Killzone 2 dev admits screenshots 'touched up'
Guerrilla QA manager Seb Downie joined the discussion on the PlayStation Forums, admitting, "[The screenshots] are only the tiniest bit touched up ... there was a little bit of colour-correction done and some minor polish, but nothing major." The comparison image above, also posted in the discussion (via PSU), seems to corroborate Downie's admission, revealing sharper colors and deeper contrasts in the 'doctored' screen on the right (effects that seem within the limits of standard display settings; i.e., a television could be capable of displaying both the dull and stylized versions of this scene by tinkering with its display settings). Also, the "original" version of the image is a frame snagged directly from video, so it's subject to a certain amount of blurring that's not necessarily an accurate depiction of gameplay frozen in that instant. In any case, how can a screenshot ever tell the truth? Downie concludes that Killzone 2 simply "looks better in motion."
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Dec 10th 2007 1:12PM
In before the shitstorm.
Micheal82 @ Dec 10th 2007 1:14PM
In before flame wars.
XanthouS @ Dec 10th 2007 1:16PM
Atlest they're honest about a little bit of color correction in an image captures from running video.
This doesn't quite compare to EA's NBA Live flub. Ya know, the one with half a player standing in the background, added lighting effects, etc. No tuning of a television screen is going to give a game better reflections and lighting effects.
gonk @ Dec 10th 2007 1:17PM
took 'em like 6 months to fess up though
Zoesch @ Dec 10th 2007 1:27PM
Faster than Bungie, EA and 2K if you ask me.
I prefer developers to say in advance if the shot was retouched (Most of them are since capturing video isn't always going to deliver the best image quality) and what was done to it rather than discover it midgame.
Anyway, this was the last bit of common sense before the fanboys descend screaming from the skies.
Jake @ Dec 10th 2007 2:02PM
It was obvious to everyone that the pictures were touched up. I guess it is nice to see them fess up right away rather than maintaining they were legitimate for a long time the way they did with their fmv E3 debacle.
sp @ Dec 10th 2007 8:26PM
a little bit of color correction? there ain't an uncorrected color in there!
Phranctoast @ Dec 10th 2007 1:19PM
yeah yeah. all games do this. Remember the god of war 2 pics that showed resolution not possible unless it was on the ps3.
There is a tutorial on making awesome looking screenshots. UT franchise has been doing this for years.
Mort @ Dec 10th 2007 3:48PM
I thought the UT engine was made for producing screenshots, not games. Waiting on UT3.
CharleyTony @ Dec 10th 2007 1:19PM
This is the kind of thing that will make people stop loking a "pre-rendered target videos", as if anybody but fanboys of either systems would use that type of video to form an opinion on a game...
I remember back in the day, you konw, when games were fun instead of just looking great ... LOL
Aludra @ Dec 10th 2007 5:12PM
Ah, I miss those days. Where you were nothing but a few pixels in a pixelated world, and it was more addicting than ever. Now its a billion pixels and people are too busy looking at their screens with magnifying glasses instead of playing.
maylon @ Dec 10th 2007 1:22PM
I am an Xbox 360 fanboy, and this still looks great to me. Whats the big deal?
gonk @ Dec 10th 2007 1:22PM
why don't they just make it look in-game like the pic on the right? i've seen some games look that good. or would it drop the framerate too much?
does anyone really have high expectations for this game? after that initial fake movie was exposed, I lost all interest and got a 360
Micheal82 @ Dec 10th 2007 1:28PM
I don't think anybody had high expectations for this game. Its Killzone a generic shooter with a generic name. R:FOM is a lot better than any Killzone game.
Mr.ESC @ Dec 10th 2007 1:41PM
I lost interest on the Ps3 after the price was announced :P
No seriously I was a Sony fanboy but Gears of war and Dead rising were too good to be ignored.Hell Zombies and Locust,I'm sold.
I have to say that I have only played Killzone Liberation and it was quite a bomb,the boss fights were pretty cool and the whole thing was like Metal Slug.
I believe KZ2 still looks good even without the photoshops,KZL was all greyish but I rather have greyish than quake brownish,yes I know Brown=Real sometimes I can't see Sh*t with brown filters.
B1gC72 @ Dec 10th 2007 1:42PM
well i have high expectations for it, but then again, im a new FPS fan (Resistance was the first FPS i ever purchased though all my friends play em all the time). the graphics looked great and the gameplay looked intense, exactly what i was looking for. i played the first one and it wasnt that good but since there is no law that says that the second game in a series cant be better than the original, this could be a great addition to my PS3 library.
and no one tell me to go get a 360 cause i wont do it lol.
