First Killzone screenshot/details? So says USAToday..

[Mintmaster]

Then why exactly did you use graphical detail in CoD4 as a way of countering Killzone's hype if your argument is based purely on FPS originality?

I didn't use COD4 detail for that purpose, nor is my argument based on originality.

The LBP and COD4 examples were there for me to show you what I meant by things that nobody has done before. Moreover, these aren't little things that affect the odd object here and there, but rather almost everything around you. If you are going to claim that it's by far the best looking FPS ever, you must have similar examples, or it's really an empty claim.

"FPS originality" is not what I'm asking for (though examples of that would serve the same purpose). COD4 is far from original. Having unprecedented animation or foliage detail has nothing to do with originality. Using physics in games isn't original, but LBP took it to a new level.

 

[inefficient]

...

We get it!

You don't like Killzone2. 6 posts just on this page alone have hammered that point in to our heads. Please let those of us who are interested in it discuss it in peace.

 

[Mintmaster]

I said it was the best looking console FPS ever - but please show me wrong.

When you make a claim like that, the onus is on you, not me.

GoW, for example, did plenty of things that nobody has done before, or taken features to a indisputably higher level than anything before it (which IMO is the same thing). Someone could point them out, and if he said "GoW is the best looking FPS ever", he'd at least have a case.

Someone could say GT:HD is the best looking driving game out there. Sure, its track and environment detail is not up to the standards of PGR3 or DiRT, but the cars look the best by far, and it's almost indisputable. It doesn't prove that GT:HD is the best looking racer, but it gives the argument some serious legs.

I've clearly illustrated what you'd have to show me to convince me any game had a reasonable basis to recieve that lofty title, but I have no idea how to "show you wrong". As Nesh pointed out, all games have flaws. However, this isn't about flaws, but rather the complete opposite.

 

[Mintmaster]

We get it!

You don't like Killzone2.

You obviously missed my post above where I said it looks good too, or where I said it's at the level of today's best.

There's only one thing I'm objecting to, and that's statements like "easily game of show" or "KZ2 is the best looking FPS ever by far" without any justification.

There's only one thing I need for justification: Show me something non-trivial that KZ2 does better than anyone else.

6 posts just on this page alone have hammered that point in to our heads. Please let those of us who are interested in it discuss it in peace.

So you'd rather that I ignore everyone's reply to me? Do you even know what a forum is?

 

[Arwin]

Paintball was the other thing I was thinking of. Sure, real guns are heavier, but that actually makes it more steady. When soldiers and paintballers have the gun in aiming position, they move their legs in a way that minimizes upper body motion. I even know a floorball player (floorball is like street hockey) that runs like that, allowing him to have excellent ball control.

Stress the word 'minimise' movement. It's not like the movement in Killzone is all over the place.

Maybe an FPS will one day have a "lower weapon" button that lets you move faster, and there you could have the arms swinging or whatever.

But Killzone 2 does this already. To me, this feels like just another example of you not even taking a really good look at this game. Another example would be that the game introduces a new cover system including blind fire that doesn't pull you out of first person view. There's the first of the weather effects demoed where lightning charges a weapon that can fire lightning boilts with precise aim (the thing you destroy at the end of the demo). Also I think you really give the ragdoll physics and death animations enough credit. But maybe I have missed some games that do it equally well. Even then, it's definitely the combination of a lot of existing stuff (the blood in this game is pretty decent) and new stuff that makes this game impressive. It's ok that you ask this forum what they think is so impressive about it, but if you just read a few of the bigger press reactions, I think you should be able to find enough examples of why they were impressed. (though of course a big one is that many people just didn't expect so much anymore of this game )

Mind you, not falling within my category of preferred games per se, it doesn't necessarily impress me all that much. I'm also not a graphics professional, so I can't always tell what is impressive technically and what isn't.

This is the first we've seen of this game though, and I'm sure we'll learn more about the game over the next few events.

The nice thing about CoD4 is that it contains levels on our own planet, so that we have a better frame of reference. Would be nice to see the Killzone tech in a similar context so it would be easier to compare those aspects of it. And yes, obviously there are things that impress people about Killzone 2 that are in CoD4 as well - both games have impressed a lot of people at the same time.

EDIT: best looking by far, or game of the show, those are comments imho not really worth discussing.

 

[almighty]

We have simply not seen enough of KZ2 to make a proper comparison to COD4. 1 level from KZ2 compared to 3-4? COD4 maps?

 

[rekator]

Yes, and both are in pre-alpha…

Mintmaster don't forget that Killzone 2 is "The Halo-Killer" and also the more important budget for a game… so it only be the best game ever…

 

[Tap In]

Maybe an FPS will one day have a "lower weapon" button that lets you move faster, and there you could have the arms swinging or whatever. However, if a game did that then the weapon should be out of the field of view ....

