By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Killzone 2 VS Gears of War 2 through the eyes of a programmer

Euphoria14 on 06 February 2009

@jetrii

In my opinion you made the right choice.

I still play the game because of the modding potential.



iPhone = Great gaming device. Don't agree? Who cares, because you're wrong.

Currently playing:

Final Fantasy VI (iOS), Final Fantasy: Record Keeper (iOS) & Dragon Quest V (iOS)     

    

Got a retro room? Post it here!

Around the Network
jetrii on 06 February 2009
Euphoria14 said:
@jetrii

In my opinion you made the right choice.

I still play the game because of the modding potential.

Yea, that is one aspect of the PSN that I like. It is more open than Xbox Live. 

 



Good news Everyone!

I've invented a device which makes you read this in your head, in my voice!

kazad91 on 06 February 2009

thanks for this man, it seemed fair enough, and it doesnt sound pull out of nowhere like many people do, imo i prefer the look of Gears 2, although K2 does look very good



BrayanA on 06 February 2009
kazad91 said:
thanks for this man, it seemed fair enough, and it doesnt sound pull out of nowhere like many people do, imo i prefer the look of Gears 2, although K2 does look very good

Changes in art design and graphics in Gears 2 looks better then Gears 1, but at a price -  atmosphere suffer. You can see the difference in graphics only when you put them side by side, but atmosphere you can fill it instantly.

I just finished watching Resistance 2, GoW2 and KZ 2 images and movies. There were many cases in which Resistance 2 and GoW2 looks much better then KZ2. However just comparing them side, by side you miss the big picture - what you fill when you play them. Dead Space offers good, but not astonishing graphics. The atmosphere is what pushed it for my personal GOTY for 2008.

 



alephnull on 06 February 2009
BenVTrigger said:
alephnull said:
jetrii said:

I have some code compiling so I can afford to take a few minutes off to catch up on the thread

alephnull said:
jetrii said:
alephnull said:
jetrii said:
alephnull said:
Not that the KZ2 people don't need to be put in their place, but the thread parent doesn't contain anything measurable and just engages in a bunch of hand waving. Furthermore, the ridiculous OS comments neutralize any effect the appeal to authority has.

 

If you are not pleased with my simple explanation, you are free to read the more technical discussion on page 5. Also, what OS comment are you talking about?

The "OS" numbers I see bandied about look like the size of firmware updates to me, most of which are userspace applications.

I highly doubt either the kernel used by either the 360 or the ps3 is larger than 10 MB and  probably much less than that. Even if they decided to cram a bunch of user space programs into kernel space ala NT they would all just end up getting swapped out anyway.

Decided to reply to this before I left. Right now, you are pulling numbers out of thin air. Do a Google search for Xbox 360 OS footprint or Playstation 3 OS footprint and you'll have hundreds of sites confirming what I said.

Xbox 360 OS = 32mb of ram

PS3 OS = ~70-80MB. The sites will report less than this but that's just the OS memory, there are other things which also take up memory on the PS3.

I did a decent amount of kernel development before I got into HPC. I have seen these numbers before and do not believe them because of said experience.

I really don't know what to tell you, buddy. I've already told you the correct information and even gave you the exact phrase to search for on Google to confirm what I said. Xbox 360 uses 32MB and the PS3 uses more than that. It really doesn't matter if you did kernel development because this generation of consoles have much more than just a kernel, they have a full blown OS that can be accessed from within the game. If you still don't believe me, then we can agree to disagree.

Right, this is why is fairly obvious you don't know what you are talking about. Even talking about a memory footprint for a kernel may not even make any sense accept for the footprint of the code which is sure as hell not 70-80MB. You can access whatever you want in a game, but it's not going to be brought into memory until it's needed.

You don't know what these people mean by OS or footprint. They may not even know. You don't know if you are comparing the same thing between the 360 and PS3. Both numbers obviously include helper libraries and may or may not include other applications. If the XMB is included the number for the PS3 is going to be meaningless as it's fairly obvious if you've ever used one that the XMB is swapped out when you are in a game.

 

 

 

um not being a jerk or anything but I've read alot of jettri's posts and like none of yours and he does know what he's talking about.

 

touche



Around the Network
alephnull on 06 February 2009
jetrii said:
alephnull said:
jetrii said:

I have some code compiling so I can afford to take a few minutes off to catch up on the thread

alephnull said:
jetrii said:
alephnull said:
jetrii said:
alephnull said:
Not that the KZ2 people don't need to be put in their place, but the thread parent doesn't contain anything measurable and just engages in a bunch of hand waving. Furthermore, the ridiculous OS comments neutralize any effect the appeal to authority has.

