Forums-> News&Blogs forum-> Killzone 2: Videos of each MP class: << 1 2 3 4
Author Message
Ronsauce

Ronsauce
Since 1201 Days

2008-12-01 03:08:19 In reply to NiteX (2008-12-01 01:49:47)

Posted by NiteX
It puts all other console games to shame with it's incredibly realistic lighting and animations. You should stop playing games altogether if you are not impressed by this game. You have no future in the gaming world please leave quietly.
You should probably stop playing if you think it puts all other console games to shame.

I think it looks amazing, and it may arguably be the best looking, but it might also not be. Therefore, I couldn't say with any shred of confidence that it puts all others to shame.

---
"If we can hit that bull's-eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards...Checkmate." - Zapp Brannigan
Apache958

Since 140 Days

2008-12-01 05:16:51

This game is epic.

newbielives

Since 1154 Days

2008-12-01 08:08:30

Best weapon animations of any FPS EVer.
The reloading, the swaying, the shooting, the reticule, and the iron sights are the
Best of any FPS eveR and i mean EverArrrr
Knodi

Since 1937 Days

2008-12-01 09:00:22

I played the beta and the blur is not bad you'll get use to it but the real problem is the turning input is really really slow. Even at max input turning is really slow. Its not uncommon to see guy hide behind door way and just mow down everyone that comes throw cus you can't turn fast enough to kill him.
omniscient

omniscient
Since 140 Days

2008-12-01 13:41:00 In reply to Knodi (2008-12-01 09:00:22)

Posted by Knodi
I played the beta and the blur is not bad you'll get use to it but the real problem is the turning input is really really slow. Even at max input turning is really slow. Its not uncommon to see guy hide behind door way and just mow down everyone that comes throw cus you can't turn fast enough to kill him.
I believe that Killzone 2's intentional slow paced as it restricts those who normally exploit game mechanics or a better sentiment 'invest precious time to become so advance that those wishing to enjoy the game just can't' LOL, case in point CoD4 as good as it is, heavily suffers from this issue, it's too obvious to tell that people don't need to be strategic to play the game it's all about the run and gun mentality, Let me paint a scenario, once when playing CoD I had an AK47 and not once, not twice but numerous occasions I was shot down with a guy using a pistol you could argue that I suck but I believe that to be far from the truth, let me provide another scenario, and experience from what I believe to be the most tactical online shooter to date MGO, I shot someone, anticipating his revenge I repositioned myself and awaited for his arrival and bang I killed him (satisfying indeed), now whats the difference between the two games asides from the experience, it's simple, MGO is slower paced, allowing tactical play to thrive which IMO is more rewarding than CoD frantic style of play, comparatively speaking of course. Essentially the point I'm making is that though the camera maybe slow in KZ2, it's a deficiency that encourages tactical and smarter gameplay, i.e. the player should assume someone is around the corner thus before entry throw a granade then using the smoke as cover or the grenade as a diversion break in and shoot his ass down, and there my friends is the experience Killzone is trying to instill. The real sense that weapon class makes a difference is another prevailent theme in Killzones gameplay, the effects of this realistic approach, re affirms my point of creating a tactical experience, Call of duty 4 and MGO still hold your hands to firmly compensating for the recoil often endured in gun fights and to such extents that shooting with a pistol, ak47 or sniper rifles makes no bearing on the likelihood of executing a headshot, Killzone 2 takes the oposite approach you want to pull headshots more frequently your going to need a sniper rifle, you want to be lethal from a distance you'll need a sniper rifle, I mean I've literally been on the opposite side of a map with my sniper rifle in MGO, waiting patiently to use my distance as advantage just to recieve a headshot by someone holding an AK. Simply put Killzone puts more control in the players hands by reducing the amount of control the game dictates, the effect of this more realistic shooter is that no longer can people pre aim the gun guaranteeing a headshot, it requres strategic positioning to gain an upper hand as appose to the norm of exploiting a games streamlined mechanics i.e. auto aim and headshots, alignment tricks (the pre aiming gripe) and a lack of truely distinguishing the characters of the guns one possesses. killzone has it's issues like every game but they are minimal compared to the unique style of gameplay it encourages, and bare in mind that my evaluation is a comparative one and so many of the issues stated are exagerated when placed in light of a game that executes/ resolves these issues better.

