How do YOU rate the Killzone trailers?

[Electro UK]

1-10. You must choose.

 

[Fran]

I chose 7. It was good, but game developers shouldn't make "target videos" if they aren't gonna get close to them. Like EA's first next-gen Madden video. Not. Even. Close.

Gears of War still looks better, IMO.

 

[A.J.Rimmer(BSC)]

I'm gona get creamed for this, but I wasn't impressed at all.

The style, I understand, grey is truly Killzones colour. But after seeing other next gen shooters, this looks distinctly average to me. The textures seem washed out, the faces are pretty plain. The action looks stilted and a bit dull.

The only bits that impressed me were the close action lighting effects like muzzle flare. But thats all been done before.

 

[TheBat812]

Looks amazing to me. Far better than Gears which simply implements good textures. If Killzone had the same quality textures... it would be amazing. Still, looks amazing, and has a more realistic quality to it than Gears, which just looks like good texture over polygons, whereas Killzone has depth to it.

 

[JM0087]

For pre-alpha the video is amazing . 9

 

[xwolverine2]

not too amazed really......

i figured people would be pissed off too after they said their teaser's graphics were gonna be the same as the game... then later it was crappified to the max. why hype it now?

 

[Speedball]

I gave it a six.
It looks alright, but not as amazing as they said it would.

 

[XtromaniaK]

I gave it the same as Speed. It's actually better than I expected, but beyond that it's only looking nice and not nearly as good as they claimed it would be with the target trailer.

 

[Prolific]

It got close to the target demo and if you think gears looks better your a fanboy and people forget that this game is still probably a year away

 

[XtromaniaK]

It got close to the target demo and if you think gears looks better your a fanboy and people forget that this game is still probably a year away

No, Gears does look better.

Killzone's textures, no offense, are bad. Much of the darkness and gray tones are used to hide an environment that would otherwise look dull with crappy textures.

Please, no more stupid comments.

 

[L.A.]

Looks pretty good I give it a 8.5 on graphics.

 

[Zenien]

dp.

 

[Zenien]

 

[Avalanche]

I voted 8. It surpassed my expectations.

 

[Mr. Credible]

say whatever you want about the extensive levels and whatever else... but this game looked great. you'd be hard pressed to find a better looking game.

 

[XtromaniaK]

say whatever you want about the extensive levels and whatever else... but this game looked great. you'd be hard pressed to find a better looking game.

Crysis, COD4 (IMO), Gears, UT3.

 

[Zenien]

COD4 no way, COD4 is great but it's like a 2nd level druid while Killzone 2 is a 5th level druid. Essentially everything that COD does Killzone does more and no game is touching the post processing and lighting adn animation techniques being used in Killzone.

Gears gets slapped around by Killzone is every area except textures which are bound by available ram and compression formats anyway. THere's no contest, the only thing that out muscles KIllzone is Crysis running on a high end PC with 3 gigs of ram. UT3? Yet again no, but it comes the closest on consoles.

Honestly there's no real comparison, Killzone ***** slaps Gears of War.

 

[XtromaniaK]

COD4 no way, COD4 is great but it's like a 2nd level druid while Killzone 2 is a 5th level druid. Gears gets slapped around by Killzone is every area except textures which are bound by available ram and compression formats anyway. THere's no ontenst, the only thign that out muscles KIllzone is Crysis running on a high end PC with 3 gigs of ram. UT3? Yet again no, but it comes the closest on consoles.

Gears does look better than Killzone. Every screenshot I've ever seen of Killzone that doesn't look blurred and photoshopped looks worse than all four of those games. I stand by my list. Killzone 2 does not look that great. Alot of ****** geometry in the ways of the outlining environment, crappy textures, etc.

Crysis is much further up than Killzone 2 on the totem pole. COD4 is about on par, if not better. Gears is better, anyone who doesn't believe that needs to compare screenshot for screenshot. (one of the ones that aren't BLURRED TO HELL), UT3 looks better than Gears, which looks better than KZ2.

 

[Zenien]

Next your going to say that Killzone uses it's post processing filters to 'cover up'.

Killzone kicks the **** out Gears of War and that's not even taking into consideration that Killzone technically rapes the game.

Here's what you don't understand. There's more to a game then Texture resolution, and that blur you hate is more advanced and intensive then any other post processing filter in a game thus far.

Activity on screen: Killzone

- Look at the explosions, wind, dust, lightning, storm clouds (all volumetric) explosions are volumetric (Where as Gears uses bit maps)

Polygon count: Killzone

- Gears is pretty simple model and environment wise as uses it's color pallet to cover up shoddy textures which Gears has plenty of if you look more then a few feet in front of your character. Killzone murders Gears in this area, not only in the models but in scene complexity in general. Look at the complexity in the buildings, the separate wooden rafters, the wire and phone lines (that are all moved by wind). Gears is destroyed against the poly count of Killzone.

Model wise it's no contest but I'll get into that later.

To prove Guerilla was pulling no punches they showed the entire city rendered in the opening scene. Gears funnels you down relatively small environments

Lighting: This isn't even a contest.

Gears uses light maps on the models but the environment is entirely prebaked. Despite what the IGN preview might tell you Cliff B says otherwise. Killzone uses prebaked in some cases but it uses deferred lighting in the environment and on the models and they use it extensively.

