Killzone PS3.. in 07?

[Crossbar]

I've kind of lost my confidence to judge the mainstream nowadays especially with games and have been debating half heartily when it comes to game popularity and influence. I spent sometime with my 16 years old nephew and a bunch of his friends, all of which who own a PS2/3s and/or Xbox 1/360s. What I discovered is that their tastes in games are unlike any typical poster on B3D.

They were playing MK Amagaddeon on the PS2 and I played with them and watch in amazement over their ethusaism over the game and bunch of other so so game that never warrant mentioning in this forum. The whole time I was going "you really like that game?". The response everytime, "Yeah, don't you?". While in my mind I was going "this is the worst fighting game I've played in some time","When did MK get a single player?" and "When did Lui Kang die?" (Dead Lui Kang was a choseable character).

"Huh, whats that?" was the typical response to any mention of any franchise that wasn't well established or known, that included Heavenly Sword, Mass Effect and Bioshock. I didn't ask any questions about KillZone but I doubt that is was on any one of those youngins' wish list.

Yeah, good point, sometimes these discussions seem to go out of proportions. Who really cares if some games lack some polish compared to some trailer shown two years before launch beside people like us?

To most people Gears of War, Crysis and Killzone (probably) will be just awesome looking games. The sheer amount of action, animation, physics simulations, explosions etc. will for a lot of people make a far bigger impact than some lack of 64 X AA here and some ray-traced shadows there.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

What the audience cares about, and what they can see at all is always an interesting question. Is it worth to add more complex shaders, better fire effects? Do they care about aliasing and blurry textures? You can do surveys, question people, get them compare two images and describe the differences, and wonder at the mixed results. Tastes are different too, some could easily believe that Zelda has better graphics then Gears just because he/she prefers a cartoony fairy tale enviroment to a hyperrealistic but depressing setting.

Also, people do notice a lot of things unconsciously - we're particularly sensitive to humans, especially facial features; our sense of depth and form is based on changes in light and shadow, and so on. Evolution has trained us to be able to hit an animal with a stone or arrow from a distance, recognize friends, detect agression from foes. There's a reason for Carmack's scientific research on human sight, or why you need years of training to be able to draw faces that people find appealing.

What I'm getting at is that a lot of the stuff in graphics might seem to be easy to dismiss at first, but is in fact pretty important in 'selling' an image to the audience, even if they'll never be able to tell why one picture works and another does not. And yeah, sometimes you can get away with a lot of horrible things if you can get a few other just right, too...

Just some thoughts on the matter, anyway.

 

[nonamer]

Where? Clip a section and post it so we can all see what you see.

There was no motion blur in that scene. Laa-Yoosh's claim is probably wrong.

More blurry the closer it gets ... hmm.

Interesting : So we should see the KZ the game match the quality of the 2005 e3 video. Funny I would have never thought it possible but appearantly I just wasn't looking at it right.

I didn't say match, but it should look fairly similar.

You mean Ray Casting?

Yes, confused the two.

hmm - I've never seen realtime shadows in-game that looked as good as those in the video.

You will see soft shadows of some sort. You're going to have to nitpick the difference.

So in summary: KZ will be able to produce shadows never before seen in-game, texture quality above any other ps3 game, 4xaa, Animation above any other fps on the market, soft Hair, Normal mapped animated characters simulating 2mpoly/model, raytracing, perfect lipsynched animation, the best dust particle fx seen in-game, and an occasional flat surface that blurs the closer you get to it.

Where do I sign up?

That's a massive drop from what you've previously were claiming. The rest is just way overblown or irrelevant (where does lipsynching come in?). We do know that well made normal mapping can get turn a multi-million polygon model into a few tens of thousand model and still look fairly close. The smoke effects are on par with Crysis. Raycasted (thanks for the correctiont) clouds and stuff have been done in realtime before. It looks on-par with a very well done implementation of UE3, and I see nothing that pushes the boundaries.

 

[nonamer]

I'm sorry but if you're serious about that then there's no reason to continue this discussion from this point on.

I see you've turned this into some sort of ad hominem attack and complete avoided discussion altogether.

