CG renderings vs. In-game graphics

D

dadeisvenm

CAGiversary!
It seems ever since Sony displayed Killzone 2 and Motorstorm all critics could say is that "The graphic don't look like the CG trailer of the game."

Well no duh... its a game console not a "render farm".

If the graphics of the rendered trailer were being pumped out by a PS3 at E3 05, then it would be a different story. The same can be said for Motorstorm.

Now for those of you who have seen the videos of the Halo 3 teaser "Stary night" (?) and the Multiplayer gameplay, how close are they in visually?
 
What? Starry Night used real actors as well as CG. They never attempted to pass it off a real footage. By the same token, the multiplayer portions of games are scaled back graphically to keep them running quickly. Never mind the fact that it's a beta and likely going to receive at least a mild graphical touch up before launch. If I recall properly, the beta was for balance issues, not to show of the graphical muscle of the 360 or the Halo 3 engine.

I have no problems with CG trailers as long as there's not even a hint of an impression left that it might have been real-time. A good way to do that is to mix the prerendered shots in there with shots of the game in real-time to make a clear distinction.

That being said, in game, I much prefer that they just use the games engine to do the cut scenes. It might be limited to a certain extent, but it doesn't completely take me out of the experience like a pre-rendered scene does. The "Gee Whiz!" factor of FMV/CGI is long gone.
 
Actually, Killzone 2 trailer does look like the CG trailer, Motorstorm on the other hand looks nothing like it.
 
Never said "Stary Night" was in-game I'm saying comparions of in-game vs cg trailers are misguided and unfair, but that being said the trailer and in-game of Killzone 2 are very close.


Killzone 2Critics in the media argued that the trailer shown at the E3 2005 trade show did not show actual gameplay footage, as its high level of visual detail has been argued to be impossible to render in real-time even with the PlayStation 3's processing power. SCEA's Vice President, Jack Tretton, was quoted as saying that the Killzone footage, that was believed to be pre-rendered,"is definitely real" and "is real gameplay", but it was later claimed that Tretton was referring to Resistance: Fall of Man , not Killzone. CG Studio Blur spilled the truth one year later as can be seen in this interview and Sony's Phil Harrison later stated the video was done "to spec" during an interview with the G4 Network


Eurogamer - 09/13/2005
Killzone PS3 mail 'a hoax'
Killzone developer Guerilla Games has contacted Eurogamer to denouce an email posted on the GameSpot forums, supposedly from the studio's development director, as a hoax.
The poster claimed he had emailed Guerilla with an enquiry about the Killzone PS3 demo shown at E3, rumoured to be sped up CGI rather than real time footage.
Guerilla's "reply" confirmed the rumour, adding that the game was "looking just as impressive as the demo."
But according to Guerilla's Alastair Burns, the email is "unfortunately a hoax. No such communication originated from our offices."To date we have made no official statements regarding our current crop of games, nor our intentions," he went on.
"We have no plans to do so in the near future either."
 
[quote name='gokou36']Actually, Killzone 2 trailer does look like the CG trailer, Motorstorm on the other hand looks nothing like it.[/QUOTE]
I don't think the Killzone 2 real-time stuff is anywhere close to the CGI trailer.

And listen very carefully OP, because despite a couple of people explaining this, you still don't get it. The reason what Sony did with the KZ2 and Motorstorm trailers was misleading bullshit, and the Starry Night trailer, for instance, wasn't, was because Sony was out there telling everyone that their games would not only look just like those trailers, but that they would look better than them. The Starry Night trailer is a cinematic, and that's how it was always presented. It was never meant or claimed to represent the actual in-game visuals.

Got it?
 
I read when a company does a CG Rendering, it's basically what they are "Aiming" for graphic wise. I have no problem myself with CG Rederings as long as they specify it when they are showing the game off.

Also you'll notice a ton of companies use the words "Actual gameplay footage" before there trailers. The Killzone incident was the reason why.
 
[quote name='pimpinc333']I read when a company does a CG Rendering, it's basically what they are "Aiming" for graphic wise.[/quote]
Not always. They could just be doing intentionally cinematic promos.