The reason this is important is because it's way more advanced then any lighting used in any FPS yet (save for Crysis which is a high end PC game so get off that horse). Essentially you only use deferred lighting when you are targeting amethod of lighting.

The trade off is that it the cost of using it doesn't increase the more complex your grant or complicated that the environment becomes. Killzone uses it because they have very vast and complex environments, not only is it a higher quality lighting method, but it is much more efficient for high end environments like Killzone then using prebaked lighting or lightmaps.

Gears has a last gen lighting model. As for actual shader intensity there is WAY MORE shading happening on a model in Killzone then a model in Gears of War, they aren't even comparable, and Killzone uses a much more intensive lighting model on its models and environment and there is way more raw shading happening on a player or enemy model alone then in Gears of War.

Post processing effects: KILLZONE

Killzone uses x2 MSAA, Anistrophic Filtering, HDR, some of the best DOF usage yet, and high quality motion blur that actually works based on motion instead of after image and Deferred lighting all at the same time at 720P and it even hits 60fps during some parts of the trailer.

Animations and Ragdoll: Killzone

- Gears uses Havok physics and a pretty pedestrian implementation at that, the rag dolls have no weight, and they don't jerk realistically either.

Killzone uses it's physics engine to additionally not only give the models weight, but properly calculate movement and death based on skeleton and muscle structure. You just have to see a Helghast get shot full of lead close up to see how the body jerks and reacts to every bullet.

Animation wise, Killzone again, just looks at how General Narville expresses himself in game the creasing of his forehead. Or the way the Helghast moves with such a real sense of weight and detail jumping over the railing.

Gears has stiff animations, not to say that the monsters don't look awesome but for Solder animation of what we've seen so far, it's Killzone that takes it because of the detail of the animation versus the relative clunkyness of Gears. Part of the reason that the real animation of Gears isn't all that great is because the models are very generic enemy and ally models are very chunky, but when you see the big monsters it improves tenfold.

Gears has

No Anti Aliasing
No Anistrophic Filtering
No blur
Runs at 30fp
Uses a faked lighting model except where the solders and enemies are concerned (which are dynamic)
Has worse polygon counts
Has much less shader complexity
smaller environments
Worse Ragdoll
Worse effects (All 2D Bitmpas versus Killzone using Volumetric clouds and explosions)
A static environment
Has much less going on at once on screen in the environment
But amazing textures
Not to say Gears is a slouch in any of those areas save for lighting because it isn't. Technologically it's an amazing game

And Killzone is pre-alpha.

Hell killzone has decapitation look at the volumetric blood:

 

[Mr. Smash'n Bash]

If by filter you mean blur the image on your screen so much you can't make out the **** textures then yes, filter away.

 

[Zenien]

The filter is very complex, it's a part of their design approach, to focus on animation, effects, lighting and color composition instead of just texture mapping everything like a PC game dev that normal maps every surfaces.

Heck lets be honest, Killzone could get better textures but textures aren't their focus, and Gears has NO post processing, filters, high end lighting, animations, to fall back on for its excuse of using a deliberately muddy color pallete to hide the lack of Anistrophic Filters, AA, and low res distance textures, Gears have some VERY low res textures, up close it's amazing but they make a trade off for that just like any dev. Up until uncharted Gears was the technical pinacle though, but Killzone holds that bar, and if you want a 1 to 1 comparison between Gears and another game it gets beaten by Uncharted which has had the same dev time as Gears and it coming out in exactly the same timeframe relative to when Gears came out for the 360.

Now what looks better to you is subjective, but Killzone is more advanced then Gears and especially COD4 which is pretty much what Killzone does but in a realistic environment and worse (while still being really freaking impressive).

 

[XtromaniaK]

The filter is very complex, it's a part of their design approach, to focus on animation, effects, lighting and color composition instead of just texture mapping everything like a PC game dev that normal maps every surfaces.

Heck lets be honest, Killzone could get better textures but textures aren't their focus, and Gears has NO post processing, filters, high end lighting, animations, to fall back on for its excuse of using a deliberately muddy color pallete to hide the lack of Anistrophic Filters, AA, and low res distance textures, Gears have some VERY low res textures, up close it's amazing but they make a trade off for that just like any dev. Up until uncharted Gears was the technical pinacle though, but Killzone holds that bar, and if you want a 1 to 1 comparison between Gears and another game it gets beaten by Uncharted which has had the same dev time as Gears and it coming out in exactly the same timeframe relative to when Gears came out for the 360.

Now what looks better to you is subjective, but Killzone is more advanced then Gears and especially COD4 which is pretty much what Killzone does but in a realistic environment and worse (while still being really freaking impressive).

Killzone? More advanced? Meh. That's all your opinion. (as well as Uncharted being > Gears. I wasn't impressed by the E3 07 Live demo.) We'll see once there are some playable demos actually out. To me, the heavy blurring looks like the screenshots have been photoshopped, and the fact that this is Guerilla we're talking about I wouldn't be surprised.

Most of the lighting looks static, and the environments once you get past the fact that they're very blurry, as well as poorly lit, look pretty bad. They're meh. Whereas Gears had amazing environs.

I'm skeptical, and that's as far as I'll go.

 

[Zenien]

Look is subjective anyway.

 

[L.A.]

COD4 has the best graphics of the 3 system!!! That **** looks sooo real, while KIllzone looks great but it doenst have that realistic look of it.

 

[xwolverine2]

whats the best video out now for this game?