The greatest problem with the KZ trailer IMHO was, that by implying it to be a realtime demonstration, Sony created the false impression that PS3 game development was already ahead enough to produce such level of graphics and gameplay. Even now, almost two years later, no game has been able to match it; and there are clearly things in there that certainly won't be possible in this generation of games, and may turn out to be too complicated for the next as well. It's been a Bad Thing to do for the entire industry and its audience as well.

The moral issues with Sony are a different thing - what company hasn't ever lied? - and then we could also get into game journalists and so on, but it's not important at all.

How does this turn into moral attack against Sony? MS pulled a much bigger stunt with the Raven demo in the last gen. All of this is totally irrelevant.

And the PS3 is 3 months old. Expect the max right off the bat is absurd.

 

[dantruon]

Sony's dealing with Killzone make me think about university grade that i try to achieve every semester. As always i want to get HD in all subjects and that is always been my goal, however the reality is that i normally get a D or a C but im still happy. So my point is that Sony is trying to get a HD with Killzone but in reality they will only get a D at best and a C at worst.

 

[TheChefO]

There was no motion blur in that scene. Laa-Yoosh's claim is probably wrong.



I didn't say match, but it should look fairly similar.



Yes, confused the two.



You will see soft shadows of some sort. You're going to have to nitpick the difference.



That's a massive drop from what you've previously were claiming. The rest is just way overblown or irrelevant (where does lipsynching come in?). We do know that well made normal mapping can get turn a multi-million polygon model into a few tens of thousand model and still look fairly close. The smoke effects are on par with Crysis. Raycasted (thanks for the correctiont) clouds and stuff have been done in realtime before. It looks on-par with a very well done implementation of UE3, and I see nothing that pushes the boundaries.

In summary I have to agree with Laayosh. Your interpritation may be that KZ2 ends up on par or relatively close to the cgi render where the people that were actually shocked=>unconvinced by the video will know the difference. There is no point debating this with you now or when it releases as in your eyes Gears is already in the same league.

Close in your opinion, but not mine.

The Motorstorm did an admirable job - but they're not close to the cgi either. Even my fiance who knows nothing of graphics tech can see the significant difference between Motorstorm e3 2005 and Motorstorm now. She can also see a significant difference between e3 2005 KZ2 and Gears.

This is all veering way of course though as my original point was:
IF Sony manages to produce a compelling Realtime Demo of Killzone2 that visibly distinguishes itself from the best on the market currently then it will significantly help their image/momentum as they won't have any games finished soon that will do this for them and they can't get price parity so this could be an achievable goal for Sony.

 

[nonamer]

In summary I have to agree with Laayosh. Your interpritation may be that KZ2 ends up on par or relatively close to the cgi render where the people that were actually shocked=>unconvinced by the video will know the difference. There is no point debating this with you now or when it releases as in your eyes Gears is already in the same league.

Close in your opinion, but not mine.

The Motorstorm did an admirable job - but they're not close to the cgi either. Even my fiance who knows nothing of graphics tech can see the significant difference between Motorstorm e3 2005 and Motorstorm now. She can also see a significant difference between e3 2005 KZ2 and Gears.

I never said it wasn't CGI either. But the actual level of graphics uses nothing we haven't seen before. Like I said, it's the level of action and polish that hard to believe, not the actual graphics themselves. Motorstorm @ E3 was probably a bigger offender in terms of unrealistic levels of graphics in that respect. I'll say this once again: Crysis looks better than KZ2, so why are people doubting KZ2 so much? Here's another video of Crysis just in case you want to see that game in action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nzMdPwO2Qw

This is all veering way of course though as my original point was:
IF Sony manages to produce a compelling Realtime Demo of Killzone2 that visibly distinguishes itself from the best on the market currently then it will significantly help their image/momentum as they won't have any games finished soon that will do this for them and they can't get price parity so this could be an achievable goal for Sony.

That I agree. It doesn't have to match exactly, but if it's reasonably close most people would give it a break.

 

[Fu3lFr3nzy]

I doubt you ever saw the trailer. It's not dramatically above Gears level.

I take it you didnt get Joshua Luna's joke?

