First Killzone screenshot/details? So says USAToday..

[betan]

Enough of that art "defense". We got it alright, Killzone 2 is not technically impressive, it's all artist work. Same for GT4/5/6. Their car shaders sucked technically, compared to competition, but artists did miracles. (Please don't bother replying to say "didn't say technically unimpressive" etc.)

That said, I'm not sure what artistry you guys are talking about.
I see many light sources, but not multiple shadows, nor global illumination or indirect lighting.
I see great models and lots of geometry yet sandbag edges bug me.
I see nice physics guided animation which doesn't seem to kick in until the enemy is dead or almost dead. Soldier animation is not bad either.
I see a lot of lens effects suitability of which in an FPS is debatable.

The only thing I find impressive, but may be attributed to artstyle most, is absense of jaggies. Game is dark which sure helps, but come on, deferred rendered with 2xAA is an achievement.
Plus there is a lot of lighting in effect during which AA still looks good.

Speaking of dark, whether postprocessing makes the game look better is also debatable. We have seen comparison pictures. There is also weird blur which is supposed to simulate dust or something.

In short, technical achievements of the game don't seem to be shadowed or amplified by even better artstyle more than any other game.

More on topic, Killzone 1 was on earth and Helgast were using masks. Killzone 2 takes place on Helgan and Helgast are still wearing masks unlike humans who seem to be fine. Am I the only one finding that a little curious?

 

[flec04]

I find it halirious that some contributors are claiming the difference in KZ2 is due solely to art direction!

So any differences can be attributed to art. HHHmmm, I should then ignore the greater theoretical output of the PS3. I should also ignore the fact the CELL & RSX are crunching through between 2GB of data / level to create those expansive environments. I guess I should also ignore the fact that prior to the PS3 it simply wasn't feasible to use a DR as a gaming engine - is that not technically impressive enough? I guess I should also ignore the fact that those 500 lights used / level and all the dynamic shadowing will still have 4x AA applied.

HHhhmmm, art direction eh?

Perhaps someone need inform these journos not to get so excited over KZ2 & explain to them it merely comes down to art direction:

Kikizo:
this is a visual DEMON of graphical prowess. Somehow even the trailer shown at E3 doesn't do justice to the experience of really sitting down in front of it and taking time to become immersed. <b>The only real-time thing we've seen with our own eyes that comes close graphically is Rage, (and yes, we've seen everything from Fallout 3 to Halo 3)</b>, but we're talking about the PC version of Rage, and you can bet it wasn't running on a crusty Pentium 3 box when id's boss showed it to us, that's for sure

Gamesradar
Aug 16, 2007
Killzone 2 was almost everything we’d hoped for, and miles ahead of what we secretly feared - not bad, for a relatively tame third level. The primary emotion, relief, was soon replaced with a tingling delight that Sony had lived up to the standards of that E3 2005 trailer. In 30 minutes, Sony transformed the perception of PS3 from an overpriced extravagance populated by me-too Xbox 360 ports, to the most exciting, important console in the world. It doesn’t have any gimmicks - time travel, performance-enhancing drugs, or gravity guns. Its “novelty” is good looks, intensity, and how it single-handedly shames absolutely almost everything rival consoles had to offer. That said, it’s the second time a Killzone 2 trailer has ruined E3 - this time for making almost every other game look so terrifyingly ordinary.

Improved AI & physics, heck we can even jump in KZ2, immersive 7.1 audio as well. I can't help but be technically impressed!

 

[GreekDNA]

I find it halirious that some contributors are claiming the difference in KZ2 is due solely to art direction!

So any differences can be attributed to art. HHHmmm, I should then ignore the greater theoretical output of the PS3. I should also ignore the fact the CELL & RSX are crunching through between 2GB of data / level to create those expansive environments. I guess I should also ignore the fact that prior to the PS3 it simply wasn't feasible to use a DR as a gaming engine - is that not technically impressive enough? I guess I should also ignore the fact that those 500 lights used / level and all the dynamic shadowing will still have 4x AA applied.

HHhhmmm, art direction eh?

Perhaps someone need inform these journos not to get so excited over KZ2 & explain to them it merely comes down to art direction:

Improved AI & physics, heck we can even jump in KZ2, immersive 7.1 audio as well. I can't help but be technically impressed!

Post of the thread

seriously the "it looks good because of teh art" defence is just pure fanboism or damage controll..jesus christ.

art only plays so much but you need the tech to bring it alive, going by some peoples logic here metroid prime 3 looks technicly better than crysis because it has better art!...see how stupid that sounds

Killzone 2 is a graphical prowess end of story

some people need to accept it and move on

 

[patsu]

Not really, ART is the most differensiating thing imo.

