Killzone 2 showing straight after MS E3 Keynote, July 10th

[GFreeman]

The light from the guys eye doesn't look that impressive to me. Even if they are using impressive techniques to achieve the effect, the effect itself looks like something I've been seeing since 2002.

 

[Zenien]

Your proposal sounds like the delirious rantings of a child with autism.

 

[GFreeman]

You damn thief

EDIT: And slanderer!

 

[Timstuff]

I resent that! Slander is spoken. In print, it's liable.

 

[DoomRulz]

You don't trust anyone, that's your problem.

 

[Purple Prancer]

Balls balls balls balls.

 

[Spider-X]

Balls balls balls balls.

when was the last post you made that was worth reading?

it's been awhile...i know that much.

 

[THE LIZARD#1]

I trust my barber, what are you his lawyer? Get out let him sue me and get rich like a normal.....

http://kotaku.com/gaming/gallery/killzone-2-screens-330086.php
what the hell is this?

Kotaku is accusing Gurrellia games for lying about the graphics in Killzone 2, they are saying the game looks a little to smooth and that it won't look that good when its released on store shelves?

Then another stupid thing about Killzone 2

Quote:

The game, despite being poured with praise for its stunning visuals, still had its flaws. Although what has been shown to the public so far has been 'Pre Alpha' according to its developers, many have complained that the game looked "too dark". However, here is a screenshot which compares the exact same scene - in typical Killzone 2 fashion, in darkness, with what seems like the implementation of a technique to add considerable lighting to the scene. Yet it seems that with the addition of Post-processing filters, Guerilla have sacrificed the amount of light to achieve a higher depth in visuals, resulting in the first screenshot image.

Question is; which do you think actually looks better?"

End Quote

Then he posted these two screenshots.

I'm honestly sick of people nitpicking at Killzone 2. I'm sorry that everyone for the past 3 years have been saying Killzone 2 will never look like the target render and that the game is going to suck.

Then we see a live demo that took everyone by surprise and the game looks flawless! Its getting graphical praises from everyone *except for Xbox Fans, but are you really that surprised?*

Coming from a person who has played the game- Killzone 2 is going to be the most graphically **CORRECT** game you'll have ever seen, and you find some way to WHINE about it? Do you people know nothing of what this game is going to do for console graphics benchmarks?

I think thats a good amount to ponder for Xbox fans.

 

[THE LIZARD#1]

when was the last post you made that was worth reading?

it's been awhile...i know that much.

LMAO!

 

[Purple Prancer]

I trust my barber, what are you his lawyer? Get out let him sue me and get rich like a normal.....

http://kotaku.com/gaming/gallery/killzone-2-screens-330086.php
what the hell is this?

Kotaku is accusing Gurrellia games for lying about the graphics in Killzone 2, they are saying the game looks a little to smooth and that it won't look that good when its released on store shelves?

Then another stupid thing about Killzone 2

Quote:

The game, despite being poured with praise for its stunning visuals, still had its flaws. Although what has been shown to the public so far has been 'Pre Alpha' according to its developers, many have complained that the game looked "too dark". However, here is a screenshot which compares the exact same scene - in typical Killzone 2 fashion, in darkness, with what seems like the implementation of a technique to add considerable lighting to the scene. Yet it seems that with the addition of Post-processing filters, Guerilla have sacrificed the amount of light to achieve a higher depth in visuals, resulting in the first screenshot image.

Question is; which do you think actually looks better?"

End Quote

Then he posted these two screenshots.

I'm honestly sick of people nitpicking at Killzone 2. I'm sorry that everyone for the past 3 years have been saying Killzone 2 will never look like the target render and that the game is going to suck.

Then we see a live demo that took everyone by surprise and the game looks flawless! Its getting graphical praises from everyone *except for Xbox Fans, but are you really that surprised?*

Coming from a person who has played the game- Killzone 2 is going to be the most graphically **CORRECT** game you'll have ever seen, and you find some way to WHINE about it? Do you people know nothing of what this game is going to do for console graphics benchmarks?

I think thats a good amount to ponder for Xbox fans.

..................


















lmao

 

[THE LIZARD#1]

..................





lmao

Clever

J/K

 

[Electro UK]

Killzone 2 is a very purdy game... the eyes do not lie!

 

[XtromaniaK]

Killzone 2 isn't as good looking as everyone seems to think, I agree. The game itself looks really flat as opposed to three-dimensional like it should. I'm pretty sure the **** it's doing right now could be duplicated on both platforms, it's nothing special.

 

[Electro UK]

I don't know about all this technical crap, but my personal opinion is the game looks at least as good as CoD4.

 

[XtromaniaK]

I don't know about all this technical crap, but my personal opinion is the game looks at least as good as CoD4.

It does look as good as COD4, but it's nowhere near photorealistic or likewise. The dark lighting hides terrible textures and the fact that the graphics are not the best thing since sliced bread. All this mindless fanboying of the games graphics is bothersome.

It's good looking, but it's not a graphical revolution or whatever. Technobabble and etc. won't change this fact. You can talk about all it's groundbreaking post-processing mumbo jumbo 'til the cows come home, but words don't make a game look better than it actually does.

