• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Crysis 2: First PS3 footage | PS3 Multiplayer Demo March 16th

theignoramus

Member
Jun 7, 2009
17,420
7
760
33
ThoseDeafMutes said:
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).
The reason it has superior image quality is because its using an anti-aliasing technique that provides the equivalent of 8xaa in optimal conditions. (the quality of MLAA isnt 100% uniform of course) I have no idea what you're talking about when imply a game is somehow less "technically impressive" or less technically ambitious if its on rails and developed for one system. It seems to me that those are absurd qualifiers. By that standard Uncharted 2 isnt technically ambitious. Neither are the last two Gears of War games.
Anyway, I just pre ordered this baby on Steam. Cant wait till release!
 

Nizz

Member
May 18, 2007
12,615
14
1,240
Florida
Hopefully the MP demo will give us a better idea of how the final game will run? The 360 MP demo ran at a pretty much solid 30fps. And the more recent footage of the 360 version (again, at Gamespot's recent now playing segment) looked like it was running well.

I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and wait till the demo. Hopefully another site will have a closer look-type segment with the PS3 version with a more recent build. That is if the build in today's video is an older build...

I thought what I saw in that video looked good. A little softer than the 360 video but the framerate looked the same as the 360 road rage video and with how that version is running more recently gives me a little more hope for the PS3 version.
 

Dreohboy

Junior Member
Jun 30, 2009
847
0
0
San Pedro, CA
Arklite said:
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.
PS3 developers do smoke and mirrors very well. I'm not knocking the platform. 512mb RAM on a below average GPU and they can still crank out a good looking games like Killzone 3 is a testament to their talent.

Still...I think people should wait until Crysis 2 ships before they go on about how much better looking Killzone 3 is.
 

StuBurns

Banned
Jan 9, 2008
69,543
0
0
Lostconfused said:
Oh thats not the Road Rage level so I didn't think you were talking about that video.
Sorry yeah you're right, I got mixed up reading purple cobra's post.
 

fernoca

Member
Sep 17, 2006
30,835
0
1,075
Puerto Rico
StuBurns said:
KZ3 isn't the best looking game on PS3 anyway.
Best looking first person shooter at least. :p


In any case, i like what I saw in the video. Though some parts looked boring and slow, but that's probably for video/demo purposes.
 

nib95

Banned
Feb 26, 2007
34,618
2
0
TUROK said:
Bold claim, especially when Killzone 3 has no HDR or real-time global illumination to speak of.
From what I have read on B3D (which I know you frequent), that (lack of true HDR) was as much an artistic choice as it was to save on recourses. Supposedly the way GG have their lighting engine (relies heavily on tone maps, maybe someone more technically versed could chime in) allows for greater artistic control with the lighting, colours, contrast and tones. Which might be more unrealistic, but allows for a more aggressive high contrast look. Which suits KZ3 perfectly.

Whilst KZ3 might not have as resource hogging or technically impressive lighting engine (imo the lighting still looks a better than what I've seen of console Crysis 2 despite it's implementation), it does have better textures, a higher resolution, better AA implementation, possibly better frame rate and far superior AF, which imo are basics with respect to IQ. Then there's still other stuff like animations, AI and so on which are still to be seen but imo so far seem to favour KZ3. Imo there's no point focusing on the technically progressive if the graphical basics are still regressive. Just my personal take though.

Anyway, sorry to go off tangent, just my take on the current discussion. Moving swiftly back to Crysis 2 PS3. Any ideas on when the demo will hit?
 
May 19, 2005
25,274
2
1,300
Maryland
Good looks great.

Zzoram said:
Wait, KZ3 doesn't even have HDR? I thought all games since 2006 have had it.
You my friend just phases a question that's a perfect example of graphical effects for the sake of the graphic effect essentially be tech buzzwords bullet in respect to a games engine.

A lot of games did have HDR, but then again a lot of games light bloomed the ever looking hell out of there games when games used HDR in rather ill effects to the overall lighting design too.

Use it, don't use it. Design you lights well either-way.

Killzone 2/3 deferred rendered engine allowed them hundreds of light sources to be placed.
 

TUROK

Member
Aug 27, 2010
4,880
936
910
nib95 said:
Whilst KZ3 might not have as resource hogging or technically impressive lighting engine (imo the lighting still looks a better than what I've seen of console Crysis 2 despite it's implementation), it does have better textures, a higher resolution, better AA implementation, possibly better frame rate and far superior AF, which imo are basics with respect to IQ. Then there's still other stuff like animations, AI and so on which are still to be seen but imo so far seem to favour KZ3. Imo there's no point focusing on the technically progressive if the graphical basics are still regressive. Just my personal take though.
Yeah, Killzone 3 is no doubt the better looking game, but that hardly means that Crysis 2 on the PS3 won't be impressive in its own right.


