Support NeoGAF

[TUROK]

lol I doesn't help that Killzone 3 literally puts this engine to shame at least on the PS3.

Bold claim, especially when Killzone 3 has no HDR or real-time global illumination to speak of.

 

[X-Frame]

Where's the next MP trailer?

I don't care about the SP ..

 

[JB1981]

Looks good but very sub HD.

 

[metareferential]

How can people judge resolution from a youtube video is beyond me.

It may very well be sub-hd, but stating it looks very sub-hd (like what? Alan Wake-sub hd?) is a bit extreme at this moment.

Given the 360 beta runs at 1152x720p.

 

[JB1981]

How can people judge resolution from a youtube video is beyond me.

It may very well be sub-hd, but stating it looks very sub-hd (like what? Alan Wake-sub hd?) is a bit extreme at this moment.

Given the 360 beta runs at 1152x720p.

pretty much

 

[Zzoram]

Bold claim, especially when Killzone 3 has no HDR or real-time global illumination to speak of.

Wait, KZ3 doesn't even have HDR? I thought all games since 2006 have had it.

 

[StuBurns]

How can people judge resolution from a youtube video is beyond me.

It may very well be sub-hd, but stating it looks very sub-hd (like what? Alan Wake-sub hd?) is a bit extreme at this moment.

Given the 360 beta runs at 1152x720p.

Why judge the youtube video when we can judge the much better quality one Gamersyde is hosting?

 

[metareferential]

Why judge the youtube video when we can judge the much better quality one Gamersyde is hosting?

Still have to see that, fair point. But...

pretty much

So it should run at about 960x540 on ps3. And you can see that from a single video?

No one was able to tell AW's resolution before the sub-hd debacle exploded.

 

[Arklite]

Bold claim, especially when Killzone 3 has no HDR or real-time global illumination to speak of.

Not so bold, since he specified PS3. No one is going to put much effort at maximizing resources as much as first party developers. Considering the lukewarm reception of this demo video, I'd say KZ3 looking noticeably better on this platform isn't a stretch even if the engine spec isn't point for point better by comparison.

 

[ionicbluebird]

Yeah, doesn't look as good as Killzone 2. Sorry Crytek.

 

[Windom Earle]

Bold claim, especially when Killzone 3 has no HDR or real-time global illumination to speak of.

It still looks like crap compared to KZ3.

 

[jackdoe]

It looks worse than the 360 version. But that could be due to the level being bland in general, the video capturing being shit, or the PS3 SKU just being shit. We won't know until a demo or the final product comes out. Personally, I think it's option 3.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

It still looks like crap compared to KZ3.

The original claim was that the KZ3 engine "puts this to shame". It doesn't. It's far less ambitious in scope and is less technically impressive. Does KZ3 look better? Yes, but that's not because its engine is revolutionary.

 

[Windom Earle]

The original claim was that the KZ3 engine "puts this to shame". It doesn't. It's far less ambitious in scope and is less technically impressive. Does KZ3 look better? Yes, but that's not because its engine is revolutionary.

- Sub HD
- Inconsistent Framerate
- No proper AA

Also wait for the retail before you judge the scope.

Technically more impressive? Not at all.

 

[jackdoe]

The original claim was that the KZ3 engine "puts this to shame". It doesn't. It's far less ambitious in scope and is less technically impressive. Does KZ3 look better? Yes, but that's not because its engine is revolutionary.

The Killzone 3 engine does some really neat stuff with offloading post processing and Anti Aliasing to the SPUs, so I'd say the engine is revolutionary. It may not be as big in scope as Crysis 2, but CryTek 3 on the PS3 probably doesn't utilize the SPUs the way Guerilla's engine does and is probably more brute force, relying more on the crappy GPU, which is why it will probably look like shit compared to the 360 version.

 

[ChoklitReign]

How can people judge resolution from a youtube video is beyond me.

It may very well be sub-hd, but stating it looks very sub-hd (like what? Alan Wake-sub hd?) is a bit extreme at this moment.

Given the 360 beta runs at 1152x720p.

What's up with that resolution? Shouldn't there be black bars on the sides?

