Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 30609]

Stealth KZ2 thread, nice.

It is the definitive answer, after all.

 

[camineet]

KZ2 looks nowhere near the CG trailer.

I agree.

Killzone 2 CG trailer
*1080p
*60FPS
*extreme high geometry complexity
*very high texture quality
*high amounts of AA/ very high image quality


Killzone 2 game
*720p
*30FPS
*lower geometry complexity
*lower texture quality
*2x AA / lower image quality

 

[Schrade]

Stealth KZ2 thread, nice.

It is the definitive answer, after all.

Good god do you ever stop?

 

[Armitage]

Gears of War did an amazing job as welll.

Did Uncharted have a CG trailer?

Even on such a small size GIF you can easily tell that it's not as good as the trailer.

 

[Teknopathetic]

"In game shots.
Whats your question again?"


I'm not doubting that an absolutely underwhelming picture of a *wall* isn't in game.

 

[FF_VIII]

You did not just post a blurred out pic of a fucking wall with 1/3rd of the screen covered up by the gun as evidence.

You didn't.

He really did!

 

[revolverjgw]

Technically I guess KZ2 doesn't match up to the CG trailer, but the game looks better now anyway.

 

[H_Prestige]

FFXIII
KZ2

 

[camineet]

real-time Zelda demo on GameCube based hardware - 60fps

twilight princess - 30fps

TP does not exactly match the demo, since the demo models are higher polygon and it runs at 60fps.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

Good god do you ever stop?

Pardon? When I think of a game living up to its CG target, I think of KZ2.

 

[bistromathics]

they're

 

[aznpxdd]

Technically I guess KZ2 doesn't match up to the CG trailer, but the game looks better now anyway.

No, it doesn't.

IMHO, I don't even think Crysis/Warhead (in motion) compares to the KZ2 CG trailer.

 

[harSon]

Living up to something doesn't necessarily mean it has to match its target completely, the Killzone 2 and Gears of War CG/Tech Demos for example, they're definitly not identical but the end products both 'Wow' us visually and technically like the target footage did.

 

[D4Danger]

they're

 

[Deleted member 30609]

Living up to something doesn't necessarily mean it has to match its target completely, the Killzone 2 and Gears of War CG/Tech Demos for example, they're definitly not identical but the end products both 'Wow' us visually and technically like the target footage did.

That's pretty much the way I look at it.

 

[DogWelder]

RE5; looks better than the 2005 trailer.

Edit: Joke fail. Should've said Halo 3 instead of RE5.

 

[Dante]

Lived up to trailers, not on a technical number level, but overall look and feel the same

Uncharted, KZ2, Heavenly Sword,

Did Not:

Madden Next Gen

The Bouncer ( Man That original trailer was sick )

Motorstorm ( still looks good, but lots of stuff missing )

Tekken 6

Prob lots more.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

RE5; looks better than the 2005 trailer.

Was that CG though?

 

[camineet]

real-time PS2 Tekken tech demo

Naturally this was surpassed by Tekken Tag, Tekken 4 and Tekken 5.

 

[nightez]

RE5; looks better than the 2005 trailer.

Its not even close to the trailer

 

[Dizzan]

Edit: KZ2 beats it in some ways and doesn't in others.

 

[Valkyr Junkie]

real-time Zelda demo on GameCube based hardware - 60fps
http://www.kasuto.net/image/archives/gamecube_zelda4.jpg[img]

twilight princess - 30fps
[img]http://guidesmedia.ign.com/guides/748589/images/p22/362.jpg[img]

TP does not exactly match the demo, since the demo models are higher polygon and it runs at 60fps.[/QUOTE]

How do you know that the original GameCube Zelda video and K2 CG trailer were rendered at 60fps? Just assuming?

 

[sykoex]

Star Wars: Republic Commando

I remember being all pissed when they built up the announcement at the E3 MS press conference just to unveil a short CG vid. But in the end the game ended up delivering.

 

[The Chef]

"In game shots.
Whats your question again?"


I'm not doubting that an absolutely underwhelming picture of a *wall* isn't in game.

You know something Tekno, I could post a monster of a comparison pic from another thread that shows E3 shots and their 2007 gameplay counterparts to reply to your post. Then 20 pages would tack onto this thread of people talking, not about the OP's question, but about Killzone.

So how about i do this instead:

I had the "wall" picture because I find the texture work on the gun to be amazing. But tell you what, I'll take that pic out of my post then I'll add - IMHO to the end of my post.

Would that make you happy?

 

[Cday]

RE5; looks better than the 2005 trailer.

No way. The real thing is severely washed out in comparison. Everything is brown/tan and the foliage is a nice shade of diarrhea.

 

[zoukka]

Saying Killzone 2 lived up to the CGI-trailer is hilarious. It got far from the first shown gameplay footage, but is nowhere near the CGI-trailer. Tiny gifs and blurry screenshots do not change that.

Funny... I really can't come up with any games that qualify here. Will follow this thread with great interest!

EDIT: Ahh Tekken Tag Tournament. Holy fuckton did it look good

 

[BamYouHaveAids]

RE5; looks better than the 2005 trailer.

It doesn't look anywhere close. I'm convinced the majority of "you people" are in fact blind.

 

[camineet]

The PS2 tech-demos shown in March 1999 in Tokyo, were all surpassed by actual PS2 games.

 

[duk]

lived up to CG trailers? yeah right, it's CG for a reason


but close?