Truespeed said:
It is in HD, though.
According to the CFG files, the PS3 version runs at 1280x704. Is 16 lines of pixels really the difference between HD and sub-HD?
 

Truespeed

Member
May 6, 2007
7,211
198
1,230
TUROK said:
According to the CFG files, the PS3 version runs at 1280x704. Is 16 lines of pixels really the difference between HD and sub-HD?
That's a rather odd resolution. But, if that video is really representative of 704p then apparently there is a difference. And those config file values aren't exactly set in stone.
 

Afrikan

Member
Jun 27, 2007
12,157
0
1,170
Ratchet and Clank also uses that resolution. Here is an old article about why it is used.
http://www.ripten.com/2007/10/16/ratchet-and-clank-hd-pixelation-issue-insomniac-responds/
What could be the problem? Well some research has been done at the Beyond3d forums, suggesting that Ratchet and Clank is 704p or 704by1280 pixels instead of the regular 720by1280. This is unlike the Halo 3 problem of being a 640p image (or even Conan at 576p) being upscaled to 720p (and higher) since Ratchet and Clank is not upscaled by the Playstation3.

Upscaling from 640p to 720p would cause some strange exaggeration of aliasing, and other minor problems with picture quality. Instead, Ratchet and Clank cuts off 8pixels above and below, meaning the remaining image will still be rendered at 720p but with small black bars above and below, such as you would see when you watch an HD film on your television. A 1080p film will have black borders above and below, thus not using all the pixels, but the quality that is displayed still means it is 1080p. Ratchet and Clank is even less extreme than this, since the black borders would be almost unnoticeable if your HDTV didn’t use overscan to remove them completely. This image is sent from the Playstation to your television, and then the overscan of your television will make the final picture fit the screen, thus not showing the black bars. Ratchet and Clank being 704p is thus a clever way to save some pixels without impacting visual quality
so its not really stretched out to fit 720p, like other SubHD games. Or at least that is what I think they mean.
 

FGMPR

Banned
Feb 12, 2011
1,930
0
0
marathonfool said:
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.
I was thinking the same thing. I was really impressed.
 

MazingerDUDE

Member
Jan 8, 2009
69
0
0



Although the shot was taken from a video feed, I'm 100% certain about this result.

Probably the biggest fail for PS3 hardware, since Crysis 2 is the most tech advanced game ever.

BTW, Cevat Yerli you are a liar.
 

Barakov

Member
Sep 30, 2006
7,689
5,055
1,520
It'll be interesting to see what other differences show up when DF does their comparison for the console versions.
 

MacBosse

Member
Apr 8, 2008
1,210
0
0
MazingerDUDE said:
Although the shot was taken from a video feed, I'm 100% certain about this result.

Probably the biggest fail for PS3 hardware, since Crysis 2 is the most tech advanced game ever.

BTW, Cevat Yerli you are a liar.
Enlighten me ... what has been said 360 vs PS3 versions of Crysis2? Does 360 run at a higher rez?
 

DSN2K

Member
Jun 6, 2004
9,512
2
0
35
I remember Crytek talking of how the PS3 version was going to be great and the one to look at on the consoles, wonder what happened.
 

Zzoram

Member
Apr 17, 2007
33,495
0
0
DSN2K said:
I remember Crytek talking of how the PS3 version was going to be great and the one to look at on the consoles, wonder what happened.
They realized that multiplatform development for PS3 is really hard.
 

bobbytkc

ADD New Gen Gamer
Feb 28, 2007
9,031
3
0
DSN2K said:
I remember Crytek talking of how the PS3 version was going to be great and the one to look at on the consoles, wonder what happened.

I find it quite funny looking at the outcome after that initial arrogance and load of hot air.
 

chris0701

Member
Jun 28, 2007
1,415
0
0
Mazinger,could you help us to check the resolution on 360 SP from the latest SP footage?
The resoution is same as we had in MP demo(1152x720)?

Thank you.
 

Zen

Banned
Jun 24, 2005
13,050
0
0
What resolution does the 360 version run at?

bobbytkc said:
I find it quite funny looking at the outcome after that initial arrogance and load of hot air.
I still foundly remember them talking up how they'd discovered the 'secret sauce' to do true 3D with no performance hit and how great they are.