 

[TheChefO]

I never said it wasn't CGI either. But the actual level of graphics uses nothing we haven't seen before. Like I said, it's the level of action and polish that hard to believe, not the actual graphics themselves. Motorstorm @ E3 was probably a bigger offender in terms of unrealistic levels of graphics in that respect. I'll say this once again: Crysis looks better than KZ2, so why are people doubting KZ2 so much? Here's another video of Crysis just in case you want to see that game in action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nzMdPwO2Qw



That I agree. It doesn't have to match exactly, but if it's reasonably close most people would give it a break.

I'm sorry - I tried looking at things objectively and in spurts I agree KZ2 should look close to the vid. But as a whole, its not in the same galaxy. To seemlessly go from flying through cgi level clouds (not sprites) on an aircraft filled with half dozen army buddys with convincing animation, hair, poly count, lighting, shadow, to adding a couple other aircraft with the same on their craft to heavy smoke after being shot smoothly trailing the craft to loading the entire city with miles of draw distance to explsion swith ... ahh check the video! It is the combination of all these assets that made the video a story. If it were just the small fps shooting in the limited under the bridge section it would have been impressive. As it was shown it would be legendary if they pulled off that environment in realtime on ps4 much less ps3.

The culmination of all the action sequences when viewed as one is where the shock and awe came from with the e3 vid. The media ate it up and dissmissed all else. What else was there to see? If it couldn't touch the KZ vid it had no place in their memory and rightfully so as ay dev that can pull off cgi level graphics in realtime gets my miracle of the decade award.

And not even Crysis comes close. Heavy vegetation gets a nod but overall scope and awe factor is not in the same class.

 

[nonamer]

I'm sorry - I tried looking at things objectively and in spurts I agree KZ2 should look close to the vid. But as a whole, its not in the same galaxy. To seemlessly go from flying through cgi level clouds (not sprites) on an aircraft filled with half dozen army buddys with convincing animation, hair, poly count, lighting, shadow, to adding a couple other aircraft with the same on their craft to heavy smoke after being shot smoothly trailing the craft to loading the entire city with miles of draw distance to explsion swith ... ahh check the video! It is the combination of all these assets that made the video a story. If it were just the small fps shooting in the limited under the bridge section it would have been impressive. As it was shown it would be legendary if they pulled off that environment in realtime on ps4 much less ps3.

The culmination of all the action sequences when viewed as one is where the shock and awe came from with the e3 vid. The media ate it up and dissmissed all else. What else was there to see? If it couldn't touch the KZ vid it had no place in their memory and rightfully so as ay dev that can pull off cgi level graphics in realtime gets my miracle of the decade award.

That's the real problem with the KZ2 demo all along: it's put together too damn good! It's a scripted demo, and all such demos are going to be unrealistic in what it can show, even in realtime demos. You're moving the goalpost here from graphics to gameplay, which I never said is reasonable. So you can not expect a game to play like that, but the graphics are achievable this gen.

And not even Crysis comes close. Heavy vegetation gets a nod but overall scope and awe factor is not in the same class.

Real gameplay is never like a scripted demo, but the graphical technology is superior. Here's another demo, that while it won't show the full war scene in KZ2, it does show the technology of Crysis better and should convince you that Crysis > KZ2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBa9oMD4Pnk

 

[StefanS]

Wow, it must be a glitch in the matrix. I having a few Dèja vus here. Again, this discussion is clouded by semantics: One side saying is gonna look like the KZ2 trailer meaning reasonably close (sans high polymodels, sans lightning), the other side saying no it's not gonna look like that. So to settle that argument the saviour has come and he - notice I am refering to myself in 3rd person here - says:

"I am very much inclined to lock every single Killzone thread until we see some real-time pictures / footage because frankly I've yet to see a single beneficial discussion of the topic. In fact, since there're no RT pictures, the whole discussion always rests on the crutches of some arbitrary game Y that "comes close to the Killzone trailer". That in turn leads ruffled feathers and the whole discussion starts over again. -I can only suggest to read some of Laa-Yosh's posting to get a good estimate of the polylevels involved in the discussion.-
So the gist of it basically is until there's tangible visual facts, I'll be very strict in Killzone matters and threads are more likely to be locked than left open."