---
ANYTHING is NOTHING
dingleberry

dingleberry
Since 157 Days

2008-12-01 14:04:47 In reply to NiteX (2008-12-01 01:49:47)

Posted by NiteX
It puts all other console games to shame with it's incredibly realistic lighting and animations. You should stop playing games altogether if you are not impressed by this game. You have no future in the gaming world please leave quietly.
Are you saying I don't know what I'm talking about? For a start, Iv'e stated that lighting makes or breaks a game graphically. KZ2 may have amazing lighting, but so do many other games on the market, and they are already doing things that this game is doing. Far Cry 2, PGR4 and COD4 all have incredibly realistic lighting models that give them that cinematic look that often beguiles people into thinking that it's the best thing since sliced bread graphically, when in fact it's just a fancy veneer. Swanky camera movement, and some depth of field are other tricks of the trade the devs use to wow people, because it looks cinematic and realistic, right? That's where it ends for me. You look past these pseudo-looking effects and all of a sudden things are looking very sparse indeed. Textures that are not consistent, with some even displaying N64 type quality. The drab color pallet and sparse environments. I understand the direction behind this, but for me, it's not that impressive. I've certainly seen a lot more visually appealing games on the consoles as far as artistic values go. Not to say I think it's shit looking, because it isn't. It's just not doing anything better than what COD4 has already been doing already from a technical point of view, because technically, I don't think that even that game was all that great as it contained a lot of the fallacies from an artistic and technical stance than what KZ2 is currently displaying. When IW stated that they could go a lot further with the graphics, people found it hard to believe, but peel away the fancy effects, and you can see why. Most textures in the game were very mediocre to look at, which is probably why the FPS zips along at a solid 60fps. Imagine what the game would look like if the fps was halved, allowing for artists to pack it with detail.
lb003g0676

Since 420 Days

2008-12-01 14:11:45 In reply to Hooligunn (2008-11-30 10:46:18)

Posted by Hooligunn
Sorry but all this "Gears 2 could be mistaken for UT3" crap is just laughable. Have you even played Gears 2? It's got a very memorable and standout style throughout the game with some jaw dropping environments that look nothing like anything seen in UT3. Your opinion might be that it does, but the fact is it doesn't. It really doesn't.

If anything, Killzone 2 is the one to wiggle the finger at here at being another "grey grey grey" shooter (that looks really good mind, but it's still way too monotone imo) which many games this generation have already done. In fact, thinking about it, in my OPINION it's probably one of the least inventive art styles we've seen this gen.

Don't get me wrong, it looks great graphically. But there have been a ton of games who have already done the "grey and gritty" approach this gen before. Why does it suddenly become realistic and unique instead of "grey and greyer" all of a sudden just because it's a PS3 exclusive?
Becuase if you think it's just grey and greyer, then I can understand why you don't understand art directions.

Especially since... You need to wait for Thursday! (Dec 4)

The game has colour, and it looks like art... I don't know how, but things look like concept art, and I think it's excellent dramatic lighting and outside of the deferred rendering, some lighting effect that just makes it look superb that and the blur.

Within the deferred rendering the art direction is so obvious to me, it's angular clean cut architecture that casts hard edge lines, and much in the same way a photographer or artist composes a piece, this game is full of well composed lines and angles showing contrast between the light and dark.

It's hard to explain the art direction, but it's wonderful. It excites me.
lb003g0676

Since 420 Days

2008-12-01 14:19:54 In reply to dingleberry (2008-12-01 14:04:47)