Only for it to turn out that they were obviously using the 2D popout faked 3D that had been well known and documented.
 

AgentOtaku

Member
Nov 21, 2005
31,045
1
0
37
Spokane, WA
oi! MGS4 ran at 1024x768 and looked damn good. K&L2 runs at some crazy low resolution on consoles as well as was honestly one of THE best looking games on a console last year

Art direction/execution >>>>>> Raw pixels
 

xemumanic

Member
Sep 1, 2004
2,204
4
1,435
East Stroudsburg, PA
Zen said:
I still foundly remember them talking up how they'd discovered the 'secret sauce' to do true 3D with no performance hit and how great they are.

Only for it to turn out that they were obviously using the 2D popout faked 3D that had been well known and documented.
That's a gross over-simplification.
 

Feindflug

Member
Jul 26, 2005
6,029
0
0
Europa
MazingerDUDE said:
http://pds21.egloos.com/pds/201102/25/09/a0037809_4d6761095db8d.jpg

Although the shot was taken from a video feed, I'm 100% certain about this result.

Probably the biggest fail for PS3 hardware, since Crysis 2 is the most tech advanced game ever.

BTW, Cevat Yerli you are a liar.
Mazinger have you checked the SP trailer of the 360 version? is it the same as the MP demo - 1152*720?

Thanks in advance.
 

Windom Earle

Member
Jan 4, 2009
11,448
316
1,025
Yeah, sp resolution of the 360 version would be interesting.1024x720 is disappointing, but the game runs relatively smooth at least.

Dreohboy said:
PS3 developers do smoke and mirrors very well. I'm not knocking the platform. 512mb RAM on a below average GPU and they can still crank out a good looking games like Killzone 3 is a testament to their talent.

Still...I think people should wait until Crysis 2 ships before they go on about how much better looking Killzone 3 is.
Ahh, haven't seen one of the "PS3 devs are cheating" posts in some time.
 

StuBurns

Banned
Jan 9, 2008
69,543
0
0
It seems like it should look better than it does at that resolution. Maybe it's the video that's at fault. The one Gamersyde is hosting is a decent bitrate, but EA sent out a version that's about 50mb, and it appears to be exactly the same as the Gamersyde one, there's is running at double the framerate and with a higher bitrate, but it appears to be the same terrible 50mb source.

The video looks terrible, but the game should look fine.

EDIT: For reference, that's the same resolution as Vanquish and Dark Athena.
 

LiquidMetal14

hide your water-based mammals
Jan 18, 2007
46,582
1
1,215
The Confederate United States of America
schennmu said:
Yeah, sp resolution of the 360 version would be interesting.1024x720 is disappointing, but the game runs relatively smooth at least.



Ahh, haven't seen one of the "PS3 devs are cheating" posts in some time.
KZ3 pretty much spanks Crysis 2 on consoles. It's doing more and is feauture heavy as much as Crysis 2 if not more. And 1 small thing people will not talk about but KZ3 is doing real 3D and not the latter like Crysis 2. It's not worthy of comparison really. It looks good on both consoles but that's still disappointing considering what Crytek was touting. Lower res, lower FR, lower IQ, but certainly not the biggest fail like was stated a few posts back.

The hope here is the PC version which should take these console versions out for a woodshed beating on resolution alone.
 

JaseC

gave away the keys to the kingdom.
Jul 30, 2009
73,802
7
1,030
Western Australia
schennmu said:
Ahh, haven't seen one of the "PS3 devs are cheating" posts in some time.
Your paraphrase reminded me of the early pre-Uncharted days of claims such as, "The PS3 can't render HDR lighting!" and "The PS3 can't render high-resolution textures!"
 

FGMPR

Banned
Feb 12, 2011
1,930
0
0
szaromir said:
And at some point it was a cherished PC franchise even though it was a dumb script gallery since the beginning.
True, but a dumb script gallery was something of a novelty back in 03.
 

JaseC

gave away the keys to the kingdom.
Jul 30, 2009
73,802
7
1,030
Western Australia
universalmind said:
Lol, lean and prone are gone? Goodness me.
I don't understand why devs remove these. It's not as though they're unable to be mapped to a controller. For example, the original FEAR had lean in both console versions, but Monolith removed it in the sequel.

The mind boggles.

Cyborg said:
So many pages about the resolution of a demo......:) To much time on your hands?
thisisneogafdude.gif

You think this is bad? Such discussion completely overran this Alan Wake thread.