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

[fearsomepirate]

The actual problem was that Laa-Yosh observation was simply dismissed as a subjective preference instead of what it really is: an objective technical matter.

I didn't dismiss HDR as a subjective preference. I said that when are forced to choose between two technically correct things because you cannot use them both at the same time, that is a subjective matter. Your repeated insistence that it isn't doesn't change that. Maybe you should explain your objective method how to deduce, when I cannot use two correct methods, which I must choose.

That was his issue with the argument. There was the immediate "but C2 compromises more on framerate so KZ3 wins" spinning as well.

C2 does compromise on frame rate. That's not "spin"; it's fact. Only in your partisan world where everyone takes a "side" does acknowledging what Crysis 2's frame rate is mean the same thing as "KZ3 wins."

What's your point? Of course the LDR implementation in the KZ engine is developer decision.

So you admit I'm right, that it's not a mistake or a bug.

Does it have its shortcomings? YES.

Which is what I've been saying the whole time.

I did offer evidence. The CG intros of both games. Both are HDR renderer and look far better than the realtime game without compromising the aesthetics.

No, CG is not evidence of what can be done in real time on the PS3.

More interesting is the fact that you're only interested in listing the shortcomings of C2.

Because you've been acting like it didn't have any and basically treating me like an idiot for saying they made compromises to have their high-quality lighting engine run on the PS3. Pretty sure Laa-Yosh has criticism of KZ3 covered. So far, the only thing he can come up with is the low-range color space. Why should I repeat what's already been said? Why don't you list some additional things? Or are you complaining about a game you've never played? I listed the fact that so many areas are corridor-like (which you didn't notice, I guess).

Only denying/minimizing them when presented to you. Pretty telling.

Nope, never done that. I simply pointed out the flaws were compromises in order to accomplish other things, some of them things that C2 doesn't do as well (like resolution, frame rate, and AA). You seem to enjoy ascribing to me things I've never said.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The clipping at the sides is obviously due to a vignetting effect, but your assertion that the highlights are correctly rendered at the center of the screen is wrong. They're completely overblown. Just look at the finger to the left of the barrel.

Two responses to this. First, Laa-Yosh references that obvious vignetting as a technical fault:

No, the previous one. Although this one also has the same problems - high end of the histogram flattened out, highlights clamped at 220-200 intensities (particularly disturbing with the sun).

The complaint about the sun being clipped didn't support his views about the rendering faults.

Second, blown-out highlights isn't always a technical fault. Overblown highlights are a part of optics, more noticeable in cameras. When tone-mapping an HDR source down to a LDR display, artistic choices are made how to handle the values. And on that note, there are almost no overblown values in that image either. The detail is still there in the few highlights present on the road and gun, so Guerilla haven't let the lighting get away from them. But there's no point discussing subjective interpretations of highlights and what limits should be set during tone-mapping. My only consideration was the comment that the clipped sun was a technical fault and KZ suffered from a truncated dynamic range because of the engine limits.

Now, on the other hand of the discussion, I'm still waiting for polycounts and SOURCES instead of simply "look at this image, KZ3 obviously pushes more polygons". How about you call some of that out instead of fixating on a single image?.

I only entered this discussion when Laa-Yosh made a comment about KZ's renderer. Most of the other discussion is immesurable or ill-informed or I just expect it to be going over the same old ground. Having at no point talked about anything other than that post of Laa-Yosh's and that image, I don't see why you expect me to come and discuss other matters as if I'm partisan, as if one can only enter a discussion as being 100% for or against on every point raised. If the interpretation of my position was influenced by the posts of others, that's a very unfair evaluation.

It seems to me that often when someone is complaining about the quality of posts and discussions, they are ignoring an opportunity for a proper discussion. Just ignore the noise. This board is at it's best when the most knowledgeable contribute, and these posters never grumble about prejudiced attitudes or the state of the board, just instead contributing to intelligently discussion when something takes their fancy. Laa-Yosh bugging out of the conversation has only left a hole where his expertise in the artistry could explain to me that faults he's seeing, and I'm still none the wiser of the particular shortcomings of the KZ deferred renderer as seen through the eyes of a CGI artist.

 

[L. Scofield]

Two responses to this. First, Laa-Yosh references that obvious vignetting as a technical fault:
The complaint about the sun being clipped didn't support his views about the rendering faults.

Yep, that's his mistake. Doesn't really invalidate his point. Just that particular example was mistaken.