Posted by dingleberry
Are you saying I don't know what I'm talking about? For a start, Iv'e stated that lighting makes or breaks a game graphically. KZ2 may have amazing lighting, but so do many other games on the market, and they are already doing things that this game is doing. Far Cry 2, PGR4 and COD4 all have incredibly realistic lighting models that give them that cinematic look that often beguiles people into thinking that it's the best thing since sliced bread graphically, when in fact it's just a fancy veneer. Swanky camera movement, and some depth of field are other tricks of the trade the devs use to wow people, because it looks cinematic and realistic, right? That's where it ends for me. You look past these pseudo-looking effects and all of a sudden things are looking very sparse indeed. Textures that are not consistent, with some even displaying N64 type quality. The drab color pallet and sparse environments. I understand the direction behind this, but for me, it's not that impressive. I've certainly seen a lot more visually appealing games on the consoles as far as artistic values go. Not to say I think it's shit looking, because it isn't. It's just not doing anything better than what COD4 has already been doing already from a technical point of view, because technically, I don't think that even that game was all that great as it contained a lot of the fallacies from an artistic and technical stance than what KZ2 is currently displaying. When IW stated that they could go a lot further with the graphics, people found it hard to believe, but peel away the fancy effects, and you can see why. Most textures in the game were very mediocre to look at, which is probably why the FPS zips along at a solid 60fps. Imagine what the game would look like if the fps was halved, allowing for artists to pack it with detail.
1. Look up pseudo, and use it with a bit of grace :D It doesn't work like that.

2. N64 type? Well they are crud, lets hope that gets fixed, but I personally haven't spotted one that bad.

3. Just be patient, there's a lot more variation in 'monotonous' palette. But don't expect to be playing Teletubbies, you'll be disappointed.
dingleberry

dingleberry
Since 157 Days

2008-12-01 14:22:03 In reply to lb003g0676 (2008-12-01 14:11:45)

Posted by lb003g0676
Becuase if you think it's just grey and greyer, then I can understand why you don't understand art directions.

Especially since... You need to wait for Thursday! (Dec 4)

The game has colour, and it looks like art... I don't know how, but things look like concept art, and I think it's excellent dramatic lighting and outside of the deferred rendering, some lighting effect that just makes it look superb that and the blur.

Within the deferred rendering the art direction is so obvious to me, it's angular clean cut architecture that casts hard edge lines, and much in the same way a photographer or artist composes a piece, this game is full of well composed lines and angles showing contrast between the light and dark.

It's hard to explain the art direction, but it's wonderful. It excites me.
That's a good post, and at least you can understand why some might not like the art direction in the game. It certainly divides opinion and it's not really the art direction that I don't find that impressive, because I do understand why it looks the way it looks, and it wouldn't really work any other way. Though to hear ridiculous statements proclaiming this as the holy grail of graphics on a current gen console is just a nonsense and an insult to the absolutely mind blowing art that's in games like GEARS 2 and even titles like LBP, even though the latter isn't really appealing to me as a gamer, the art style is still impressive. Mass Effect is another worthy of mention.
Ronsauce

Ronsauce
Since 1201 Days

2008-12-01 14:23:04 In reply to lb003g0676 (2008-12-01 14:11:45)

Posted by lb003g0676
Becuase if you think it's just grey and greyer, then I can understand why you don't understand art directions.
...but it's still a lot of grey. If Gears was massacred because people thought it was just grey and brown, I don't see why KZ should get a pass when it's arguably as grey if not greyer.

I really don't think either game as a whole should be judged that harshly for their palettes when, like you said, there are instances where they look like concept art(Gears 2 has them in spades).

---
"If we can hit that bull's-eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards...Checkmate." - Zapp Brannigan
dingleberry

dingleberry
Since 157 Days

2008-12-01 14:27:30 In reply to lb003g0676 (2008-12-01 14:19:54)

I know what the word pseudo means and I never misused the word at all.

1. not actually but having the appearance of; pretended; false or spurious; sham.
2. almost, approaching, or trying to be.

Appropriate for my context, no?

And some of the textures I have seen in the game do resemble N64 quality, albeit with the RAM expansion. ;)

English lesson over anyway. Funny how debates on the net can be so pedantic at times.
dingleberry

dingleberry
Since 157 Days

2008-12-01 14:30:54 In reply to Ronsauce (2008-12-01 14:23:04)

Posted by Ronsauce
...but it's still a lot of grey. If Gears was massacred because people thought it was just grey and brown, I don't see why KZ should get a pass when it's arguably as grey if not greyer.

I really don't think either game as a whole should be judged that harshly for their palettes when, like you said, there are instances where they look like concept art(Gears 2 has them in spades).
Gears 1 was guilty of this if people want to be hypercritical of such things. But GEARS 2, if any game can be said to look like living concept work brought to life in true 3d, it's this game. Some of the scenery and visuals in that game beggar belief at times. I'm not easy impressed with art in games, but that game was jaw dropping and deserves an award.
jmd749

jmd749
Since 512 Days

2008-12-01 14:41:08 In reply to lb003g0676 (2008-12-01 14:11:45)

Posted by lb003g0676
Becuase if you think it's just grey and greyer, then I can understand why you don't understand art directions.

