Crysis 1 looks dated? Killzone 3 looks better?

[QUOTE="BigBoss154"]

[QUOTE="NoodleFighter"]

I see your friend is use to that bloom n blur fest that is Killzone

Yundex

It's called depth of field and motion blur. Both of which occur in our eyes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_blur#Biology

It confuses me as to why people don't like it.

Because we see a blurry picture, I don't know how else to explain it. When I move my eyes, I don't notice anything because i'm not looking at the same thing I was before. When playing a game, it makes no sense to me for a part of the screen I'm looking at to just "be blurry" for no reason. (it wasn't until a few years ago that I actually figured out that those were graphical options, which I disable in every game) I can't speak for everyone, but I would like to view a clear picture when playing at 1080p.

It's NOT blurry for no reason. It simulates what the eye sees.

I'm looking at my PC moniter now. I'm focused on it. Everything else is blurred because that is not the focus. This is called depth of field.

Games have motion blur and depth of field (especially FPS') because it is artificially simulating natural features of the eye. It's fine if you don't like it, but realize that it's not just put there for no reason for the reasons I said above.

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Right-click -> View Image. You'll see the picture at the resolution I took it in.

SAGE_OF_FIRE

Now it looks like trash...

Crysis on my PC.

Its still looks like trash. The foliage looks horrible and all that blurring in the distance makes it look even worst and irritating. That crappy Immersion mod needs to go elsewhere.

No console game, ever, will look as good as an equivalent tech/year of production PC game.

KZ3 looks like trash graphically compared to Crysis 1 - and the levels are linear corridors, making the difference even more stark.

KZ3 actually does a few things better here such as animation, Deferred Rendering, lens flare and sheer amount of particles on screen. I disagree with the blind people who claim Crysis1 does everything better but I still feel overall Crysis1 looks better but not as much as some makes out to be.gpuking

Kz3 is a ps3 game dude. It is impressive for such a mule of a hardware.

Don't be offended. Do you expect a TOYATA PIUS to outpace Bugatti Veron?

Oh, Deferred Rendering is pretty general nowadays.

[QUOTE="gpuking"]KZ3 actually does a few things better here such as animation, Deferred Rendering, lens flare and sheer amount of particles on screen. I disagree with the blind people who claim Crysis1 does everything better but I still feel overall Crysis1 looks better but not as much as some makes out to be.Ravenchrome

Kz3 is a ps3 game dude. It is impressive for such a mule of a hardware.

Don't be offended. Do you expect a TOYATA PIUS to outpace Bugatti Veron?

Oh, Deferred Rendering is pretty general nowadays.

[QUOTE="Ravenchrome"]

[QUOTE="gpuking"]KZ3 actually does a few things better here such as animation, Deferred Rendering, lens flare and sheer amount of particles on screen. I disagree with the blind people who claim Crysis1 does everything better but I still feel overall Crysis1 looks better but not as much as some makes out to be.gpuking

Kz3 is a ps3 game dude. It is impressive for such a mule of a hardware.

Don't be offended. Do you expect a TOYATA PIUS to outpace Bugatti Veron?

Oh, Deferred Rendering is pretty general nowadays.

[QUOTE="Yundex"]

[QUOTE="BigBoss154"]

It's called depth of field and motion blur. Both of which occur in our eyes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_blur#Biology

It confuses me as to why people don't like it.

BigBoss154

Because we see a blurry picture, I don't know how else to explain it. When I move my eyes, I don't notice anything because i'm not looking at the same thing I was before. When playing a game, it makes no sense to me for a part of the screen I'm looking at to just "be blurry" for no reason. (it wasn't until a few years ago that I actually figured out that those were graphical options, which I disable in every game) I can't speak for everyone, but I would like to view a clear picture when playing at 1080p.

It's NOT blurry for no reason. It simulates what the eye sees.

I'm looking at my PC moniter now. I'm focused on it. Everything else is blurred because that is not the focus. This is called depth of field.

Games have motion blur and depth of field (especially FPS') because it is artificially simulating natural features of the eye. It's fine if you don't like it, but realize that it's not just put there for no reason for the reasons I said above.

My above post was a response to this, I hit the wrong button. :evil:

In my opinion Killzone 3 looks better then vanilla Crysis maxed out and its not even close.

Not sure why - maybe because KZ3 has way better animation, way better particle effects, way better lighting and i think it has even more polygons in environments.

Crysis has way better textures and can run at higher res, but thats just not enough.

BlbecekBobecek

You clearly have no knowledge on the subject yet spout such nonsense anyway based on your bias (100% beef confirmed).

