In this PS3 feature, IGN analyses new Killzone 2 gameplay video and how the real game stacks up against the original pre-vis. This is not a picture or video Killzone 2 CG vs Ingame but a full article on the subject matter.
:( It's a good article anyway.
If they used your tip your name will appear after the story is approved. Edit: lol sorry I guess MK red is too fast. On another note I might just buy a ps3 for this game.
I noticed, anyway it's all good. :)
I can see a difference (the CG is better), but the in-game graphics are still very impressive.
exactly my words, I really wish we could have that cool motion blur effect when a rocket fires as in 2005 trailer, it will be a nice touch and I will have a hell of lot fun blowing the hell out of Helghast and make them into a bunch of ghosts.
Yea, the rocket blast screenshot was the only one from the 2005 trailer that I liked better though. In general, the cutscene from 2005 did still look more polished. But the actual gameplay shots from E3 07 was drastically better to me. There's no question that I will be purchasing this game... and the chaotic battlefield in the early parts lead me to believe that the gameplay will be AT LEAST as impressive as Resistance. The only question to me is whether the gameplay will do anything to be as innovative as the visuals look & further set the game apart. Haze is actually the most innovative looking fps to me right now (as far as gameplay)... but this game is still a MUST HAVE either way to me.
but, i think Timeshift looks to be the most innovative fps.
Bennett's Take: At the finale of Sony's E3 Press Conference, as the main lights dimmed, replaced by giant red spotlights, I knew it was Killzone time. After two years of bashing Sony about its use of a pre-rendered clip, I was sceptical about whether it could deliver any real gameplay footage that would even come close. Turns out they did. I'm not sure why, but the PS3 is capable of the most realistic character faces I've seen on any platform, including the PC. Resistance did them amazingly well, and Killzone 2 does them even better. As I watched a group of troops zooming into the battlefield on their rocket-powered sled, it was simply amazing to see how detailed their faces were. I'd argue that they were even more believable than in the pre-rendered trailer. And this is with a bunch of stuff going on in the background, not just a close up. If there's one platform that's going to traverse the uncanny valley with ease, it appears it's going to be the PS3. The environments were almost as impressive, although not quite up to what the original trailer led us to believe. Again, I can't help but compare it to Resistance. Long draw distances and a wad of detail, running as smoothly as a hot chainsaw through a tub of butter. I won't go into the actual gameplay, as I didn't get any hands-on time with the game, but I have to say I walked away from the brief presentation with a major attitude-shift towards the PS3. I've been very sceptical about PS3's performance in the past, but finally I've seen something that suggests the PS3 does have the power its makers claim. Whether or not we'll see this level of graphical detail in other games, and how long it's going to take before they're the norm, is still up for debate. ============================= =============================== ======= Is that the FKN convoy!!!!????
I'm not sure why, but the PS3 is capable of the most realistic character faces I've seen on any platform, including the PC. Resistance did them amazingly well, and Killzone 2 does them even better. As I watched a group of troops zooming into the battlefield on their rocket-powered sled, it was simply amazing to see how detailed their faces were. I'd argue that they were even more believable than in the pre-rendered trailer. i agree
"I'm not sure why, but the PS3 is capable of the most realistic character faces I've seen on any platform, including the PC." my personal opinion: I don't know how IGN could say that after seeing Crysis(North Koreans somehow look like sh!t, but remember the tech demo). Half Life 2 sure beat Resistance in range of emotions. And it came out in 2004. But Killzone is shaping up great and I don't give a damn about the hype.
what stands out for me is not only how detailed the faces are but, how varied and drastically different they are. As you watch the vid you begin to notice that no 2 characters share any resemblance to each other
I cant wait to see how the game comes along in the development and as well as new pics of other environments, that arent in the dark.
the game still has about 7 months to go... it looks pretty close now, it will meet or surpass the e3 05 video.
good job GG: everything from the blood to the facial animations look great http://www.n4g.com/M/8/Imag...
thanks timmyp53, this is more convincing all that writing I say. It looks like exactly the same game except for the first shot where the CG guy shouting has slightly more detail.
i've lost all interest in killzone 2 after seeing MGS4..... now i know why sony didnt want the gameplay shown at E307.... lol... wow, still though, cant wait for killzone, but im getting MGS4 before killzone 2 now.......
mgs4 and killzone are completly different games, the gameplay is completly different, so why lose interest? not to mention that killzone 2 looks better graphically.