[quote name='pimpinc333']Also you'll notice a ton of companies use the words "Actual gameplay footage" before there trailers. The Killzone incident was the reason why.[/QUOTE]
Uh, that practice predates the KZ2 trailer incident by many years.
 
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']I don't think the Killzone 2 real-time stuff is anywhere close to the CGI trailer.
[/QUOTE]

It really isn't close at all. I remember the original CGI trailer and how smoothly everything moved. There were a ton of subtle effects going on. Then we get the trailer for the actual thing and, while it looks good, it definitely doesn't have the sense of style that the original trailer had.

I really think it's going to be yet another generic, uninteresting shooter. Nothing about it stands out.
 
[quote name='Chacrana']I really think it's going to be yet another generic, uninteresting shooter. Nothing about it stands out.[/QUOTE]
It really cracks me up how yet again, there are places calling this the "Halo-killer" (IGN had a little blurb stating this the other day). Just like the first one.

Hey, whatever. The more they hype it, the bigger the backlash is gonna be when it ends up playing just like the first one, only better looking.
 
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']It really cracks me up how yet again, there are places calling this the "Halo-killer" (IGN had a little blurb stating this the other day). Just like the first one.

Hey, whatever. The more they hype it, the bigger the backlash is gonna be when it ends up playing just like the first one, only better looking.[/quote]

Yeah...Halo 2 had the BEST storyline. The press gave Killzone that title and they are the only ones counting on its failure.
 
[quote name='dadeisvenm']Yeah...Halo 2 had the BEST storyline. The press gave Killzone that title and they are the only ones counting on its failure.[/QUOTE]
Now, I wasn't claiming to be a Halo fan. I rather hate the game (I've beat both of them, liked the first third of the original, and everything after that was utter garbage). I was speaking in terms of makin' that money....and Sony is crazy to think that Killzone will ever be anywhere near as huge as Halo.
 
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']Now, I wasn't claiming to be a Halo fan. I rather hate the game (I've beat both of them, liked the first third of the original, and everything after that was utter garbage). I was speaking in terms of makin' that money....and Sony is crazy to think that Killzone will ever be anywhere near as huge as Halo.[/quote]

Again... Where in BLUE BLAZES DID SONY SAY THAT! All any console holder could want is a good shooter on their console.

SOCOM is one of them.

Metriod is THAT shooter for Nintendo.

Halo is Microsoft's.

Virtua Cop was Sega's.

And so on... and so on.... and so on....
 
I'm sad. I really gave the OP the benefit of the doubt and thought that maybe, just maybe, this thread wasn't started as flame-bait.

Oh well.
 
I think the big difference between the two is how they were handled. The killzone cg trailer (to my knowledge) was always meant as a press/industry/followers release. The halo vid was shown on Monday night football. We all know that Bungie and MS said it wasn't in-game. But Joe Smith Madden who watches MNF might go "holy shit I gotta have that it looks amazing."

Sony's approach was more of a buzz generator within the media for something they hoped to achieve (and hell, if the fucking demo level had over 2gigs of textures then I'm sure it looks good enough for me). Microsoft's approach was more PR to sell consoles. At least that's what it looked like to me.

I think overall it's better to just avoid the CG preview, but until it becomes as efficient to do ingame as quickly as CG, these methods will still be commonplace.
 
I think the Killzone 2 target and real-time video are sorta close. I think the stages look really close to the target video but the characters and actual action in the real time trailer look noticeably worse than their target video.
 
[quote name='dadeisvenm']Again... Where in BLUE BLAZES DID SONY SAY THAT! All any console holder could want is a good shooter on their console.

SOCOM is one of them.

Metriod is THAT shooter for Nintendo.

Halo is Microsoft's.

Virtua Cop was Sega's.

And so on... and so on.... and so on....[/QUOTE]

The problem is that they're touting it as their important game for this year and it's just... not. I don't even like Halo, but I can't see Killzone 2 being better than Halo 3 by any stretch of the imagination.
 
[quote name='Vinny']I think the Killzone 2 target and real-time video are sorta close. I think the stages look really close to the target video but the characters and actual action in the real time trailer look noticeably worse than their target video.[/quote]

OK so here is my point...

why the heck is everyone dumping on games like Motorstorm and Killzone 2 when the in-game MATCHES the very concept of there respective target video trailers?

