ORIGINAL: immortaldanmx

Anyone remember how much hype Far Cry on PC was getting for its graphics before it released? We all know how that turned out....

Crysis looks graphically amazing, but the gameplay looks boring and sh!t as hell.

It' s getting WAY more notice than it actually deserves....

I agree with Tiz,and I rather have Killzone2 then crysis-

Holy shit, the LOD at work here is beyond impressive, both the characters and the environments look insanely detailed, far more than anything else i´ve ever seen leaving Crysis aside, but whats really most impressive is looking at such detailed models moving, the animations are the best i´ve seen in any first person shooter and if this is pre alpha then hell, they may archive the 2005 GC trailer, all they havet to do is work on the fire, incredible stuff here.

Firstly, if we hadn' t seen the demonstration i' d have probably been calling bullshit on screens like these. What it lacks in texture resolution it makes up for in everything else.

Secondly, after looking at the available footage i' m becoming increasingly convinced that they' re not using deep colour (30, 36 and 48-bit) depths and maybe even dropped down from 24-bit to something like 16-bit, much like what Capcom did with RE4 on Gamecube. I could be and probably am wrong, but it' d make sense as the game is close to monochrome anyway.

Thirdly, since the game is only mid-development i' m wondering how it could improve from a graphical standpoint before release. Gears for example was tweaked extensively in the last couple of months before release. Up until then the textures used had been place holder and the lighting re-done several times. From what you' ve seen, what aspects do you think could be improved upon here?

More contrast between the different things on the level would make it look better.
I like dark and gritty games and the lack of colours creates an interesting atmosphere.
But more contrast between different materials and objects on the levels is needed because right now it looks a little like a watercolour painting that someone has rubbed out.
I guess better lighting could help a lot if they cast more light on certain sides of objects. In those screens it' s almost as every side of every object is lit with the same level of light.

Im not too keen on the model of the soldier, it looks more like a karikatur than an actual human being, though that might be part of the style of the game, or it might just be his facial expression, he kinda reminds me of Gollum!

it looks like there is a grain filter over the game, which shrouds some details, but that might also be a concious decision.

Other than those, tis shaping up really nice!

I would love it if they showed somce pics of a bright level, is all well and good to have some moody dark parts but if its all like that then meh.

ORIGINAL: Silentbomber

I would love it if they showed somce pics of a bright level, is all well and good to have some moody dark parts but if its all like that then meh.

Well, i' m sick to the back teeth of blue skies and HDR powered sunlight but it' d be nice to see some brightly lit indoor areas.

I do love the darkness though...



BTW IGN just posted a GC hands-on HERE

Im not too keen on the model of the soldier, it looks more like a karikatur than an actual human being, though that might be part of the style of the game, or it might just be his facial expression, he kinda reminds me of Gollum!

They look a lot more like human beings than the dude on your avatar imo.

Anyways, I love the design of this game, but then again I' m a sucker for dark gritty post apocalyptic future settings, Killzone 2' s design reminds me of the Aliens film, which incidentally happened to be my favourite film as a child.

Technically the graphics in Killzone doesn' t impress me as much as they did on first glance. I really like good textures, but the Ps3 has yet to provide in that department. Still I think it looks good enough, but I wonder if it' s too early to think it' s impossible for the Ps3 to make textures like those in Gears.

And about Crysis, I think both the game and the graphics will rock just the same! [:' (]

ORIGINAL: Dionysius

I wonder if it' s too early to think it' s impossible for the Ps3 to make textures like those in Gears.

UTIII will provide textures close enough, and run at 60fps.

I a lot of the articles about PS3 games I have noticed a common theme. All of the devs are stating that they are using up the whole blu-ray disc for the game.

My question to the more tech savvy peeps here, is it true that they absolutly need all of the space on the blu-ray disc? If so, then are all PS3 games going to be twice or triple the playing time than a game on the 360 using DVD9?

