game critics awards

[pegisys]

I thought gears of war would have won at least one award

http://www.gamecriticsawards.com/win.html

Special Commendation for Graphics
NON-PLAYABLE GAMES ELIGIBLE IN THIS CATEGORY
Killzone
(Guerilla Games/Sony Computer Entertainment Europe for PS3)
Every E3, a demo comes along that exceeds our expectations of how compelling and engrossing a game can be. This year we tip our hats to Sony. Not only did it manage to keep PS3 under wraps until its press conference, but it also concluded the event with an awe-inspiring video of the next Killzone. The action was frenetic and over-the-top: ISA soldiers engaging Helghast forces in a war-torn urban city. Vehicles exploding. Rockets firing. Your fellow comrades screaming in agony. We were speechless. Has gameplay finally matched the visual splendor of cinematics? After speaking with Sony, this was indeed only a demonstration of what can be expected of PS3 – a visual target. But if it is any indication of what games are going to look like, all we can do is wait with bated breath and hope for greatness next year.

 

[therealskywolf]

Killzone.....this must be some kind of Joke!!??

Tip to Nintendo and MS, do amazing CG and say that its their next game.

 

[UKt@xman]

Surely that's got to be a joke?

 

[Acert93]

Guys, the Special Commendation for Graphics category is open to non-playable games. So no, it is not a joke.

I am not sure how that specific award works, but maybe it is open to all game aspects, i.e. cut scenes, introductions, etc... KZ2 had crazy visuals. I mean, if a movie came out like that I would go watch it.

 

[Kolgar]

LOL! Those guys at Guerilla have to be sweating BULLETS now... If their next game doesn't look comparable to that CGI, they, Sony, and PS3 are going to look SO bad!

I don't envy them one bit.

 

[BlueTsunami]

LOL! Those guys at Guerilla have to be sweating BULLETS now... If their next game doesn't look comparable to that CGI, they, Sony, and PS3 are going to look SO bad!

I don't envy them one bit.

Hell yeah! They MUST be confident in their ability to deliver that type of in game experience. Because the one thing people are going to do is compare and contrast the made-to-spec video and the actual game.....if they don't deliver there will be a HUGE backlash, which they would deserve for doing such an underhanded thing. Sometimes its a good thing to be conservative!

 

[jvd]

wow these guys are going to look like aholes when this doesn't look like the cgi they showed. I feel bad kinda

 

[ralexand]

LOL! Those guys at Guerilla have to be sweating BULLETS now... If their next game doesn't look comparable to that CGI, they, Sony, and PS3 are going to look SO bad!

I don't envy them one bit.

Hell yeah! They MUST be confident in their ability to deliver that type of in game experience. Because the one thing people are going to do is compare and contrast the made-to-spec video and the actual game.....if they don't deliver there will be a HUGE backlash, which they would deserve for doing such an underhanded thing. Sometimes its a good thing to be conservative!

I don't see how it can live up to it as heavily scripted it was. And if it does become heavily scripted like the video then it would cease being a game.

 

[creon100]

Yeah, you'd think they'd have learned from MS when they made themselves look like aholes with that Raven demo.

 

[Acert93]

LOL! Those guys at Guerilla have to be sweating BULLETS now... If their next game doesn't look comparable to that CGI, they, Sony, and PS3 are going to look SO bad!

I don't envy them one bit.

Hell yeah! They MUST be confident in their ability to deliver that type of in game experience. Because the one thing people are going to do is compare and contrast the made-to-spec video and the actual game.....if they don't deliver there will be a HUGE backlash, which they would deserve for doing such an underhanded thing. Sometimes its a good thing to be conservative!

I doubt it. A lot of people have a hard time telling the difference between art direction and technology. And you can mimic a lot of effects and details that, while lower quality and not interactive and not all the fancy small details, the general public would not be able to really spot the difference.

And to really get a good comparison what we need is the 1080p raw video. Hard to see if there is AA, and how much, on a shacky came video where they fit a 16:9 screen into a 640x480 shacky cam. To my knowledge no one has access to that.

There are some cut down pics (like here, not how the smoke trail is lit on the top and shadowed on the bottom, and no apparant aliasing, no aliasing at 1080p would be amazing). To make any accurate comparison we would really need the raw footage.

Anyhow, as long as Killzone PS3 is close that is all that will matter. Obviously the art direction is outstanding, and as long as they get in the ballpark (which Gears and UT2007 show is quite possible) I see this as a win for Sony. What I am more concerned with is the gameplay. KZ had an average review score of 73%. I put forward the same concern for Gears: new genre for Epic (3rd person tactical shooter + horror elements). Epic is hit and miss a lot imo. So even if it graphically rocks, I wonder how fun it will be.