Even the Halo 3 "Stary Night" teaser matches certain aspects of the in-game.

Grenades ----- Check
Return of Rifle- Check
Bubble Sheild - Check
Covanant ------ Check
Halo ------------- Check

The visuals in Halo 3 in no way are even close to the teaser/trailer.

The same may be said about Killzone and again the ONLY factual statement of any Sony rep. came from Phil Harrison when he supposedly stated that visually some aspects of in-game exceeds that of the trailer and guess what he's right!

Look at the gun. Look at the Hellgast... kill animations... environment.

All of it looks on par or better.

And yet and still, target videos do not have to match in-game nor should there be an exspectation for them to.
 
[quote name='Chacrana']The problem is that they're touting it as their important game for this year and it's just... not. I don't even like Halo, but I can't see Killzone 2 being better than Halo 3 by any stretch of the imagination.[/quote]

Thats funny I was under the impresstion Killzone 2 wasn't coming out this year. I think this year its:

LAIR
Hevenly Sword
Warhawk
Socom
Home
Uncharted
Rachet and Clank
Gran Turismo 5 Prologue


etc..


Killzone 2 is an TBA/08 title
 
[quote name='dadeisvenm']why the heck is everyone dumping on games like Motorstorm and Killzone 2 when the in-game MATCHES the very concept of there respective target video trailers?[/quote]
Hahahahah, bullSHIT.

[quote name='dadeisvenm']Even the Halo 3 "Stary Night" teaser matches certain aspects of the in-game.

Grenades ----- Check
Return of Rifle- Check
Bubble Sheild - Check
Covanant ------ Check
Halo ------------- Check

The visuals in Halo 3 in no way are even close to the teaser/trailer.[/quote]
Dude. You just fucking aren't paying attention, are you? We aren't talking about how well the trailers match up to the conceptual content of their games. I mean, WOW, the Halo 3 teaser has Master Chief in it, acting like he does in the games, using weapons from the games? Srsly? Wow, nice detective job, Sherlock! Microsoft almost pulled a fast one on us, there!

What we're talking about are trailers that are deceptively not only referred to as "target" renders, when the developers know they'll never be able to get the game to look anything like that, but are later claimed to be outdone by the actual games, which, in the case of Motorstorm and KZ2, is utter bullshit. The actual games are nowhere close to their "target" renders.

The Starry Night trailer isn't a target render. It's not meant to show what the game looks like whilst playing (but no fucking shit, it's gonna show off conceptual CONTENT [weapons, items, etc] that will appear in the game. No one ever claimed that it was.


[quote name='dadeisvenm']The same may be said about Killzone and again the ONLY factual statement of any Sony rep. came from Phil Harrison when he supposedly stated that visually some aspects of in-game exceeds that of the trailer and guess what he's right!

Look at the gun. Look at the Hellgast... kill animations... environment.

All of it looks on par or better.[/quote]
Dude. Either you haven't seen the target render in a long time, or you're a huge fanboy, or you're extremely high. Or some combination thereof.

[quote name='dadeisvenm']And yet and still, target videos do not have to match in-game nor should there be an exspectation for them to.[/QUOTE]
Uh, what? Why the fuck not? You're telling me that I shouldn't expect a game to resemble the "target" set for itself? The term is completely self-explanatory, but you still manage to completely ignore that blatantly obvious definition. Good job, chief.
 
[quote name='dadeisvenm']Thats funny I was under the impresstion Killzone 2 wasn't coming out this year. I think this year its:

LAIR
Hevenly Sword
Warhawk
Socom
Home
Uncharted
Rachet and Clank
Gran Turismo 5 Prologue


etc..


Killzone 2 is an TBA/08 title[/QUOTE]

Okay, so then Sony doesn't have an important game at all for this year, and Killzone 2 will be utterly irrelevant next year. Happy now?
 
it depends on the game really. i remember the videos theyd show in resident evil 2 and as amazing as they were and the game was all i coudl think of at times is man why cant the game look like that. now the lines blurring with each new console generation where more games use in game graphics to drive cinematics. i think with the new systems out ( the 360 and ps3 respectively) within the next year or so there wont be any distinction between the 2. and im excited for that because growing up in an era where games where freakin blocks with shit soun effects its amazing to see where gaming has gone and is going.
 
