E3: Killzone 2 gameplay

Commented on 2008-07-17 21:18:54 In reply to Burglarize

Posted by Drsw36

I fail to see how blades of grass having their own shadows is going to increase the quality of the gameplay, but I guess that's just my opinion.

We were talking about graphics, not gameplay. And when it comes to Killzone 2, i really fail to see great gameplay. What leads you to the opinion that Killzone 2 has better gameplay than Bad Company, HALO 3 or any other shooter? Killzone 2 is a straight linear shooter with stupid AI.

And regarding to graphics: just you belong to the people that can be fooled by content, doesn't mean that there are not other people where tech improvements do more attract attention.

And i really don't care if somebody gets wowed by Killzone 2 just because of the lenseflare/bloom effects or because the helghasts have an oxygen mask with red eyes. I don't care. But i was not the one who claimed Killzone 2 has the best graphics.

In reply to

Jollipop

Commented on 2008-07-17 21:21:45 In reply to Milhouse

Posted by Milhouse

We were talking about graphics, not gameplay. And when it comes to Killzone 2, i really fail to see great gameplay. What leads you to the opinion that Killzone 2 has better gameplay than Bad Company, HALO 3 or any other shooter? Killzone 2 is a straight linear shooter with stupid AI.

And regarding to graphics: just you belong to the people that can be fooled by content, doesn't mean that there are not other people where tech improvements do more attract attention.

And i really don't care if somebody gets wowed by Killzone 2 just because of the lenseflare/bloom effects or because the helghasts have an oxygen mask with red eyes. I don't care. But i was not the one who claimed Killzone 2 has the best graphics.

Yea but you are the one that won't shut up that it hasn't, non of us care that you dont' like the look of the game, just let people enjoy what they want to enjoy, why should they have to endure you coming into a thread and totally destroying it ?

In reply to

KORNdog

Commented on 2008-07-17 21:26:36 In reply to Milhouse

Posted by Milhouse

You can think what you want, i don't care about. But your thoughts are not facts, that's all!

and neither are yours. so we may as well just shut up about the whole thing cos we're going round in circles, i do suggest you actually have decent knowledge of the game your bashing before you bash it tho. it'd make your argument much more valid.

In reply to

jekyl200

Commented on 2008-07-17 21:35:08

Dear Lord, the game is looking stunning! They've really managed to pull it off, it just all looks so realistic.

Times like this I wish I had a ps3!

In reply to

Milhouse

Commented on 2008-07-17 21:36:36 In reply to KORNdog

Posted by KORNdog

and neither are yours.

I was talking about facts, but not thoughts. And it's fact that Killzone 2 has really bad textures, static environment lighting, no HDRR, no destructable environment, stupid AI, bad looking fire. And it's fact that other games can do a better job on the tech side. It's without doubt a good looking game when you like the setting. But when you look at Bad Company or other upcoming titles like Farcry 2, GoW 2, CoD5 or BiA3 you can hardly say that Killzone 2 has the best graphics.

In reply to

dfuse

Commented on 2008-07-17 21:41:39

Hehe, im sure youve seen CoD5 gameplay in motion then... or havent you?

In reply to

szaromir

Commented on 2008-07-17 22:32:41

Milhouse - just give up on it already. The game has dynamic lighting, with lots of light sources actually. Textures are lowres, but you don't really see it untl you scrutinize them. Motion blur is excellent, there's lots of geometry, tons of particle effect, animations are ace, so it easily is among the best looking games. I love BiA, but Hell's Highway doesn't look as good (although it has better textures indeed) and COD5 (and 4) looks like it needed a lot of sacrifices to hit 60 fps - bad textures as well, low gemetry, simple shaders etc. FC2 and GoW2 look breathtaking, though.

In reply to

unknown_23

Commented on 2008-07-17 23:05:31

Game looks awesome!!! One of the best lookins games (it has its own, specific style). Animations of soldier are also brilliant. Only textures need some more polish.
Milhouse = xbot:p ?