Call me a pessimist, but I am a little more excited to see what the GTA, GT, Halo, MGS, RE, etc... franchises do. Most of the companies making those games have a long tradition of providing their graphical skills + making killer gameplay. Not saying other companies cannot meet or exceed those, but I guess I am careful of where I put my hopes.

GoW and KZ PS3 look really hot, and I will watch them closely. But I would not spot $50 for either without reading a half dozen reputable reviews or renting them first.

 

[RichardCypher101]

You guys are still being very pessimistic. There is no evidence whatsoever indicating that the graphics seen in the Killzone demo cannot be shown in realtime. You guys are grasping at straws everytime you make one of these "definite" comments about it being impossible, and jvd still does it. Take the curtain away from your eyes people, as theres engines today, and even tomorrow that do/will give you visuals in that ballpark.

Why is it so hard to believe? Because the scene was scripted? Look at Metal Gear Solid 3 using the same game engine in its scripted videos. You guys are looking into these things too hard when its more than likely that simple.

-Rich

 

[jvd]

Well personaly acert if they say killzone is real time and i can expect it in my home like the video shown they better deliver it . If not that is an amazing lie and shouldn ot be forgiven

These websites should be ashamed for buying into the hype and giving cgi a game award .

 

[RichardCypher101]

Realtime? Realtime can mean anything. Whether gameplay (Didnt they say it was scripted in the conference anyway? If so, then that takes away that possibility) or even graphics.

-Rich

 

[mckmas8808]

jvd why can't you just look at what RichardCypher101 said. I will post it again because I think that its a good point.

Take the curtain away from your eyes people, as theres engines today, and even tomorrow that do/will give you visuals in that ballpark.

Why is it so hard to believe? Because the scene was scripted? Look at Metal Gear Solid 3 using the same game engine in its scripted videos. You guys are looking into these things too hard when its more than likely that simple.

I still don't understand why some people think that its impossible. Was it CGI? I don't know. Was it the in-game engine? I don't know. I know what I'm expecting though. I'm expecting to play KZ on the PS3 in the next year or two and expect it to look 90-95% like that video.

 

[Acert93]

I still don't understand why some people think that its impossible. Was it CGI? I don't know. Was it the in-game engine? I don't know. I know what I'm expecting though. I'm expecting to play KZ on the PS3 in the next year or two and expect it to look 90-95% like that video.

We had to put up with a month of, "Sony PR said that is how it will look, so you do not know what you are talking about" and now you are backing off it?

Actually, pull up some of your older posts. You even indicate you expect that it may look better given that the game is not even done.

Don't waffle on this one now mckmas! We have that entire thread where there are quotes of them saying that it is realtime, that we will play KZ in our living rooms, etc... when asked if that is how it will look. You guys have quoted Allard twisting in his seat when he was asked if it was possible, etc... I see no reason to back off now.

Either it is, or it is not.

I am not taking sides until I see the final product (although there is definately room to discuss the technical aspects like lighting, scripting, particle effects, etc). There are technical reasons to believe it may be difficult, but if they accomplish it then kudos to them and great for gamers. But Sony PR laid down the gauntlet and some of you have really gone to town backing them up. So I do not want to see any 90% garbage That was never the point. Either is, or is not. There are a lot of games that have CGI with ingame assets that look very similar. But I don't see many of them passing it off as ingame. Some have :cough::Raven video from Xbox launch::cough:, and they deserve to be nailed to the wall for setting up artificial expectations.

 

[PARANOiA]

You guys are still being very pessimistic. There is no evidence whatsoever indicating that the graphics seen in the Killzone demo cannot be shown in realtime.

Rich,

I actually fall in live with jvd on his opinion on this one (and I'm not 100% sure that GoW will look as good as the vids out at the moment).

When you say there is no evidence, I think you are wrong. My evidence is every other console launch in the last five years. Misleading graphics done in CGI, saying, "we'll be able to to that". Then it won't appear.

So that is why I don't feel I'm being pessimistic. I personally think you're being overly optimistic in thinking, "this time it will all be different!".

 

[cthellis42]

But Sony PR laid down the gauntlet and some of you have really gone to town backing them up. So I do not want to see any 90% garbage That was never the point. Either is, or is not. There are a lot of games that have CGI with ingame assets that look very similar. But I don't see many of them passing it off as ingame. Some have :cough::Raven video from Xbox launch::cough:, and they deserve to be nailed to the wall for setting up artificial expectations.

Dude, honestly this is a REALLY weird point to get hung up on. Frankly, someone thinking a game will look 90-95% of what was shown is putting full faith into something. A high degree of "about the same" is all you can EXPECT from a video known to be an "estimation of the graphica capabilities" (or whatever you want to call it). You certainly have to expect SOME differences, since they're not yet delving solidly into the capabilities of the final hardware. They may make improvements in some areas and compromises in others... Hell, that often happens during the actual course of a game's development on EXISTING hardware; not just "art direction changes," be re-estimation of plans to back off taunted features, pull in others they think will look better overall... whatever. We've seen it all before.