 

If you are not pleased with my simple explanation, you are free to read the more technical discussion on page 5. Also, what OS comment are you talking about?

The "OS" numbers I see bandied about look like the size of firmware updates to me, most of which are userspace applications.

I highly doubt either the kernel used by either the 360 or the ps3 is larger than 10 MB and  probably much less than that. Even if they decided to cram a bunch of user space programs into kernel space ala NT they would all just end up getting swapped out anyway.

Decided to reply to this before I left. Right now, you are pulling numbers out of thin air. Do a Google search for Xbox 360 OS footprint or Playstation 3 OS footprint and you'll have hundreds of sites confirming what I said.

Xbox 360 OS = 32mb of ram

PS3 OS = ~70-80MB. The sites will report less than this but that's just the OS memory, there are other things which also take up memory on the PS3.

I did a decent amount of kernel development before I got into HPC. I have seen these numbers before and do not believe them because of said experience.

I really don't know what to tell you, buddy. I've already told you the correct information and even gave you the exact phrase to search for on Google to confirm what I said. Xbox 360 uses 32MB and the PS3 uses more than that. It really doesn't matter if you did kernel development because this generation of consoles have much more than just a kernel, they have a full blown OS that can be accessed from within the game. If you still don't believe me, then we can agree to disagree.

Right, this is why is fairly obvious you don't know what you are talking about. Even talking about a memory footprint for a kernel may not even make any sense accept for the footprint of the code which is sure as hell not 70-80MB. You can access whatever you want in a game, but it's not going to be brought into memory until it's needed.

You don't know what these people mean by OS or footprint. They may not even know. You don't know if you are comparing the same thing between the 360 and PS3. Both numbers obviously include helper libraries and may or may not include other applications. If the XMB is included the number for the PS3 is going to be meaningless as it's fairly obvious if you've ever used one that the XMB is swapped out when you are in a game.

 

 

alenphnull, there is nothing else I can or will say. I have already stated my claim that is backed up by dozens of news sites, Sony itself in the interview I posted earlier, Neogaf/Beyond3D developers that have actually worked on the game, and my old contacts back in Bethesda. The evidence is there, it is yours to believe it or not. Go to a forum in which game developers actively post and ask them that question. Heck, spent 5 seconds Google searching it. You will have your answer. 

If you wish to talk about something else, I am more than happy, but I am done having this discussion with you.

You didn't really address anything; which is consistent with the theme of this thread.

 



largedarryl on 06 February 2009

@alephnull, in defense of the OP, he does openly admit that his OS footprint comment is based off of other sources. Although I have a good feeling that is some blurb of data that has be reproduced into gospel.

I also doubt the actual kernel on either system should be utilizing any of the ram (almost none). If either of the systems are not capable of swapping out any of the user apps (or whatever is using up 70-80MB) then it is a pretty serious problem that should have been resolved during RND.



COKTOE on 06 February 2009

Very well done.



- "If you have the heart of a true winner, you can always get more pissed off than some other asshole."

Neoraf on 06 February 2009

Excellent post.

I got both at home (Gears2 and the Killzone2 demo), and even if I think Killzone2 looks prettier, this post let me understand why.

The difference between them is so small... Once the Killzone2 hype ends, people will get more rational.

Killzone2 is all about particles, smoke, lightning and atmosphere grfx. Really immersive.

Gears of War2 is all about modelization, pixels count and organic structures. Astounding design.



Again, excellent OP.



     

My Gaming Setup

Solid_Raiden on 06 February 2009

First off I wanted to say that I read your OP and thought it was very intelligent and thought out. However, I didn't read anything else in this thread as it's quite huge so I apologize if I'm repeating what other posters have said, which I probably am.

I'm sure you realise that we have only seen screens from the first two levels for the most part. If K1 is anything to go by there will be varied environments which may or may not include organic matter. For instance, most of K1 had environments much like we've seen in K2 but it also had a lush, organic level that was quite beautiful. That's why I say it's always better to wait for the final product otherwise a lot of your post is assuming the game will be little more then screens from the first two levels. In addition, I don't believe any of the images you used for K2 were final build. Which is fine, it still gets your point across but another reason why I feel waiting for the final game is much better. Who knows how much the game has changed since those screenshots were taken?
That being said, I'm not very knowledgable about graphics and the process of making them and enjoyed the read.




PS3 Trophies