Killzone 2 Killzone 2

Since 1105 Days

2007-07-10 15:10:10

Well, whichever game you show, this is a terribly posed screenshot to do so with. It's an absolute bore-fest of a background for starters.

While it's impossible to attain exact CGI quality, Motorstorm showed that you can totally capture the feel and atmosphere and intensity of the target footage. If this animates really well, I mean Condemned well, texture quality won't really be a problem because it'll still give a staggering overall impression.

And even if it doesn't, this could just be an unfortunate pic to show, much like the first Halo 3 campaign shot with its Quake 2 like environment.

Since 839 Days

2007-07-10 15:16:05 In reply to SimonM7 (2007-07-10 15:10:10)

Posted by SimonM7

While it's impossible to attain exact CGI quality, Motorstorm showed that you can totally capture the feel and atmosphere and intensity of the target footage. If this animates really well, I mean Condemned well, texture quality won't really be a problem because it'll still give a staggering overall impression.

I'm not saying about wishing for CGI-like quality. I think we should demand better textures than those seen in the screenshots. Why not?

And even if it doesn't, this could just be an unfortunate pic to show, much like the first Halo 3 campaign shot with its Quake 2 like environment.

What are you talking about?

---
"That just happened 'cause that was awesome" - Randy Pitchford, Gearbox

Since 965 Days

2007-07-10 15:18:27

Looks fine to me, i duno why so many people are bitching over One Picture.

---
Marumaro for the WIN !!

Since 1112 Days

2007-07-10 15:23:36 In reply to Jollipop (2007-07-10 15:18:27)

Posted by SimonM7

And even if it doesn't, this could just be an unfortunate pic to show, much like the first Halo 3 campaign shot with its Quake 2 like environment.

Hahaha what?

Since 1105 Days

2007-07-10 15:23:45 In reply to szaromir (2007-07-10 15:16:05)

Think about it for a bit. You've got two Halo 3 campaign pics... and I'm refering to one of them.. with the quake 2 like background.

EDIT: Jesus people, this one

"Oh no! All of Halo 3 will be rusty and orange and quake 2-y!"

Since 1112 Days

2007-07-10 15:32:51

But that background is high-resolution and has some lovely subtle shader work on it. Nothing like Quake (or Killzone) 2.

Since 965 Days

2007-07-10 15:33:20

It's funny.. you have a good point bring Halo 3 up.

The first screens of Halo 3 were hugely underwhelming and it still is in my opinion, graphically speaking of course.

It isn't any different, Sony pulled a CGI trailer out of their ass, just like MS did with the Halo 3 SP trailer last year.

---
Marumaro for the WIN !!

TheBeagle

Since 688 Days

2007-07-10 15:35:30

Personally I think that Halo 3 picture looks much better than the killzone one. It just blows my mind that people actually think the picture matches the CGI trailer.

Since 839 Days

2007-07-10 15:35:47 In reply to Jollipop (2007-07-10 15:33:20)

Posted by Jollipop

It isn't any different, Sony pulled a CGI trailer out of their ass, just like MS did with the Halo 3 SP trailer.

The differnce - Killzone 2 screenshot is just so poor in comparison it really isn't worth mentioning Halo 3 in this thread. Obviously I won't judge the entire game for one screenshot, but stating it doesnn't look bad is hypocricy. Also Halo 3 trailer was real-time, so even if Bungie fails to deliver these graphics in real gameplay, it's not as bad as faking gameplay in CGI trailer. It's old story of course, but in Halo 3 case we can be sure that cutscenes will look better than that trailer.

---
"That just happened 'cause that was awesome" - Randy Pitchford, Gearbox

Since 1112 Days

2007-07-10 15:36:09 In reply to Jollipop (2007-07-10 15:33:20)

Posted by Jollipop

It isn't any different, Sony pulled a CGI trailer out of their ass, just like MS did with the Halo 3 SP trailer last year.

Wrong.

Martijn_

Since 952 Days

2007-07-10 15:37:52 In reply to Slabs (2007-07-10 15:36:09)

Posted by Slabs

Wrong.

actually he's right, they said the first trailer they showned was ingame, and now look at the screens.

---
Playstation ID: Martijn_

Since 1112 Days

2007-07-10 15:40:19 In reply to Martijn_ (2007-07-10 15:37:52)

Posted by Martijn_

actually he's right, they said the first trailer they showned was ingame, and now look at the screens.

It quite simply was NOT CGI. They have also stated that there is a difference between cutscene and in-game models, the trailer was clearly a cutscene.

Whatever way you want to spin it, Microsoft produced a trailer running on an XBox 360. Sony produced a trailer that took hours to render on a series of workstations.

Since 839 Days

2007-07-10 15:42:18 In reply to Martijn_ (2007-07-10 15:37:52)

Posted by Martijn_

actually he's right, they said the first trailer they showned was ingame, and now look at the screens.

