By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
globalisateur on 16 May 2014
Edit Thread
Zekkyou said:

Those saying Ryse "never was" are being a little unfair to it i think. You can't really proclaim either Ryse or Killzone as the definitive best looking launch title, GG and Crytek went down pretty different paths for what they wanted to prioritize.

Ryse for example had considerably better character models and animations (perhaps excluding Maya's facial animations), a more advanced AA method (fuck FXAA, y u do dat guerrilla :c) and more complex geometry thanks to its more linear nature.

Killzone on the other hand was running at a fair higher performance level than Ryse (1080p/30 - 40fps, so on average about 75% - 80% higher than Ryse's 900p/26 - 32fps), was often rendering more open areas (such as the forest level), and often utilized some seriously stunning textures.

Overall Killzone was certainly the more resource intensive of the two, but Ryse made better use of what it was given. With all of that in mind i don't think you can really say one is more of an achievement than the other, outside of general aesthetics preference.

inFamous beats the crap out of both though

You nailed it. Currently, thanks to a better AA (SMAA) Ryse somehow is at the same technical level (apparently) than Killzone.

It wouldn't be the case if Guerrilla had used SMAA instead of shitty FXAA which destroys all small geometry details and high resolution textures. In short the 44% higher resolution/more pixels pushed by Killzone SF are destroyed by using the blurry shitty FXAA.

And it's a shame, because we know that in the capped mode of the SP they could have afforded SMAA instead of FXAA easily.

At this point I think the decision to use the blurry/soft FXAA instead of a sharp Morphological AA like SMAA is an artistic decision. Remember that they used the awful vaseline effect named Quincunx for Killzone 2. They do like vaseline filters in their games..