[quote name='dadeisvenm']OK so here is my point...

why the heck is everyone dumping on games like Motorstorm and Killzone 2 when the in-game MATCHES the very concept of there respective target video trailers?

Even the Halo 3 "Stary Night" teaser matches certain aspects of the in-game.

Grenades ----- Check
Return of Rifle- Check
Bubble Sheild - Check
Covanant ------ Check
Halo ------------- Check

The visuals in Halo 3 in no way are even close to the teaser/trailer.

The same may be said about Killzone and again the ONLY factual statement of any Sony rep. came from Phil Harrison when he supposedly stated that visually some aspects of in-game exceeds that of the trailer and guess what he's right!

Look at the gun. Look at the Hellgast... kill animations... environment.

All of it looks on par or better.

And yet and still, target videos do not have to match in-game nor should there be an exspectation for them to.[/QUOTE]

Hey, SCEA here. Thanks for the work you've done for us. Your check is in the mail.
 
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']Hahahahah, bullSHIT.


Dude. You just fucking aren't paying attention, are you? We aren't talking about how well the trailers match up to the conceptual content of their games. I mean, WOW, the Halo 3 teaser has Master Chief in it, acting like he does in the games, using weapons from the games? Srsly? Wow, nice detective job, Sherlock! Microsoft almost pulled a fast one on us, there!

What we're talking about are trailers that are deceptively not only referred to as "target" renders, when the developers know they'll never be able to get the game to look anything like that, but are later claimed to be outdone by the actual games, which, in the case of Motorstorm and KZ2, is utter bullshit. The actual games are nowhere close to their "target" renders.

The Starry Night trailer isn't a target render. It's not meant to show what the game looks like whilst playing (but no fucking shit, it's gonna show off conceptual CONTENT [weapons, items, etc] that will appear in the game. No one ever claimed that it was.



Dude. Either you haven't seen the target render in a long time, or you're a huge fanboy, or you're extremely high. Or some combination thereof.


Uh, what? Why the fuck not? You're telling me that I shouldn't expect a game to resemble the "target" set for itself? The term is completely self-explanatory, but you still manage to completely ignore that blatantly obvious definition. Good job, chief.[/quote]

As best that i can answer your childish post.

The double standard your preposing would very well call into question every trailer for every game where the trailers visual do not match the gameplay.

Again.. when a CG trailer display a high quality rendering of the gameplay, that can't be assumed as a picture of the final project.

That for example Ridge Racer 4 or Final Fantasy 8, only a fool would think the high polished CG although mimicing in-game is an expectation of in-game.

"Starry Night" is probably no concidered a target rendering because it wasn't sculpted in the first person view like Killzone 2.
 
[quote name='Halo05']Hey, SCEA here. Thanks for the work you've done for us. Your check is in the mail.[/quote]

Didn't I mention that ANY CG trailer for ANY game is an unrealistic comparison to in-game?
 
[quote name='dadeisvenm']Didn't I mention that ANY CG trailer for ANY game is an unrealistic comparison to in-game?[/QUOTE]

Remind me again why this topic exists?

Viral Marketers +1, you called it Halo05
 
damn I thought this topic would be about CG cut scenes versus real time cut scenes or something like that but instead it's a flame bait topic
 
I don't think they should do any CGI for games or the trailers. Why show a CGI trailer, it doesn't show me anything from the actual game? I don't care if what the original intention was either, to be just a trailer or to be a rendering of what the game will look like, any cgi for a game is pointless.
 
I hate it when people complain about games not looking like CGI trailers when the trailer wasn't using the same camera angles as it would in game. No shit Motorstorm didn't look like the E3 render, how the fuck could you play the game when all you see is mud splatter and a rotating camera? If they had the camera behind the vehicles like in actual gameplay it would look a lot closer.

Atleast they took it easy on the Heavenly Sword trailer at E3 05, it now actually looks better than it did originally.
 
