Yeah, this has nothing to do with technical ability. They just decided they didn't have time or that they'd rather focus on something else.
Killzone 2 pre-release discussion thread
- Thread starter ihamoitc2005
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, this has nothing to do with technical ability. They just decided they didn't have time or that they'd rather focus on something else.
Well of course it would still look great, the graphics hadn't changed. The question is, does it still give you that cinematic experience? To me the "cinematic" experience is the feeling when you watch a movie at the cinema with the large screen and fantastic sound setup, it encompasses you. It's not the quality of the "graphics" on the screen. You could get that same cinematic experience from watching a cell shaded cartoon at the theater. I think sound is actually more important in contributing to the cinematic experience.
Here's an easy test you could do. Close your eyes and just listen to the sound from any blockbuster movie, the experience is amazing. Now do the opposite and watch a movie without audio, not so amazing.
Last edited by a moderator:
RudeCurve obviously your criteria for 'cinematic' is on a whole different level than that of most people as it applies to video games. 
Many anecdotal reviews have said they prefer the 'feel' of KZ2 to other games, and they're certainly not basing it on auditory criteria. I think it's as simple as that, nothing much to read into IMO, and it's the manner in which most people will play and experience the game.
The quotes/snippets that started this whole tangent though I think simply were touching on the fact that there *is* a very comprehensive audio component incorporated into the game, and if you want more immersion and a fuller experience, you're going to need x hardware, which not many people have.
I think the impression some reviewers are trying to convey is, with expected hardware, awesome/incredible, with the full hardware provisions, even better.
Many anecdotal reviews have said they prefer the 'feel' of KZ2 to other games, and they're certainly not basing it on auditory criteria. I think it's as simple as that, nothing much to read into IMO, and it's the manner in which most people will play and experience the game.
The quotes/snippets that started this whole tangent though I think simply were touching on the fact that there *is* a very comprehensive audio component incorporated into the game, and if you want more immersion and a fuller experience, you're going to need x hardware, which not many people have.
I think the impression some reviewers are trying to convey is, with expected hardware, awesome/incredible, with the full hardware provisions, even better.
Plug your ears and watch a blockbuster movie. Now do the same with a movie that doesn't have video ...... I don't get it.
Gradthrawn
Veteran
You don't get it because you didn't understand the example. I said listen to the audio with your eyes closed then open your eyes and watch the movie without sound....HUGE difference in overall immersivness.
Yes. Period (See the Ballet of Death).
It's both. These days, a movie is not a movie without sound or picture.
Did you do the simple test I suggested? As I said a Cell-shded cartoon can give you that cinematic experience so it's obviously not graphics/animation/particle effects/motion blur/etc....it's something else.
Well, it's moved over from the Deferred Shading thread, where it was even more off-topic.
the ignoramus
Regular
Anyone care to take a crack at answering my question?
Lost Planet and Tomb Raider Underworld both use the technique, but I cant think of many other console titles that do.
I'd really wish more 30 hertz action games used it.
Better yet, is such a technique even possible at 60 frames? (assuming, the 60 hertz game has the visual fidelity of say, Burnout Paradise )
I've been following the tech side of KZ2 of course, but not so much on the gameplay side. So ummm....at the risk of throwing a rock at a hornets nest, what new gameplay elements does KZ2 add to the shooter genre anyways?
Well, it can be a natural fit, but sometimes it's not necessary, and can break the game (especially if you're trying to script some actions to achieve cinimatic presentation).
I think it has it's place, and is always welcome, but I don't think it's required or standard at all.
Betanumerical
Veteran
Nothing new has been added to shooters for years.
I don't see why every game that comes out has to 'do something new' or 'innovate' isn't it enough that its a fun game to play and looks pretty?.
Actually, I don't mind this criticism, my problem is that it's not applied evenly.
From the Gametrailers and G4TV review, nothing really added. They get really great props for bringing it all together really well. The only gripes appear to be the campaign mode, they really love the multiplayer.
A friend of mine is suppose to have an extra demo code, so I will see for myself really soon. I'm 90% sold on getting it on launch, my only concern is that the PS3 controller is not to my liking--of course that is not a criticism of KZ2, just the controller.
That's because you assumed there is only one way to be cinematic for all movie types (e.g., MGS4 did it with camera work). I don't know if cell-shaded cartoons need to be cinematic. They definitely need to be funny though (or at least have some sort of humor). Cartoons are mostly CG these days. Naturally the post processing is through the roof.
For KZ2 gameplay innovation, may have to look at its multiplayer setup. Not sure how much time the reviewers play the MP games. I am waiting to try myself.
It's interesting that the review embargo date has already passed on this game, yet it's not on store shelves until the end of the month. Maybe the schedule must have slipped at the last minute, and they already had copies out to reviewers and were committed with the media buy...
- Status
Similar threads