Second, blown-out highlights isn't always a technical fault. Overblown highlights are a part of optics, more noticeable in cameras. When tone-mapping an HDR source down to a LDR display, artistic choices are made how to handle the values. And on that note, there are almost no overblown values in that image either. The detail is still there in the few highlights present on the road and gun, so Guerilla haven't let the lighting get away from them. But there's no point discussing subjective interpretations of highlights and what limits should be set during tone-mapping. My only consideration was the comment that the clipped sun was a technical fault and KZ suffered from a truncated dynamic range because of the engine limits.

Yeah, let's ignore the character hand being completely overblown (evidence of lack of precision). I don't remember Sev being albino. The road not being affected as much is simply explained due to its material being dark stone. That hardly refutes the precision issues.

Also, "it's an artistic choice" doesn't cut it here. As I mentioned before, the CG intros, which use the same aesthetic style than the realtime portions of the game, do not have precision problems, showing that the overblown whites throughout the games are not an artistic choice, but a compromise of the rendering engine. It doesn't even matter because the title is very specific: "technical comparison", not "which one is prettier".

I only entered this discussion when Laa-Yosh made a comment about KZ's renderer. Most of the other discussion is immesurable or ill-informed or I just expect it to be going over the same old ground. Having at no point talked about anything other than that post of Laa-Yosh's and that image, I don't see why you expect me to come and discuss other matters as if I'm partisan, as if one can only enter a discussion as being 100% for or against on every point raised. If the interpretation of my position was influenced by the posts of others, that's a very unfair evaluation.

It's not whether you support "the KZ side" or "the C2 side", it's that you call our approach unfair when the other side is mostly making stuff up (still waiting on those polycount numbers) and throwing meaningless statements (see fearsomepirate's list).

It seems to me that often when someone is complaining about the quality of posts and discussions, they are ignoring an opportunity for a proper discussion. Just ignore the noise. This board is at it's best when the most knowledgeable contribute, and these posters never grumble about prejudiced attitudes or the state of the board, just instead contributing to intelligently discussion when something takes their fancy. Laa-Yosh bugging out of the conversation has only left a hole where his expertise in the artistry could explain to me that faults he's seeing, and I'm still none the wiser of the particular shortcomings of the KZ deferred renderer as seen through the eyes of a CGI artist.

Perhaps if his observations and comments hadn't been dismissed as mere preference he would still be sharing his knowledge with us in this thread.

 

[Scott_Arm]

For whatever reason, I'm finding the whole, HDR vs LDR, linear-space vs gamma-space thing pretty interesting. From what I can find, Killzone 3 is not using LogLuv or fp16. It is doing some kind of extended range using an integer format, I think. I don't know much about the different formats, but this slideshow (http://www.slideshare.net/guerrillagames/the-rendering-technology-of-killzone-2) talks about their g-buffer layout and mentions RGBA8 textures because FP16 was "too much." In this interview (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/digitalfoundry-killzone3-tech-interview) they mention extending the range for colour and lighting, but not switching to the LUV colour space. They also say the g-buffer layout is similar.


Also, this could be a pretty interesting thread if people are willing to be civil. It would actually be a cool way to learn about different approaches to rendering. I know I'd like to learn more. You know, disagree, make your point, but do it without being condescending or aggressive.

 

[rekator]

Well, why Using Crysis 2 and not Crysis on PSN? More interesting for technicals speaks, huge world, more vegetations and destruction, day time, etc…

 

[Billy Idol]

Thanks for the post Graham!

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Yep, that's his mistake. Doesn't really invalidate his point. Just that particular example was mistaken.

Okay. So you see where I'm coming from when I'm trying to understand his POV with relation to his comment that the sun was clipped but instead of explaining it by going to another reference pic, he bugs out and the rest of the posters in this thread start rolling eyes. If I now understand that his comment regards the sun was a mistake, then I can start to look at the underlying concerns regards other issues.

Yeah, let's ignore the character hand being completely overblown (evidence of lack of precision). I don't remember Sev being albino. The road not being affected as much is simply explained due to its material being dark stone. That hardly refutes the precision issues.

That's a reasonable argument, although the scenario of the nuke having just gone off could have the artists wanting to go with a higher contrast look. That's where a single image out of context isn't good for understanding a whole engine, and more examples are warranted.

Also, "it's an artistic choice" doesn't cut it here. As I mentioned before, the CG intros, which use the same aesthetic style than the realtime portions of the game, do not have precision problems, showing that the overblown whites throughout the games are not an artistic choice, but a compromise of the rendering engine. It doesn't even matter because the title is very specific: "technical comparison", not "which one is prettier".