 

[Zenien]

It does look as good as COD4, but it's nowhere near photorealistic or likewise. The dark lighting hides terrible textures and the fact that the graphics are not the best thing since sliced bread. All this mindless fanboying of the games graphics is bothersome.

It's good looking, but it's not a graphical revolution or whatever. Technobabble and etc. won't change this fact. You can talk about all it's groundbreaking post-processing mumbo jumbo 'til the cows come home, but words don't make a game look better than it actually does.

Look you can not like the post processing or the art direction. You can have your own taste. But Mostly everyone disagrees with you and that's fine. But on a technical level, Killzone 2 destroys CoD4. I simply does, there's no argument to be had unless you don't understand what goes into making a game.

That might look flat to you in a still, but when it's covered in high quality lighting in realtime, and you're seeing it move as a 3D model. Killzone are just as 3D as any other model and in fact pushing around extremely high quality lighting and geometry.

The game does look better and run more adavnced than every other FPS save for Crysis, that's a fact that I won't waste my time arguing, because even 'gods' needs their atheists I suppose.

Killzone isn't trying to look photorealistic, it's very stylized. CoD4 is trying to look photorealistic. Complaining that KZ2 doesn't look photorealistic is absurd. Visually it would come down to taste, but to not recognize the technical superiority is mind boggling.

The only reason CoD4 won the graphics award over KZ2 is because CoD4 was playable on the PC at E3 by all the Journos, and KZ2 was demoed on a big screen in a theater for 1 minute. The only person who actually got to play KZ2 was N'Gai who came away saying 'best graphics of E3'

CoD4 looks great, but it's the equivalent of a generation (at least) behind Killzone 2, that goes for every aspect of it.

Myself personally, I think that the art style of Killzone 2 is nearly unmatched, a carry over from one of the few great aspects of Killzone 1. Guerilla knows art, period, so while I'm sitting there absorbed in the artstyle and then learning about and seeing all the awesome technical details, you're busy thinking guys look like cardboard, I guess.

 

[Zenien]

 

[GoldenAgeHero]

i agree with zenien, it looks better then COD4.

 

[DoomRulz]

Nice clips Z

 

[Purple Prancer]

edit: ducks

 

[GFreeman]

It's hard not to look good when you're shrunk down to 300x169.

 

[DoomRulz]

It's not the size of the instrument that counts, it's how u use it

 

[THE LIZARD#1]

It's not the size of the instrument that counts, it's how u use it

LMAO!

 

[GFreeman]

That's just something that people with inadequate ***** say, and is totally irrelevant to the effects of a high res screenshot being micro-sized anyways.

 

[XtromaniaK]

Look you can not like the post processing or the art direction. You can have your own taste. But Mostly everyone disagrees with you and that's fine. But on a technical level, Killzone 2 destroys CoD4. I simply does, there's no argument to be had unless you don't understand what goes into making a game.

Mostly everyone disagrees with me? Then you must have countless sources to back up these claims that Killzone 2 is the graphical equivalent of Mozart. "Technical level", don't give me that bull****. You can pretty things up with lines upon lines of technobabble, but if it doesn't look excessively better than the rest then you're just bull****ting. Which would be an accurate description of what is happening right now. Words =! measure of accomplishment. What's the difference between a turbo-charged, fuel-injected hemi and a regular old engine if they perform on almost equal footing? Nothing, the former just has prettier lettering.

That might look flat to you in a still, but when it's covered in high quality lighting in realtime, and you're seeing it move as a 3D model. Killzone are just as 3D as any other model and in fact pushing around extremely high quality lighting and geometry.

Balanced with sub-par textures that become increasingly apparent as the lighting gets brighter. Darkness hides the flaws, the screenshot from Kotaku pretty much proves this. The reason Killzone is done the way it is, is because otherwise it wouldn't look near as impressive. And Sony/Guerilla would have nothing to rant/rave about.

The game does look better and run more adavnced than every other FPS save for Crysis, that's a fact that I won't waste my time arguing, because even 'gods' needs their atheists I suppose.

Depends on who you ask.

Killzone isn't trying to look photorealistic, it's very stylized. CoD4 is trying to look photorealistic. Complaining that KZ2 doesn't look photorealistic is absurd. Visually it would come down to taste, but to not recognize the technical superiority is mind boggling.

Fancy language to describe an operation that is not as complicated as the story would like you to believe =! technical superiority =! technical superiority =! technical superiority. Without the muddy color scheme, it really doesn't look "revolutionary".

CoD4 looks great, but it's the equivalent of a generation (at least) behind Killzone 2, that goes for every aspect of it.

Killzone isn't a generation ahead of anything aside from Xbox games. It's not even half a generation ahead of COD4. What you're trying to convince people of is pure, unadulterated trash. The end result is not equivalent to the weight you pack into the means.

Myself personally, I think that the art style of Killzone 2 is nearly unmatched, a carry over from one of the few great aspects of Killzone 1. Guerilla knows art, period, so while I'm sitting there absorbed in the artstyle and then learning about and seeing all the awesome technical details, you're busy thinking guys look like cardboard, I guess.

I enjoy not being absorbed in a bland art style with little, if anything, to write home about. It is the same, boring direction of yesteryear that the first Killzone took. The only "awesome technical details" that you're seeing are the ones that your wild imagination is showing you.

The cake is a lie.