Killzone is indeed going to be one of the most amazing games, i just havent seen enough actual gameplay to get me fully satisfied like MGS4 did.... I know they're entirely different games, but my point was, MGS4 looked more appealing to me, just seemed like more features, but we'll see when we get more killzone details Im not sure if killzone 2 is as graphically good as MGS4, atleast not yet, im sure KZ2 will probably surpass MGS4, since it was in prepre alpha staging, but i think the lighting is a bit dark for my liking, but it does add to the "atmosphere" of the game, showing that the warzone is a hostile and completely "evil" place. I'm just simply saying MGS4 for now, looks more appealing to me rather than KZ2 does, but things can change :)
Who would have thought that? Us lucky PS3 owners spoilt for choice on great exclusive games??? What... lol MGS4 is like PS3s MGS2 to me, it has the momentum to be so incredibly awesome but I hope they don't dissapoint with continual delays and what not. Killzone fortunatly is coming out a lot later than Halo 3 so it won't be so staggered against it as it was back when Halo 2 came out.
good article, good read. I agree with everything they say but their is alot of time for them to fix any potential problems their having or IGN pointed out.
what I was thinking while reading that raucous IGN endorsment of the game. They're analyzing the hell out of it; comparing it to freaking CG (r u kidding!!lol) and it's still in the "making". As someone I know always used to say at the end of every post: WOW cheers
"comparing it to freaking CG (r u kidding!!lol)" That is pretty crazy. Who would think that we'd reach a point where it is fair to compare in-game to CG so soon. I find it to be awesome that it is now being done and shows how far games have come. EDIT: @ DarthBillBoy Same person...
xbox360rocks? PS360ROCKS? Any relation here?
I need to buy a ps3 lol
i'm gonna sound like an old fogie here, but i think a lot of the people that are b*tching about Killzone 2's visuals, are a little spoiled. i mean, when i was 6 years old, back in 1985, playing Super Mario Bros. on my cousin's NES, or Pole Position on the Atari 2600, i didn't dream, in a million years, that games would be looking like *THIS. it was stuff out of my fantasies. sure, Killzone doesn't look like the infamous 2005 trailer, but the fact that it looks like it *DOES, is enough for me. even if the game didn't undergo anymore visual tweaking, and instead they worked on things like framerate and AI, etc, i'd still be satisfied. because everytime i look at Killzone 2, or MGS4, my mind drifts back to the little bloops and blips that were trying to pass themselves off as characters in games from the 80's, and i'm blown away all over again. for me, Killzone 2 doesn't *HAVE to match the 2005 trailer. i'm just pleased that gaming has gotten to that point where we're comparing them to film, and CGI, and high art. i never would have thunk it. great job Guerilla Games, and in fact, any company that is pushing the envelope the way these guys are doing, from Epic, to Bungie, to Insomniac, to Kojima Productions, to Media Molecule, to Naughty Dog, to Ubisoft Montreal, to Ninja Theory, to Bioware, to Factor 5, to Level 5, and to Silicon Knights and so many more. you guys are the reasons why, after 28 years on the planet, i'm still gaming strong, with no sign of letting up anytime soon.
Well, it speaks volumes that they are comparing a CGI high price project vs a 50 million dollar video game production. I think it did good, guess we all find out in 2008 how the game compares. Hopefully, gameplay and multiplayer live up to the hype.
i think you are confused, this project had a budget of 20 million, it was M$ that paid 50 million for exclusive content on GTAIV
the account mangm't =====> edit profile =======> change avatar menu? Let me know. I'm getting a server error (repeatedly).
guerilla claimed before the naysayers locked in on the TARGET VIDEO,that"this is what we want to achieve for next gen."not just pretty graphics. and ALL the mags,and ALL the websites,and ALL the fanboys,and ALL the sony bashers,and ALL the killzone one bashers went overboard without giving guerilla a shot to prove themselves.i watched that video dozens upon dozens of times analizing if the video could be achieved.AFTER YEARS OF PLAYING,I KNEW THEY COULD DO IT. even motorstorm, which to this day, i think could still look like the video.but i'm not sure if they could attain the speed.but figboy is right,gaming has always jumped exponentially.CG of ps1 and saturn became reality on ps2,xbox and cube.but CG got better.but i felt next gen could pull off last gen CG video.it just takes time and resources. think for a second,would call of duty 4 look like it does now if sony and guerilla didn't aim high?look at the old call of duty during 2005 then look at what is showing now. http://www.gametrailers.com... looks like an old pc game.and this: http://www.gametrailers.com... this looks like next gen.and i think call of duty after 2 years,owes alot to E32005 and sony's press conference.because they went from world war to modern warfare.why the change at activision? it is sony's vision,guerilla's vision,on why combat games look the way they do now.i'm glad they showed the target trailer in 2005.it means game animation,game content,game A.I. and game graphics will get better for all games.devs are now aiming high.and that benefits us ALL.
