Killzone picture?

Since 6560 Days

Posted by SimonM7

While it's impossible to attain exact CGI quality, Motorstorm showed that you can totally capture the feel and atmosphere and intensity of the target footage. If this animates really well, I mean Condemned well, texture quality won't really be a problem because it'll still give a staggering overall impression.

I'm not saying about wishing for CGI-like quality. I think we should demand better textures than those seen in the screenshots. Why not?

And even if it doesn't, this could just be an unfortunate pic to show, much like the first Halo 3 campaign shot with its Quake 2 like environment.

What are you talking about?

In reply to

"That just happened 'cause that was awesome" - Randy Pitchford, Gearbox

Since 6687 Days

Looks fine to me, i duno why so many people are bitching over One Picture.

In reply to

Marumaro for the WIN !!

Since 6834 Days

Posted by SimonM7

And even if it doesn't, this could just be an unfortunate pic to show, much like the first Halo 3 campaign shot with its Quake 2 like environment.

Hahaha what?

In reply to

SimonM7

Since 6827 Days

Think about it for a bit. You've got two Halo 3 campaign pics... and I'm refering to one of them.. with the quake 2 like background.

EDIT: Jesus people, this one

"Oh no! All of Halo 3 will be rusty and orange and quake 2-y!"

In reply to

Since 6834 Days

But that background is high-resolution and has some lovely subtle shader work on it. Nothing like Quake (or Killzone) 2.

In reply to

Since 6687 Days

It's funny.. you have a good point bring Halo 3 up.

The first screens of Halo 3 were hugely underwhelming and it still is in my opinion, graphically speaking of course.

It isn't any different, Sony pulled a CGI trailer out of their ass, just like MS did with the Halo 3 SP trailer last year.

In reply to

Marumaro for the WIN !!

TheBeagle

Since 6409 Days

Personally I think that Halo 3 picture looks much better than the killzone one. It just blows my mind that people actually think the picture matches the CGI trailer.

In reply to

Since 6560 Days

Posted by Jollipop

It isn't any different, Sony pulled a CGI trailer out of their ass, just like MS did with the Halo 3 SP trailer.

The differnce - Killzone 2 screenshot is just so poor in comparison it really isn't worth mentioning Halo 3 in this thread. Obviously I won't judge the entire game for one screenshot, but stating it doesnn't look bad is hypocricy. Also Halo 3 trailer was real-time, so even if Bungie fails to deliver these graphics in real gameplay, it's not as bad as faking gameplay in CGI trailer. It's old story of course, but in Halo 3 case we can be sure that cutscenes will look better than that trailer.

In reply to

"That just happened 'cause that was awesome" - Randy Pitchford, Gearbox

Since 6834 Days

Posted by Jollipop

It isn't any different, Sony pulled a CGI trailer out of their ass, just like MS did with the Halo 3 SP trailer last year.

Wrong.

In reply to

Martijn_

Since 6674 Days

Posted by Slabs

Wrong.

actually he's right, they said the first trailer they showned was ingame, and now look at the screens.

In reply to

Playstation ID: Martijn_

Since 6834 Days

Posted by Martijn_

actually he's right, they said the first trailer they showned was ingame, and now look at the screens.

It quite simply was NOT CGI. They have also stated that there is a difference between cutscene and in-game models, the trailer was clearly a cutscene.

Whatever way you want to spin it, Microsoft produced a trailer running on an XBox 360. Sony produced a trailer that took hours to render on a series of workstations.

In reply to

Since 6560 Days

Posted by Martijn_

actually he's right, they said the first trailer they showned was ingame, and now look at the screens.

Posted by me

Also Halo 3 trailer was real-time, so even if Bungie fails to deliver these graphics in real gameplay, it's not as bad as faking gameplay in CGI trailer. It's old story of course, but in Halo 3 case we can be sure that cutscenes will look better than that trailer.

In reply to

"That just happened 'cause that was awesome" - Randy Pitchford, Gearbox

SimonM7

Since 6827 Days

I'm not talking about texture quality, I couldn't care less about texture quality once you start waving the perspective around, because you can't even appreciate it then. What matters to me is the overall impression I get from the game when it moves.

I'm just saying maybe we should wait for screens that show something worthy of noting. The Halo 3 screenshot was okay because we knew the rest of the game would look way different, and honestly, we know the rest of Killzone will too.

In reply to

Martijn_

Since 6674 Days

Posted by SimonM7

I'm not talking about texture quality, I couldn't care less about texture quality once you start waving the perspective around, because you can't even appreciate it then. What matters to me is the overall impression I get from the game when it moves.

I'm just saying maybe we should wait for screens that show something worthy of noting. The Halo 3 screenshot was okay because we knew the rest of the game would look way different, and honestly, we know the rest of Killzone will too.

I agree with that

In reply to

Playstation ID: Martijn_

Since 6687 Days

Posted by Slabs

It quite simply was NOT CGI. They have also stated that there is a difference between cutscene and in-game models, the trailer was clearly a cutscene.