In reply to

Milhouse

Commented on 2008-07-17 23:37:22 In reply to szaromir

Posted by szaromir

The game has dynamic lighting

It doesn't have dynamic lighting. Maybe you don't know what it means. The lighting _on_the_environment_ is precalculated. There is no dynamic lighting. The shadows on the wall, the bloom, the floodlight you see (like the floodlight in the church of the chernobyl level in CoD4) it's all static. Just to give you a hint: If you would shoot on a lamp (if there were a lamp you can shoot) the lighting would be still there (like in Stranglehold). Nobody tells about some laser gun shots or explosions, this is nothing spectacular, because every game has this.

Textures are lowres, but you don't really see it untl you scrutinize them.

Lol. If you can't notice this then you can be fooled by everything. Really, the textures are horrible. I am really wondering, because the usual suspects always starting to bitch things like AF and then, they are sastisfied with textures where you even wouldn't need any sort of AF, because there would be no image improvements.

tons of particle effect

I didn't see those tons. Maybe you should take a look on other games like Bad Company. Then you are aware what it means to have tons of partivle effects.
Also, everything what i've seen from BiA3 does have more particle effects, too.

I love BiA, but Hell's Highway doesn't look as good (although it has better textures indeed)

This is just your personal opinion. In my opinion, BiA3 looks at least as equal as Killzone 2, _because_of_ the much better textures, really good rain/water effects and some destructable things.

and COD5 (and 4) looks like it needed a lot of sacrifices to hit 60 fps - bad textures as well, low gemetry, simple shaders etc.

Maybe you've watched the Wii version ;D At least the character models/animations of CoD4 are by no means less detailed than the character models/animations of Killzone 2. After seeing that CoD3 still outperforms CoD4 in some areas (grass animations, water/rain shaders, smoke) i've got no doubt that Treyarch will deliver a good job. And if you are judging on graphics you always have to consider the framerate. It doesn't count what you like more.

In reply to

[quote=szaromir]The game has dynamic lighting
[/quote]

It doesn't have dynamic lighting. Maybe you don't know what it means. The lighting _on_the_environment_ is precalculated. There is no dynamic lighting. The shadows on the wall, the bloom, the floodlight you see (like the floodlight in the church of the chernobyl level in CoD4) it's all static. Just to give you a hint: If you would shoot on a lamp (if there were a lamp you can shoot) the lighting would be still there (like in Stranglehold). Nobody tells about some laser gun shots or explosions, this is nothing spectacular, because every game has this.

[quote]
Textures are lowres, but you don't really see it untl you scrutinize them. 
[/quote]

Lol. If you can't notice this then you can be fooled by everything. Really, the textures are horrible. I am really wondering, because the usual suspects always starting to bitch things like AF and then, they are sastisfied with textures where you even wouldn't need any sort of AF, because there would be no image improvements.

[quote]
tons of particle effect
[/quote]

I didn't see those tons. Maybe you should take a look on other games like Bad Company. Then you are aware what it means to have tons of partivle effects.
Also, everything what i've seen from BiA3 does have more particle effects, too.

[quote]
I love BiA, but Hell's Highway doesn't look as good (although it has better textures indeed) 
[/quote]

This is just your personal opinion. In my opinion, BiA3 looks at least as equal as Killzone 2, _because_of_ the much better textures, really good rain/water effects and some destructable things.

[quote]
and COD5 (and 4) looks like it needed a lot of sacrifices to hit 60 fps - bad textures as well, low gemetry, simple shaders etc.
[/quote]

Maybe you've watched the Wii version ;D At least the character models/animations of CoD4 are by no means less detailed than the character models/animations of Killzone 2. After seeing that CoD3 still outperforms CoD4 in some areas (grass animations, water/rain shaders, smoke) i've got no doubt that Treyarch will deliver a good job. And if you are judging on graphics you always have to consider the framerate. It doesn't count what you like more.

Jollipop

Commented on 2008-07-18 00:25:47

Yea I think you made your point Milhouse, now run along.

In reply to

dfuse

Commented on 2008-07-18 00:29:00

Why dont you take a look at the gears2 textures which you just said were better: http://www.gamersyde.com/gallery_8855_en.html

If youre using the word terrible for kz textures... what are these? :)

In reply to

mustacio

Commented on 2008-07-18 00:29:57

graphically it looks amazing, but the setting and design is something we seen a million times before. this will be on top of those other games in terms of graphics, just not in creativity.

In reply to

Ronsauce

Commented on 2008-07-18 02:38:55 In reply to dfuse

Posted by dfuse

If youre using the word terrible for kz textures... what are these? :)

Gears multiplayer textures?

