theignoramus
Member
The reason it has superior image quality is because its using an anti-aliasing technique that provides the equivalent of 8xaa in optimal conditions. (the quality of MLAA isnt 100% uniform of course) I have no idea what you're talking about when imply a game is somehow less "technically impressive" or less technically ambitious if its on rails and developed for one system. It seems to me that those are absurd qualifiers. By that standard Uncharted 2 isnt technically ambitious. Neither are the last two Gears of War games.ThoseDeafMutes said:WTF is your operational definition for "Technically impressive"? CE3 is certainly capable of "Proper AA", good framerates and HD resolutions. This implementation doesn't make use of them, but that's got nothing to do with the "Killzone 3 engine" being "better". In fact, the reason KZ3 has better image quality is because it is more conservative, with smaller environments and lacking some of the advanced effects that C2 is using (Real Time Global Illumination being the most apparent).
A game can look like a total turd and still be technically impressive. A game can look fantastic but be technically unimpressive. What technically impressive means is that it's impressive what it's doing given the resources it has available. KZ3 happens to be an impressive game as well, but not so much as C2, which also has the added drawback of being a multiplatform engine (compared to KZ3 which is optimized specifically for the PS3). Again, I'm not disputing that KZ3 looks better than the PS3 version of this (although the amount of PS3 footage released is admittedly quite small for C2).
Anyway, I just pre ordered this baby on Steam. Cant wait till release!