I really want to know, because I don' t understand so far how so many great games can be coming to the 360 on the DVD9, and yet a lot of the games coming to PS3 have the devs stating that they need blu-ray for the space.

I think it' s mostly because the devs can spend lots of space on unique textures, less reusage. However, perhaps because of the space the devs are getting lazy with the compression technology?!

why compress on BluRay? unless it means faster loading.

FFS! If the space on a single DVD9 disc isn' t enough than just put the additional content on a second disc! Is it really that hard!?

Played this yesterday. Clearly the best looking console game out there right now, it' s that simple. Stay tuned for some big covereage coming ASAP this coming week.

Played this yesterday. Clearly the best looking console game out there right now, it' s that simple. Stay tuned for some big covereage coming ASAP this coming week

Have you played Blue dragon?

They look a lot more like human beings than the dude on your avatar imo.

They dont!


They are pushing more polygons but are more cartoon inspired than the models in Gears of War.

Can someone explain to me what' s with all the Killzones' gameplay hate ' round here? As far as I' m concerned if the team had 2/3 extra months to fix bugs and all that crap the game would' ve been awesome. Also, it' s my opinion that if mimics war better than Halo or whatever. Alot of people complained about the lack of a jump button... who the heck jumps 10 feet in the middle of the battlefield? Most likely they' ll jump for cover, but nobody has been able to do that as of now (at least I don' t think anyone did, I may be wrong).

And Quez, it scored average 75% on GameCritics or whatever, who cares? Reviewers were extremely biased, they all reviewed Killzone in comparison to Halo 2, who the fuck does that? The games are completely different. They gave such low ratings mostly because of bugs and because it wasn' t as good as Halo 2. I never read one single review, aside from amateur reviews, in which they analyzed the game for what it was instead of comparing it to Halo. Now, how can I take these people seriously?
Tell you what, Blue Dragon sucks in comparison to FF XII (hypothetically speaking here, I dislike FF and would much rather play BD any day over it) does that make it a bad game? Is it even fair to review the game comparing it to another? I don' t think it is.

Bottom line is, imho, Killzone was a good game, it had alot of bugs and some problems, but it was not by any means a bad game, like I said, if the team had 2/3 extra months the game could' ve been something else. They didn' t, Sony rushed the game because they wanted something to sway (I don' t even know what I just wrote guys...) attention from Halo, very stupid decision because nothing can stop Halo from selling millions, no matter how much you hype a game.

Onto KZ 2 now, as a fan of the first I can' t stop being excited about this game, the visual are already very impressive and the game is on what... Beta stages now? They were on Pre-Alpha by E3 so I guess something like that is reasonable, I' m not worried about gameplay either, I liked the first ones' gameplay, this can only be better so... yeah, I' m very hyped for this sucker.

(And yes people, I' m back lulz, I was on vacation and stupid Norton wouldn' t let me post in here.)

I think its the bugs, and the bland gameplay and the bad AI that got the first game an average score.

It might have been a decent FPS game, but there was nothing to set it appart from the crowd, except Pro sony medie heralding it as the " halo killer" which kinda backfired.

Halo is the king of console shooters, mainly because Halo was the first console FPS that was actually worthplaying.

There were better shooters on the PC at the time. Right now we should be heralding Bioshock instead, though iv yet to play it

(none of the old ladys i rob have any cash, just stinking cat food)

The A.I was kinda bad, yeah, I agree with you on that. Just now, I was playing and I noticed that the Helghast, no matter how manacing they look, are dumb as Hell. So the dudes have this... grenade lauchners, and they kick my ass all the time, but like 50& of it, they' re just standing there looking like nothing' s happening. The A.i isn' t consistent and that pisses me off. They' re either very good shooters or just dumb hicks.

Also, I don' t know who the heck came up with the " Halo Killer" , but if it was a journalist, guy was probably on drugs... speaking of which, the Falcons better be ready when Gaylo comes out, I want to finish the fight... badly!