A comment like "either is, or is not" and stating that potentially years before release it must apply just comes off as extremely naive. The end product of many (most?) games rarely resemble the first looks 100%, and there's no way to tell whether it looks better or worse to any individual because of it. Certain preferences can get reinforced by one change over another, or niggled irritatingly.

Offhand, a comment like "90-95%" is not "backing off" anything or coming up with some lighthearted compromise, but applying general assumptions of the development process to the matter.


And before you ask, I have taking pains to not read people's (no doubt idiotic) back-and-forths over this very topic, so I'm not coming down on one side or another. I just found your comment weird--I don't care who the target or what their track record--and unlike what I've come to expect from your generally more broad-minded posts.

 

[mckmas8808]

Thats exactly how I felt when I read Acert's post. Usually I like reading what he says. Yes I said that it could look better. My expectation a better was exactly how cthellis42 explained it.

... Hell, that often happens during the actual course of a game's development on EXISTING hardware; not just "art direction changes," be re-estimation of plans to back off taunted features, pull in others they think will look better overall

I will probably be that other person who thinks that it looks better, even though technically it may not. I still don't understand why people are getting all pissed off about this choice. I mean its just a videogame award for a game that was shown at E3. Its not like magazines have already reviewed the game and gave it a 9.5 of a 10.

 

[Acert93]

But Sony PR laid down the gauntlet and some of you have really gone to town backing them up. So I do not want to see any 90% garbage That was never the point. Either is, or is not. There are a lot of games that have CGI with ingame assets that look very similar. But I don't see many of them passing it off as ingame. Some have :cough::Raven video from Xbox launch::cough:, and they deserve to be nailed to the wall for setting up artificial expectations.

Dude, honestly this is a REALLY weird point to get hung up on. Frankly, someone thinking a game will look 90-95% of what was shown is putting full faith into something. A high degree of "about the same" is all you can EXPECT from a video known to be an "estimation of the graphica capabilities" (or whatever you want to call it). You certainly have to expect SOME differences, since they're not yet delving solidly into the capabilities of the final hardware. They may make improvements in some areas and compromises in others... Hell, that often happens during the actual course of a game's development on EXISTING hardware; not just "art direction changes," be re-estimation of plans to back off taunted features, pull in others they think will look better overall... whatever. We've seen it all before..

"Dude" go back and read the kazzilion posts on this. I am not getting hung up on anything.

Btw, your comments make sense. I am not argueing with them. But YOU are not taking the stance that certain individuals who have proclaimed from the roof tops that what we saw IS, emphatic IS, what we will see on the PS3. And there is an entire "Next Gen PR" thread with quotes of Sony execs defending this very stance.

If they were not telling people that they should expect what they saw in the videos and saying to people like GameSpot that it was realtime, etc... and working fans of the game into a tizzy then this would not be an issue.

But when they start backing off from 100s of posts where people who some knowledge say, "How did they do this" or "How did they do that? That takes a lot of power in an offline renderer" and we have to hear "You doubters, Sony PR said this is exactly what the PS3 can do" then no, I think it is COMPLETELY fair to call them on it.

So do a search on the subject first. There are hundreds upon hundreds of threads on this very issue from certain posters where they emphatically defend that the video is what we WILL get, based on Sony's backing it up.

So no, 90% is not acceptible if they want to argue with others for calling it into question. Maybe to you, but then again you are not defending the hype And if you ARE defending the hype, then the final product will be the measuring stick. Obviously some Sony fans are going to be upset with that, but meh. MS fans are upset when you push Raven in their face. SO WHAT. If Sony's PR did not want to put their money where their mouth is they should not have made certain statements. Now it is a matter of whether they will deliver.

Whether KZ lives up to it or not no one knows. Like I have said many times, it may. But after 100s of Pro-KZ posts when trying to actually discuss the subject, to now to back off and lower expectations, seems to smack of pure hype.

 

[Acert93]

Thats exactly how I felt when I read Acert's post. Usually I like reading what he says. Yes I said that it could look better. My expectation a better was exactly how cthellis42 explained it.

... Hell, that often happens during the actual course of a game's development on EXISTING hardware; not just "art direction changes," be re-estimation of plans to back off taunted features, pull in others they think will look better overall

I will probably be that other person who thinks that it looks better, even though technically it may not. I still don't understand why people are getting all pissed off about this choice. I mean its just a videogame award for a game that was shown at E3. Its not like magazines have already reviewed the game and gave it a 9.5 of a 10.

Boy, your tune has changed. The discussion was never the art direction. It was whether what they showed, technically, is what we will get. You quoted Sony PR over and over again to arrive at that very point. I smell major spin! Lets get Laa-Yosh in here