First Killzone screenshot/details? So says USAToday..

Nah sorry I don't agree with you there Nebula..

KZ2 looks amazing because of the great art direction (which alone would put it up against some of the best), sheer amount of geometric detail in the scene at any given point in time (incredibly detailed characters, enemies, buildings, weapons, dropships, the list goes on..) but more importantly a really effective dynamic lighing system which provides use of alot of small local lights which really help bring the detail & realism out.. Not to mention the fact that it clearly displays a very impressive use of high fidelity animation blending which *really* helps keep the overall look of the game consistently good by not ruining the visual flow of the game in motion by a sudden jerky animation or ten..

The post processing adds to the game but it by far doesn't define the visual impact of it..

In anycase lets try and keep discussions of KZ's visual standard out of comparison statements and over-generalised-sensationalist oppinions (implied as facts..)

 

i for one actually find the game looked substantially better with PP effect toned down. the overwhelming sunlight provides a much vivid and warm look over the already densely detailed structures and much more details can b seen.

 

QFT.

 

I see nothing in KZ2 that would make me think it would not be possible on other hardware. However, that does not mean it isn't a great looking game. Certainly one of the best ATM.

I think the main reason it looks as good as it does is art direction with technical merits a strong second. Then again, the "look" of it is subjective and it won't appeal to all the same way. Just so happens to be my preference, thus they will be forcing my hand in buying a ps3 for this game as well as a handful of others which are coming.

Bottom line though for the fanboys is this will be a title to hold up and brag about just as MS fans will hold up and brag about their top wares.

Such boasting and measuring means little IMO, as the vast majority of a console's games library will tell the real tale of console superiority, not one or two special cases. Right now, it's looking like a wash. Some are just having a tough time coming to grips with that reality.

 

OR

To validate their enthusiasm for the PS3?

Why is it whenever anyone gets excited abot a PS3 game then they are somehow trying to "claim superiority" over the 360..?

At the end of the day we all kow the PS3 is generally slightly more powerful than the 360 with strengths residing in certain areas and vice versa. & when PS3 owners are spending so much more on a "supposedly more capable platform" is there really anything wrong with these same individuals exclaiming praises to games which, after such a long bloody period of shitty ports & games which really don't present anything that isn't being done on competing platforms, ACTUALLY use the strengths of the hardware to provide an experience which "individualises" the platform (since they are either very hard to do on competeing platforms or impossible without having to make severe compromises in other areas..) & validates their purchase?

Do people on these forums complain when PC fans say Crysis can't be done on other platforms without severe downgrades? (Since those who tout it are only trying to validate/justify to themselves why they spent the cost of a month's mortgage repayment on a PC just to play it...)

In a forum like this it seems that we all seem to be aware that games were eventually going to be released which realy tap into the strengths on the individual hardware platforms, and so why, when the platform is the PS3, do we have people claiming that any sentiment of appreciation of the game only depicts some kind of "fanboy mentality"..?

It just begger's belief..

 

Actually, I'd argue we don't all know that.

Each machine has their strength(s), but neither has enough to completely overwhelm the other to claim "superiority".

Bottom line is, "Can X game be made on another console?". If the answer to that question is "yes", regardless of the retooling involved, then superiority can't be claimed. If the answer is "yes, and in less time", the only bonus is for devs to save money and time. To the end user, the result is the same.

I can't wait to play this game, but GG's history does have me a bit concerned for gameplay. However, given their budget and title importance, I imagine they are going to nail the gameplay and result in a stellar title.

I wonder how many other titles have such a budget/priority for Sony and MS. Games of this class/calibre are what this gen should be about. They are what $60 games should be about, and what uber expensive consoles should be about. I hope GG sets a new standard for Sony/MS to live up to this gen and moving forward, we see titles such as this become more the standard, and not the exception.

Keep up the good work GG!

 

I never stated anything about superiority (especially since the term used in such a context is entirely subjective and thus, irrelevant..)

The PS3 is theoretically the more powerful system overall however how this theoretical power equates to real world performance is a completely separate arguement in itself (& one that isn't worth discussing anymore than the purpose of religion.. i.e. a never ending disscussion that can't ever be resolved & never goes anywhere..)

There isn't really much else to discuss in terms of how the hardware of the two consoles stack up.. That's why it's really only ever going to be the games that validate the perceived "value" of the platform..

Hence my point..

 

That's one example out of many.

No there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. It would be nicer that X360 or its games wouldn't be dragged into these praises as having lesser looking games. For example there is lot's of excited talk going on in the Halo 3 thread, but people don't need to constantly compare it to PS3 games, instead people are only talking about the merits of the game itself, mostly anyways. It's one thing to be excited and one thing to drag the competition into the picture.

Well I'm guilty of doing some of that complaining also

In general I think your post was pretty good and I myself have sensed some over reaching negativity about PS3, I believe half of that is justified, but perhaps the other half has not been reasonable. However it's my opinion that when some lesser informed persons make inpolite comments about X360 while praising/justifying their own platform/games, it doesn't translate well in peoples heads and the thread is already going fast downhill at that point.

 

Good points..

 

It´s by no doubt one of the best looking console games, if not the best looking games on console (note: on consoles)

And personally im not interrested of knowing what the engine is capable of, i´m more interested in how the game is looking.

"and not technically impressive ?" Well to me its not technically impressive, I have seen many better looking games, maybe that´s why.

 

Graphics

These are all early games my friend. Probably in two years PS3 and Xbox360 games will have better graphics than Killzone2. But for 2007/2008 console shooter, for me Killzone2 is easily the one for me to say "WOW". Other console games I can only say "wow", not "WOW".

 

Folks,
the topic is Killzone PS3, not Lair or any other game. Stay on topic

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that Killzone for the PS2 scored an average of 7 on most game mags/sites.
I can definitely understand the need to be cautious, but the "Lair" comparison, is somewhat unnecessary...
We all know that there is a huge difference between average and poor, especially in an industry that it's products get the low score only when they literally suck.
Now, KZ2 is not a game that shows even traces of a an average game especially this early in production which is a good thing, unlike Lair, where lots of people show it as dull and repetitive even from the first gameplay videos F5 released.
Caution is good, but lets not take it to the next level…

Edit
I'm a bit slow on typing... Delete if the post is off topic...

 

That's the problem right there - how can you effectively judge the impressiveness of an engine (technically impressive) if you're not interested of knowing what the engine is capable of?

These are two different things: A title may be very technically impressive, but doesn't necessarely have to look good.

 

Killzone2 will be pretty no doubt, but will it be fun?

Do not trust reviews!!
Killzone1 is one of the worst fps I ever played, boring as hell, even quake1 is more enjoyable..

Good thing for the sequel they are improving it with mini boss battles, weather effects etc.

 

I quite enjoyed it myself..

 

I didn't think it was the greatest game either, but seriously, comparing KillZone to Quake?

 

Just ignore the graphical comparison. I just can't think any other title.
Back in 97, the satanic feel of quake1 is very very cool.

 

Worst FPS you ever played? Never tried Halo then

I didnt like the two first hours of Killzone - but after that it was really really good.
Iam eager to see what they will do about the weather effects, and how things will look in daylight.

 

I wasn't refering to the graphics, but to the fact that both are very different FPS. Hardly comparable.