Atleast there seems to be no repeating of these "crappy" textures.
First Killzone screenshot/details? So says USAToday..
- Thread starter Titanio
- Start date
Atleast there seems to be no repeating of these "crappy" textures.
This is such a lie! LocoRoco hasn't any texture problem. Neither has Katamari. Get you're facts striaght, why don't you!
As for KZ2 textures, there sure are some low res ones there. It's not a matter of them being blurry - the texels are clearly visible.
NovemberMike
Regular
Bingo!
Speaking of which, imagine a BladeRunner game based off of the movie using the Killzone Engine?
Not quite. So far, out of dark, rainy and neon lights, Killzone only has dark. Personally, I think they need more neon lights and bright colors in the Bladerunner sense.
Love_In_Rio
Veteran
In such a case not mine. Questions thread to a GG member in playstation forums, post numeber 162:
"The textures are actually ok, it is the motion-blur that is causing them to look a bit shoddy. Its just a bug."
http://boardsus.playstation.com/pla...2&thread.id=32&view=by_date_ascending&page=17
Other remarkable things:
Fire will be improved, as well as characters facial expresions, animations will increase in number, blood is phisics driven,and possibly there will be stages in more open scenarios ( one of them could be the one from the CGI trailer, but this is taken only from hints ) and vehicles explosions as seen in the CGI could be seen too. He says technical details will be disclosed in coming months ( the famous GG tech talk at the end of July ? ).
Please, people, just ask yourselves 2 questions.
1) Does it look good?
2) Does it look good in motion?
If you answered yes to even one of those questions, please just keep quiet with "oh I saw a blurry texture suxors for Killzone" or "omg that shadow was the sux".
Since when did B3D resort to such simple things? Is it too difficult to come to the painful realization that the game has a ton of animation / particle effects / physics / destructible environments / ai / etc etc etc to stop and think "hey, overall, it's freaking awesome"?
Why must you sit here and clearly ask for things not possible this console generation? Even Crysis looks like it's mad sacrifices in area's for it's visual prowess.
Why, that's all I want to know. It's petty and really makes for some boring conversation.
1) Does it look good?
2) Does it look good in motion?
If you answered yes to even one of those questions, please just keep quiet with "oh I saw a blurry texture suxors for Killzone" or "omg that shadow was the sux".
Since when did B3D resort to such simple things? Is it too difficult to come to the painful realization that the game has a ton of animation / particle effects / physics / destructible environments / ai / etc etc etc to stop and think "hey, overall, it's freaking awesome"?
Why must you sit here and clearly ask for things not possible this console generation? Even Crysis looks like it's mad sacrifices in area's for it's visual prowess.
Why, that's all I want to know. It's petty and really makes for some boring conversation.
But as shifty pointed out we can see the texels, we can see that the textures are low rez, so its not a motion blur bug, its just low resolution textures.
I never said you need shiney surfaces, and a wet look, im against that, gear looks bad to me for this reason. They do however need to start remembering that you can use something called bumpmapping and normal mapping in order to make the textures look 3d and not flat.
I never said you need shiney surfaces, and a wet look, im against that, gear looks bad to me for this reason. They do however need to start remembering that you can use something called bumpmapping and normal mapping in order to make the textures look 3d and not flat.
Love_In_Rio
Veteran
The future is geometry, not faking shaders.
Just view the opening scene of the realtime trailer. One the dropship. Look at the ground texture. Its obviously very low resolution, and its flat.
Our GPU's are to slow to process pure geometry compared to what results we get with shaders
Yeah but the future aint here yet so 'faking shaders' is the best we have so far!
They are OK not super neither bad just OK and the places where motion-blur is applied obviously it blurs out the image. And no it's not a bug as people are reffering to frames/images with no motion-blur/DoF active.
Last edited by a moderator:
Love_In_Rio
Veteran
Yes, you are right, but that scene is one of the best real time cut scenes ever seen, and we could apologize for some weak textures if the whole screen give us another and supperior painting.
Imagine PS4: Cell with 32 spus for raytracing and a Ati R800 for pushing polys to the limit...mmmmm !!!!!!!!
looking at what the industry produced these recent years ,i tend to see normalmapping as some sort of illness (and i'm a game artist...).I rarely saw it done with taste ,but that don't mean it can't be .
Again ,the kind of problem with the dropship lowres ground texture can be spotted in any game that use textures and free cam,and that's not about to change anytime soon.Calling it " crappy" just adds an intention to say something bad .
Again ,the kind of problem with the dropship lowres ground texture can be spotted in any game that use textures and free cam,and that's not about to change anytime soon.Calling it " crappy" just adds an intention to say something bad .
They are also too slow to process bumpmapping, volumetric clouds, smoke, fire, high poly models, animations, lighting, etc. at the same time.
Why is this so hard for you to understand man? Ask for the world, you'll never get it. Just accept that the game looks freaking stunning and stop complaining.
Why does everybody get so defensive.
The only reason i brought up textures again, was because somebody claimed they were bad because of some motion blur bug (which is not true).
I have hailed this game as looking great, i have also noticed some weaknesses. I have pointed those out. Get over it.
The only reason i brought up textures again, was because somebody claimed they were bad because of some motion blur bug (which is not true).
I have hailed this game as looking great, i have also noticed some weaknesses. I have pointed those out. Get over it.
Actually, I agree the game looks great, but I'd hope it doesn't get undue praise for things it does not do well.
This game will likely be the reason I get a ps3 next year. It doesn't mean I'll go around telling everyone "it has the best textures in the world but you can't see them cause they're motion blurred" as that would be far from the truth. The game does have some of the best atmosphere I've seen in a game and overall, the game world they've created is intriguing and something I want to experience.
(plus there's a few others coming that look nice and hopefully Sony gets their head out of their ___ and drops the price to ~$350 next year.)
Chef with all the money you've spent on 360, I'm *sure* if you reflect on the things you will not have to be paying crazy mark-ups for on PS3, you'll see that were it to remain at $450 or so, it'd still be quite livable for a man of your obvious console largesse.
You posted the list once of what you've spent on 360 gaming... and let's just say it *far* exceeds what I've spent on PS3, and I don't just mean because of games!
Chef with all the money you've spent on 360, I'm *sure* if you reflect on the things you will not have to be paying crazy mark-ups for on PS3, you'll see that were it to remain at $450 or so, it'd still be quite livable for a man of your obvious console largesse.
You posted the list once of what you've spent on 360 gaming... and let's just say it *far* exceeds what I've spent on PS3, and I don't just mean because of games!
It's a matter of principle!
Seriously, the console will be a secondary one as I imagine most multiplat games will continue to be better on 360 for some time. Thus, ps3 will be a box for the sole purpose of playing ps3 exclusives. Even $350 is stretching it, but I'm hoping they will reach that region sometime next year so I can experience the glory that is: Killzone2.
Otherwise, eh.
Thats what the dev said at us.playstation.com but he is most likely not lying and he's being honest so far. He probably didnt realise that some people are annoyed with the textures even if you are standing still. Some of the images I ve seen that involve some movement appear with blurrier textures in the whole image.
Anyways I think we are blowing the texture thing into unnecessary huge proportions.
Besides:
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=79403&page=2
Funny thing is, that quote does not address the low resolution of the textures, just the fact that they have variety and decided against upping the reflection levels.
Nobody is saying it doesn't have variety or that the lighting/material selection (lack of reflection) is bad. People would just prefer higher res textures. I would, but I realize there are limitations with limited ram available.
I'd like to see the textures improved but if it shipped with the same res textures, I'd still enjoy the game and still be impressed.
