D
Deleted member 7537
Guest
Not to burst your bubble but the difference is huge, the above looks like a game and the below ss looks like CG!
It looks so close. At least in my opinion.
First Killzone screenshot/details? So says USAToday..
- Thread starter Titanio
- Start date
It looks so close. At least in my opinion.
Very close.
/nAo
http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z149/pikutara/KZ2-5.jpg
http://medialib.computerandvideogames.com/screens/screenshot_184442.jpg
^destructible env
eh ... the whole cgi debate is very old and really unimportant. What is important is that the devs seem to be doing a great job of recreating their gameworld in believable fashion and they have plenty of time to polish still.
Personally, I like the look of the game and the env. They seem to be doing a good job of maximising the ps3 into creating a truly stunning and beautiful game.
The RT CGI (ZOMG!!!11111!!!) stuff is for the fanboys... honestly.
The quality of the imagery is very good though. I can't wait to see how the game ends up.
Perhaps I dont get it because it is probably not as evident as you say to be able for me to see it.
Or perhaps I am used to flatter and rougher looking games than this that are happen to be praised for their superb graphics. Thats why this doesnt look as "bad" in my eyes.
Actually I can only be impressed
Not to burst your bubble but the difference is huge, the above looks like a game and the below ss looks like CG!
I see blurry textures, unrealistic shadows, and even low res textures in the second pic. Even the fire looks fake. Actually it looks too much like the one found in the real time trailer. Their hair look unconvincing too. Its looks like the technique they used in shadow of colossus to make the fur.
Laa-Yosh is absolutely right. There's no optical effects that help define the distance between features. In the game it wouldn't be the end-of-the-world, but it's something missing that would elevate the visuals even higher. Take the top picture DieH@rd posted, and look only at the middle area in the top half. The depth range covered is quiet large, but the resultant rendering in that screenshot is very like a graphic novel. There's no variation of lines based on distance. The end result means you only have perspective to clue you into how thing are positioned in the 3rd dimension. You could take two monsters, one large and one small, and position them at different depths so with perspective they look the same size...and then how would you know how far the large one was, or how large it was?
Some of the screens are showing excellent lighting. Can't wait for some clearer vids. The devs should certainly tweak the artistry to make the most of what they've got though. It's not good enough to rest on your laurels because you're doing some things well, when a few changes can mean big improvements.
I understand his point. I just cant reckognise or see it as such an evident problem because I ve played other games people never complained about that looked rougher and flatter under the same logic but never anyone mentioned any problems or as a visual disadvantage. And they didnt seem to be a problem of any sorts in the game for me either
Especially after watching the trailers of the game I simply couldnt see it in the videos. Pictures dont seem to be very good representations.
edit: I think there are techniques used to define depth in the game for real. I remember seeing a video once showing a picture with step by step techniques used to explain how the graphics were rendered and one of the "effects" used was for definition of depth. I am not sure if it was posted in here but if someone can dig it up it could help in the discussion
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, lack of depth makes some shots look like posters (which is not a bad thing though).
But what is up with knee level blur? Is it supposed to be motion blur or something?
Anyway, I recently played the original, and I will be very disappointed if Hakha doesn't make it to the PS3 version.
But what is up with knee level blur? Is it supposed to be motion blur or something?
Anyway, I recently played the original, and I will be very disappointed if Hakha doesn't make it to the PS3 version.
At the end of the day this game is graphical powerhouse and is easy the top looking console game for now
i think some of us are just nit picking now
I say that the "Uncanny Walley" effect is showing up.
Its too lifelike for some members.I say that the "Uncanny Walley" effect is showing up.
It's just that I'm looking at CGI all day at work, and the lack of such a basic and simple visual element is really evident to me.
Lots of other games do care about this, by the way, and I'm sure it'll be added to KZ2 as well.
Anyone think this already looks better than at E3?
http://medialib.computerandvideogames.com/screens/screenshot_184439.jpg
Wow at the gun...and face etc etc.
http://medialib.computerandvideogames.com/screens/screenshot_184439.jpg
Wow at the gun...and face etc etc.
Looks better to me (even if it may only be due to the source of the pics).
Also, sometimes a screengrab from a compresed, faded video can hide flaws.
Good to see that in this case the only thing it was hiding was the even more astounding impact of the graphics.
I think you're being a bit absurd in reference to the 'depth' and everything looking 'flat'.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in 'real life' things that are 100 yards away don't look like a hot blurry mess, do they? If you want my honest opinion, I think 'depth of field' is the absolute WORST thing to ever happen to this generation.
It's awesome for some bits, like cut scenes, that are MEANT to look like they were taken with a camera, but the human eye is NOT a lens, and as a result, you should not see things at small distances show up as 'blurry'. Even looking a mile away, an object will look small, and you won't be able to see 'details' but that has little to do with 'focus'.
Adding DOF to this game to give you a 'touch of perspective' is stupid. It would absolutely KILL this game, visually. Perspective is what you have in the REAL world to tell where things are, and how far they are away, so why suddenly, when we are all seeking 'realism' does this game now 'suffer' as a result of that percieved realism?
Because it looks good? Because it's infamous? What exactly is the reason that this particular game is picked to death? I certainly don't remember anyone saying Gears of War looked bad because it didn't have DOF in the distance, or that it looked flat.
It puzzles me.
Yep. And remember this isn't real life. This is art. Movies don't use realistic lighting because generally speaking it's boring. They add lights where they're impossible and contradict the scene, in order to make something that looks better. In this game, without some adjustment to depth, the end result looks like a graphic novel. It's pretty awesome, but it would be better to have some distance adjustment IMO. That doesn't mean blurring the background completely out. The fact developers are over-using DOF the same as they've overused bloom doesn't make DOF an innately bad thing. A very subtle blur would be very good in many cases. And without blur, some hazing would be good. Again, the artists shouldn't overdo it. Too much can be as bad as too little, but a small touch would be welcome.