CoD3 did this

oh and I mentioned in a few posts also that to call this groundbreaking or the best ever is to have missed several Next Gen games the past year and several vids of games being released this year IMO

 

[joebloggs]

Killzone 2 is easily the best looking next-gen game to date. Seriously it just blows everything else out of the water.

Some people are scrambling to put other games up along side it (ever since a certain game turned out underwhelming graphically...).

I mean COD4, really - really?

Watch this Live Demonstration of COD4 from gamespot (with similar settings and condition to the KZ2 trailer) - it's not even in the same league:

http://www.gamespot.com/video/0/6174766/videoplayerpop?rgroup=e32007_live

 

[Mintmaster]

EDIT: best looking by far, or game of the show, those are comments imho not really worth discussing.

Okay, that's basically how I feel too. KZ2 looks great, but not ZOMG great. The rest of your post was good too.

We have simply not seen enough of KZ2 to make a proper comparison to COD4. 1 level from KZ2 compared to 3-4? COD4 maps?

I don't think we should be comparing the two. If KZ2's graphics are as amazing as people say they are, it should have big elements that stand out in the genre without the need to criticize flaws in COD4.

 

[ultragpu]

When you make a claim like that, the onus is on you, not me.

GoW, for example, did plenty of things that nobody has done before, or taken features to a indisputably higher level than anything before it (which IMO is the same thing). Someone could point them out, and if he said "GoW is the best looking FPS ever", he'd at least have a case.

Someone could say GT:HD is the best looking driving game out there. Sure, its track and environment detail is not up to the standards of PGR3 or DiRT, but the cars look the best by far, and it's almost indisputable. It doesn't prove that GT:HD is the best looking racer, but it gives the argument some serious legs.

I've clearly illustrated what you'd have to show me to convince me any game had a reasonable basis to recieve that lofty title, but I have no idea how to "show you wrong". As Nesh pointed out, all games have flaws. However, this isn't about flaws, but rather the complete opposite.

why does a game hav to hav somefin thats hasnt been done before to look impressive? i mean surely a unique feature wouldnt hurt but it's just a feature in the end. visually a good game needs good balance, MGS4 doesnt offer much unique features graphically yet it's arguablly one of the most impressive on e3. in the case of Killzone2, it actaully does offer somefin unique in its own way, such as deffered rendering with 4XMSAA. indirect lighting and ambient occlusion offer u more juice in lighting. and please correct me, pixel based motion blur is also somefin unique in killzone is it not? that said, i dont judge killzone's impressiveness based on only them, i account the whole package which includes anything from lighting to aninmation, particles etc. it's the whole visual fidility that seperates it from the herd. personally i think it's the most impressive console shooters.

 

[Mintmaster]

why does a game hav to hav somefin thats hasnt been done before to look impressive?

I have no qualms with people calling KZ2 "impressive". Calling it "best looking ever by far", though, does indeed require that. It doesn't necessarily have to do something completely new, as doing something a lot better than anyone else is just as good. Simply being "complete" or near the best at everything is not enough to place it on such a lofty pedestal.

 

[Tap In]

.... please correct me, pixel based motion blur is also somefin unique in killzone is it not? ....

been done on Next Gen for over a year and a half now

1 example

 

[ultragpu]

ar ok, must've missed it. but not many games are using it, is it process demanding?

 

[patsu]

To me, KZ 2 is impressive because of the total package:

* It was able to fool a seasoned live audience into thinking that it was CG (I don't know whether to call it ZOMG great, but people did get fooled). The experience, including audio, must be immersive and consistently high quality.

* There are tons of activities happening at the same time during the playthrough (i.e., It depicted a chaotic war zone similar to the original trailer).

* The playthrough showed many aspects of the game (smoke, fire, lightning, dynamic light and shadow, motion blur, top down view of the city, close up of human expressions and actions, destructible environments, ...). All of them are seamlessly integrated and convincing to me in 1 work-in-progress level. It does not matter whether game X has done one particular feature before. KZ 2 put it all together in its own way.

* The attention to details (as cited by forum posts including realistic blood, power lines, subtle animation, shooting out loud speaker turned off the propaganda, ...)

* The creative vision that hold all the elements together, including designing a whole new Helghast language.

* Yet all of the above is only part of the game. They introduced new first person view cover system, and the developers seem to be working on more stuff (e.g., weather in gameplay, and level streaming were highlighted). So there seem to be some headroom left.


I personally like LBP better (as indicated in my other post). Will I get mad if people say this is their best looking game ever ? Nope, I don't really care since this is subjective. I look forward more to the gameplay.

EDIT: Mintmaster, you seem to think that a game needs to have 1 element that stands head and shoulder above everything else to be ZOMGodly great. I think this assumption is flawed. It is typically easier to break away from the crowd by just focusing on one thing. It is generally very difficult to "do everything right". But I don't see how this will help the discussion since visual judgement tends to be subjective anyway.