Whatever way you want to spin it, Microsoft produced a trailer running on an XBox 360. Sony produced a trailer that took hours to render on a series of workstations.

Well so we are told, I am still not so sure, I guess we will have to wait and see just how good Halo 3 SP looks.

Personally i think the MP looks like crap from what i have seen to date, so unless the SP looks 3-4 times better it's still not living upto the target.

Whether you do a target render on a 360 or in CGI makes no difference, unless you can hit that target.

The reason Sony used CGI was mainly due to the PS3 not even being finished and obviously the dev's didn't have enough time to make a target on a PS3 dev unit.

Maybe (obviously) Sony over estimated their target render, but i think MS did in regards to the Halo 3 trailer.

Whether it was running off a 360 unit has little significance there was no gaming code underlying that trailer, at the end of the day it was nothing more than a tech demo.

In reply to

[quote=Slabs]

It quite simply was NOT CGI. They have also stated that there is a difference between cutscene and in-game models, the trailer was clearly a cutscene.

Whatever way you want to spin it, Microsoft produced a trailer running on an XBox 360. Sony produced a trailer that took hours to render on a series of workstations.[/quote]

Well so we are told, I am still not so sure, I guess we will have to wait and see just how good Halo 3 SP looks.

Personally i think the MP looks like crap from what i have seen to date, so unless the SP looks 3-4 times better it's still not living upto the target.

Whether you do a target render on a 360 or in CGI makes no difference, unless you can hit that target.

The reason Sony used CGI was mainly due to the PS3 not even being finished and obviously the dev's didn't have enough time to make a target on a PS3 dev unit.

Maybe (obviously) Sony over estimated their target render, but i think MS did in regards to the Halo 3 trailer.

Whether it was running off a 360 unit has little significance there was no gaming code underlying that trailer, at the end of the day it was nothing more than a tech demo.

Marumaro for the WIN !!

deftangel

Since 6672 Days

Oh god, this is going to kick off tonight isn't it. What a day to launch Gamersyde!

The Halo 3 trailer definitely isn't CGI. That was verified at the time. If it's been downgraded in the meantime, that's different (I'm not of that my opinion myself) but lets bin the CGI talk now or this thread won't end well.

The Killzone 2 trailer was definitely CGI and judging whatever we see this week under that benchmark is silly. We all know it's not going to happen so lets get over it.

I'm not seeing anything stellar in the KZ pic but we'll be seeing lots more of it this week so I'm not jumping to any conclusions quite yet.

In reply to

Since 6560 Days

Simon - while I agree you can look past bad textures if the game animates well and has some nifty effects, but I don't know how bad textures can give hope that there indeed will be great animations and pretty effects. The build is apparently very early, but still there's no reason to a) tell people they have no right to discuss that screenshot b) bringing up Halo 3 in this thread.

In reply to

"That just happened 'cause that was awesome" - Randy Pitchford, Gearbox

Since 6687 Days

Mainly because if you are putting less effort into textures, that effort goes elsewhere (at least in theory) such as animation and effects.

It's not like we don't know that the PS3 has less direct texture memory than the 360, so i think its fairly obvious that most 360 games will beat it in that respect.

Generally speaking i found that last gen, even though the PS2 had less graphical flare than the Xbox the animation was usually better.

No matter how you look at it, a few blurry textures isn't guna change the way a game plays, and surely that is the most important thing.

In reply to

Marumaro for the WIN !!

SimonM7

Since 6827 Days

@szaromir

Well, they're obviously pretty confident about the game, and I suspect there has to be more to it than rubbish textures, that's all. I guess you could call it faith.. or hope.

Oh and I'm not saying you don't have the right to discuss this pic, I'm just suggesting that reading too much into it is perhaps a bit premature based on the dullness of the surroundings. But by all means knock yourself out.

In reply to

Since 6560 Days

Posted by Jollipop

Mainly because if you are putting less effort into textures, that effort goes elsewhere (at least in theory) such as animation and effects.

Or if you have sloppy memory management and sloppy code you can end with both bad textures and bad effects.

Posted by Jollipop

Generally speaking i found that last gen, even though the PS2 had less graphical flare than the Xbox the animation was usually better.

Why do you bring that up? Does it have anything to do with discussion? (not that I agree on the issue).

In reply to

"That just happened 'cause that was awesome" - Randy Pitchford, Gearbox

Since 6687 Days

It has something to do with my point, when you put less time into art and texture, those efforts go elsewhere, the Xbox had the ability for higher texture and art assets, so devs spent more time on those than animation.

Whether you agree is besides the point, I only care what i think :P

In reply to

Marumaro for the WIN !!

TheBeagle

Since 6409 Days

Its been confirmed that this picture is from the latest build so I think its fair to tear into it if need be. I dont think it looks bad by any stretch but people saying it matches the CGI just pisses me off.

In reply to