Mr.ESC @ Dec 10th 2007 1:50PM
First I would like to apologize for the horrible grammars errors in my last post, there is a "but" missing.
Second B1gC72 you are a n00b,(In Cartman voice) make yourself a favor and get The Orange Box, Bioshock and Deux EX ASAP before we all kill you.
Trev @ Dec 10th 2007 2:03PM
The image on the left is from the Leipzig trailer. That's from August. The image on the right is actually a different image (note the gun/camera is aimed at a different place). A screen shot (probably) from months later looking different? It should be expected.
I'm still skeptical of what "minor polish" means, but contrast and color balance can and do get screwed up in screen shots and I will at least HOPE that more changes were made to the game and engine than the image in photoshop. It could have just been repair work to get the shot to look like the game actually does or it could be a complete misrepresentation.
I just want a damn demo. Rendered real time by my console on my tv is as genuine as any game images can get. If it comes out looking and playing great (I think the all first-person cover thing looks cool) then I don't care what they lied about up to the game's release. It comes out in what? A bit over a month? It's time to put your graphical money where your downloadable mouth is, Guerrilla/Sony.
CubeGuy @ Dec 10th 2007 4:17PM
>> and no one tell me to go get a 360 cause i wont do it lol.
*clears throat*
Go get a 360.
B1gC72 @ Dec 10th 2007 8:05PM
"make yourself a favor"
grammar be dammed!
but seriously, its not like i dont play other games. i know what good graphics look like and i know what a fun game is. i played Call of Duty 4 and The Orange Box at my friends house, great games. i played Far Cry on Wii, terrible game. so forgive me if i havent played that many FPS's but i still know a good game from a bad game, and this looks good to me.
KarlW @ Dec 10th 2007 11:58PM
I've got high expectations for the game. The BBC took a first-look at it and called it the most 'cinematic' or most 'immersive' game ever created. Pretty hefty endorsement, even if the BBC aren't entirely clued in with games. The gameplay footage (not retouched) looks pretty awesome as well. They've learnt a lot from KZ1.
Sony also seem to be hopeful for it - they bought the developers and made it in-house.
Negativecool @ Dec 10th 2007 1:24PM
I don't want to be the one to defend this but....
Abolutely no one should be suprised by this. It's pretty much industry standard to touch up all screen shots. Everyone does it, from Gears of War to NBA '08.
So...What the hells with all the "CAUGHT ya red handed" shit going around? If I were Guerrilla Games I would have responded with "Ugh...yea? And your contribution to society is what?"
DSR7997 @ Dec 10th 2007 1:39PM
Actually they should say, "watch the frickin gameplay footage from this year and shut it!" I mean the gameplay footage looks incredible.
Micheal82 @ Dec 10th 2007 2:19PM
That's the problem everybody does it. They put out trailers and screen shots that has been doctered up and we as gamers find out about it then get angry then go out and buy the game. For publishers there is no consequences for putting out fake trailers or screenshots.
Matt B @ Dec 10th 2007 3:58PM
The problem isn't that everyone does it, the problem is that a high profile Sony exclusive did it. And thus try to start another flame war riot.
Would it be news if H3, Bioshock, or whatever did it(and they did)?
No.
What I want to know, if the consensus here is that if everyone knows that everyone does it, why is it newsworthy???
OH wait, I remember why....
Dave Wakefield @ Dec 10th 2007 1:25PM
I remember good old Jeff Gerstmann himself in an interview following the 2005 E3 stating that he believed the trailer was in-game PS3 footage rather than the obvious CGI that it was.
elpmis @ Dec 10th 2007 1:26PM
I could never understand why devs doctor screen shots pre-release - why not spend that time working on the actual code/graphics? The reality is, you can make it as pretty as you want now, but will it be good come April when the final product is in gamers' hands?
Jeff @ Dec 10th 2007 2:38PM
Probably because it's the marketing douches who do it; the devs have better shit to do.
elpmis @ Dec 10th 2007 2:46PM
I hear that, but if it were done by marketing douches don't you think there'd be more lens flare? ;)
baby sea tuna @ Dec 10th 2007 1:26PM
Halo killer: Confirmed!
sike.
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Dec 10th 2007 1:33PM
psych!
Mr.ESC @ Dec 10th 2007 1:43PM
OH shi..
Shagittarius @ Dec 10th 2007 1:29PM
I would like to point out that a screen capture from a video game would not show 'blurring' due to motion unless the game itself employed a blurring function. Joystiq seems to be confused about the difference between film, cameras, and rendering.
