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

Rainbird on 06 February 2009
jetrii said:

NinjaKido said:
I think your overstating the memory advantages the 360 has over the PS3 if there actualy any at all , your making assertions with little to know justification . IIIRC the ps3's ram isn't a straight forward as saying the 360 has % more memory than it . they have very different architectures. You also create a fallacy , you said something to the effect of "killzone 2 could run more things at the same time than the 360 , but the 360 can run less things with better textures " Surely your saying the same thing and not proving anything ?

The Playstation 3 OS requires over 2X more ram than the Xbox 360 PS. The 360 uses around 32mb while the PS3 uses around 84MB or so. It may not seem like a lot, but 40MB is a lot for a console that is already deprived of ram. And again, I was trying to keep the technology out of this for people that don't understand. I have made other posts with similar comparisons, feel free to search through my post history. I made a few regarding the PS3 and Xbox 360 memory architectures. And for the record, it will be very difficult to find a developer that thinks the PS3 has a superior memory architecture. 

I hope I answered all of your concerns. Let me know if you have more, I am more than happy to address them.

I always wondered this, but unless you have a recent source for it, I don't think it is an accurate number. Sony has been reducing the RAM usage of the XMB with firmware updates, and I haven't been able to find anywhere with an accurate number on this.

EDIT: The most recent number I can find is with SDK 1.8 from august '07, which says the total RAM reserved for the OS is 72MB it seems (48 MB (main) + 24 MB(vram)). But the source everyone refers to is dead, and I can't find anything newer than that. (http://playstation.joystiq.com/2007/08/21/ps3-sdk-1-80-lets-devs-add-custom-soundtracks-to-games/)



Around the Network
NinjaKido on 06 February 2009

This argument isn't going to go anywhere , it's basicaly "I think Gears is better because of X " then me saying "no it isn't because of Y".

Your argument isn't very scientific or self evident and relies more of your "programmers" opinion , if I was to debate with you based on that then we'd enter an infinite regress. If you present some more technical knowledge that would be harder to refute then I might agree with you or have a stronger basis to argue against you otherwise we won't really change each others opinions.



jetrii on 06 February 2009
Rainbird said:
jetrii said:

NinjaKido said:
I think your overstating the memory advantages the 360 has over the PS3 if there actualy any at all , your making assertions with little to know justification . IIIRC the ps3's ram isn't a straight forward as saying the 360 has % more memory than it . they have very different architectures. You also create a fallacy , you said something to the effect of "killzone 2 could run more things at the same time than the 360 , but the 360 can run less things with better textures " Surely your saying the same thing and not proving anything ?

The Playstation 3 OS requires over 2X more ram than the Xbox 360 PS. The 360 uses around 32mb while the PS3 uses around 84MB or so. It may not seem like a lot, but 40MB is a lot for a console that is already deprived of ram. And again, I was trying to keep the technology out of this for people that don't understand. I have made other posts with similar comparisons, feel free to search through my post history. I made a few regarding the PS3 and Xbox 360 memory architectures. And for the record, it will be very difficult to find a developer that thinks the PS3 has a superior memory architecture. 

I hope I answered all of your concerns. Let me know if you have more, I am more than happy to address them.

I always wondered this, but unless you have a recent source for it, I don't think it is an accurate number. Sony has been reducing the RAM usage of the XMB with firmware updates, and I haven't been able to find anywhere with an accurate number on this.

 

http://av.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/20081023/rt074.htm

I know it's in Japanese, but Sony confirms that the OS uses 43MB thanks to HDD based virtual memory. Add framebuffer and other VRAM restrictions, and you are looking at 70-84MB. My 84MB figure was actually outdated as developers have found a way to lower it even further. 32MB VS 70MB still leaves a lot of usable ram.



Good news Everyone!

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

jetrii on 06 February 2009
NinjaKido said:
This argument isn't going to go anywhere , it's basicaly "I think Gears is better because of X " then me saying "no it isn't because of Y".