In reply to

TTP

Commented on 2008-07-18 05:32:36

I agree with Milhouse about the gameplay over graphics argument. In fact, Resistance was a much better game than Gears of War despite not be on par graphics wise. I'm sure Milhouse will agree with this.

In reply to

Jollipop

Commented on 2008-07-18 05:42:49

Yet Gears looks much more impressive gameplay wise than Resistance from videos, so it just goes to show how misleading videos can be.

In reply to

TTP

Commented on 2008-07-18 05:48:47

Oh, I'm not talking about the sequels.

In reply to

Jollipop

Commented on 2008-07-18 05:52:31

Nor was I lol, but same applies to those too.

I think this looks a whole lot more fun to play than Resistance 1 or 2.

In reply to

Tocasia

Commented on 2008-07-18 05:56:56

Nice. Best animation ever...

In reply to

bugmenot

Commented on 2008-07-18 07:29:20

@milhouse
killzone 2 is renowned for its advanced dynamic lighting system, up to 500 lights a level or more apparently, this is a result of its deferred rendering technology, a link to a developer interview from e3 2007 explaining their technology

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/usermovies/1294...

apologies for the poor quality.

In reply to

Milhouse

Commented on 2008-07-18 08:19:22 In reply to dfuse

Posted by dfuse

Why dont you take a look at the gears2 textures which you just said were better: http://www.gamersyde.com/gallery_8855_en.html

I've never was talking about Gears of War 2. But now, if you saying this, yeah Gears 2 has better textures. Even Gears 1 has had better textures for characters.

http://www.gamersyde.com/gallery_8897_en.html

In reply to

bugmenot

Commented on 2008-07-18 08:28:26

those screenshots dfuse posted are actual screengrabs (showing aliasing) whereas those have been oversampled, aliasing removed, ie. photoshopped

In reply to

Milhouse

Commented on 2008-07-18 08:30:39 In reply to bugmenot

Posted by bugmenot

@milhouse
killzone 2 is renowned for its advanced dynamic lighting system, up to 500 lights a level or more apparently

No, the environmental lighting is not dynamic, it's all static! Your guys just don't have any clue what it means dynamic lighting. It's not about the number of lightsources or the shadow when you are walking through. For example, in Bad Company if you blow something up like a building, lights shines in it.

In reply to

Milhouse

Commented on 2008-07-18 08:33:59 In reply to bugmenot

Posted by bugmenot

those screenshots dfuse posted are actual screengrabs (showing aliasing) whereas those have no anti-aliasing ie. photoshopped

They are from Multiplayer, so you cannot compare this to Killzone 2 Singleplayer media. And it's not about aliasing, but texture resolution. Regarding aliasing, Gears 1 has had virtually no aliasing, so i'm not concered about that.

In reply to

bugmenot

Commented on 2008-07-18 08:42:34

@milhouse
if you look at this pdf produced by guerilla themselves it explains in depth how their deferred rendering works and how it enables them to produce many dynamic lights

http://www.guerrilla-games.com/publications/dr_kz2...

it compare many different methods including forward rendering aswell as there chosen method of deferred rendering and how finally they chose deferred rendering since it allows them to produce a highly dynamic lighting in environments (PAGE 53)

In reply to

Milhouse

Commented on 2008-07-18 09:49:56 In reply to bugmenot

Posted by bugmenot

@milhouse
it allows them to produce a highly dynamic lighting in environments (PAGE 53)

Most of the environment lights are static, regardless if the deferred renderer is better for dynamic lighting. All lamps, floodlights, or generell lighting on buildings are all static. I bet if you shoot on lamps or something, the lighting will remain.

I don't say that Killzone 2 looks bad this way, because CoD4 also has had many static lighting/shadowing on environment assets, but oveall good looking artstyle. But there are other games that do a better job, for example Bad Company. And if you've got a destructable environment, it's much more important to have dynamic lighting/shadowing everywhere.

In reply to

E3: Killzone 2 gameplay

E3: Off-screen gameplay

All comments (104)

Assassin's Creed Black Flag Resynced

STAR WARS: Galactic Racer

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4

Xbox Games Showcase + Gears of War E-Day Direct

Future Games Show: Summer Showcase 2026

Summer Game Fest 2026