Look at Xbox's PGR2 vs PS2 GT4.

PGR2 had better polygon counts, better textures, more advanced shaders, better draw distance, better everything, on paper anyway.

GT4 looked better, because of art.

My memory is vague now...
I thought GT4 is 60fps while PGR2 is 30fps ?
[EDIT: Yeah... searched the web, GT4 is indeed locked @ 60fps and PGR2 is 30fps]

In my view, people experience the game, they don't examine the game. As long as the game captures the essence of their imagined world (e.g., the race... not a race course, the car... not a garage/landscape, that war zone (trailer)... not just a battlefield), it should be able to resonate with the audience.

The artists expresses their assets via technologies, so technology is definitely important in a game.

I don't believe it's accurate to say art is the main factor (e.g., Without texture streaming, Gears won't be as successful). It's always the total package, not forgeting the game play. Together, people experience and perceive one to be superior than the other. Even if GT looks good in static photographs, it has to run fast and play well to justify the gawking.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Enough of that art "defense". We got it alright, Killzone 2 is not technically impressive, it's all artist work. Same for GT4/5/6. Their car shaders sucked technically, compared to competition, but artists did miracles.

Ive never commented on whatever Killzone does technically, but art certainly does a lot.

GT4 for me was the best looking game last gen, compared to PGR2 however it had less polycount, worse textures, etc. PGR2 looks like crap compared to GT4.

I say that GT4 looks better because of art (not to say that PD aren't brilliant at what they do technically, what GT4 manages on a PS2 is impressive), as it isn't GT4 doing something that the Xbox wouldn't be able to run.

My memory is vague now...
I thought GT4 is 60fps while PGR2 is 30fps ?

Yes, so what?

 

[wowfactor]

Ive never commented on whatever Killzone does technically, but art certainly does a lot.

GT4 for me was the best looking game last gen, compared to PGR2 however it had less polycount, worse textures, etc. PGR2 looks like crap compared to GT4.

I say that GT4 looks better because of art (not to say that PD aren't brilliant at what they do technically, what GT4 manages on a PS2 is impressive), as it isn't GT4 doing something that the Xbox wouldn't be able to run.



Yes, so what?

So what?
Suppose GT4 crunches out polygons at 3/4 of GT2's for every frame, it crunches out more polygons in one second.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

So what?
Suppose GT4 crunches out polygons at 3/4 of GT2's for every frame, it crunches out more polygons in one second.

But... GT4 looks better in than PGR2, in every frame, despite every frame having less polygons etc.

Get my point?

 

[dantruon]

DoomsDay wrote:

If the trailer we saw was the third level of killzone 2, where the troops invade helghan, and you see them flying from a sunny type of day into the dark gloomy helghan atmosphere, does that mean the first two levels will be set somewhere else (lighter levels)?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

1. They break in through the cloud-cover and the weather is a bit nastier below. As for the weather in other levels, you'll have to wait and see. What you saw was a fairly mild day on Helghan.

Seb Downie - QA Manager - Guerrilla Games

the last part is interesting.

 

[betan]

Ive never commented on whatever Killzone does technically,

I know

but art certainly does a lot.

GT4 for me was the best looking game last gen, compared to PGR2 however it had less polycount, worse textures, etc. PGR2 looks like crap compared to GT4.

I say that GT4 looks better because of art (not to say that PD aren't brilliant at what they do technically, what GT4 manages on a PS2 is impressive), as it isn't GT4 doing something that the Xbox wouldn't be able to run.

I assume Xbox would run even better GT4. But that by itself doesn't imply GT4 was not technically better than PGR2. Well, to be honest, I have no idea about either. My problem is with the reasoning.
People have been extracting different juice from the same hardware. Obviously some are technically better some are worse. Do people always say it's due to art?
Specifically, are we sure the juice GT4 extracts from PS2 is not more than PGR2's from Xbox, at least in terms of car models and shading? Of course it may not be, in this particular case, which is not my point. Artwork is certainly important and can make a huge difference.
But GT4-art-argument shouldn't be used to dismiss all the impressive stuff GT5 is pulling.

I understand the problem originates from fanboyish claim "K2 cannot be done on other consoles". But the counter argument downplaying technical achievements of the game using art without any substance doesn't seem any less fanboyish.

 

[ihamoitc2005]

But... GT4 looks better in than PGR2, in every frame, despite every frame having less polygons etc.

