| selnor said: This whole point of me posting was to show the comment that KZ2 was technically superior to Crysis as false. The very fact that GG opted for QSAA ( which is a form of AA that taxes a system alot less, but results in Blurred textures ) proof enough that technically calling KZ2 superior to Crysis is silly. Essentially, KZ2 was a very impressive use ofEffects and animation. It had scripted building destruction as well as scripted AI, as again touched on by Crytek recently. |
KZ2 uses Quincunx, but samples 2x (on an X elongated g-buffer if I remember well), thus it's an MSAA (MultiSampling) technique and it would have been less costly to just use a pixel-grid 2xMSAA instead of the 2x(M)QSAA. They probably chose to also go Quincunx anyway because it gave better smoothing of low-angled edges and having pixel-crisp textures was not a priority in a game that uses so much motion blur, particles and postprocessing. Google for killzone 2 multisampling, you'll find discussions on beyond3D and proceedings of dev talks from GG about building a deferred-rendering MSAA engine.
And what exactly does "scripted AI" mean? All Ai is scripted in some measure, the point is how flexible and reactive it is to the environment dynamics, including the player actions. And KZ2's is actually pretty advanced in dynamic terrain navigation, squad behaviour of the enemies and so on: proof is that it won the 2009 AiGameDev.com award for the best game AI. And GG produced some literature on the use of techniques for squad tactial behaviour that were previously only used in RTS games.
Again, the Crytek guys are trying to sell their engine to developers. It's their job. The day a finisihed game will ship with physics, lighting and AI that all put KZ2 to shame will be the day when we can assess which one is the most technologically advanced in the contraints of real-world console gaming.
