Welcome to the PS3 Nation! Please feel free to sign up and make sure you check your inbox as soon as you do! Enjoy your time spent here!

Comparison of Game Engines Part 2

Go down

Comparison of Game Engines Part 2 Empty Comparison of Game Engines Part 2

Post by MEGAlan on Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:06 am

In this part of the series, I will be comparing Killzone 2's game engine to Halo Reach's.

IMAGE QUALITY

The image quality of both titles seem to be good. Killzone 2's framebuffer is set at 1280 X 720 pixels. Alpha particles in Killzone 2 seem to be rendering at 640 X 360 pixels which is then scaled to match the 720p framebuffer. Halo Reach's framebuffer seems to be set at 1152 X 720 pixels, which is software scaled to 1280 X 720 to match the 720p HUD elements that ovelays it. Halo Reach is double-buffered (meaning that there are actually 2 framebuffers at any given time) and runs it's alpha particles at full-resolution.

Both games are anti-aliased. Though instead of using the traditional hardware "MSAA", they both seem to be using custom solutions each with their pros and cons. Killzone 2 uses QAA ("quincunx anti-aliasing") which keeps the edges smooth yet adds a slight yet unwanted "blur" effect to the whole image. Halo Reach uses TAA (temporal anti-aliasing) which does a great job of keep jaggies at a minimum especially on the scenary. The disadvantage to this is that AA causes a "ghosting effect" when there is alot of motion going on close to your screen. It was quite a problem during the beta but now they actually just turn it off whenever there is alot of weapon movement on your screen. The ghosting effect is demonstrated in this screenshot:


http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/1/2/6/5/6/6/8/gravity1.jpg.jpg

LIGHTING TECHNIQUES:

Both Killzone 2 and Halo Reach use unique lighting techniques. Halo Reach uses extensive HDR lighting, and could have literally dozens of light sources on-screen. For example, each needle shot out of a needler has it's own light source. Killzone 2 also uses HDR lighting, and is powered by the "Deferred rendering" engine. It's lighting is quite gorgeous.

Halo Reach lighting:

https://redcdn.net/ihimizer/i/screenshot20100729at313.png/
http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/1/2/6/5/6/6/8/dynamic1.jpg.jpg

Killzone 2 lighting:

http://illiweb.com/fa/pbucket.gif
http://img.shopping.com/jfe/blogs/killzone2_two.jpg

OTHER

Both games are v-locked in 30 FPS, with occasional frame drops.


Texture quality seems to be higher in Halo Reach, while KZ2 has the advantage in polygon models especially in the characters. Both games have great facial animations. Both games also use an extensive amount of motion blur.

In Halo Reach there is 4-player co-op offline or online, or a combination of both. In the campaign for Halo Reach, there can be as many as 40 enemy AI on-screen with 8 friendly AI + your optional co-op buddies. The game also sports large explorable draw distances. In the campaign for Killzone 2, the most amount of enemies you will probably see on screen at once is 8-9 AI...the game is also mostly linear in scope but it opens up a little more toward the end of the campaign. There is also no co-op in Killzone 2.

In Halo Reach, there can be as many as 16 players on a map during multiplayer. In Killzone 2 there can be as many as 32 players on a map during multiplayer.

FINAL COMMENTS

Overall, both games look and perform great. Killzone 2's advantage over Halo Reach is in it's lighting and polygon count on characters. While Halo Reach's advantage over Killzone 2 is it's large variety of textures and the scope of it's environments and AI.


Sources:

http://imagequalitymatters.blogspot.com/2010/06/tech-analysis-killzone-3-e3-demo-2d-vs.html
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/killzone-week-day-two-deferred-rendering-and-more-analysis
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-halo-reach-tech-analysis-article
http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/1/2/6/5/6/6/8/gravity1.jpg.jpg
http://illiweb.com/fa/pbucket.gif


Last edited by Alan_1994 on Fri Oct 08, 2010 2:06 pm; edited 3 times in total
MEGAlan
MEGAlan
Forum Regular

Posts : 495
Join date : 2010-10-02

Back to top Go down

Comparison of Game Engines Part 2 Empty Re: Comparison of Game Engines Part 2

Post by TheStaticFox on Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:12 am

inb4ccmakesadumbcomment =P

i found this quite interesting actually, great post Nice!
TheStaticFox
TheStaticFox
Fanboy

Posts : 152
Join date : 2010-03-29

Back to top Go down

Comparison of Game Engines Part 2 Empty Re: Comparison of Game Engines Part 2

Post by CyberpunkCentral on Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:15 am

If "Killzone 2" was at 60 FPS instead of 30 then HOLY SHIT!
CyberpunkCentral
CyberpunkCentral
PS3 Nation Greats

Posts : 2294
Join date : 2010-03-29

https://www.youtube.com/user/CyberpunkCentral?feature=mhw4

Back to top Go down

Comparison of Game Engines Part 2 Empty Re: Comparison of Game Engines Part 2

Post by MEGAlan on Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:17 am

CyberpunkCentral wrote:If "Killzone 2" was at 60 FPS instead of 30 then HOLY SHIT!

Don't honestly think that's possible. There would have to be a compromise in the image quality. Just like COD.
MEGAlan
MEGAlan
Forum Regular

Posts : 495
Join date : 2010-10-02

Back to top Go down

Comparison of Game Engines Part 2 Empty Re: Comparison of Game Engines Part 2

Post by SlySonji™ on Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:19 am

Awesome article!

I think they're both pretty much tied but the gun models in KZ2 Drooling
SlySonji™
SlySonji™
PS3 Nation Greats

Posts : 2051
Join date : 2010-05-25

Back to top Go down

Comparison of Game Engines Part 2 Empty Re: Comparison of Game Engines Part 2

Post by CyberpunkCentral on Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:20 am

Alan_1994 wrote:
CyberpunkCentral wrote:If "Killzone 2" was at 60 FPS instead of 30 then HOLY SHIT!