 

[metareferential]

What's up with that resolution? Shouldn't there be black bars on the sides?

There's horizontal scaling.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

- Sub HD
- Inconsistent Framerate
- No proper AA

Also wait for the retail before you judge the scope.

Technically more impressive? Not at all.

WTF is your operational definition for "Technically impressive"? CE3 is certainly capable of "Proper AA", good framerates and HD resolutions. This implementation doesn't make use of them, but that's got nothing to do with the "Killzone 3 engine" being "better". In fact, the reason KZ3 has better image quality is because it is more conservative, with smaller environments and lacking some of the advanced effects that C2 is using (Real Time Global Illumination being the most apparent).

A game can look like a total turd and still be technically impressive. A game can look fantastic but be technically unimpressive. What technically impressive means is that it's impressive what it's doing given the resources it has available. KZ3 happens to be an impressive game as well, but not so much as C2, which also has the added drawback of being a multiplatform engine (compared to KZ3 which is optimized specifically for the PS3). Again, I'm not disputing that KZ3 looks better than the PS3 version of this (although the amount of PS3 footage released is admittedly quite small for C2).

 

[StuBurns]

WTF is your operational definition for "Technically impressive"? CE3 is certainly capable of "Proper AA", good framerates and HD resolutions. This implementation doesn't make use of them, but that's got nothing to do with the "Killzone 3 engine" being "better". In fact, the reason KZ3 has better image quality is because it is more conservative, with smaller environments and lacking some of the advanced effects that C2 is using (Real Time Global Illumination being the most apparent).

A game can look like a total turd and still be technically impressive. A game can look fantastic but be technically unimpressive. What technically impressive means is that it's impressive what it's doing given the resources it has available. KZ3 happens to be an impressive game as well, but not so much as C2, which also has the added drawback of being a multiplatform engine (compared to KZ3 which is optimized specifically for the PS3). Again, I'm not disputing that KZ3 looks better than the PS3 version of this (although the amount of PS3 footage released is admittedly quite small for C2).

Have you got any proof KZ3 has smaller environments?

 

[The Nature Roy]

- Sub HD
- Inconsistent Framerate
- No proper AA

Also wait for the retail before you judge the scope.

Technically more impressive? Not at all.

Again, it's not a fair comparison to judge CryEngine 3 as a whole vs. a console exclusive. How well would the KZ3 engine port the game to 360?

Anyway, I'm thinking this is getting underplayed a bit and KZ3 is getting slightly overhyped at the same time.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Have you got any proof KZ3 has smaller environments?

Not unless they've rescinded their policy on posting videos of the leaked beta (whole game is up on various sites).

 

[StuBurns]

Not unless they've rescinded their policy on posting videos of the leaked beta (whole game is up on various sites).

They haven't, don't post anything.

I've seen some of it and none of it is all that big.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Guess we'll wait for Digital Foundry post-release analysis then!

 

[TUROK]

- Sub HD
- Inconsistent Framerate
- No proper AA

Also wait for the retail before you judge the scope.

Technically more impressive? Not at all.

How is edge detect+temporal not "proper AA"? Sure, it's nowhere near as good as MLAA, but that doesn't mean it's not proper.

 

[Lostconfused]

I've seen some of it and none of it is all that big.

The single player levels in KZ3 are call of duty narrow.

How is edge detect+temporal not "proper AA"? Sure, it's nowhere near as good as MLAA, but that doesn't mean it's not proper.

There is some noticeable ghosting caused by it. So they either need to implement it better or a different AA solution would be preferable.

 

[Norml]

Guess we'll wait for Digital Foundry post-release analysis then!

Until then ,here is some problems that faced 360 MP demo.
ghosting and jaggies
http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/1/3/2/4/5/7/7/Ghosting_000.bmp.jpg


Gameplay looks decent, but nothing impressive going on with graphics after KZ3 IMO.

 

[Arklite]

Guess we'll wait for Digital Foundry post-release analysis then!

Step one for me on those things is to scroll down and find the image where they do a splitscreen video with PS3 frame rates on one side and 360 frame rate right beside it. As soon I see the starting still shot of PS3: 24fps / 360: 30fps, I close the window. No point beating up the port further than that.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

Ever feel like you motherfuckers are focusing on the wrong shit?

 

[StuBurns]

The single player levels in KZ3 are call of duty narrow.

They're narrow, that doesn't mean they aren't large.

 

[Windom Earle]

WTF is your operational definition for "Technically impressive"? CE3 is certainly capable of "Proper AA", good framerates and HD resolutions. This implementation doesn't make use of them, but that's got nothing to do with the "Killzone 3 engine" being "better". In fact, the reason KZ3 has better image quality is because it is more conservative, with smaller environments and lacking some of the advanced effects that C2 is using (Real Time Global Illumination being the most apparent).

A game can look like a total turd and still be technically impressive. A game can look fantastic but be technically unimpressive. What technically impressive means is that it's impressive what it's doing given the resources it has available. KZ3 happens to be an impressive game as well, but not so much as C2, which also has the added drawback of being a multiplatform engine (compared to KZ3 which is optimized specifically for the PS3). Again, I'm not disputing that KZ3 looks better than the PS3 version of this (although the amount of PS3 footage released is admittedly quite small for C2).

I don't care what the engine theoretically can do, it's about what we see on screen. We could probably run CE3 on PS2 with 1fps. Wow, how impressive! Just because the engine can push some nifty effects on PC does not make it a good console engine.

My point: Get the basics (AA, fps, res) down before you even think about going crazy with other stuff. Crytek has the image of being tech wizards. The fact that they struggle to get consistent results on closed platforms pretty much disputes this reputation for me.

How is edge detect+temporal not "proper AA"? Sure, it's nowhere near as good as MLAA, but that doesn't mean it's not proper.

Afaik it's not even as good as QAA.

 

[jackdoe]

There is some noticeable ghosting caused by it. So they either need to implement it better or a different AA solution would be preferable.

It also doesn't do a good job at anti-aliasing as there are a ton of jaggies. They should let you turn it off on consoles to get rid of the ghosting.

 

[Arklite]

Ever feel like you motherfuckers are focusing on the wrong shit?

Like focusing on gameplay? Not really, since no new game elements were shown. Otherwise, the big question was how the engine would perform on a third platform, visually and technically.

 

[Lostconfused]

My point: Get the basics (AA, fps, res) down before you even think about going crazy with other stuff. Crytek has the image of being tech wizards. The fact that they struggle to get consistent results on closed platforms pretty much disputes this reputation for me.

The last two points don't really have anything to do with the quality of the engine but rather hows its used though. If they turned down the effects then chances are they probably would be able to run it at higher frame rate and resolution.

 

[Windom Earle]

The last two points don't really have anything to do with the quality of the engine but rather hows its used though. If they turned down the effects then chances are they probably would be able to run it at higher frame rate and resolution.

Right, the point is proper optimization. Maybe the engine as a whole is more ambitious than the KZ3 engine. But if it fails to recreate similar results than it fails as a whole.

 

[elrechazado]

The PC version is going to come out on top.

fixed that for you.

 

[StuBurns]

What is the debate though? The possibilities of CryEngine 3 on consoles or how Crytek has decided to use it on the consoles?

There is no question the engine could run a game at 60Hz in 720p, and there is no question that Crysis 2 as it is on consoles couldn't run like that.

Crytek appear to be happy to compromise the performance for the sake of being a 'complete' port, if you think that's a wise decision or not is subjective, it's not an objective analysis of the technology they've built.

The IQ on the PS3 video is disgusting, like true SD disgusting, in fact I don't even believe it's really like that, but if they decided they want every effect regardless of the cost to IQ that's fine, that's their choice.

 

[Lostconfused]

Right, the point is proper optimization. Maybe the engine as a whole is more ambitious than the KZ3 engine. But if it fails to recreate similar results than it fails as a whole.

They can't optimize the engine until they have everything running on that platform. Which they now do and now they have to optimize it. Either way its ridiculous for you to call it a failure.

 

[JaseC]

Bold claim, especially when Killzone 3 has no HDR or real-time global illumination to speak of.