Overblown whites could be a result of a lack of dynamic range or an artistic choice. They can't be presented as conclusive evidence of a technical issue. That's why they're being discussed, regardless of whether people like the look or not. The aesthetic was only brought up because Laa-Yosh said proper lighting and unclipped values were essential where a case can be made that they aren't essential and a style that the gamers will like can be achieved otherwise, making choice of lighting solution a compromise decision just like framerate or resolution.

It's not whether you support "the KZ side" or "the C2 side", it's that you call our approach unfair ...

Huh? All I did was ask about the clipped highlights in one image. The only thing I've called unfair is me being tarred with the same brush as other posters as if I'm unreasonable and partisan.

I'm reminded of a rule at B3D that comparisons aren't welcome, and this is why. Some people have a preference, and others feel compelled to talk about those preferences more than the actual topic, and the bickering escalates. Here's me also writing more about the discussion rather than actually discussing. I will have to work some Mod Mojo to recover a real technical debate on HDR.

 

[Arwin]

Thanks for giving a good background Graham. L.Scofields link to presentations here I think has one a little further down from the one he referred to that explains what they do and how they are also doing HDR postfx to not lose their work, basically. However for PC and PS3 they are using quite different precision in their output (2x four channel FP16 buffers on PC, vs 2x four channel 8bit buffers on PS3) I think here (am on an old iPhone right now)

http://www.crytek.com/cryengine/presentations/

Otherwise I want to remind everyone to look at the Maya/Killzone presentation I posted earlier. They brought their engine into Maya in a very interesting way, and explaining that they reveal a lot about their engine and even outsourcing

 

[L. Scofield]

Okay. So you see where I'm coming from when I'm trying to understand his POV with relation to his comment that the sun was clipped but instead of explaining it by going to another reference pic, he bugs out and the rest of the posters in this thread start rolling eyes. If I now understand that his comment regards the sun was a mistake, then I can start to look at the underlying concerns regards other issues.

That's a reasonable argument, although the scenario of the nuke having just gone off could have the artists wanting to go with a higher contrast look. That's where a single image out of context isn't good for understanding a whole engine, and more examples are warranted.

Hence why you shouldn't fixate on a single example.

Overblown whites could be a result of a lack of dynamic range or an artistic choice. They can't be presented as conclusive evidence of a technical issue. That's why they're being discussed, regardless of whether people like the look or not. The aesthetic was only brought up because Laa-Yosh said proper lighting and unclipped values were essential where a case can be made that they aren't essential and a style that the gamers will like can be achieved otherwise, making choice of lighting solution a compromise decision just like framerate or resolution.

You're forget a key piece of evidence. The presentation fearsomepirate linked us to, in which it states that a con of their DR implementation gives them limited dynamic range.All put together, it's pretty clear that precision issues are there.

Huh? All I did was ask about the clipped highlights in one image. The only thing I've called unfair is me being tarred with the same brush as other posters as if I'm unreasonable and partisan.

"However, those wanting to argue against KZ3's choice of implementation haven't addressed one issue among many in a fair way, instead claiming bias, prejudice, or incompetance on the part of the opposition."

I'm reminded of a rule at B3D that comparisons aren't welcome, and this is why. Some people have a preference, and others feel compelled to talk about those preferences more than the actual topic, and the bickering escalates. Here's me also writing more about the discussion rather than actually discussing. I will have to work some Mod Mojo to recover a real technical debate on HDR.

The problem started like this:
-Laa-Yosh: Killzone 3 has color precision issues.
-KZ3 side: B-bu-but that's an artistic choice! And C2 has worse framerate and IQ so its trade-offs are worse!

Instant deflection. A proper comparison would have been color precision vs color precision, framerate vs framerate, IQ vs IQ, animation vs animation, lighting vs lighting, etc... with no clear overal winner, just comparing different approaches. But no, defensiveness settled in early on and the thread was ruined.

 

[fearsomepirate]

The problem started like this:
-Laa-Yosh: Killzone 3 has color precision issues.

No, it didn't. That's never been under debate. What Laa-Yosh said was that high-precision color is a non-negotiable necessity, and that no compromises need to be made to have it. The former is an opinion, and the latter is false (in fact, we now know that C2 doesn't use FP16 RGB format--clearly a compromise the developers made to run on the PS3).

-KZ3 side: B-bu-but that's an artistic choice!

No, that never happened. No one ever said color precision is intrinsically an artistic choice. What I said is that due to the limitations of hardware, you have to make compromises. Different games make different compromises, and which compromises a developer chooses are largely an artistic choice. Those two things are different.

