It wasn't last minute they started the design with nvidia in 2004 But like we all know your only as strong as your weakest link. With the PC that is the User. Because not everybody has the same system or spec, so loads of optimization is needed. I'd love to see a PC with a 7800 run a game like this.
The intro Cinematic is not real-time, we know. But EVERYTHING else is real-time, and still looks OMG.
Well thr Cell and RSX work together for rendering so it isn't just a 7800 chip doing it by itself. However come launch the game probably will not have graphics as instense as some of the vids show. I mean a system with a GTX280 or 4870 wouldn't run whats shown in the vids with full settings on a widescreen, so how does a PS3?
Wow just wow. Where do you think the in-game videos come from?! From the game disk itself. Yea right, at launch, we will get dumbed down games because graphics are unbelievable. Well guess what, I will believe it.
They are beta videos, and i have confirmation they are real. Because i know somebody in the beta. Typical americans always get into beta's. PC's never use the entire resources available, unlike consoles which have too. It just might be one of the PS3 best lookers for the next 5 years. Unless Uncharted2 is better?
I've never understood the concept of trying to blow consoles away by how powerful GFX cards are in todays PCs.. It depends on how people make/code/utilized/illude/etc.. Which in it's own way is an art form.. You'll be surprised how lower end hardware can always output more , it's all again about utilization. It's a combo of many things , PC's dont have the luxuary of such limited variables.. Every darn PC is different... Yes , in my View Crysis Warhead has the best Raw Graphics there is and those Killzone Videos clearly dont beat it , in my view.. But that doesn't change the fact that Killzone 2 is intimidating.. Surly there is a difference... Many Photographers dont use Photoshop.. Many do use Photoshop.. Crysis can out put more , which is why Crysis Warhead looked so much better , surly there's more eye candy potential , since it does have a very powerful engine graphically.. Crysis/warhead is Raw , Killzone 2 is like one of them photoshoped stuff.. Crysis has so much more raw detail , Killzone 2 has effective lighting/blur to make up for it's lack of detail.. In other words , Killzone 2 is like an ugly lady with lots of makeup.. It's simple , compare explosions in the two titles , Crysis Warhead blows it.. But if your not into spotting detail , Killzone 2's full of tricks that help it gain the illusion of it's attractiveness.. Non the less it is impressive and I'd love to play it.. Killzone 1 sucked , so I dont expect Killzone 2 to beat Crysis/Warhead gameplay wise.. I just hope it's fun to play to say the least..
KZ2 is going to be awesome KZ2 has amazing graphics, special effect. The game just looks great, better than any console game yet. Crysis Warhead is obviously technically superior :3eyes: What make KZ2 great is the special effect. Devs said they wanted to create a movie like experience and they have done exactly that. No one is going to be disappointed from KZ2. It is going to be epic. Graphics, physics, sound ... Most guys who have played review code have said it. It gives an amazing gaming experience :nerd: Go and checkout some critic summary about KZ2: http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/killzone2 from megamers.com review: Sony said reviews should not be out before feb1 so online site will not work only gaming magazines :stewpid:
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.... HA HA Ha HA HA saw Thread and registered.. just to say the above... Maybe I should read it.. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA LOL ok.. Gonna check it out... I'll give a real reply..
Wolfman: i think you're forgetting the little part about how games for PS3 or 360 or any console are made for THAT particular setup. I'm pretty sure if a company designed a game SPECIFICALLY for something like say... my rig... a Core 2 Quad Q9450, GTX 295+, and 4GB of DDR2 800, with all the postprocessing effects and stuff they use in most console games, i'm 99% certain they could make a game that would smash anything that'd come out on a console for YEARS. But they can't. they have to make the games support a plethora of configurations, causing them to have to make cutbacks here and there. Wanny: what he's trying to say is that the video's aren't being rendered in real-time... i.e. recorded........ i.e. like watching a BluRay movie. the PS3 doesn't have to do much of anything except play the video. there are plenty of games out there that looked utterly stellar cutscene/CG wise, but well below such in-game. Take, for example.... World of Warcraft. lol yeah... WoW's intro is awesome.. and i'm just messin around with that one, but there really are tons of games that were a disappointment graphics wise compared to their cutscenes.
Every time I see in game video and screens for this game. It eats me up. That the textures aren't sharp. Nothing is defined, it's begging for more vram. Look interesting though, with it's uber deferred rendering tech. Which is part of the reasons why textures look the way they do as deferred rendering can have higher video memory usage(multiple buffers).
Yeah, I KNOW, but from all the videos that has been posted in this thread, only the "introduction" is CG. Everything else is real-time. Pretty darn impressive imo.
yeah... it LOOKS nice.... but it only really seems like the stuff that's up close LOOKS nice. everything else is masked by either fog or darkness.... or is just a skybox or something. It's basically just like UT3.... which was HORRIBLE. looked nice.... but you didn't have any kind of view. It was just you... and very little around you. everything else was bleh. I hate to bring it up again, but if Crysis had gone for extremely realistic looks over jaw-dropping vista's.... i think it'd have been a cakewalk. Oh... and it must be fun to play a game where you can basically unload an entire clip from an assault rifle into someone's skull without much of a nudge of recoil to move you off target. ..... i...is that a console-only thing, due to the lack of a keyboard/mouse combo?
Mate, i'm not talking about everything in the vids, the environments look quite beliveable for a console, it's the characters, the faces, and the animations, they are beyond anything i have seen on the PC, the closest games are Half-Life 2 and Crysis. I hope that they are real, but it's hard to believe that a console exclusive game has been able to this.
Thats what i was trying to say, and is the difference between PC and Console. We all know sometimes a game can play better on an Nvidia compared to an AMD, or viceversa. But with a console, you get what you get. That PC Game you talk of is Crysis.
Sorry to ruin this wonderful debate, but to all those who say they know about the game, what is the gameplay like? I mean how are the developers improving in that department over killzone1, I mean Eurogamer gave the original only 5/10. It felt alright but not great when I played. And check out this quote from the IGN review - And guess what everyone is talking about with the sequal (all over the internet I mean, not just this thread) - yes, visuals. Marketing department is doing it's job well, haha.
Killzone was always the underdog game that everyone except the reviewers of the games liked. Sort of how like Office Space is. It bombed in theaters, but it became one of the best movies released to video and DVD. A cult classic.
@ OP: haha, what the hell, how can you not see that this movie is not realtime? Take a look at this CGI versus real-time: http://www.gametrailers.com/player/21609.html awful, just aweful textures, terrible fire effects, mediocre lightening and so on. It's looks like a low res version of Unreal Tournament 2004 with better physics! @ horse Visuals can make things up big time. I bought Crysis, because it looks good. I will never do the same thing with PS3 games, because it just hasn't got the power compared to current PC hardware.