[quote name='msdmoney']I don't think they should do any CGI for games or the trailers. Why show a CGI trailer, it doesn't show me anything from the actual game? I don't care if what the original intention was either, to be just a trailer or to be a rendering of what the game will look like, any cgi for a game is pointless.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. However, sadly, the casuals dictate the market, and those are the people these CGI videos are directed at. These casuals usually buy into the hype and BS that companies feed them, so, while the CGI videos are pointless for people like us who know the difference, it will generate interest among the less informed.

I hate CGI. Even when used in games. We have gotten to a point where real-time will suffice for in game cinematics. MGS does a superb job with real-time cut-scenes. I really hate CGI cut-scenes as they sorta detract from the game when you are shown a completely different setting with much better looking characters every 15-20 mins. Real-time is much more immersive, and, as a gamer, it is much more impressive for me to see a well done real-time cut-scene Vs a CGI one.
 
[quote name='dadeisvenm']The double standard your preposing would very well call into question every trailer for every game where the trailers visual do not match the gameplay.[/quote]
Double standard?!? Dude, are you this fucking dense?

Listen, it's very simple: A CGI trailer is only a "target render" if it is specifically advertised as such. Otherwise, it's just a cinematic, and non-gameplay, non-controllable, and often pre-rendered cinematics have been a part of videogames for decades. It's not deceptive to have a trailer showing off a game's cinematics, because they are, indeed, usually a part of the total game package these days.

[quote name='dadeisvenm']Again.. when a CG trailer display a high quality rendering of the gameplay, that can't be assumed as a picture of the final project.

That for example Ridge Racer 4 or Final Fantasy 8, only a fool would think the high polished CG although mimicing in-game is an expectation of in-game.[/quote]
I cannot for the life of me comprehend the point you were just trying to make.

[quote name='dadeisvenm']"Starry Night" is probably no concidered a target rendering because it wasn't sculpted in the first person view like Killzone 2.[/QUOTE]
Uh, no, dude. "Starry Night" isn't a target render, because Bungie and Microsoft never said it was. It's a cinematic, and that's fine. Look, it's not us, the audience, who decides what is and isn't a "target render" trailer. It's only a target render, if specifically advertised as such. And once again, the old Killzone 2 trailer was promised to be a target render (and again, they claimed to have the game looking even better, which is total bull), and Starry Night was not. It was a cinematic trailer to build general hype, but wasn't ever meant to be a promise of what the game would look like while playing it.


[quote name='msdmoney']I don't think they should do any CGI for games or the trailers. Why show a CGI trailer, it doesn't show me anything from the actual game? I don't care if what the original intention was either, to be just a trailer or to be a rendering of what the game will look like, any cgi for a game is pointless.[/QUOTE]
You're forgetting that pre-rendered cinematics are still a part of many, many games, and trailers advertising these cinematics specifically are just advertising those cinematics as part of the total package of the game being presented. I think that this can be perfectly legitimate, a lot of the time.


[quote name='TimPV3']No shit Motorstorm didn't look like the E3 render, how the fuck could you play the game when all you see is mud splatter and a rotating camera? If they had the camera behind the vehicles like in actual gameplay it would look a lot closer.[/QUOTE]
Camera angles be damned, you'd still have to be blind to not be able to tell the difference between the Motorstorm target render and the actual game, based on image quality alone (same goes for Killzone 2).

I mean, do you honestly and truly mean to tell me that, of the two, you'd have trouble identifying which is the real-time shot?:
motorstorm2006011701304ab3.jpg

ignmotorstormimage11845jd6.png
 
[quote name='dpatel']Agreed. However, sadly, the casuals dictate the market, and those are the people these CGI videos are directed at. These casuals usually buy into the hype and BS that companies feed them, so, while the CGI videos are pointless for people like us who know the difference, it will generate interest among the less informed.

I hate CGI. Even when used in games. We have gotten to a point where real-time will suffice for in game cinematics. MGS does a superb job with real-time cut-scenes. I really hate CGI cut-scenes as they sorta detract from the game when you are shown a completely different setting with much better looking characters every 15-20 mins. Real-time is much more immersive, and, as a gamer, it is much more impressive for me to see a well done real-time cut-scene Vs a CGI one.[/quote]sorry, but maybe for most games CGI is used horribly, but give it to a developer like blizzard and they make some of the greatest CGI videos you'll see. not only that they also add a lot to the story and atmosphere of the game. just look at that starcraft 2 trailer, don't tell me you didn't enjoy that.


and as for the OP. the difference is sony try to pass the killzone target render as in-engine gameplay while halo was just a commercial for the game.
 
