Killzone 2 pre-release discussion thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
KZ2 is about as much or more of a upgrade from 'the best' of whats come previous as any game this generation was after CoD2 started it all.

It does everything (modelling/lighting/shadowing/IQ/textures) any other game does without any noticeable shortcomings others suffer, throws around dozens more lights for kicks, and then it adds the post-processing as the icing on the top.

I think its disingenious to even have to claim that other console games are really in the same realm. Its not a fair appraisal of the game, more a statement of moderation people feel obligated to give.

IMO, of course.
 
It does everything (modelling/lighting/shadowing/IQ/textures) any other game does without any noticeable shortcomings others suffer, throws around dozens more lights for kicks, and then it adds the post-processing as the icing on the top.

Thats pretty standard in games minus the amount of lightsources. it all comes down to how its used and what type aswell as scope.
 
Jesus Christ, I am running out of words to describe the game.

I'll probably get the Limited Edition version. Never done that before. I better reserve early or they might be gone.

KZ2 is about as much or more of a upgrade from 'the best' of whats come previous as any game this generation was after CoD2 started it all.

It does everything (modelling/lighting/shadowing/IQ/textures) any other game does without any noticeable shortcomings others suffer, throws around dozens more lights for kicks, and then it adds the post-processing as the icing on the top.

I think its disingenious to even have to claim that other console games are really in the same realm. Its not a fair appraisal of the game, more a statement of moderation people feel obligated to give.

IMO, of course.

The gameplay, AI and physics portion were well received too. The visuals here are like artwork.
 
KZ2 is about as much or more of a upgrade from 'the best' of whats come previous as any game this generation was after CoD2 started it all.

It does everything (modelling/lighting/shadowing/IQ/textures) any other game does without any noticeable shortcomings others suffer, throws around dozens more lights for kicks, and then it adds the post-processing as the icing on the top.

I think its disingenious to even have to claim that other console games are really in the same realm. Its not a fair appraisal of the game, more a statement of moderation people feel obligated to give.

IMO, of course.
You're right. While KZ2 doesn't have the best modelling, lighting, shadowing, IQ or textures, it’s very consistent all round and doesn’t fall too short in any of those areas.
 
Damn, this game looks amazing, but I'm hesisant to call it above and beyond what we have on consoles today. It seems to me that a lot of its WOW factor comes from extremely clever implementations of DoF, motion blur, and really bright lighting that contrasts with the environment. I really want to get my hands on this and ogle every little detail though.

Didn't you just contradict yourself:rolleyes:
 
I have not watched the tech interview on Games Trailer yet but this post impressed the hell out of me:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1245313&postcount=895

Specifically..

lighting and motion blur effects within the game are performed as a full screen pass to blend all of these effects together. Arjan stressed that the game's engine was so detailed that, "each pixel has velocity. It's not just a special effect, but this is used for particles, it's used for explosions, and it's used for motion blurring for character movement, which adds an extra sense of depth."

during heavy firefights with large explosions and numerous characters onscreen, all six SPUs will pick up the load and balance everything accurately. Surprisingly, even within the heaviest firefight onscreen, Arjan pointed out that the largest load on each one of the SPUs didn't exceed 60%, which ensured that the framerate remained consistent throughout the game. On top of this, Arjan pointed out everything from light bloom and internal lens reflection effects to true geometric particles that fly from walls and collide with the ground realistically based on the direction of an explosion.

On one map, he indicated more than 200 individual light sources that behaved as true lights along with the other finer details, rendering and screen passes from before. Arjan also pointed out that "every single polygon within the game as a texture id, so when it's shot in the game, it responds accurately to the particular bullet." That includes ray tracing of every bullet hole, but it also includes loads of detail that might be easily missed by players as they run and gun their way through these battles like dynamically burning cloth, swelling and flowing water, and dust and smoke particles.

Being a gameplay guy, I give extra credits for...

"What's going to be more apparent to players is a much greater range of animations and actions that the AI will be able to perform. That ranges from anything from being able to deal with the environment, like jumping over cover or opening doors to dealing with a much more dynamic and destructible environment, like cover that can be destroyed and how they respond to that," Rob said. This means that the game's AI will make intelligent decisions on where an enemy happens to be instead of standing around, including scanning for locations where an enemy has disappeared behind cover and where he might reappear, and will make decisions on whether they'll attempt to flank you or toss grenades, as well as communicate to their allies about where threats are located.

They also added 7.1 sound and dynamic music to match the player's experiences. I am very glad they take advantage of motion control too.

There is no install for this game. Are they shooting for no loading ?