And C2 has worse framerate and IQ

I don't know why the truth keeps making you so upset.

so its trade-offs are worse!

Nope, I never said that.

The problem is that you barreled into the thread, didn't bother to figure out what everyone was saying, put a bunch of words in my mouth, and then proceeded to beat the crap out of a straw man. And you're still doing it (and now you're trying to blame others for "defensiveness" and not willing to make rational comparisons, despite you being the one who gets your feelings hurt whenever C2's frame rate or resolution are brought up).

Another problem with comparison threads is a lot of people jump into them who have never played one of or even both of the games.

 

[L. Scofield]

No, it didn't. That's never been under debate. What Laa-Yosh said was that high-precision color is a non-negotiable necessity, and that no compromises need to be made to have it. The former is an opinion, and the latter is false (in fact, we now know that C2 doesn't use FP16 RGB format--clearly a compromise the developers made to run on the PS3).

Still far more precise than KZ's solution

No, that never happened. No one ever said color precision is intrinsically an artistic choice. What I said is that due to the limitations of hardware, you have to make compromises. Different games make different compromises, and which compromises a developer chooses are largely an artistic choice. Those two things are different.

What a non-argument. So Crytek made artistic choices when it comes to the framerate and IQ of the game. And since art is subjective you can't say that the choices are better or worse than Guerrilla's

I don't know why the truth keeps making you so upset.

I don't know where you're getting that from since I never disagreed with those issues. Seems like you're having hallucinations.

Nope, I never said that.

The problem is that you barreled into the thread, didn't bother to figure out what everyone was saying, put a bunch of words in my mouth, and then proceeded to beat the crap out of a straw man. And you're still doing it (and now you're trying to blame others for "defensiveness" and not willing to make rational comparisons, despite you being the one who gets your feelings hurt whenever C2's frame rate or resolution are brought up).

Another problem with comparison threads is a lot of people jump into them who have never played one of or even both of the games.

Rational comparisons? "Primitive", "awful", etc... Are those examples of rational comparisons? Undefined examples using subjective terms.

Yeah, this is what happens when you give a deluded person too much attention. A new addition to my ignore list. Congratulations.

 

[fearsomepirate]

So Crytek made artistic choices when it comes to the framerate and IQ of the game. And since art is subjective you can't say that the choices are better or worse than Guerrilla's

Yes, that is exactly what I've been saying the whole time. If you had bothered to actually read what I was saying instead of assuming that everyone is like you and takes a "side," as though video games were a religion or something, we would have gotten to this point a lot sooner. Instead, you had to do your angry, name-calling thing the whole time. The problem is, like all partisans in these stupid arguments, you divide the whole world into "sides" with this "if you're not with me, you're against me" type of nonsense. So when I pointed out that C2 doesn't run at 30 fps, you immediately jumped to the conclusion I was saying its graphics are inferior to KZ3's. Which I wasn't. Because unlike you, when I acknowledge a game's flaws, I'm not trying to score points against an imagined enemy in the Great Internet Whose Favorite Game Is the Coolest Forum War. I'm just talking about the game.

Wish you would have read me the first time, though.

P.S. Next time you jump into this sort of thing, try playing the game first.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

"However, those wanting to argue against KZ3's choice of implementation haven't addressed one issue among many in a fair way, instead claiming bias, prejudice, or incompetance on the part of the opposition."

I guess you're interpreting that in a different way to the way it was written, as shown here...

The problem started like this:
-Laa-Yosh: Killzone 3 has color precision issues.
-KZ3 side: B-bu-but that's an artistic choice! And C2 has worse framerate and IQ so its trade-offs are worse!

The whole "Killzone 3 side" thing. I'm an individual. I was talking about Laa-yosh's opinions from my own perspective and with my own queries irresepctive of whatever anyone else was saying. I had one simple query about one singular issue in a thread of lots of independent contributors and different issues, which was not responded to fairly. The interpretation of my contribution seems heavily influenced by the contributions of other posters and not considered in isolation, as if I was also in agreement with a whole load of other opinions. If the rest of this thread didn't exist and it was only me posting the same posts asking Laa-Yosh for clarification, I think it'd have gone very differently. At some point I'll spin off an HDR discussion.

Instant deflection. A proper comparison would have been color precision vs color precision, framerate vs framerate, IQ vs IQ, animation vs animation, lighting vs lighting, etc... with no clear overal winner, just comparing different approaches. But no, defensiveness settled in early on and the thread was ruined.

The thread was never likely to go anywhere well, as these threads rarely do, but there have been chances for intelligent discusion just as Graham demonstrated. Laa-Yosh could have ignored noise and talked about technical details and made the best of it. Certainly I wanted to find something of value in it.

