Killzone 2 pre-release discussion thread
- Thread starter ihamoitc2005
- Start date
- Status
I don't know about that, just look at some of the R2 responses just because it didn't look 'better' than it did. And KZ2 is the singular "prove to me the PS3 is more powerful" title, for years now. This game will have its graphics deconstructed like no other. I wish Guerilla a ton of luck in meeting the wild expectations of the Internet fanboys! If they succeed though, it'll be a great system mover for Sony.
I agree, i think people care about the graphics of KZ2 more so than any other title.
This is the title that is supposed to showcase the PS3 strenghts. It has to look amazing, if it doesn't i think it will be a huge blow to the PS3.
Personally im waiting GT5 more than any other title, GT5P allready looks stunning, and GT5 will surely look even better.
I happened to bump into some KZ 2 hate article a few weeks ago. I don't think it matters whether KZ 2 is the best in 3D graphics, it will still get panned regardless. There were subjective criticisms in every single aspect, and all the good points were overlooked.
I agree graphics is critical for KZ 2 because of its E3 2005 trailer exposure. But I don't think being second in 3D graphics will kill it. KZ 2 has to capture the imagination of players instantly (not after levelling up, or at the end of the game), look great and also play uniquely well altogether. In parallel, Sony may also need to improve the overall standing of PS3 in gamers' mind.
IMHO, R2 got panned mainly because it abandoned the unique + great features of R1, and opted for a COD4-like experience. There are also some under-developed elements in game structure as well as visuals. As a result, no one except for some newcomers is left defending the game. If they could not differentiate well in gameplay, their compromise in graphics would look more jarring. As tha_con pointed out, there are visual flaws in all the big name games, but many are overlooked for various reasons.
I agree graphics is critical for KZ 2 because of its E3 2005 trailer exposure. But I don't think being second in 3D graphics will kill it. KZ 2 has to capture the imagination of players instantly (not after levelling up, or at the end of the game), look great and also play uniquely well altogether. In parallel, Sony may also need to improve the overall standing of PS3 in gamers' mind.
IMHO, R2 got panned mainly because it abandoned the unique + great features of R1, and opted for a COD4-like experience. There are also some under-developed elements in game structure as well as visuals. As a result, no one except for some newcomers is left defending the game. If they could not differentiate well in gameplay, their compromise in graphics would look more jarring. As tha_con pointed out, there are visual flaws in all the big name games, but many are overlooked for various reasons.
I'm not talking about the multiplayer experience when I talk about R2 falling short though; it's just simply that for some gamers - and they tend to be the most vocal - graphics is everything, and any game they feel ends up looking worse than it should have gets blown up. If KZ2 is felt to come in under the Gears 2 'experience,' there's going to be issues.
I'm not speaking for myself, as I couldn't care less, I'm just pointing out a truism of the Internet and gamer community.
Last edited by a moderator:
[I am talking about the entire game, not just MP]
Yes, to these people, KZ2 has to compare favorably to Uncharted, Gears 2, Alan Wake, and whatever new games coming out in February. So Guerilla has to do its part to stay competitive. Best if it can outdo all of them to a casual observers.
To this end, I think the overall experience (art direction, drama, destructibility, AI, etc.) helps to elevate the visual elements to achieve the impossible. Besides, being number one in 3D graphics is a good goal but it cannot detract from being an unforgettable experience.
Nonetheless, being "#1" in graphics has to be *the* goal for KZ2. I mean I don't think that's a goal that can be decisively achieved no matter the game (or platform), but nonetheless that is all most anyone really knows about the world of Killzone: the graphics. If it meets that challenge, then it can worry about being a great game to boot, but if it falls noticeably short on the graphical fidelity, then I don't think many non-core PS3 people are going to even bother discovering whether there's something deeper there or not.
When a game is marketed on gameplay, then the the gameplay will be the initial critiqued aspect; when the game is marketed on graphics, well, needless to say it'll be the graphics.
This is very true, but what does #1 in 3D graphics mean ?
