With an uneasy hand, we present the collapsing of the universe: GameVideos' Killzone 2 comparison. The original CGI fest going toe-to-toe with the real deal. It's not entirely fair, however, as the real time video tends to feature the marines flying around for too long, but that won't stop the endless debates.
[Update - For those who just can't get enough, GameTrailers also released a comparison of their own, in high-def no less.]
(Page 1) Reader Comments
Reply
Wait for the game, play Halo 3 as well and then decide which you prefer. I don't think it should be about graphics between the two, because frankly Crysis owns both of them, as does Call of Duty 4 (as seen at the 360 E3 presentation)
Please don't tell me you bought this comparison video. The amount of geometry used on one trailer vs the other is vast. Likewise, I don't think the person doing the comparison realizes what volumetric fire really is. While the video on the left does in fact look like volumetric fire, the one on the right shows an effect that resembles volumetric fire, but clearly isn't. Don't get me wrong, the trailer looks good, and the game seems fun (just from the looks of it) but perhaps we should ask a 3D effects artist to do the comparison next time.
Reply
Doesn't necessarily mean Killzone was a bad game (I've never played it; FPS games are not my thing), just that 70 is the average.
Reply
But on that note I have no idea what they mean, didn't even watch the presentation and don't much care to bother. I hear E3 was a bit of a dud this year anyway.
But if you think about all yhe games you have played, they often look a lot better in the in-engine cutscenes than in the gameplay.. as th cutscenes don't have to worry about AI, etc..
I thought it was reasonably close.. but they definitely cut down on the complexity of the city in the flyover.. and the fire effects are nothing even close to the CGI version. (infact they look worse than some current games..)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Why the fuck do you have to keep the whole fanboy bullshit going on?
"Ooooh I'm stupid, Killzone 2 is going to kill Halo 3, oh noes, wait Halo 3 is going to kill Killzone 3, oh noes wait I'm a stupid fanyboy :O"
Grow the fuck up. ¬¬
Reply
Reply
Reply
Can't control the feeling to stab something, just can't.
lol
You're right though.
Reply
Then kindly STFU.
I'm tired of the Halo killer crap, but I'm even more tired of the fanboy bs directed against this game.
Reply
Little disappointed to see that the colors are pretty much gone (even the 05 trailer had more vibrant colors)--nothing but next gen gray and black as usual. This leads to one of the most depressing maps I've ever seen...which is what they were probably going for but...jesus gimmie at least a green in there or something. (makes me wonder if they kept it that dark and gray to avoid showing some inferiorities, would it look as good showing a bright and sunny day? just food for thought)
If you can't admit it looks damn interesting then YOU sir are a fanboy.
After seeing this I must say that I will bite on a PS3 when I can have the following with it.
-Metal Gear Solid 4
-Gran Turismo 5
-Killzone 2 (pending good objective reviews)
-A conroller that rumbles
-Other 3rd party titles (UT3, Assassin's Creed, GTA IV, etc)
Just my 2 cents.
Good day, carry on.
Reply
I am thinking the absence of color may be intentional because processing and displaying a wide array of colors is taxing on the system. Removing certain colors or limiting to only a few with shades in each frame may have allowed room for a tad more detail.
Sorry, but it's 2 Years later, and it's the same old BS from Sony.
Reply
...and I hadn't even played Halo for the first time yet. But you can certainly guess which direction I went in.
~HotShotX
Reply
So, of course, nothing will ever beat Halo; non-halo fanboys dont give a sh!t and Halo fanboys will go mid-evil on game that remotely threatens their reason for buying a Halo360.
Reply
Reply
Reply
~HotShotX
There have been lots of games before that had bad sales but were actually great games.
Seriously, why can't you just buy what you like and stop beating other people up because they bought something else. I wouldn't buy a game that had snooty assholes like you backing it up.
Oh, wait...
Just a little ironic, dont you think?
Reply
Reply
But much closer than expected. A very good comparison.
Reply
It really, really highlights the differences in gameplay shown.
The gameplay in the CGI one is insane. It's very randomized, lots of amazing animations and interactions.
The gameplay from the in-game one is missing all of that. All of it. Every tiny piece.
Reply
(when i see fire, i toss in fuel)
Reply
(I like fires too!)
~HotShotX
PC is where FPS really shines.
Halo, from what I can tell, at least gives out some interesting creature designs. It's your traditional sci-fi shooter, but it's got some color and cool visual ideas out there.
I know I'm opening myself up to massive flaming here, so I'll reiterate that I have no bias. I have moderate interest in both, but neither one really gives me that "Oh god I need this NOW" feeling that a truly original game can give me.
Note: there's no reason to start an argument on missionary sex here, it's just a simile.
Reply
the xbots are just mad because halo3 single player doesnt look much better then multiplayer.
Reply
Reply
And this comparison proves nothing. Heres an analogy. If im looking at a brick wall in real life, and at the same time looking at a picture of that brick wall, they are identical, however one has the poly's and one has ZERO poly's. not that KZ 2 has zero polys, no its extremely impressive and beat my expectations but this comparison means squat.
Reply
im not saying its ognna be a halo killer, because it wont... halo is an unstoppable force and no matter what if halo3 doesnt look as good as people expect, it will be a success, where as KZ2 is based of just a decent game from PS2.
but from the two trailers i would say KZ2 looks better graphics wise.
Reply