Your argument isn't very scientific or self evident and relies more of your "programmers" opinion , if I was to debate with you based on that then we'd enter an infinite regress. If you present some more technical knowledge that would be harder to refute then I might agree with you or have a stronger basis to argue against you otherwise we won't really change each others opinions.

 

Excuse me? When did I ever say that Gears of War 2 is better? I stated several times that I think Killzone 2 looks better. I know this is a VS thread, but I am trying to explain WHY Killzone 2 looks so good, not why Gears of War 2 looks better. Again, you are jumping to conclusions. Both games look very good with Killzone 2 taking the prize. 

EDIT: And on that note, I am off to Sheetz to pick up some breakfast. If I don't reply within 10 minutes it's because I am not here. I usually like to quickly reply to threads or else I lose interest when there are 40 people with things I have to reply to.



Good news Everyone!

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

Jaaau! on 06 February 2009
jetrii said:

NinjaKido said:
This analysis seems to fairly unbiased but at the same time incredibly weak , I don't think you have to be a programmer to recognise that.

"As you can see, the organic matter does not look so great. As you introduce bumps, round objects, and surfaces into a game, the power requirement to make it look good jumps up. It is very simple to make square edges look good but round edges take more power. Now, I've played the Killzone 2 demo and although there are some broken surfaces with rough edges that do look pretty good, they are pretty minimal throughout the demo."

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.

Actually, Killzone 2 and Gears of War 2 are both capable of having a lot on the screen at the same time. Epic Games demonstrated Gears of War 2 with 140+ Horde characters on the screen at the same time, each with animations that need processing, collision detection, lightning, etc. Killzone 2 doesn't have as many but uses the available power for other things. I do agree that Killzone 2 does have better animations, but that's because Guerilla Games was very thoural in creating a lot of animations for the characters. Epic Games didn't go to such leaps.

You assume Guerrilla can't do the same show.  In game KZ2 has more on the screen than GoW2, and that's what matters, isn't it?

You also write as if you knew what was the developement process in both studios, which in fact, you have no clue.


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.

Art style was the focus of my thread. I recognize that there are a lot of other important factors, but both games have very advanced engines. Also, I don't think many people would have understood if I started talking about deferred rendering and other techniques. 

If Art style was the focus of the thread, then what should it matter it is the view of a programmer??

In your programmer analysis, basically you just came to say KZ2 is not technologically superior, just has better art style.  Ok congrats, but I don't need a programmer inside view to hear yet another opinion.  Not saying I don't like to read your opinion, but just don't present it as some kind of informed analysis. 

 

 



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

NinjaKido said:
I think your overstating the memory advantages the 360 has over the PS3 if there actualy any at all , your making assertions with little to know justification . IIIRC the ps3's ram isn't a straight forward as saying the 360 has % more memory than it . they have very different architectures. You also create a fallacy , you said something to the effect of "killzone 2 could run more things at the same time than the 360 , but the 360 can run less things with better textures " Surely your saying the same thing and not proving anything ?

The Playstation 3 OS requires over 2X more ram than the Xbox 360 PS. The 360 uses around 32mb while the PS3 uses around 84MB or so. It may not seem like a lot, but 40MB is a lot for a console that is already deprived of ram. And again, I was trying to keep the technology out of this for people that don't understand. I have made other posts with similar comparisons, feel free to search through my post history. I made a few regarding the PS3 and Xbox 360 memory architectures. And for the record, it will be very difficult to find a developer that thinks the PS3 has a superior memory architecture. 

I hope I answered all of your concerns. Let me know if you have more, I am more than happy to address them.

I always wondered this, but unless you have a recent source for it, I don't think it is an accurate number. Sony has been reducing the RAM usage of the XMB with firmware updates, and I haven't been able to find anywhere with an accurate number on this.