Marty @ Dec 10th 2007 1:33PM
"Also, the "original" version of the image is a frame snagged directly from video"
Not that I am in favor of doctoring images of games, but a screen capture of a video of the game will most certainly have a bit of blur attached to it, just from the way the video is recorded to film / file.
Shagittarius @ Dec 10th 2007 1:34PM
A screenshot is not taken with a camera, it is a direct digital capture of the image on-screen, theres no film and no motion involved in capturing a frame of video via digital interface.
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Dec 10th 2007 1:34PM
Project offset does this. Its one of the big features about their engine. A still screen will have motion blur of objects in motion.
Marty @ Dec 10th 2007 1:42PM
Perhaps they are just using the term "screenshot" a little more liberally than you would, Shag.
phuink @ Dec 10th 2007 1:29PM
I wonder if the game play is "touched up" too.
Marty @ Dec 10th 2007 1:30PM
You are witnessing the death of integrity.
Mr.ESC @ Dec 10th 2007 1:45PM
I watched that already,courtesy of Gamespot.
Zoesch @ Dec 10th 2007 1:58PM
Admitting something can be seen as a shady/unethical practice? That sounds wrong you know, I'd say they were a bunch of lying bastard if they maintained that the shot wasn't touched up.
cc123 @ Dec 10th 2007 1:31PM
Oh boy. He should have known better than to say this on a forum.
Even if it is just some color correction, all its doing is giving the anti-ps3 ballbags a soapbox to declare this game ugly and Sony liars.
Cause I mean all the other screenshots we see from other companies are totally legit...
Shagittarius @ Dec 10th 2007 1:33PM
I'd also like to mention that the people on here criticizing the people who take these companies to task for their cheating ways on the forums and message boards should be thankful there are people who care enough to do that. It helps keep our industry honest and its the best way to proceed without having to bring actual law suits against the companies. We should be thankful for the pixel counters and screenshot comparers out there.
B1gC72 @ Dec 10th 2007 1:34PM
well at least they came clean with it. still looks like an awesome game regardless and ill still buy it. i certainly hope they would fix that lighting before they ship the game though because the contrast between those two pictures makes the one on the left look very dull.
Gimbal @ Dec 10th 2007 1:35PM
lol. Maybe they can have a spare SPU run a Photoshop macro for each frame in the frame buffer. And add Adobe to the long list of middleware logos shown before the title screen of the game.
On the bright side, at least it isn't a shopped screenshot where they added lens flare.
Snatcher (MDF - Halo Ring) @ Dec 11th 2007 12:30AM
I second this motion. Maybe if Sony added some extra RAM to that Blu-Ray player we'd actually see some awesome games. Whats the point of 50 gigs if you can only display a miniscule chunk of that f'in data at any given time.
Organic_Shadow @ Dec 10th 2007 1:35PM
I just now noticed after seeing this same article a few times earlier, that the screens are different- as in, the right is NOT an alteration of the left.
Someone took a screen of the video we were shown on the left, and the right is the screenshot they released. So until we see the build that they used to produce the NEW screenshot running on a PS3, we have nothing to compare to other than OLD screens and OLD video.
Not trying to defend them, but everyone does touch ups. And if anyone knew anything about photoshop they would agree that levels and color correction are extremely small changes. Killzone's various post-processing effects will do all of this for them anyway. Who cares.
why not the LS2LS7? @ Dec 10th 2007 1:40PM
Oh noes, they changed the gamma! How dare they completely misrepresent the power of the PS3! We all know PS3 isn't capable of a 2.2 gamma curve, only 1.8!
Seriously, this is a mountain out of a molehill.
gonk @ Dec 10th 2007 2:08PM
did you even look at the picture?
why not the LS2LS7? @ Dec 10th 2007 4:44PM
Yeah I did. There are 3 differences:
1. Increased contrast and color. This is consistent with a different gamme.
2. The sight is more see-through. Can't attribute this to anything.
3. The red dots in the dark areas are much brighter. I can't attribute this to anything.
#2 and #3 are definitely "touched up", but they're not a huge deal, they don't amount to anything. #1 is just a different gamma curve, since JPEG doesn't handle gamma matching properly most of the time it isn't at all uncommon to change the gamma on a picture so that the JPEG represents what was displayed on the screen when the picture was taken.
People are making a mountain out of a molehill. Go check the "screenshots" Kotaku uses for Viva Pinata. They are early target renders, not even adjusted shots from the game.
The changes made here are just not a big deal.