As I say, when I get chance I'll create a proper thread on the subject of HDR and LDR lighting methods and their various shortcomings. Starting afresh without a partisan intro, hopefully I'll get some understanding of the various issues of lighting engines that I may be missing.

 

[L. Scofield]

I guess you're interpreting that in a different way to the way it was written, as shown here...

The whole "Killzone 3 side" thing. I'm an individual. I was talking about Laa-yosh's opinions from my own perspective and with my own queries irresepctive of whatever anyone else was saying. I had one simple query about one singular issue in a thread of lots of independent contributors and different issues, which was not responded to fairly. The interpretation of my contribution seems heavily influenced by the contributions of other posters and not considered in isolation, as if I was also in agreement with a whole load of other opinions. If the rest of this thread didn't exist and it was only me posting the same posts asking Laa-Yosh for clarification, I think it'd have gone very differently. At some point I'll spin off an HDR discussion.

I wasn't talking about you there. You came in later into the discussion, after what I posted had occurred.

The thread was never likely to go anywhere well, as these threads rarely do, but there have been chances for intelligent discusion just as Graham demonstrated. Laa-Yosh could have ignored noise and talked about technical details and made the best of it. Certainly I wanted to find something of value in it.

As I say, when I get chance I'll create a proper thread on the subject of HDR and LDR lighting methods and their various shortcomings. Starting afresh without a partisan intro, hopefully I'll get some understanding of the various issues of lighting engines that I may be missing.

Looking forward to it.

 

[fearsomepirate]

I wasn't talking about you there.

Right, you were talking about that straw man you've been beating the crap out of for several days. I made a simple point about the trade-offs that must be made when writing graphics routines, and you jumped in and decided I must be on a "side," which I'm simply not. I've been trying to make a very general point about writing software the entire time, mainly due to some things Laa-Yosh said that I don't think are very accurate at all, and you've been misinterpreting nearly every word due to filtering it through the "Killzone side" versus "Crysis side" thing.

You came in later into the discussion, after what I posted had occurred.

What you posted never occurred. That was your misinterpretation of my posts. You still seem to have trouble believing I actually meant what I said, judging by your little rolleyes...I guess you still think everyone has to take a "side."

 

[Arwin]

There are two people here talking about the discussion form rather than adding to it with content, and I would like to ask you to draw the line at my post, and not post anything that doesn't directly contribute to the discussion again. If you can't manage it, you'll be the two responsible for killing the discussion. I guess though that Shifty is probably right that these discussions rarely work if you don't take them outside the context of comparing two titles, and focus on specific subjects instead, but personally I find comparing two titles does bring up interesting points of discussion, and it could work if people keep the meta-discussion to a minimum.

 

[L. Scofield]

There are two people here talking about the discussion form rather than adding to it with content, and I would like to ask you to draw the line at my post, and not post anything that doesn't directly contribute to the discussion again. If you can't manage it, you'll be the two responsible for killing the discussion. I guess though that Shifty is probably right that these discussions rarely work if you don't take them outside the context of comparing two titles, and focus on specific subjects instead, but personally I find comparing two titles does bring up interesting points of discussion, and it could work if people keep the meta-discussion to a minimum.

Seems like now there are three.

So are you going to post your sources for your polycount statements or should we just take your eyeballing as fact?

 

[Scott_Arm]

Wow ... This thread sucks, and is probably unrecoverable.

This thread probably should have started by collecting links to technical presentations. Then it could have agreed upon a list of topics to discuss. Then each topic could have been discussed, in order, until the dead horse was sufficiently beaten. And at the end, declaring a "winner" would be absolutely forbidden.

 

[Arwin]

Seems like now there are three.

So are you going to post your sources for your polycount statements or should we just take your eyeballing as fact?

Are you going to look at the presentation I posted or not?

 

[L. Scofield]

Are you going to look at the presentation I posted or not?

I have. And I did months ago as well. Unless I missed something it doesn't give any hard numbers on the overall polycounts per frame but if I'm wrong and you can point out where in the presentation is this information given then I'll be thankful.

Wow ... This thread sucks, and is probably unrecoverable.

This thread probably should have started by collecting links to technical presentations. Then it could have agreed upon a list of topics to discuss. Then each topic could have been discussed, in order, until the dead horse was sufficiently beaten. And at the end, declaring a "winner" would be absolutely forbidden.

Yeah, it's what I told Shifty. Why hasn't this thread been locked yet is beyond my understanding.