Gears 1
KZ2

 

[lupinko]

it wasn't from "N64", but those shots came out when it was still called "project reality" and before SE jumped ship to Sony.

Nope, that was actually a PC tech demo Square showed off at an event, it was either a developer's conference or at a CES (I believe it was more of the former though).

It even had some different concepts on how to do things, like make a shape of a star with the mouse to cast spells.

And Square back then was just Square, there was no merger with Enix until the mid-PS2 era.

 

[Cdammen]

 

[Schrade]

You know something Tekno, I could post a monster of a comparison pic from another thread that shows E3 shots and their 2007 gameplay counterparts to reply to your post. Then 20 pages would tack onto this thread of people talking, not about the OP's question, but about Killzone.

So how about i do this instead:

I had the "wall" picture because I find the texture work on the gun to be amazing. But tell you what, I'll take that pic out of my post then I'll add - IMHO to the end of my post.

Would that make you happy?

Maybe it would make him happier if you didn't use BBcode to quote him!

 

[Dizzan]

Two games I will miss based on CG trailers and expectations:

Getaway

and

8 Days.

Both looked sensational

 

[camineet]

Its not even close to the trailer

Agreed.

RE5 trailer was prerendered with far, far higher image quality than what the actual game has, and it ran at 60fps. The game isn't even close.

 

[DogWelder]

No way. The real thing is severely washed out in comparison. Everything is brown/tan and the foliage is a nice shade of diarrhea.

It doesn't look anywhere close. I'm convinced the majority of "you people" are in fact blind.

Its not even close to the trailer

Agreed.

RE5 trailer was prerendered with far, far higher image quality than what the actual game has, and it ran at 60fps. The game isn't even close.

:lol

Wow, I should've been less subtle...

 

[RSTEIN]

Motorstorm ( still looks good, but lots of stuff missing )

That's a great example. The end result didn't even come close to my opinion. The intensity of the CG trailer wasn't captured in the final game, either, IMO.

Bungie does really need to be called out. The whole E3 thing was a total misrepresentation. The whole "It's in game, you can move the camera around, etc. etc." thing was so deceiving. The screen shots were very deceiving as well. Everyone later learned that the shots were from photo mode, not actually in-game-this-is-what-you're-seeing-as-you-play.

K2 obviously doesn't live up to its CG trailer. It's still the best looking linear shooter ever made so it's kind of irrelevant.

There were some early bullshots from Gears but overall I don't think Epic misrepresented the game in any way.

 

[Mister_Mingi]

L4D's opening CG

It does not give a good representation of the graphics but it does very well capturing the gameplay and how frantic and slow paced it can be.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Most of them are CG and bullshots for a reason. KZ2 might have come closer to matching it than most of us thought but come on, lived up to it? Yeah right. Others that failed:

Next Gen Madden
Halo 3
Motorstorm (lots of racers this gen actually, especially EA ones)

etc etc.

 

[mr stroke]

Most of them are CG and bullshots for a reason. KZ2 might have come closer to matching it than most of us thought but come on, lived up to it? Yeah right. Others that failed:

Next Gen Madden
Halo 3
Motorstorm (lots of racers this gen actually, especially EA ones)

etc etc.

while Madden was far off, EA got it right on Fight Night(rippling face and all)

to

 

[Borman]

No, just no. FFVII on PS1 most certainly did not rival that realtime playable SGI demo.






No, it's a shot of the Final Fantasy SGI Demo, which ran on the Onyx 2 RealityEngine system a super high-end visualization graphics supercomputer costing $100K-$200K and up, something that was more powerful than SGI's standard low-end ($10K-$20K) to mid-range ($50K) workstations, and far beyond the Nintendo 64.


Read this page to get more educated on the demo: http://www.lostlevels.org/200510/

Thank you! I had about 3 or 4 posts open in new tabs, ready to disprove it (it being "ff64"). So thank you for saving me time.

 

[dfyb]

Edit: KZ2 beats it in some ways and doesn't in others.

this. model/environment resolution (both in polygons and textures) in the CG trailer is obviously impossible to match, but KZ2 the game has more post processing and environmental effects. in some ways, it looks better -- in other areas, it obviously can't match CG.

 

[Coolio McAwesome]

I think the Final Fantasy SGI demo looked considerably better than Final Fantasy VII did. You can see the video for yourself here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-FnmYwg-FU

 

[.nimrod]

i think GRID held up pretty well to what was shown at first:

 

[jett]

FFXIII looks really close to its target render.

2006

2008

 

[antiloop]

KZ2 is the closest so far. The CG video felt so incomplete in some places.

 

[itxaka]

FFXIII looks really close to its target render.

2006
[]http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/734/734220/final-fantasy-xiii-20061007021938222_640w.jpg[/IMG]

2008
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/903/903022/final-fantasy-xiii-20080826034732584_640w.jpg[/IMG]

I seen really bad pictures of ff13 on the media thread being discussed by the usual people in there. How about that? Is it true?

 

[Diablohead]

PGR3 leaked target renders, the final PGR3 release ended up being an improvement.

 

[jett]

I seen really bad pictures of ff13 on the media thread being discussed by the usual people in there. How about that? Is it true?

For gameplay situations the game uses character models of lower quality, that's what you're seeing. The target render functioned in the same way.

 

[Touchdown]

I still say Fight Night 2 is one of the best looking games ever. I can't wait for 3.

 

[itxaka]

For gameplay situations the game uses character models of lower quality, that's what you're seeing. The target render functioned in the same way.

ahhh, thanks for the info