EDIT:

Tech Interview on gametrailers.com

[gt]43389[/gt]

Art & Audio Interview...

[gt]43392[/gt]
 
Thats pretty standard in games minus the amount of lightsources. it all comes down to how its used and what type aswell as scope.
It really isn't. The difference in lighting and shadowing alone from the two games usually thought to be contesting 'best console graphics' is staggering.

Gears of War 2 and Uncharted look absolutely nowhere near KZ2, nor are they even consistent in visual quality through-out. Great looking? Yes.
But if you saw KZ2 look like this:
1560_0006.jpg

Or this:
1065_0001.jpg


There would be outright mockery on every forum for lighting, texturing, shadowing, modelling - you name it.
Neither of those games pull off top marks in every area of graphical competence, neither of those games is even graphically consistent throughout the whole campaign.

Killzone stands with them and any other game in every possible area, and so far throughout every level we've seen. And it does that with far more lights (as you noted) and unparalled image quality.

It is not 'amongst the best', it is 'the best' looking console game as far as we can ever make that distinction objectively.
 
Thats pretty standard in games minus the amount of lightsources. it all comes down to how its used and what type aswell as scope.

I disagree, Killzone2 is far more than just insane amount of lightsources. What it seperates itself from the crowd is Deffered rendering + AA, very sophisticated shadow system, the dense persistent particles, fancy motion blur and ultra realistic animation. So please tell me since when all these have become the standard in gaming?
 
It is not 'amongst the best', it is 'the best' looking console game as far as we can ever make that distinction objectively.

I'd struggle to give that accolade to anything other than Gran Turismo personally.

KZ2 has backed itself into a corner where anything less than perfect is going to be a letdown. It can't get away with the occasional graphical slip up in the same way that other games can. That's the bed GG have made for themselves, and they'll have to lie in it.

To be fair to them, it looks like they are laying in it from what we've seen, and they look pretty warm and comfortable too. I just hope they don't forget the gameplay.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In the interview the GG guy said that each SPE used about 60 percent of its resources to prevent frame drops. I'm curious does this mean that the load was put on the six SPE's to prevent the frame drops or that if there was above 60 percent utilisation it would cause frame drops (lack of bandwidth DMA or RSX feeds?).

I was also intrested to note just how much of the graphical prowess they have managed to put onto the SPE's. Since 2005 there has been speculation to how much SPE's could help with graphics and the amount of things it is doing, partical effects, post processing etc, seems that the original vision of Cell+RSX working to create a tech engine that could handle superb graphics, physics and art style seem to be vindicated somewhat.
 
It really isn't. The difference in lighting and shadowing alone from the two games usually thought to be contesting 'best console graphics' is staggering.

Gears of War 2 and Uncharted look absolutely nowhere near KZ2, nor are they even consistent in visual quality through-out. Great looking? Yes.
But if you saw KZ2 look like this:
http://images.gamersyde.com/gallery/public/9476/1560_0006.jpg
Or this:
http://images.gamersyde.com/gallery/public/6688/1065_0001.jpg

There would be outright mockery on every forum for lighting, texturing, shadowing, modelling - you name it.
Neither of those games pull off top marks in every area of graphical competence, neither of those games is even graphically consistent throughout the whole campaign.

I think you are getting a bit ahead. Take a closer look at KZ2.

http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/748/748475/imgs_1.html
 
From the Gamespy interview:

Gamespy said:
Jan Bart Van Beek: Our engine is built around a deferred renderer. The strength of such engines is that they are very good at lighting as it's much more efficient at dealing with a lot of lights while at the same time being much faster at lighting then traditional, so called "forward" renderers. Of course with any advantage there usually is a disadvantage as well, which in the case of deferred renderers is their limitations regarding transparent objects, so glass objects but also grass and leaves. To overcome that weakness Killzone 2 actually uses a second engine for rendering transparent objects and particles. The advantage of a deferred renderer is that shaders themselves are a lot cheaper to process, as all the expensive lighting calculations are taken out of them. This has allowed us to experiment a little more with some more advanced shader techniques.

As we were developing the game, the engine became more and more robust and mature. One of the main developments was that more processes that were initially handled by the main CPU were being moved to the SPUs. Physics, lighting set-up, particle set-up, animation and such are by now all running on the SPU, leaving the CPU to calculate the more tricky game systems that aren't easily made parallel. At some point we even found ways to start doing certain GPU calculation on the SPUs, so now a lot of our post-processing such as bloom, depth-of-field and motion blur are being rendered by the SPUs. This freed up performance from the GPU, which in turn allowed us to go even further with shader complexity and particle density.

I like especially the second bolded section.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top