I have increased the level of detail in Crysis to having it render 22 million polys \ frame for just the environments (peak count, with a decent FPS). KZ2 & 3 would be lucky to render a tenth of that.

you should get your gaming pc and play dmc 4 and look at the water it beats out everything on ps3. o and of course srysis looks best but that is mostly out of mods, imo The Witcher 2 looks way better just maxed out.

Well most textures on Crysis do look dated by now. On the water maybe your friend just prefers how it looks visually but the Killzone 3 water is clearly fake water.

That's the problem, I don't see a point to having DoF in my game if it already occurs in our vision naturally. I'm not always looking at what the game wants me to, it will blur out a lot of content I actually am focusing on. It's even worse in a game like witcher 2 where i'm always admiring the visuals. So to me there is no reason to ever enable blur effects. You wondered why people don't like it so I am trying to explain why.Yundex

Usually when people are complaining about blur, they're referring to bad implementations of anti-aliasing that blur the entire screen for no reason, making the game appear as though it's being rendered at a non-native resolution on an lcd.

Mafia 2 and dx9 crysis 2 come to mind.

What you're taking issue with is the same as complaining about everything not being in focus all the time in a film (which would be achievable by shooting everything with a wide-angle lens). It's done for both aesthetic (forcing you to focus on what the creator wants you to) and practical reasons (you are not going to experience any real life DoF looking at a computer monitor or television screen, therefore it has to be created artificially).

[QUOTE="Yundex"]That's the problem, I don't see a point to having DoF in my game if it already occurs in our vision naturally. I'm not always looking at what the game wants me to, it will blur out a lot of content I actually am focusing on. It's even worse in a game like witcher 2 where i'm always admiring the visuals. So to me there is no reason to ever enable blur effects. You wondered why people don't like it so I am trying to explain why.topgunmv

Usually when people are complaining about blur, they're referring to bad implementations of anti-aliasing that blur the entire screen for no reason, making the game appear as though it's being rendered at a non-native resolution on an lcd.

Mafia 2 and dx9 crysis 2 come to mind.

What you're taking issue with is the same as complaining about everything not being in focus all the time in a film (which would be achievable by shooting everything with a wide-angle lens). It's done for both aesthetic (forcing you to focus on what the creator wants you to) and practical reasons (you are not going to experience any real life DoF looking at a computer monitor or television screen, therefore it has to be created artificially).

I know why they do it in film, and I don't mind it there. (it's still annoying in certain kinds of scenes) I guess that's why the witcher2 also has cinematic DoF. The problem I have in games is that i'm not always looking at what the developer wants me to. (dead center of the screen it seems) So from what I understand now, with DoF you are supposed to look at the center of the screen and you won't notice the blur. While I wouldn't notice it if I just turned it off. It just sounds and looks like a ghetto version of the real thing. Or is the effect itself visually pleasing to some people?

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

[QUOTE="Yundex"]That's the problem, I don't see a point to having DoF in my game if it already occurs in our vision naturally. I'm not always looking at what the game wants me to, it will blur out a lot of content I actually am focusing on. It's even worse in a game like witcher 2 where i'm always admiring the visuals. So to me there is no reason to ever enable blur effects. You wondered why people don't like it so I am trying to explain why.Yundex

Usually when people are complaining about blur, they're referring to bad implementations of anti-aliasing that blur the entire screen for no reason, making the game appear as though it's being rendered at a non-native resolution on an lcd.

Mafia 2 and dx9 crysis 2 come to mind.

What you're taking issue with is the same as complaining about everything not being in focus all the time in a film (which would be achievable by shooting everything with a wide-angle lens). It's done for both aesthetic (forcing you to focus on what the creator wants you to) and practical reasons (you are not going to experience any real life DoF looking at a computer monitor or television screen, therefore it has to be created artificially).

I know why they do it in film, and I don't mind it there. (it's still annoying in certain kinds of scenes) I guess that's why the witcher2 also has cinematic DoF. The problem I have in games is that i'm not always looking at what the developer wants me to. (dead center of the screen it seems) So from what I understand now, with DoF you are supposed to look at the center of the screen and you won't notice the blur. While I wouldn't notice it if I just turned it off. It just sounds and looks like a ghetto version of the real thing. Or is the effect itself visually pleasing to some people?

I enjoy it, as I'm sure many people do.

However, I'm sure you aren't alone in disliking it, just as there are people that hate bloom, or sunshafts, or motion blur, or (like me) film grain.