Especially since... You need to wait for Thursday! (Dec 4)

The game has colour, and it looks like art... I don't know how, but things look like concept art, and I think it's excellent dramatic lighting and outside of the deferred rendering, some lighting effect that just makes it look superb that and the blur.

Within the deferred rendering the art direction is so obvious to me, it's angular clean cut architecture that casts hard edge lines, and much in the same way a photographer or artist composes a piece, this game is full of well composed lines and angles showing contrast between the light and dark.

It's hard to explain the art direction, but it's wonderful. It excites me.
this vid should help tide you over till dec 4th. 1up's shane flew to Amsterdam to see the guerilla team(it has lots of concept art and other tech titbits). from 00:19:30 http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3168654
bbconlinenews

Since 78 Days

2008-12-01 15:51:08

I dont know,some of you are nonsense or blinding yourself.
Anyway,I already explained myself and not going waste my time again.
bbconlinenews
This message is in "Boulet Time" (TM), If you still *really* want to see it, click here
daikide

daikide
Since 304 Days

2008-12-01 20:51:12

still looks overrated ... But I hope it will be a good game tho...
Redneck

Redneck
Since 903 Days

2008-12-01 23:30:05 In reply to dingleberry (2008-12-01 14:04:47)

Posted by dingleberry
Are you saying I don't know what I'm talking about? For a start, Iv'e stated that lighting makes or breaks a game graphically. KZ2 may have amazing lighting, but so do many other games on the market, and they are already doing things that this game is doing. Far Cry 2, PGR4 and COD4 all have incredibly realistic lighting models that give them that cinematic look that often beguiles people into thinking that it's the best thing since sliced bread graphically, when in fact it's just a fancy veneer. Swanky camera movement, and some depth of field are other tricks of the trade the devs use to wow people, because it looks cinematic and realistic, right? That's where it ends for me. You look past these pseudo-looking effects and all of a sudden things are looking very sparse indeed. Textures that are not consistent, with some even displaying N64 type quality. The drab color pallet and sparse environments. I understand the direction behind this, but for me, it's not that impressive. I've certainly seen a lot more visually appealing games on the consoles as far as artistic values go. Not to say I think it's shit looking, because it isn't. It's just not doing anything better than what COD4 has already been doing already from a technical point of view, because technically, I don't think that even that game was all that great as it contained a lot of the fallacies from an artistic and technical stance than what KZ2 is currently displaying. When IW stated that they could go a lot further with the graphics, people found it hard to believe, but peel away the fancy effects, and you can see why. Most textures in the game were very mediocre to look at, which is probably why the FPS zips along at a solid 60fps. Imagine what the game would look like if the fps was halved, allowing for artists to pack it with detail.
Well I guess that it would not look that much better with 30fps.
Of course, textures would be sharper, more polys could be used for models etc, but as you allready said, the effects make a game look great or shite.

But with all this Blur, you don't really need higher quality textures.
Of course one could cut the amount of blur and sharpen textures, but I guess it would take more hardware-power to do so, and whats more it would not make the game look significantly better in total.

P.S.:
PGR4 doesn't even have self-shadowing.(technically thats pretty poor lightning for a racer). But it still looks great due to its effect-overflow.

---
They tookor jeabs
dingleberry

dingleberry
Since 157 Days

2008-12-02 01:27:13 In reply to bbconlinenews (2008-12-01 15:55:05)

Posted by bbconlinenews
Dont set on your head as your weight seem to make it leaning.
Proper English would be nice.
bbconlinenews

Since 78 Days

2008-12-02 02:47:29 In reply to dingleberry (2008-12-02 01:27:13)

Posted by dingleberry
Proper English would be nice.
Sorry,but I never study English before 9,and I never try to use it before 20.Really not such a big dual to me as since I only use it on internet.
Forums-> News&Blogs forum-> Killzone 2: Videos of each MP class: << 1 2 3 4
You have to be logged in to post in this forum!