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']
You're forgetting that pre-rendered cinematics are still a part of many, many games, and trailers advertising these cinematics specifically are just advertising those cinematics as part of the total package of the game being presented. I think that this can be perfectly legitimate, a lot of the time.
[/QUOTE]
Nope, not forgetting that at all, I don't think they should be used in the game or in trailers for the games, because they don't tell me anything about the actual game. I don't think pre-rendered cinematics have any place in a game.

[quote name='triforcer']sorry, but maybe for most games CGI is used horribly, but give it to a developer like blizzard and they make some of the greatest CGI videos you'll see. not only that they also add a lot to the story and atmosphere of the game. just look at that starcraft 2 trailer, don't tell me you didn't enjoy that.
[/QUOTE]

I love Blizzard games, but I don't think CGI is necessary in thier games, I would much rather they use in game scenes, and even then very minimal in games scenes. The best games tell the story during the gameplay, invloving you in the story, not using cutscenes or even in engine
 
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']Double standard?!? Dude, are you this fucking dense?

Listen, it's very simple: A CGI trailer is only a "target render" if it is specifically advertised as such. Otherwise, it's just a cinematic, and non-gameplay, non-controllable, and often pre-rendered cinematics have been a part of videogames for decades. It's not deceptive to have a trailer showing off a game's cinematics, because they are, indeed, usually a part of the total game package these days.


I cannot for the life of me comprehend the point you were just trying to make.


Uh, no, dude. "Starry Night" isn't a target render, because Bungie and Microsoft never said it was. It's a cinematic, and that's fine. Look, it's not us, the audience, who decides what is and isn't a "target render" trailer. It's only a target render, if specifically advertised as such. And once again, the old Killzone 2 trailer was promised to be a target render (and again, they claimed to have the game looking even better, which is total bull), and Starry Night was not. It was a cinematic trailer to build general hype, but wasn't ever meant to be a promise of what the game would look like while playing it.



You're forgetting that pre-rendered cinematics are still a part of many, many games, and trailers advertising these cinematics specifically are just advertising those cinematics as part of the total package of the game being presented. I think that this can be perfectly legitimate, a lot of the time.



Camera angles be damned, you'd still have to be blind to not be able to tell the difference between the Motorstorm target render and the actual game, based on image quality alone (same goes for Killzone 2).

[/quote]
[FONT=&quot]As I pointed out earlier, the reference to the '05 trailer as being in-game was mistakenly made by Jack Tretton who actually was referring to Resistance Fall of Man.

I never said the Halo 3 "Starry Night" trailer was a "target render" of what is to be a representation of Halo 3 in-game.

Your comparison example is misguided. Here is a comparison that may help.

[/FONT]


Snapshot from E3 2005

kz2e305.jpg



In the trailer you will notice this character is a high resolution NURB (Non Uniform Rotational B-spline) model with a high res. texture map, bump map. WAY beyond the realtime capabilities of many hi-end PCs and workstations and the PS3.





Snapshot form the E3 2007 trailer

kz2gp1.jpg



[FONT=&quot]
Also a high resolution model, but this model is polygonal (no round surfaces) well within the capabilities of the PS3.







Unfortunately this thread has degraded due to the lack of maturity on the parts of a few board members who can't find it in themselves to separate themselves form their console of choice. My gratitude to those of you who contributed positively to this thread.[/FONT]
 
[quote name='dadeisvenm'][FONT=&quot]
Unfortunately this thread has degraded due to the lack of maturity on the parts of a few board members who can't find it in themselves to separate themselves form their console of choice. [/FONT][/QUOTE]

LOL
 
First off, I'd like to point out that Metroid generally isn't considered a shooter it's more of an adventure game type thing.

