fps).

The thing is that Crysis 2 doesn't even run at 30fps which is pretty much the norm this gen for the most high end looking games even though they had to go sub-HD for both console versions...that's something that they should worry about and instead of putting graphical features just for the sake of it they should think about making a game that the tech is not becoming a barrier to gameplay and controls - IMO in their case tech works against playability.

 

[kagemaru]

Also, doesn't KZ3 have some frame rate issues as well?

I don't know about KZ3, haven't played it yet due to bad impressions I've heard/read, but KZ2 most certainly suffered frame rate problems.

Not to mention how little technical comparison there is in this thread - most of it is purely subjective opinion about who prefers what... A technical thread would probably have to start with stuff like the G-buffer layouts, lighting methods and such, but I don't see anything like that here.

Yup, this is my biggest issue with most comparisons made. I think there's a valid discussion to be made when viewing the different methods and approaches used by various developers to reach a certain result, comparing the strengths and drawbacks. However you never really see that, it's always "I think this looks better, so it must be!" types of posts.

Don't get me wrong kage I'm not saying that "Crysis 2 is not as impressive as Killzone 2/3 period!"...of course Crysis 2 (especially on 360) is an amazing looking game and some people think that's the most impressive game tech wise on the consoles, I was just saying that I personally find other games more impressive because they offer excellent graphics without compromising something that's important in my (average gamer) opinion in videogames and especially shooters which is frame-rate.

I hear yah man. Just to clarify, I have no issue with your opinion on which game looks better than the others. My only issue with these types of threads, and some of the posters intentions, is exactly what Laa-Yosh has been describing throughout the thread. It's all "wanking about PS3" with no actual discussion about the trade-offs or technologies behind these games. I'd be saying the same thing if someone made a thread about Gears 3 looking better than Crysis 2, leaving out any technical discussion for the sake of a circle jerk. However we don't see those types of threads here (thanksfully ).

The thing is that Crysis 2 doesn't even run at 30fps which is pretty much the norm this gen for the most high end looking games even though they had to go sub-HD for both console versions...that's something that they should worry about and instead of putting graphical features just for the sake of it they should think about making a game that the tech is not becoming a barrier to gameplay and controls - IMO in their case tech works against playability.

It could have little to do with the actual effects (such as motion blur, HDR, etc.) they are throwing on screen but instead poorly optimized assets for these consoles. In fact, IIRC, they admitted that they weren't as optimized as they could be for Crysis 2 since that was the teams first experience on consoles and they learned a few things. It was in an interview leading up to the release of the Crysis 1 port for consoles I believe.

 

[Arwin]

It could have little to do with the actual effects (such as motion blur, HDR, etc.) they are throwing on screen but instead poorly optimized assets for these consoles. In fact, IIRC, they admitted that they weren't as optimized as they could be for Crysis 2 since that was the teams first experience on consoles and they learned a few things. It was in an interview leading up to the release of the Crysis 1 port for consoles I believe.

We found various comments about Crysis 2 not being optimised for PS3 in the CryEngine documentation, actually. I think these leaked or were just made public, can't remember, back in the day, suggesting what limits you should stay under, and it particularly mentioned that bottlenecks on PS3 existed currently that could be alleviated but currently weren't.

Also, we have a lot of documentation on technical aspects of both games. I admit I don't have time enough and have been too lazy to list everything we know about both games side by side to show where their strengths and weaknesses ligh, but we do actually know quite a lot.

Killzone 3 is a pretty smooth game, by the way, not many framerate issues at all.

Anyway, just taking random HD walkthroughs of both games on PS3, many difference are immediately apparent, but one that stands out to me most is the sheer amount of geometry in the PS3 game. Next, a lot more going on all the time - Crysis 2 stuff is amazingly limited in that respect, when you put the two next to each other. Also, clearly much smoother framerates on PS3 for Killzone and native resolution stands out (and far more so if you play that on your own TV without youtube compression).

On the Crysis 2 side of things, the lighting at times is very realistic, and NYC can look really good and convincing. Only at times really low polygons give it away:

 

[kagemaru]

We found various comments about Crysis 2 not being optimised for PS3 in the CryEngine documentation, actually. I think these leaked or were just made public, can't remember, back in the day, suggesting what limits you should stay under, and it particularly mentioned that bottlenecks on PS3 existed currently that could be alleviated but currently weren't.

