- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 4263
- 威望
- 0 点
- 积分
- 4324 点
- 种子
- 5 点
- 注册时间
- 2010-11-19
- 最后登录
- 2020-10-4
|
本帖最后由 jiaoyihao 于 2011-5-9 23:32 编辑
首先硬指标是对机能强弱的最好解释 而游戏的硬指标同样也可以用来判断机能的强弱
1.Killzone 2 这是家用机上第一款用到延迟渲染技术的游戏 而权威媒1UP也评价道：Killzone 2 是目前家用机上最高画面游戏。
而隔一年之后，360上做了5年的alan wake 也效仿KZ2用起了延迟渲染。但是其结果给之前一直吹捧这游戏的人狠狠一嘴巴。这游戏因为用到了延迟渲染 从官方原定的720P+4AA 被踢爆到原生分辨率 只有547P 。如果说这不能被理解为机能的差距，只能是制作组的失误，但是这种情况接下来还在继续发生。
今年发售的KZ3的硬指标：720P+MLAA+延迟渲染+稳定30FPS 画面无撕裂
大大强于家用机版孤岛危机2的硬指标 720P +TAA+30FPS 画面有撕裂
到目前为止XBOX360上依然找不出一款能比肩KZ3硬指标的游戏
这也佐证了之前GG所说的RSX具备某些G80特性。这无疑给了那些嘲笑PS3 GPU RSX的人一记有力的耳光。要知道360的C1也不过就是同期R500的水准
2.PS3 独占的神海2 是目前本世代家用机游戏里 唯一一款用到了SSAO+SSS的游戏 这是一种狂耗带宽的组合 XBOX360上至今没有一款游戏能实现。而神秘海域系列2年一作的开发周期 也让那些嘲笑PS3游戏开发周期长的人闭上了嘴 同时神海2 在09年也是拿奖拿到了手软。
08年最佳画面奖MGS4 。 09年最佳画面奖神海2。10年最佳画面奖战神3 。 XBOX360在游戏硬指标比不过的情况下 奖项也比不过PS3 。究竟XBOX360在机能和画面上还有什么能拿出来吹的？
好吧 有些人不对帖子本身进行讨论 而直接对我进行人身攻击 说我这是在打嘴炮
那么我就转一个LOT对 杀戮地带3 VS 孤岛危机2(家用机版本) 的一个评测吧
Welcome back for another exciting Head2Head! This week we put two of this generations best looking games against one another in a classic battle for the title of current FPS “King of Graphics”. Of course the two games we’re talking about are the PlayStation 3’s Killzone 3, and the Xbox 360 version of Crysis 2. We’ve had so many requests for this one we just couldn’t avoid it. So come on in and relax for a bit while we show you the battle of the century, (well, at least this year anyway). Enjoy!
Graphics: The first thing we need to remember about these two games is that they have two very different styles. Killzone 3 seems to be shooting for a very realistic, yet strong, sci fi feeling with both setting and character models while Crysis 2 tries to capture a more true to life realism. Needless to say, both versions set out to do what they aim for. Everything from character detail to the texture of the terrain is done perfectly. While the difference is so minimal that it will go unnoticed, Killzone 3 seems to have a resolution advantage here. While Killzone 3 runs at full native 720p, Crysis2 runs in very SLIGHT sub HD resolution of 1152 x 720. However Crysis 2 doesn’t hesitate to hit back with slightly better HDR lighting throughout.
Furthermore, both Crysis 2 and Killzone 3 have a slew of next generation rendering techniques that only high end PC’s with decked out SLI graphics cards are able to achieve. For example, the physics engine handling the water and fluid effects, as well as destructible environments react in a very realistic manner. Although both games had these effects implemented, they both handled them slightly different - let us explain. For starters, environments in Killzone 3 seemed more destructible throughout. In some scenes you can literally make entire buildings collapse if certain support beams were destroyed. In addition, walls, concrete pillars, and even bathroom toilets could be obliterated. On the flip side, Crysis2 had its fair share of destructible objects, but the selection was a much less than those found in Killzone 3. Instead, Crysis 2 focuses on allowing players the option of interaction with a slew of objects. For example, almost any object in a scene can be picked up and used as a weapon, and there were tons of them in every level.
Finally, what really got our attention, and what sets Killzone 3 apart from the competition are its’ in-game cinematics. Aside from Killzone 3’s opening cut scene, all others used in-game props, and were rendered using Killzone 3’s in-game graphics engine. Let us just say, they look amazing. As for Crysis 2, we were really disappointed with the FMV’s it presented. To be honest, a few of the cut scenes looked down right ugly showing signs of compression and pixelation (reference the image below). This is something we haven’t seen since the 32bit era. Overall, the graphics in Killzone 3 were more polished throughout.
Performance: This category had some noticeable differences. For the most part Killzone 3 ran a consistent 30 FPS with a few occasional, and very slight, drops with no screen tearing at all. Crysis 2 on the other hand dropped FPS noticeably more than Killzone 3 however. The worst of these drops seem to happen in the heavier fire fights more often than anywhere else. Also there was some very slight screen tearing at the top of the screen in Crysis 2, but it was so slight that it will go mainly unnoticed. Another problem that Crysis 2 seemed to have that was absent from Killzone 3 is a few random pop-ins. While the game looks fantastic, pop-ins can take from the beauty of even the best looking games. Luckily however, they aren’t that bad and you probably won’t notice them in action therefore they won’t take away from the experience overall. In the end however the differences are there, no matter how small they may be. Killzone 3 takes the win here with a better average in FPS with little to no pop-ins or tearing.
Loading: The loading is another category with a clear cut winner. Most of the load times for both Killzone 3 and Crysis 2 were masked by pre rendered cut scenes and make them almost invisible your first time through. Even when you try to skip the scenes, it isn’t that bad. Crysis 2 however had some seriously horrific loads when you boot up your save file as you start the game. We believe the numbers speak for themselves.
总结：虽然孤岛2在2个平台上表现不错，但仔细分析比较后画面王的桂冠毫无疑问的被KZ3夺走。KZ3不但画面更好，而且帧数稳定没有撕裂。
KZ3画面王的地位能维持多久，让我们拭目以待。
Conclusion: Although Crysis 2 looks fantastic on both the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, the graphics crown still belongs to Guerrilla’s Killzone 3. Not only does Killzone 3 look graphically better, the performance its more stable throughout. That being said, with serious graphical contenders on the horizon such as *** 3 and RAGE, how long can Killzone 3 hold on to the title? We’ll just have to wait and see! |
|
[复制链接]
川公网安备 51019002005286号
楼主
发表于 2011-5-9 18:01 · 天津