Get my point?

Less polygons for the environment/frame I think yes, but also I think GT4, like other PS2 games, had tessellation for car display so always you see enough polygons/car each frame. PGR2 I dont think has tessellation so thats why models never look good. Actual polygons you look at is much less than advertised model. This is what I guess.

Killzone 2, I dont think you can compare technically. Deferred rendering is very different idea so hard to make direct comparisons. But with crazy action and super-detailed environments and very amazing lighting it is hard to not say "WOW", no? Also, I want to hear full 7.1 audio. That is what I want most.

 

[patsu]

Yes, so what?

So it has more spare capacity to showcase cars when not racing (while maintaining the landscape as is) ?

Technology certainly has a big part in game visuals, including techniques used in KillZone 2. It enables art.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

KZ2's engine obviously can't be implemented on the X360 - the defered rendering requires a G-buffer, which can't fit into the EDRAM, and the bandwith to the external memory is just not enough. It's pointless to debate this.

Reproducing KZ2's visuals on the X360 is an entirely different matter. Although it'd be quite complicated - perhaps not even possible - to find any other method to use 500 light sources per level, it's worth noting that even KZ2 uses a lot of precalculated lighting. And post processing is already there in Rage, for example, so it's obviously possible on all platforms.

Again, praising KZ2, its engine, and Guerilla is OK, but trying to use the title to claim the superiority of its platform is quite silly...

 

[dantruon]

KZ2's engine obviously can't be implemented on the X360 - the defered rendering requires a G-buffer, which can't fit into the EDRAM, and the bandwith to the external memory is just not enough. It's pointless to debate this.

Reproducing KZ2's visuals on the X360 is an entirely different matter. Although it'd be quite complicated - perhaps not even possible - to find any other method to use 500 light sources per level, it's worth noting that even KZ2 uses a lot of precalculated lighting. And post processing is already there in Rage, for example, so it's obviously possible on all platforms.

Again, praising KZ2, its engine, and Guerilla is OK, but trying to use the title to claim the superiority of its platform is quite silly...

you raised many good and fair points there.

 

[djskribbles]

KZ2's engine obviously can't be implemented on the X360 - the defered rendering requires a G-buffer, which can't fit into the EDRAM, and the bandwith to the external memory is just not enough. It's pointless to debate this.

Reproducing KZ2's visuals on the X360 is an entirely different matter. Although it'd be quite complicated - perhaps not even possible - to find any other method to use 500 light sources per level, it's worth noting that even KZ2 uses a lot of precalculated lighting. And post processing is already there in Rage, for example, so it's obviously possible on all platforms.

Again, praising KZ2, its engine, and Guerilla is OK, but trying to use the title to claim the superiority of its platform is quite silly...

good post.

 

[Konrad]

KZ2's engine obviously can't be implemented on the X360 - the defered rendering requires a G-buffer, which can't fit into the EDRAM, and the bandwith to the external memory is just not enough. It's pointless to debate this.

Reproducing KZ2's visuals on the X360 is an entirely different matter. Although it'd be quite complicated - perhaps not even possible - to find any other method to use 500 light sources per level, it's worth noting that even KZ2 uses a lot of precalculated lighting. And post processing is already there in Rage, for example, so it's obviously possible on all platforms.

Again, praising KZ2, its engine, and Guerilla is OK, but trying to use the title to claim the superiority of its platform is quite silly...

You're right there are so many other titles that can do that..
Just trolling. Good post though.

 

[Nesh]

You know I mostly see people praising the quality of Killzone's visuals than people praising the superiority of the platform yet some tend to either be annoyed of this or either constantly assume they are talking about the superiority of the platform.

 

[Acert93]

Just trolling.

We know. A lot of your side comments add noise and induce bickering & off-topic ranting. So please stop. :smile:

 

[ultragpu]

cant wait to see how the final game would look like. if they implement all those "to be implemented" features we saw awhile ago, it should look even better and even closer to the cg tailer.

 

[Capeta]

I keep hearing the '500 lights' bullet point (pun intended) constantly being brought up, but from the videos so far, it doesn't seem like it has much impact on the look of the game at all. Can sombody point me to a screeshot/screen grab of a scene with '500 llights'?

 

[liolio]

I keep hearing the '500 lights' bullet point (pun intended) constantly being brought up, but from the videos so far, it doesn't seem like it has much impact on the look of the game at all. Can sombody point me to a screeshot/screen grab of a scene with '500 llights'?

I guess it's stealth trolling ignore...