IIRC the biggest issues with the PS3 was GPU time and memory. By saying C2 wasn't optimized for the PS3, I'm assuming you mean it didn't use the SPUs to the same extent as say KZ3? Doesn't it require additional buffers, thus more memory, to use SPUs for rendering and effects? I could be wrong here but I recall it popping up in discussion here earlier this gen.

If it were so easy to improve the PS3 code, I wonder why they haven't yet or what roadblocks prevent them from accomplishing this. As a multi-platform engine provider, it would be in their best interest to reach parity or maximize optimization for the platform.

Also, we have a lot of documentation on technical aspects of both games. I admit I don't have time enough and have been too lazy to list everything we know about both games side by side to show where their strengths and weaknesses ligh, but we do actually know quite a lot.

Sorry I wasn't clear before, but I meant in general. It's true we have documentations for CE3 and KZ, but that's not always the case for every game but people choose to assume things anyways.

 

[Ruskie]

I wouldn't agree with Arwin about number of polygons in KZ3. Certain effects are very well used by artists to give impression of highly detailed geometry, but that is not the case once you see it in stills.

http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/1/3/3/4/7/0/5/Features1.bmp.jpg

I remember Crysis 2 (with shadows) going from 0.5 to 1.2-1.3 mil polygons per frame. That goes in line with other titles on PS3 like UC2. There is certainly a limit you wouldn't want to cross with RSX and drawcalls, at least thats the impression alot of developers gave.

What actually makes the difference between those two to me is that one is very polished and quite smooth, with things like HDR and SSAO out of the picture, while other is going "balls to the wall" at expense of frame rate.

Interesting thing with Crysis 2 is the fact that its considerably smoother once you pass the first 40% of the game. Exactly when the game gets better looking to my surprise.

KZ3 definitely gives impression that the team had more experience and time to smooth things out and give a good thought about everything they put in the game, while Crytek seemed in rush. I talked shortly with one of their programmers in late 2010' and back than, I think it was Dec, they still didn't have motion blur and DOF in console version of the game. He said that tech team is working hard to implement it in and that the biggest problem beside the fact that they were short with time was that their artists weren't exactly experienced with console development. Assets creation and optimization were the thing they (he said) are aiming to be much better next time (C3 I guess).

So, hard to compare when games have different set of trade offs. Both are technologically very impressive, with one trading of pixel density and frame rate for more visual grunt, while other going for more polished game. It will be interesting to compare two when C3 comes out, with SMAA on consoles (looks quite comparable with MLAA) and possibly much more polished product.

And I'll agree with Yosh on that lighting thing. The fact that there is no HDR in KZ3 is very noticeable. Overblown whites are everywhere. Some people may like it, but to me thats very big minus. Oh, and one more thing. When it comes to faces, Crysis 2 definitely has upper hand. I don't know why, but when not in pre rendered cut scenes, KZ3 faces don't look very good at all.

 

[kagemaru]

I wouldn't agree with Arwin about number of polygons in KZ3. Certain effects are very well used by artists to give impression of highly detailed geometry, but that is not the case once you see it in stills.

http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/1/3/3/4/7/0/5/Features1.bmp.jpg

I remember Crysis 2 (with shadows) going from 0.5 to 1.2-1.3 mil polygons per frame. That goes in line with other titles on PS3 like UC2. There is certainly a limit you wouldn't want to cross with RSX and drawcalls, at least thats the impression alot of developers gave.

Yeah I didn't agree with the geometry comment regarding KZ3 either, haven't seen any video (including the one posted here), that shows a high level of geometry in the game. However I wasn't going to say anything.

Assets creation and optimization were the thing they (he said) are aiming to be much better next time (C3 I guess).

Yup, goes right along with what I read as well. IIRC the performance was still lacking with the Crysis 1 port, but it was somewhat of an improvement over Crysis 2. I'm curious to see what, if any, performance improvements there are in Crysis 3.

So, hard to compare when games have different set of trade offs. Both are technologically very impressive, with one trading of pixel density and frame rate for more visual grunt, while other going for more polished game. It will be interesting to compare two when C3 comes out, with SMAA on consoles (looks quite comparable with MLAA) and possibly much more polished product.

Are there any documents on the current state of SMAA? I didn't really care for it in Crysis 2.