The range isn't to the same level as the HDR in, say, Uncharted 2 (in other words, it's not what most would consider "real" HDR), but it's still much higher than your standard RGBA8 lighting. Whether or not it's HDR depends upon how anal you are about the range the lighting must have before it becomes High Dynamic Range.

 

[DenogginizerOS]

After a long day at work, I watched that video again on my home PC. Still pumped about getting it on day one. I see a very fun game with pretty steady performance in that video.

 

[Windom Earle]

They can't optimize the engine until they have everything running on that platform. Which they now do and now they have to optimize it. Either way its ridiculous for you to call it a failure.

We will see how much room for optimization there is left, the game should be very close to gold master.

Calling it a failure might be too harsh, but they set the bar for themselves pretty high with the aggressive PR beforehand (Best looking PS3 game, etc.).

 

[plagiarize]

The range isn't to the same level as, say, Uncharted 2 (in other words, it's not what most would consider "real" HDR), but it's still much higher than your standard RGBA8 lighting. Whether or not it's HDR depends upon how anal you are about the range it must have before it becomes High Dynamic Range.

eh, it's probably another case of someone thinking the game has to to do that light dark iris simulation in order to be HDR.

 

[StuBurns]

If this is a bad capture for whatever bizarre reason and the real thing is HD, and performs like this, it'll be the best looking third party game on PS3, that alone is a significant achievement.

 

[jackdoe]

We will see how much room for optimization there is left, the game should be very close to gold master.

Calling it a failure might be too harsh, but they set the bar for themselves pretty high with the aggressive PR beforehand (Best looking PS3 game, etc.).

Haha. Don't forget "PS3 development is easy" claims as well.

If this is a bad capture for whatever bizarre reason and the real thing is HD, and performs like this, it'll be the best looking third party game on PS3, that alone is a significant achievement.

The capture is beyond terrible. Coupled with ghosting effects and a muted color scheme (due to cloudy skies) it becomes worse. I assumed shit resolution but it could just as easily be shit capture.

 

[belvedere]

Total overreaction to a shit quality video, and here, that shouldn't be surprising.

 

[StuBurns]

The capture is beyond terrible. Coupled with ghosting effects and a muted color scheme (due to cloudy skies) it becomes worse. I assumed shit resolution but it could just as easily be shit capture.

Yeah, I fully agree.

And often with subHD games, the HUD is still much crisper, but it's not in this, and there is even a graininess to the video. But the logos are HD so it's not the quality of the trailer itself. I find it near impossible to imagine EA did an SD capture, but it almost seems like the most logical explanation to me. Maybe in HD the framerate in the build was notably worse so they used SD mode or something. No idea really, but it's bad enough to make me wonder if it's real.

 

[~Kinggi~]

PS3 version on the right.
X360 version on the left.

http://www.youtubedoubler.com/?vide...ure=channel&start2=20&authorName=Crazy+Monsta

just a shame nothing is from the same level....

You have that backwards. 360 on the right, ps3 on the left.

 

[jackdoe]

Yeah, I fully agree.

And often with subHD games, the HUD is still much crisper, but it's not in this, and there is even a graininess to the video. But the logos are HD so it's not the quality of the trailer itself.

You do realize static images like logos and credits can look alright in trailers with crappy captures? They are added post-production after the gameplay is captured.

 

[StuBurns]

You do realize static images can look alright in trailers with crappy captures? They are added post-production after the gameplay is captured.

Yeah, sorry that post wasn't as clear as it should have been. What I was trying to say was the people who are blaming the quality of the trailer as being bad are wrong to do so because the trailer itself is fine, it's the game footage that is being used in the trailer.

In saying that, I just looked again, and the logos and things really aren't that good either. I'll download the other one and compare I think.

 

[marathonfool]

I must be the crazy one here. The video looks very impressive to me for a console game. The lighting looks great. Maybe not up to UC2 or Killzone standards, but better than the majority of the games out there.

 

[jackdoe]

I must be the crazy one here. The video looks very impressive to me for a console game. The lighting looks great. Maybe not up to UC2 or Killzone standards, but better than the majority of the games out there.

There really isn't much lighting, since the skies are downcast so it looks flat. CryTek made a mistake and chose a level that was boring lighting wise (or maybe they didn't make a mistake).