Posted by me

Also Halo 3 trailer was real-time, so even if Bungie fails to deliver these graphics in real gameplay, it's not as bad as faking gameplay in CGI trailer. It's old story of course, but in Halo 3 case we can be sure that cutscenes will look better than that trailer.

---
"That just happened 'cause that was awesome" - Randy Pitchford, Gearbox

Since 1105 Days

2007-07-10 15:46:24

I'm not talking about texture quality, I couldn't care less about texture quality once you start waving the perspective around, because you can't even appreciate it then. What matters to me is the overall impression I get from the game when it moves.

I'm just saying maybe we should wait for screens that show something worthy of noting. The Halo 3 screenshot was okay because we knew the rest of the game would look way different, and honestly, we know the rest of Killzone will too.

Martijn_

Since 952 Days

2007-07-10 15:53:03 In reply to SimonM7 (2007-07-10 15:46:24)

Posted by SimonM7

I agree with that

---
Playstation ID: Martijn_

Since 965 Days

2007-07-10 15:53:23 In reply to Slabs (2007-07-10 15:40:19)

Posted by Slabs

Well so we are told, I am still not so sure, I guess we will have to wait and see just how good Halo 3 SP looks.

Personally i think the MP looks like crap from what i have seen to date, so unless the SP looks 3-4 times better it's still not living upto the target.

Whether you do a target render on a 360 or in CGI makes no difference, unless you can hit that target.

The reason Sony used CGI was mainly due to the PS3 not even being finished and obviously the dev's didn't have enough time to make a target on a PS3 dev unit.

Maybe (obviously) Sony over estimated their target render, but i think MS did in regards to the Halo 3 trailer.

Whether it was running off a 360 unit has little significance there was no gaming code underlying that trailer, at the end of the day it was nothing more than a tech demo.

---
Marumaro for the WIN !!

deftangel

Hot stuff! deftangel - Hot stuff!

Since 950 Days

2007-07-10 15:55:27

Oh god, this is going to kick off tonight isn't it. What a day to launch Gamersyde!

The Halo 3 trailer definitely isn't CGI. That was verified at the time. If it's been downgraded in the meantime, that's different (I'm not of that my opinion myself) but lets bin the CGI talk now or this thread won't end well.

The Killzone 2 trailer was definitely CGI and judging whatever we see this week under that benchmark is silly. We all know it's not going to happen so lets get over it.

I'm not seeing anything stellar in the KZ pic but we'll be seeing lots more of it this week so I'm not jumping to any conclusions quite yet.

Since 839 Days

2007-07-10 15:57:31

Simon - while I agree you can look past bad textures if the game animates well and has some nifty effects, but I don't know how bad textures can give hope that there indeed will be great animations and pretty effects. The build is apparently very early, but still there's no reason to a) tell people they have no right to discuss that screenshot b) bringing up Halo 3 in this thread.

---
"That just happened 'cause that was awesome" - Randy Pitchford, Gearbox

Since 965 Days

2007-07-10 16:01:58

Mainly because if you are putting less effort into textures, that effort goes elsewhere (at least in theory) such as animation and effects.

It's not like we don't know that the PS3 has less direct texture memory than the 360, so i think its fairly obvious that most 360 games will beat it in that respect.

Generally speaking i found that last gen, even though the PS2 had less graphical flare than the Xbox the animation was usually better.

No matter how you look at it, a few blurry textures isn't guna change the way a game plays, and surely that is the most important thing.

---
Marumaro for the WIN !!

Since 1105 Days

2007-07-10 16:05:30

@szaromir

Well, they're obviously pretty confident about the game, and I suspect there has to be more to it than rubbish textures, that's all. I guess you could call it faith.. or hope.

Oh and I'm not saying you don't have the right to discuss this pic, I'm just suggesting that reading too much into it is perhaps a bit premature based on the dullness of the surroundings. But by all means knock yourself out.

Since 839 Days

2007-07-10 16:06:23 In reply to Jollipop (2007-07-10 16:01:58)

Posted by Jollipop

Mainly because if you are putting less effort into textures, that effort goes elsewhere (at least in theory) such as animation and effects.

Or if you have sloppy memory management and sloppy code you can end with both bad textures and bad effects.

Posted by Jollipop

Generally speaking i found that last gen, even though the PS2 had less graphical flare than the Xbox the animation was usually better.

Why do you bring that up? Does it have anything to do with discussion? (not that I agree on the issue).

---
"That just happened 'cause that was awesome" - Randy Pitchford, Gearbox

Since 965 Days

2007-07-10 16:08:22

It has something to do with my point, when you put less time into art and texture, those efforts go elsewhere, the Xbox had the ability for higher texture and art assets, so devs spent more time on those than animation.

Whether you agree is besides the point, I only care what i think :P

---
Marumaro for the WIN !!

TheBeagle

Since 688 Days

2007-07-10 16:08:35

Its been confirmed that this picture is from the latest build so I think its fair to tear into it if need be. I dont think it looks bad by any stretch but people saying it matches the CGI just pisses me off.