http://www.youtube.com/watc... This guy is my hero..... this is how bad the service is in the uk, that would be xbox 360 service.
pressing a button over and over seeing that same button pressing cutscene standing all by your lonesome emptying bullets on a big a$$ lightning rod doesn't look too interesting. They should have something preventing you from destroying that thing. Hopefully that is just a break from the unrelenting action that I hope is before that part.
you're talking about a *2 MINUTE segment in a game that will probably be about *TEN HOURS long. i'm pretty sure the game won't consist of 10 hours of shooting lightning rods. check out the 4 minute extended trailer, then read N'Gai Croals *TWO articles about the game. he was a harsh critic of the PS3, but after having *HANDS ON time with Killzone 2, he's changed his tune quite a bit, and thinks the gameplay is exactly what it's supposed to be (intense, chaotic, beautiful, and most importantly, fun). the game has a long way to go, and it's already showing it's promise this early on. don't focus on one tiny aspect that the media chose to show us (i mean, seriously, out of a 15 minute presentation, the gaming press chose the part with the lightning rod to share with us? ridiculous). like any good FPS, the tower portion i'm certain follows a section of high intensity, so they slow the pacing down, then i'm sure they'll ratchet it up again soon after.
And i agree with most of what`s being said. I think what should be the most interesting about Killzone now that they`ve shown how close to the CGI as they got, is showing me more of what makes the game unique from a gameplay perspective. As with MGS4, i`m really excited to see what you could do in the game. Figboy, i agree, i would rather have the game run smooth because the graphics are already great. I`m sure they`ll still get better though as it`s out in 2008, but i hope they concentrate on getting it to run at a consistent fps which is especially important in multiplayer (i hope that`s more fun in Killzone 2, because it wasn`t very good in the original.
Will a game studio have to have a major budget like the one Guerilla is spending to make a game look like Killzone? Because to me, not everybody or even most studios will spend that type of money on developing one title. And with the graphics looking so good, I wonder if it is more reasonable to expect a more linear game than not? I'm not bashing but let's take Oblivion, when a games universe is soo big, the graphics tend to lack, even if just a bit, however when a game is graphic heavy, it tends to be short like Gears of War and sometimes very linear. Besides on a PC, is it possible to have the huge universe in a game, graphics like Killzone throughout that is non linear?? I hope so.
#12 was one of the best posts I've seen in a while. And there's nothing wrong with being an "old fogie." If you don't know your past, then you can't control the future and that control ultimately comes with our wallets. We will be buying games that continue to wow and surprise us. Despite pretty graphics we all know when a game really puts "it all together." Being a veteran of all the older games and consoles makes us appreciate these new offerings even more which contributes to a bigger and growing gamer market, more money and confidence for devs and the assurance that our hobby/lifestyle is here to stay; therefore controlling our futures to a certain degree.
and i wholeheartedly agree.
are people still talking about this? SONY delivered big time..yes the trailer its 100% the same..but in some area it passes the CG trailer back in 2005. for KZ2 to even come close to a CG movie is amazing - and rememeber its still being worked on and things will only get better. KZ2 fan or not were amazed and the final product will push PS3 like no 2morrow...we have to remember that with all this MS vs PS3 going on - alot of ppl tend to forget that PS3 hasnt even been out for a full year yet...and whats scary is that the games that are coming out this year are looking sharpe and nothing but amazing... i cant even picture how the game will look like for christmas 2008 i cant wait for the final product of KZ2 vs CG trailer - that will be intresting to see
I am glad they pulled it off... after that Sony PR guy lied by saying that it was actual gameplay and and hard for them to meet expectations... the fact is that maybe for this reason this may be of the best looking game which will finally beat Gears in terms of graphics. Sony should really thank these developers since it would have being a disaster if things would be any different. Obviously the CGI looks better and it has more things/effects going on than the actually game... but no one was expecting them to get that far... if anything they really went further than most people were expecting..
i think it gave them motivation to put out that Target Render... man it comes very close.. very,very close and if somone doesnt think the game looks awesome i dont know what to say to u=)
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.