 

http://av.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/20081023/rt074.htm

I know it's in Japanese, but Sony confirms that the OS uses 43MB thanks to HDD based virtual memory. Add framebuffer and other VRAM restrictions, and you are looking at 70-84MB. My 84MB figure was actually outdated as developers have found a way to lower it even further. 32MB VS 70MB still leaves a lot of usable ram.

I posted this in my last post, but too late though, so I'll post it here again.

"The most recent number I can find is with SDK 1.8 from august '07, which says the total RAM reserved for the OS is 72MB it seems (48 MB (main) + 24 MB(vram)). But the source everyone refers to is dead, and I can't find anything newer than that. (http://playstation.joystiq.com/2007/08/21/ps3-sdk-1-80-lets-devs-add-custom-soundtracks-to-games/)"

That figure is almost 1½ a year old, and the same source has a downbreak of SDK 1.6 three months earlier (which had 84 MB of RAM reserved for OS) (http://playstation.joystiq.com/2007/05/14/new-playstation-3-sdk-released-os-memory-footprint-lessened/ ), so I have no doubt it has been reduced much since then, but I don't know if they were breaking an NDA by reporting this, since we don't get anymore reports.

EDIT: I couldn't find any actual release dates on these two SDKs though, which is annoying of course, but my point still stands.



edjevink on 06 February 2009

@Jetrii: It's too bad your comparison is mainly focused on textures. Cause in my opinion textures are only A PART of the overall "Graphics". I think that lighting effects, particle effects and physics(and a bunch of other stuff) are equally as important as the quality of the textures.



BrayanA on 06 February 2009
NinjaKido said:
This argument isn't going to go anywhere , it's basicaly "I think Gears is better because of X " then me saying "no it isn't because of Y".

Your argument isn't very scientific or self evident and relies more of your "programmers" opinion , if I was to debate with you based on that then we'd enter an infinite regress. If you present some more technical knowledge that would be harder to refute then I might agree with you or have a stronger basis to argue against you otherwise we won't really change each others opinions.

Yep, "I think" and personal taste are very, very big factor and you can argue all day.

Unfortunately you can't measure art style, animation or personal taste. This is why in graphical compirations they are comparing things that they can measure - fps for same scences, resolution, AA, textures and etc. This is why 360 wins all Eurogamer and Gamespot graphical compirations, cos all of thouse are direct GPU related.

 



jetrii on 06 February 2009

@Jaaau!
It is the perspective of a programmer because I can recognize what is going on on the screen and which parts require a lot of power to do. Also, both Epic Games and Guerilla Games have been very open on their engine, so yes, I do know a lot about the development process on both studios. GG even posted a few CPU dumps on what the Cell processor was doing for a few scenes. I am trying to present it as simplified as I can. If I get too technical, then half the people here won't be able to understand it. It's meant to give you an overview. If you'd like more technical information, I can send you a few links

@Rainbird
Actually, it hasn't really been reduced. Sony added in-game XMB which kept it the same. Any reductions they made were canceled out. On developer forums such as beyond3D, 43MB for the OS alone (not including framebuffer and junk) is the latest figure by people working on PS3 games. Not really NDA since Sony updates it in press releases as well.



Good news Everyone!

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

jetrii on 06 February 2009
edjevink said:
@Jetrii: It's too bad your comparison is mainly focused on textures. Cause in my opinion textures are only A PART of the overall "Graphics". I think that lighting effects, particle effects and physics(and a bunch of other stuff) are equally as important as the quality of the textures.

 

Actually, I think my comparison mainly focused on the geometry of both games. And while lighting, particles, and physics are important, again, I was discussing the look of the game. Both engines are capable of fine physics and particles, with the KZ2 engine having the edge in particles. Both KZ2 and GoW2 use very advanced lighting systems. Personally, I prefer the look of GoW2's lighting engine but that's just me. In motions, both games feel and run differently.



Good news Everyone!

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