 

[Mintmaster]

Watch this Live Demonstration of COD4 from gamespot (with similar settings and condition to the KZ2 trailer) - it's not even in the same league:

That has no foliage, no highly detailed shadows from the sun, and the action was too hectic to watch any animations. If they showed that at the MS conference, I would have yawned. I never said it's the best looking FPS, I just explained what is so impressive about it for it to deserve high praise. Nonetheless, you and others fail to do the same for KZ2.

For the last freakin' time, this is NOT about COD4 vs. KZ2, and it is NOT a pissing match where we find the least impressive scene we can.

Killzone 2 is easily the best looking next-gen game to date. Seriously it just blows everything else out of the water.

If it did, you would be able to meet my challenge of finding just one non-trivial aspect where it is head and shoulders above everything else, let alone the many things needed to justify that statement. Instead, you do nothing but blow hot air.

Anyway, I'll leave you all alone now.

EDIT: patsu, what is the "playthough" you're referring to? Can you give me a link? I haven't seen a couple of the things you've mentioned. And again, calling KZ2 "impressive" is fine by me.

 

[patsu]

The trailer you see is a subset of the playthrough reviewers saw.

 

[warb]

Killzone 2 is easily the best looking next-gen game to date. Seriously it just blows everything else out of the water.

Some people are scrambling to put other games up along side it (ever since a certain game turned out underwhelming graphically...).

I mean COD4, really - really?

Watch this Live Demonstration of COD4 from gamespot (with similar settings and condition to the KZ2 trailer) - it's not even in the same league:

http://www.gamespot.com/video/0/6174766/videoplayerpop?rgroup=e32007_live

Have you not seen any of the HD media for CoD4? HD Insertion and Assault gameplay video: http://www.gametrailers.com/player/21748.html
In motion I think they're comparable.

I wonder if Halo 3 will beat Resistance for having the most underrated visuals ever? A lot of people might not appreciate the Halo art style or the brightly coloured armour, but to call it underwhelming seems a little bit unfair. Especially since we haven't had a proper look yet, and those who saw the behind closed doors play-through have only had positive things to say regarding its visuals.

 

[Neb]

you're wasting your time Mint, i already went through this to no avail. Infact just after i posed the same questions the thread went off into the wonderous gun sway that seems to fascinate some here far more then the overall package of any other PS3 game shown. Certainly kept this thread at the top and expanding fast. Many other PS3 titles DO deserve more attention and a few of which will actually be released soon unlike this pre pre pre alpha (so many friggan "pre's" the development of KZ2 has actually started to go backwards!) 2008 title.

In my opinion the reaction is either out of pure desperation, having the best for your console if you will, something the other guy doesnt have so people are blowing things WAY out of proportion to fabricate that. In short, fanboy hype. Or a lot more people then i thought have been asleep for the last 4 years and totally missed the progression of FPS; in which case then i can understand the "HOLY SHIT THIS IS HUGE" reaction.

If anyone feels attacked by my words, my apologies, but this thread has absolutly been filled with an overaction. The Darkness had a trailing gunsmoke effect which looked neat but i didnt see people turn it into a discussion of how cool and absolutly amazing it was, or the game because of it, for 5 pages like what people did here with character movement. Both effects, i add, being things you'll notice for the first 10-15minutes of play then quickly forget they exist.

Sadly it seems to be so. Seems that the intro cutscene fooled on to think it was very close to the CG E3'05 and then the rest is the same even if it's not. I hope this game turns out good but I see even the most common feature (seen years ago) being hyped beyond reality.

KZ2 is on par with other games graphically (I only talk about console games), the gameplay seems to have the ingredients so far to make it a very good game.

This video of gameplay in HD (with the tower/gun) in this post shows that it is competing graphically with other games soon to be released and some console games that have been released. And if some think that this video represent almost CGI quality or surpasses the GC E3'05 video then fine but then there is not anything more to discuss about.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1033579&postcount=577


Now excuse me I am going to pick on Crysis for some questionable looking stuff...

 

[Neb]

why does a game hav to hav somefin thats hasnt been done before to look impressive? i mean surely a unique feature wouldnt hurt but it's just a feature in the end. visually a good game needs good balance, MGS4 doesnt offer much unique features graphically yet it's arguablly one of the most impressive on e3. in the case of Killzone2, it actaully does offer somefin unique in its own way, such as deffered rendering with 4XMSAA. indirect lighting and ambient occlusion offer u more juice in lighting. and please correct me, pixel based motion blur is also somefin unique in killzone is it not? that said, i dont judge killzone's impressiveness based on only them, i account the whole package which includes anything from lighting to aninmation, particles etc. it's the whole visual fidility that seperates it from the herd. personally i think it's the most impressive console shooters.

Actually not 4xAA, the dev motherh has said on the Sony forum KZ2 thread that it has 2xAA not 4xAA. I would though agree that it easily fools one to think it is 4xAA.

...indirect lighting and ambient occlusion offer u more juice in lighting...

Indirect lighting is not visible in the E3'07 demo but they may very well be for the complete game.