Secondly, the actual gameplay in the Killzone trialer from 07 looks nothing like the Killzone trailer from 05. Honestly, Killzone is an FPS. What was done in that trailer and claimed to be actual gameplay footage can not be done in gaming. Just wouldn't work. They have to create thier own weird gender to make everything in a game play out like a CG Movie. I think CG can be eliminated in games, I really don't know why they have it in there, now that you think about it. It kind of makes the game look unfullfilling in comparison.

Thridly, why the hell did you prepare full presentations to try to support your point?
 
[quote name='dadeisvenm']nonsense[/QUOTE]
Okay, so, at no point did you explain to me what this "double standard" you made reference to is.

Furthermore, whatever the point of you comparing the two KZ2 trailers was, it made no sense.
 
Its idiotic when people put FMVs side by side with FMA's are ingame footage.

ITs like, hmm I wonder what looks better.

I believe that Motorstorm did match the essence that that the CG trailer put off, the utter carnage and intesnsity of the races. Graphically? OF course not... You are stupid to think that it should.

If they went up there and said, "THIS KILLZONE FOOTAGE IS ENTIRELY INGAME!!" Then i'd be like, hey that is not true... but they didn't. It was all the crazy Killzone fanboys and everyone else that said, "Hey that is ingame!" Not the developers or Sony's fault.

The console you are developing for is coming outsoon. Are you going to scramble to show some of your prepreprealpha crap and Concept art? No, you are going to show what type of game you are producing and what you are shooting for by making a quick trailer with another company.
 
[quote name='DarkNessBear']
I believe that Motorstorm did match the essence that that the CG trailer put off, the utter carnage and intesnsity of the races. Graphically? OF course not... You are stupid to think that it should.

If they went up there and said, "THIS KILLZONE FOOTAGE IS ENTIRELY INGAME!!" Then i'd be like, hey that is not true... but they didn't. It was all the crazy Killzone fanboys and everyone else that said, "Hey that is ingame!" Not the developers or Sony's fault. [/QUOTE]
Yeah, but here's the thing. Sony is telling us that both Motorstorm and Killzone 2 look BETTER than their concept trailers. It's bullshit to the nth degree.
 
[quote name='DarkNessBear']Its idiotic when people put FMVs side by side with FMA's are ingame footage.

ITs like, hmm I wonder what looks better.

I believe that Motorstorm did match the essence that that the CG trailer put off, the utter carnage and intesnsity of the races. Graphically? OF course not... You are stupid to think that it should.

If they went up there and said, "THIS KILLZONE FOOTAGE IS ENTIRELY INGAME!!" Then i'd be like, hey that is not true... but they didn't. It was all the crazy Killzone fanboys and everyone else that said, "Hey that is ingame!" Not the developers or Sony's fault.

[/quote]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRVAVdF8HLc
 
[quote name='triforcer']http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRVAVdF8HLc[/QUOTE]

DarkNessBear, you just got owned.

Not only did Tretton claim that it was generated in real-time, he said that it was GAMEPLAY, as in, it would look and move exactly like that if you or I were playing it.

Go ahead, keep trying to defend that bullshit. Sony fucking lies to you about games, they lie to you about technology (for instance, they've got people convinced that Blu-ray discs allow for bigger and better games, when in reality, any game that needs that much space could easily be spanned across one or more regular DVDs), they lie to you about price drops three days before they happen, they think you're stupid and insult your intelligence with their ad campaigns (alliwantforxmasisapsp, 'nuff said), and never, ever, ever at any point will they ever apologize for any of it. fuck that shit.
 
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']DarkNessBear, you just got owned.

Not only did Tretton claim that it was generated in real-time, he said that it was GAMEPLAY, as in, it would look and move exactly like that if you or I were playing it.

Go ahead, keep trying to defend that bullshit. Sony fucking lies to you about games, they lie to you about technology (for instance, they've got people convinced that Blu-ray discs allow for bigger and better games, when in reality, any game that needs that much space could easily be spanned across one or more regular DVDs), they lie to you about price drops three days before they happen, they think you're stupid and insult your intelligence with their ad campaigns (alliwantforxmasisapsp, 'nuff said), and never, ever, ever at any point will they ever apologize for any of it. fuck that shit.[/quote]

Relax dude.

What happened? They trick you into buying a PS3 or something?

Lay off the coffee.

*And about the video, ill watch it on my break or when I get home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top