To me or someone else?
To me, nothing. To the folk that are wanting the game to reflect the 'secret powers' of the PS3, seemingly everything.
Now if you mean how is #1 judged, who knows... but I have a feeling that the consensus of the Internet does its job in assigning the places. I'm the last person to go analyzing screen shots and the like, but nonetheless when you play a game and compare it to another, you can normally get a sense for which 'looks' better. It's going to have to be on that gut-reaction playing field and then the technical playing field on top of that that KZ2 competes (and does well) in.
the ignoramus
Regular
I also read several overtly negative KZ2 impressions that came out back in June and July and because of the negativity expressed in those articles, I was expecting the reaction from the beta testers to be a lot more mixed than it is currently.
Why is there such a drastic difference of opinion between the beta testers posting on Neogaf (give or take a few overzealous and hyperbolic-prone posters) and the overtly negative articles I was reading back around the E3-Leipzig GDC period?
No, I meant what are the criteria for being #1 in 3D Graphics ? Just "beautiful" looking, or excel in every technical sense ?
The article I read was as recent as the closed beta. The closed beta experience weighed in negatively for those haters too ^_^ but GAF is mostly very positive about KZ 2 beta.
The difference is in their mind, not in the game for sure. They are all looking at the same game. I think they were looking for Uncharted level of textures. I remember they also complained about the post processing blurring out the details, weird gun play, scripted AI, etc. You can tell their biasness because they'd pick bad/old screenshots to compare. Another typical critic is to focus only on the negative details and forget about the overall "beauty".
Yeah I edited my post to include that, but I'll repost as well.
*****************************
Now if you mean how is #1 judged, who knows... but I have a feeling that the consensus of the Internet does its job in assigning the places. I'm the last person to go analyzing screen shots and the like, but nonetheless when you play a game and compare it to another, you can normally get a sense for which 'looks' better. It's going to have to be on that gut-reaction playing field and then the technical playing field on top of that that KZ2 competes (and does well) in.
the ignoramus
Regular
Which site is the source of this article?
Well in that sense, I think it's just Guerilla doing their best to present the Helghan world to match their famous trailer. I would agree with that effort.
IMHO, they have gotten the first step right (Everything about the art and imagination). The technical aspects (e.g., whether texture is sharper than Uncharted) may need to be mixed and matched. But if they can use their destructibility, dynamic lighting, weather effects and post processing well, I think it should make for a special game.
That's all there is to it (for me anyway).
I forgot. Found the article via Google accidentally. I just laughed it off.
Whether it's after the E3 2005 trailer, or gunning for #1 in 3D graphics, it begins...
http://www.psu.com/New-Killzone-2-shots-show-off-realistic-wall-textures--a0005315-p0.php
http://www.psu.com/New-Killzone-2-shots-show-off-realistic-wall-textures--a0005315-p0.php
I find these shots more impressive: http://www.psu.com/New-Killzone-2-shots-show-off-amazing-ground-textures-News--a4983-p0.php
I suppose they're known but still, the walls didn't strike me that amazing as they described it. They look really really good but not as good as that individual gravel on the ground. Also, the pictures are shit small. Way to go to show off graphics, duh...
I suppose they're known but still, the walls didn't strike me that amazing as they described it. They look really really good but not as good as that individual gravel on the ground. Also, the pictures are shit small. Way to go to show off graphics, duh...
646x366 downscaled screenshots to show of textures and yet it doesnt really standout regarding res and mapping? Dang...
http://www.psu.com/New-Killzone-2-shots-show-off-realistic-wall-textures--a0005315-p0.php
http://www.psu.com/New-Killzone-2-shots-show-off-realistic-wall-textures--a0005315-p0.php
Hmm... you should be able to find 720p shots and KZ2 videos if you're interested.
I would be more than happy if we see a lot of variety in textures. KZ 2 has texture streaming. I certainly hope that we see more natural looking Helghan environment by packing more varied environment on Blu-ray.
- Status
Similar threads