Don't honestly think that's possible. There would have to be a compromise in the image quality. Just like COD.

Really? Gay...

Well I do think "Killzone 2" looks better then "Call of Duty" even though it's only at 30FPS.
CyberpunkCentral
CyberpunkCentral
PS3 Nation Greats

Posts : 2294
Join date : 2010-03-29

https://www.youtube.com/user/CyberpunkCentral?feature=mhw4

Back to top Go down

Comparison of Game Engines Part 2 Empty Re: Comparison of Game Engines Part 2

Post by SlySonji™ on Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:20 am

CyberpunkCentral wrote:
Alan_1994 wrote:
CyberpunkCentral wrote:If "Killzone 2" was at 60 FPS instead of 30 then HOLY SHIT!

Don't honestly think that's possible. There would have to be a compromise in the image quality. Just like COD.

Really? Gay...

Well I do think "Killzone 2" looks better then "Call of Duty" even though it's only at 30FPS.

I'd rather sacrifice the image quality for some 60FPS.
SlySonji™
SlySonji™
PS3 Nation Greats

Posts : 2051
Join date : 2010-05-25

Back to top Go down

Comparison of Game Engines Part 2 Empty Re: Comparison of Game Engines Part 2

Post by MEGAlan on Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:22 am

It's sad but true.

Call of Duty games don't even run close to HD because of the fact that they are 60 FPS. It's like 600 X 1024 pixels or something.
MEGAlan
MEGAlan
Forum Regular

Posts : 495
Join date : 2010-10-02

Back to top Go down

Comparison of Game Engines Part 2 Empty Re: Comparison of Game Engines Part 2

Post by SlySonji™ on Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:23 am

Alan_1994 wrote:It's sad but true.

Call of Duty games don't even run close to HD because of the fact that they are 60 FPS. It's like 600 X 1024 pixels or something.

Really? I always thought CoD ran at HD. But then again, CoD is all about the gameplay and not the graphics so I could see why they went with the 60FPS. By the way, what does Killzone 3 run at? Has that type of information been released yet?
SlySonji™
SlySonji™
PS3 Nation Greats

Posts : 2051
Join date : 2010-05-25

Back to top Go down

Comparison of Game Engines Part 2 Empty Re: Comparison of Game Engines Part 2

Post by igame on Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:24 am

SlySonji™ wrote:
CyberpunkCentral wrote:
Alan_1994 wrote:
CyberpunkCentral wrote:If "Killzone 2" was at 60 FPS instead of 30 then HOLY SHIT!

Don't honestly think that's possible. There would have to be a compromise in the image quality. Just like COD.

Really? Gay...

Well I do think "Killzone 2" looks better then "Call of Duty" even though it's only at 30FPS.

I'd rather sacrifice the image quality for some 60FPS.

Didn't Bioshock give you the option to get better frame rate with lower image quality? and you could like turn that feature on whenever you wanted
It be awesome if other games gave you that option.
igame
igame
Forum Regular

Posts : 374
Join date : 2010-04-14

Back to top Go down

Comparison of Game Engines Part 2 Empty Re: Comparison of Game Engines Part 2

Post by MEGAlan on Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:28 am

igame wrote:
SlySonji™ wrote:
CyberpunkCentral wrote:
Alan_1994 wrote:
CyberpunkCentral wrote:If "Killzone 2" was at 60 FPS instead of 30 then HOLY SHIT!

Don't honestly think that's possible. There would have to be a compromise in the image quality. Just like COD.

Really? Gay...

Well I do think "Killzone 2" looks better then "Call of Duty" even though it's only at 30FPS.

I'd rather sacrifice the image quality for some 60FPS.

Didn't Bioshock give you the option to get better frame rate with lower image quality? and you could like turn that feature on whenever you wanted
It be awesome if other games gave you that option.

I wouldn't know, I never played Bioshock. But yea, if games gave you a variety of options to customize the graphics/performance it would be great. Though most developers try to find a happy medium between great graphics and good framerate.
MEGAlan
MEGAlan
Forum Regular

Posts : 495
Join date : 2010-10-02

Back to top Go down

Comparison of Game Engines Part 2 Empty Re: Comparison of Game Engines Part 2

Post by Stoney on Fri Oct 08, 2010 11:47 am

The lighting in Killzone 2 was amazing.
Stoney
Stoney
Forum Great

Posts : 534
Join date : 2010-03-29

Back to top Go down

Comparison of Game Engines Part 2 Empty Re: Comparison of Game Engines Part 2

Post by MEGAlan on Fri Oct 08, 2010 2:04 pm

SlySonji™ wrote:
Alan_1994 wrote:It's sad but true.

Call of Duty games don't even run close to HD because of the fact that they are 60 FPS. It's like 600 X 1024 pixels or something.

Really? I always thought CoD ran at HD. But then again, CoD is all about the gameplay and not the graphics so I could see why they went with the 60FPS. By the way, what does Killzone 3 run at? Has that type of information been released yet?

Yes.

Call of Duty 4, WaW, and MW2 run at 600 X 1024 pixels with 2xMSAA for the console versions.

Killzone 3 runs at HD, but they seem to be using a better form of anti-aliasing which doesn't blur the detail.

Here's the link:

http://imagequalitymatters.blogspot.com/2010/06/tech-analysis-killzone-3-e3-demo-2d-vs.html
MEGAlan
MEGAlan
Forum Regular

Posts : 495
Join date : 2010-10-02

Back to top Go down

Comparison of Game Engines Part 2 Empty Re: Comparison of Game Engines Part 2

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum