Support NeoGAF

[tahrikmili]

I do think Killzone 2 looks better than Crysis. Crysis is more technically demanding, but it's not artistically efficient and it doesn't impress me as much as KZ2. It has a lot of high res textures, but in many instances it still has a very 'PC shooter'ish look to it.

Sign up for an eye transplant.

Or better yet sign up for a brain transplant.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

Can I just be Captain Obvious here and point out that 'graphics' are not the definition of 'power'?

The Xbox360 clearly has a better GPU than the PS3 does. I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

But 'these games have better graphics' does not equate to 'the 360 is more powerful'. At all.

 

[Kill Your Masters]

The point is that there is no "potentially" to it. We have already seen what the ps3 is capable of doing, and it surpasses anything that exclusive 360 developers have done (still waiting for a response to my last post btw). If you want people to accept that MOST mp games perform better on the 360 (and I'm not denying that it's true), then man the fuck up and accept that MOST ps3 exclusives are more impressive than 360 exclusives. Don't beat around the bush with your "potentially" and "it solely depends on the developer" bullshit unless you are claiming that Bungie, Epic, Rare, etc. don't know what the hell they are doing.

Gears and Banjo look like shit apparently.

 

[zoukka]

I hate to break it to you guys, but ICO looks better than KZ2 and Crysis combined.

 

[antiloop]

I hate to break it to you guys, but ICO looks better than KZ2 and Crysis combined.

True.

PS2 is just too powerful to even bother with these silly contenders.

silenthilloldman.jpg

 

[proposition]

It proves that all these "graphical issues" can be fixed if effort (not matter how much) is put in. Period. All Killzone is going to do, is show off how the multiplatform devs are far behind the game.

Or it shows that to make a PS3 game that really looks better than a 360 game, you need a $40 million budget, an army of programmers and six years to make it.

Surprise surprise, multi-platform devs don't have that!

And do you know whose fault that is? Where the blame lies for making multiplatform games almost universally better on 360?

Sony. No-one else.

 

[f@luS]

Sign up for an eye transplant.

Or better yet sign up for a brain transplant.

I agree with him. both have a different look. Since i upgrader my rig i now play many pc games , and so i can play Crysis @ Ultra setting (with some customs mods), edgeaa*2 + aniso. And i think KZ2 looks better. It looks more CG. Crysis is insane but the large areas arent free and are very demanding. (imho crysis looks better in screen than in motion). KZ2 may technically be less demanding , but visually it looks better (yet different) imho

 

[antiloop]

Or it shows that to make a PS3 game that really looks better than a 360 game, you need a $40 million budget, an army of programmers and six years to make it.

If they can use the tech for other games, it's all worth it.

With your logic every UE3 games has taken at least 10 years to make. Plus a huge budget.

 

[f@luS]

If they can use the tech for other games, it's all worth it.

With your logic every UE3 games has taken at least 10 years to make. Plus a huge budget.

I think they said by the time the 1st trailer (cg) was released, they werent even working on the game really. More like early 2006 - 2009 . More like 3 years (or 3.5 if you want) Which is normal for todays standart.

It may cost a lot but assets will be used for Many games by sony's internal studio. Its a bit like Unreal engine in fact.

 

[cedric69]

If they can use the tech for other games, it's all worth it.

I thought that the simple fact that what matters the most are art assets, motion capture quality, animation, script, etc. was already widely accepted and agreed upon.

It's not as if having the tech in place automagically means that to re-create the same quality one doesn't need the same budget all over again.

 

[f@luS]

.

It's not as if having the tech in place automagically means that to re-create the same quality one doesn't need the same budget all over again.

ugh.. yeah it means in fact

 

[DCharlie]

well, we've reached the Crysis point at last! :lol

 

[FirewalkR]

well, we've reached the Crysis point at last! :lol

I skipped some pages. Did we pass Uncharted along the way?

 

[Xyphie]

I skipped some pages. Did we pass Uncharted along the way?

I don't think anyone has posted unchartedoffscreen.jpg yet. Someone should do it!

 

[p3tran]

I skipped some pages. Did we pass Uncharted along the way?

yeah, I'm sure I saw it referenced some pages ago.... :lol no pics though...

Spoiler

yet!!

 

[kbear]

If you don't think that KZ2 looks better than multiplatform titles even, there's something wrong with you and roots run deeper than though. Oh, I didn't read:

"will gladly bend over and grab ankles for Microsoft"

That's our cjelly!



Look at the person I quoted. Trying to dismiss what I said that KZ2 looks better than all the MP titles out there. If anyone thinks that it's on par with MP titles, they're insane, or need a vision plan.

Uhh, RAGE is a multi-platform game, looks better than Killzone 2, and runs at 60 fps.

 

[f@luS]

Uhh, RAGE is a multi-platform game, looks better than Killzone 2, and runs at 60 fps.

ugh wait to see a gameplay sequence with a controller in hand. Amha it doesnt looks better, we will check for 60fps

 

[Kill Your Masters]

Uhh, RAGE is a multi-platform game, looks better than Killzone 2, and runs at 60 fps.

Uh oh

 

[kbear]

ugh wait to see a gameplay sequence with a controller in hand. Amha it doesnt looks better, we will check for 60fps

It actually does look better, and all the vids we've seen are real-time. ID never uses any bullshot tricks or CG or what have you. And it absolutely does run @ 60 fps on all platforms. That's the whole point of the engine, to be seemless across all platforms. RAGE, a multi-platform game, is more technically impressive than Killzone 2, which defeats all of J-Rzez's bs.

 

[f@luS]

It actually does look better, and all the vids we've seen are real-time. ID never uses any bullshot tricks or CG or what have you. And it absolutely does run @ 60 fps on all platforms. That's the whole point of the engine, to be seemless across all platforms. RAGE, a multi-platform game, is more technically impressive than Killzone 2, which defeats all of J-Rzez's bs.

we saw a fly through and movie with no AI or gameplay sequence running. ANd its easy to seems to run at 60fps with nothing to handle beside graphics. you will see that console version dont look as good as what you saw, mark my words. And i dont think it looks better than killzone. Wait for a real console gameplay sequence, and we will check everything (poly, effect, textures,) . Killzone is insane because it tops almost eveyrthing in every domain and step into new one especially for many visual effect.

ID never uses any bullshot tricks or CG? i may have missed a few

(coz in the end, we had a very bad monster modelling in the game, not like this screen. Cant find a bigger though.

 

[kbear]

we saw a fly through and movie with no AI or gameplay sequence running. ANd its easy to seems to run at 60fps with nothing to handle beside graphics. you will see that console version dont look as good as what you saw, mark my words. And i dont think it looks better than killzone. Wait for a real console gameplay sequence, and we will check everything (poly, effect, textures,) . Killzone is insane because it tops almost eveyrthing in every domain and step into new one especially for many visual effect.

Nah, it really does look better (or at the very least, on par). But the fact that it runs @ 60 fps while retaining those visuals is simply astounding. It's the most technically impressive console game ever shown, which, again, defeats the whole "Killzone 2 means PS3 is more powerful than 360!!!" mantra. They're both on the same level. I'm being as unbiased as one can possibly be about this. I love graphics, I'm a graphics "whore". It's just that if Sony fans accept this fact about Rage, it means their console is equal to the 360 in terms of power, which to these fanboys, is some sort of heresy.

 

[f@luS]

Nah, it really does look better (or at the very least, on par). But the fact that it runs @ 60 fps while retaining those visuals is simply astounding. It's the most technically impressive console game ever shown, which, again, defeats the whole "Killzone 2 means PS3 is more powerful than 360!!!" mantra. They're both on the same level.

Jeez. Read again. WAIT to see a gameplay sequence with a controller in the end. You only saw a movie with a fly through. I will laugh so hard when you will see that console version will not be either
-at 60 (but its one of the main goal so maybe it will)
-looking like what youve seen so far
-a big world (but i think they dropped this already because of "cough" some lack of space

or something else. There is no magic

 

[Forsete]

This thread just now = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE20cI980mU

 

[kbear]

Jeez. Read again. WAIT to see a gameplay sequence with a controller in the end. You only saw a movie with a fly through. I will laugh so hard when you will see that console version will not be either
-at 60 (but its one of the main goal so maybe it will)
-looking like what youve seen so far
-a big world (but i think they dropped this already because of "cough" some lack of space

or something else. There is no magic

I believe gameplay was already demonstrated live at Quakcon '07.

 

[ChryZ]

This thread just now = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE20cI980mU

More like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLDbGqJ2KYk

 

[Hesemonni]

I believe gameplay was already demonstrated live at Quakcon '07.

No. It was a trailer consisting of in-game footage, but actual gameplay wasn't shown.

 

[kbear]

No. It was a trailer consisting of in-game footage, but actual gameplay wasn't shown.

That's not what I remember reading, but I'm not sure why it matters. ID's games have always looked the same in regards to 'in-game footage' and 'gameplay'. They're one of the few devs left that don't do any sort of bullshot tricks.

 

[CrunchinJelly]

I think I lost half of my brain cells reading this thread.

 

[dejan]

I agree with him. both have a different look. Since i upgrader my rig i now play many pc games , and so i can play Crysis @ Ultra setting (with some customs mods), edgeaa*2 + aniso. And i think KZ2 looks better. It looks more CG. Crysis is insane but the large areas arent free and are very demanding. (imho crysis looks better in screen than in motion). KZ2 may technically be less demanding , but visually it looks better (yet different) imho

:lol

 

[f@luS]

:lol

whats funny? read the crysis thread again. Ive been LTTP since i changed my rig recently. I took some screenshots and even I think that my OWN screenshots looks better than the actual game. Aliasing is pretty bad in crysis (edge aa is helping a bit though)
I know as a fact crysis may be more demanding from a raw power standpoint . But in the end i think KZ2 looks better in many area (and obviously not as good in some other)

 

[PSGames]

:lol

It's not funny, it's sad.

 

[dejan]

whats funny? read the crysis thread again. Ive been LTTP since i changed my rig recently. I took some screenshots and even I think that my OWN screenshots looks better than the actual game. Aliasing is pretty bad in crysis (edge aa is helping a bit though)
I know as a fact crysis may be more demanding from a raw power standpoint . But in the end i think KZ2 looks better in many area (and obviously not as good in some other)

Well, you're free to think and believe whatever you want. Let's leave it at that.

 

[Sirolf]

A lot of crows will be eaten next february..A LOT.
Like F@lus,i have a very good rig and i've played Crysis(+warhead) on maximum(ultra) settings.
And i still think KZ2 looks better(I'm in since the closed beta)...
But as usual,the fanboys talk out of their asses...

 

[tinfoilhatman]

LOL so we've reached teh Killzone2 looks better than Crysys on ultra high setting now?

Wow just wow some of you are going to be pretty disapointed with those expectations once you get killlzone2 in your hands on your own TV in your living rooms.

Some of the things stated in this thread are just classic, keep it comming

 

[Zeliard]

(imho crysis looks better in screen than in motion).

Hilarious.

 

[Sirolf]

Wow just wow some of you are going to be pretty disapointed with those expectations once you get killlzone2 in your hands on your own TV in your living rooms.

Reading comprehension FTW!!
I HAVE Crysis and i HAVE KZ2 beta at home..

 

[f@luS]

Hilarious.

Care to explain? nothing worse than a monopost like that.
If you want to see how crysis looks for me , check the official crysis thread. My screens are on the last page.

LOL so we've reached teh Killzone2 looks better than Crysys on ultra high setting now?

Wow just wow some of you are going to be pretty disapointed with those expectations once you get killlzone2 in your hands on your own TV in your living rooms.

Some of the things stated in this thread are just classic, keep it comming

Ive played KZ2, ive played Crysis. On the same monitor (i use my HDTV as my computer monitor)
you , and the previous guy i quoted are trying to make fun when youre obviously the jokes, with no argument whatsoever. Sad.


again, i am not saying KZ2 is more demanding from a technical standpoint, but what they achieved result in a more CGlike and better (overall) look than crysis. Which is utterly outstanding. imho

 

[AgentOtaku]

As someone has played Crysis and Warhead extensively on High....even I'll say Killzone2 at this point looks better...
But that's more because it revels in it's art direction and post processing effects. A large part of Crysis is jungle...jungle that is aiming to be photorealistic and that's only so compelling for so long...
On the flip side, when Crysis dips into it's Sci-fi, it's underated art direction comes out and you get results like the frozen ocean hovercraft chase in Warhead, which is one THE most beautiful things I've ever seen in any game period

 

[freethought]

LOL so we've reached teh Killzone2 looks better than Crysys on ultra high setting now?

Wow just wow some of you are going to be pretty disapointed with those expectations once you get killlzone2 in your hands on your own TV in your living rooms.

Some of the things stated in this thread are just classic, keep it comming

Wow, I'm not arguing one way or another but did you even read the post above yours.

 

[Psychotext]

I can't wait for their Fallout3 comparison.

I wonder if they will notice this:

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1235933&postcount=1287

You asked... they answered:

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=285507

 

[Zeliard]

Care to explain? nothing worse than a monopost like that.
If you want to see how crysis looks for me , check the official crysis thread. My screens are on the last page.

Explain what? It's an absurd opinion. You can't see animation, dynamic lighting changes, draw distance changes, and moving foliage in pictures, among other things. With a game like Crysis that pushes so much technologically and makes those things a critical part of the overall graphical package, it's impossible to see what it offers simply in pics, and trying to say that the pics actually look better than the game in motion might be the single dumbest thing I've read on these boards. Particularly when you're saying that in an attempt to trivialize Crysis' graphics in comparison to a console game's.

GAF is pretty hilarious when it comes to PC gaming, though, so it's not really any surprise. This is certainly a console-centric forum.

 

[PepsimanVsJoe]

Crysis is still above and beyond anything I've ever seen on consoles.
Not sure how this can be disputed unless you're gonzo-nuts for a particular art-style or something.

 

[AgentOtaku]

Well for me to clarify ....I mean I PREFER the look of Killzone2 over Crysis at this point

but I haven't played the beta nor the final, so that could change

 

[dark10x]

I'm not entirely sure why people are laughing at the notion that Killzone 2 can stand up to Crysis. I think they both look fantastic in their own rights.

Killzone 2 works much like Metal Gear Solid 2 did back on the PS2. It was less technically demanding than something like Halo on XBOX (remember, the PC was actually BEHIND the times in 2001), but it just looked so damn good in motion thanks to fantastic design and a focus on what worked in a scene. Killzone 2 seems to be very similar in that regard which is precisely why it is capable of standing next to Crysis.

Nobody has suggested that Killzone 2 will even come close to matching what Crysis is doing from a technical standpoint, but that doesn't mean it can't compare visually.

I doubt the game will be anywhere near as good as Crysis, though (which has honestly spoiled the genre for me). The best FPS I've played in years. Honestly, even Crysis Warhead felt lackluster as hell compared to the original game.

 

[kbear]

Explain what? It's an absurd opinion. You can't see animation, dynamic lighting changes, draw distance changes, and moving foliage in pictures, among other things. With a game like Crysis that pushes so much technologically and makes those things a critical part of the overall graphical package, it's impossible to see what it offers simply in pics, and trying to say that the pics actually look better than the game in motion might be the single dumbest thing I've read on these boards. Particularly when you're saying that in an attempt to trivialize Crysis' graphics in comparison to a console game's.

GAF is pretty hilarious when it comes to PC gaming, though, so it's not really any surprise. This is certainly a console-centric forum.

Slammed.

 

[AgentOtaku]

Crysis Warhead has the Hovercraft level though =p

 

[PepsimanVsJoe]

Wait a tick. How in the fuck did this turn into KZ2 vs Crysis in the first place?

 

[AgentOtaku]

Wait a tick. How in the fuck did this turn into KZ2 vs Crysis in the first place?

:lol

 

[f@luS]

Explain what? It's an absurd opinion. You can't see animation, dynamic lighting changes, draw distance changes, and moving foliage in pictures, among other things. With a game like Crysis that pushes so much technologically and makes those things a critical part of the overall graphical package, it's impossible to see what it offers simply in pics, and trying to say that the pics actually look better than the game in motion might be the single dumbest thing I've read on these boards. Particularly when you're saying that in an attempt to trivialize Crysis' graphics in comparison to a console game's.

GAF is pretty hilarious when it comes to PC gaming, though, so it's not really any surprise. This is certainly a console-centric forum.

You cant see animation ? true.
Dynamic lightning changes? you can see the great lightning in screens, its enough.
Draw distance? you mean the LOD issues? even at highest settings, its not that well hidden (and god bless the tweaks, because crytek's settings sux for far distances textures)
Moving fooliage? the think that sux in crysis looks imho. The fooliage is PERFECT in still (screen or not moving), but in movement, even with edge aa (which make it blurry), it is really disturbing how its aliased.
The proof? check the thread, even i was like "here is my Crysis screen. looks amazing but its somewhat better looking that when im playing.".
One thing doesnt help me though, im playing at 1360*768 so if i use edge aa, ive got one helluva aliasing for other things. not the highest resolution.
And im not trying to "trivialize" crysis graphics , and im a fucking pc graphic whore, i play multi games (available on pc) always on my PC (see fallout 3 ). Im more a pc gamer (since my new rig) than ever, and more than a console gamer.
Yet i stand to my position. KZ2 is really a visual masterpiece. Even in the "pc world"

Wait a tick. How in the fuck did this turn into KZ2 vs Crysis in the first place?

It always end like this ! know it

 

[dark10x]

and trying to say that the pics actually look better than the game in motion might be the single dumbest thing I've read on these boards

I agree with you that Crysis is a thing of beauty in motion and can't really be appreciated in still shots (though a lot of PC gamers seem to disable many of the effects that make it so impressive such as object motion blur).

However, one very important thing to note is that screenshots DO tend to portray certain aspects of the visuals in a way that you could not get in realtime. It is well known that the game simply doesn't work properly with standard anti-aliasing. If AA is enabled, you lose edge-AA which results in nasty looking foliage. Most of the shots posted are taken at much higher resolutions and downsampled. It's one PC game where bullshots legimately can be presented simply because the type of image quality presented in those shots cannot currently be achieved. It is not possible to play the game with flawless, fully anti-aliased image quality.

That doesn't really detract all that much from the awesome visuals, of course, but it's something that should be noted. If someone were to look at those fantastic shots posted by MickeyKnox, for instance, you would probably be disappointed to learn that it isn't possible to play the game with such image quality.