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

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

mjk45 on 06 February 2009

cause theres no bloody trees ,helgan is an industrial wasteland so bad it's people had to mutate to survive living there ,so lots of trees would be stupid and doesn't constitute a easy way out by the developer, any way if you want trees,thats what speed tree and programs like it are for , of cause theres smoke and mirrors every game has them,iincluding gears its called playing to the strengths and weaknesses of the machine your working on,in gears i can find texture faults pop up etc a lot of these hd games have got just as bad pop up as the last gen,we have all seen where the basic railings, curbs, walls,dividing lines in the road what have you is on screen but the detailed texture appears to be put on the object right in front of you .



Research shows Video games  help make you smarter, so why am I an idiot

Around the Network
Phasma on 06 February 2009

A very good read indeed, and nicely thorough. I support you post, but it could be the environments could be different in the full game. Not by much i think but you never know.



toastboy44562 on 06 February 2009

yeah gears 2 has more complicated stuff in it, thats what makes it better...



Procrastinato on 07 February 2009
jetrii said:

 

Now, lets see what Gears of War 2 would look like if it didn't have so much organic matter and features industrial levels similar to those that populate Killzone 2.

http://www.gamershell.com/static/screenshots/12987/366502_full.jpg

http://www.gamershell.com/static/screenshots/12987/366504_full.jpg

They look pretty good, and even then, they still have organic matter and bright scenes. Although I think Killzone 2 does have better shadows, aside from it being an art direction choice, it makes parts of the game easier to render since they can use lower resolution textures and hide it with darkness.

 

On my PC games when I turn shadows on stuff gets slower.  How do I make it so the shadows make stuff faster, by hiding the bad textures?  Is there a trick?



 

Procrastinato on 07 February 2009
jetrii said:

 

If killzone 2 were running on its engine on the PS3 and the exact same game on Epic's engine on the Xbox 360, I have no doubt that Killzone 2 would look better on the PS3. However, the difference would not be by much. Due to its smaller OS, the Xbox 360 has more memory available to it than Killzone 2. Killzone 2 on the PS3 would probably have a bit more going on on the screen at the same time but the Xbox 360 version would have higher resolution textures. GoWII on the PS3 however would be identical to the Xbox 360 version with slightly blurrier textures. Granted, Killzone 2 on the 360 would probably take up 2 discs unless procedural synthesis was used (which would require all the art to be remade from scratch). With procedural synthesis, developers can fit Gigabytes of information in a few hundred megabytes. There is a 96KB game(.kkrieger) that fits 200MB of data into it due to its use of procedural synthesis. 

 

I bet this synthesis is probably how games like the Conduit look so good compared to HD games that are like it.  Probably makes art really ez to do.

 



 

Around the Network
MikeB on 07 February 2009

bobobologna

I think it's pretty pointless to argue about organic vs inorganic art assets when you completely fail to mention things like particle effects, lighting, animation, and physics, all of which play a part in a game's graphics and graphics engine. Not to mention that Killzone 2 has per pixel motion blur and could result in some people believing the game has blurry textures based on certain screenshots.

It's depressing that the eyes of a "programmer" focus solely on organic vs inorganic art assets instead of the technology powering the game engines and what each game engine is doing. Are you really a programmer? A real one that has worked on real games?


That´s exactly what I thought, me and my "programmer" buddies can only laugh at all the bias in this thread. LOL at all those 360 fans, saying they learned so much.....

Speedtree is simple to use middleware available for both the PS3 and 360, in essence the PS3 is even potentially far more powerful than the 360 regarding procedural synthesis like this due to its CPU.

GG games having to license SpeedTree, which would be entirely out of place for this game to make it as "impressive" as Gears 2..... LOL



Naughty Dog: "At Naughty Dog, we're pretty sure we should be able to see leaps between games on the PS3 that are even bigger than they were on the PS2."

PS3 vs 360 sales

libellule on 07 February 2009
bobobologna said:
I think it's also important to note that Gears of War is a TPS and Killzone 2 is a FPS. Killzone 2 seems to have better character models, especially if you find close up screenshots. Gears of War 2 doesn't need the extra detail because you will almost never find yourself viewing an enemy from that close. In addition, Killzone 2, being a FPS, needs to render a gun model and it's animations. It might be a small difference, but there is a difference between what each game needs to do.

I think it's pretty pointless to argue about organic vs inorganic art assets when you completely fail to mention things like particle effects, lighting, animation, and physics, all of which play a part in a game's graphics and graphics engine. Not to mention that Killzone 2 has per pixel motion blur and could result in some people believing the game has blurry textures based on certain screenshots.

It's depressing that the eyes of a "programmer" focus solely on organic vs inorganic art assets instead of the technology powering the game engines and what each game engine is doing. Are you really a programmer? A real one that has worked on real games?

 

 this,

whatever, I do not know which game is the more "technically pretty" but at the end :

KZ2 : classical but inspired art > original but uninspired art : Gears of war 1/2



Time to Work !

NinjaKido on 07 February 2009
MikeB said:
bobobologna

I think it's pretty pointless to argue about organic vs inorganic art assets when you completely fail to mention things like particle effects, lighting, animation, and physics, all of which play a part in a game's graphics and graphics engine. Not to mention that Killzone 2 has per pixel motion blur and could result in some people believing the game has blurry textures based on certain screenshots.

It's depressing that the eyes of a "programmer" focus solely on organic vs inorganic art assets instead of the technology powering the game engines and what each game engine is doing. Are you really a programmer? A real one that has worked on real games?


That´s exactly what I thought, me and my "programmer" buddies can only laugh at all the bias in this thread. LOL at all those 360 fans, saying they learned so much.....

Speedtree is simple to use middleware available for both the PS3 and 360, in essence the PS3 is even potentially far more powerful than the 360 regarding procedural synthesis like this due to its CPU.

GG games having to license SpeedTree, which would be entirely out of place for this game to make it as "impressive" as Gears 2..... LOL

It's exactly what I said as well ON THE FIRST PAGE !! but people want to downplay Killzone 2's technical significance so they'll agree in their masses to anything remotley anti-killzone.

 



NinjaKido on 07 February 2009

"Assuming everything that you say is true , you still not taking into consideration the number of animations occuring at the same time , on screen enemies , on screen activity , physics , audio etc etc.

You say that Killzone 2 has an easier to develop art style than Gears Of War 2 , that sounds stupid art style is only one of the many considerations a developer would have to make when developing a game."

on the first page...



bobobologna on 07 February 2009
NinjaKido said:
"Assuming everything that you say is true , you still not taking into consideration the number of animations occuring at the same time , on screen enemies , on screen activity , physics , audio etc etc.

You say that Killzone 2 has an easier to develop art style than Gears Of War 2 , that sounds stupid art style is only one of the many considerations a developer would have to make when developing a game."

on the first page...

 

Sorry, I didn't bother reading the majority of the posts after the first few posts were either "Wow, you sound very knowledgable on the topic so I will trust it as unbiased and correct" or "ZOMG, KILLZONE 2 DEFENSE FORCE ACTIVATE"

So props to you for bringing it up first.