[QUOTE="A-LEGEND"] [QUOTE="Meu2k7"]I think they are trying to do the Crysis marketing approach ... bragging about the tech constantly to avoid any thoughts on the gameplay (luckily enough Crysis has had good reviews on gameplay) ... but will Killzone 2 follow suit? KZ1 didnt,Nightflash28
I dont even understand why they are trying. crysis was the only game i remember who did this. Bungie didnt even do it. all they did wa talk about it in podcasts for their fans, not to promote to everyone. and Halo 3 is a hell of alot more impressive tchnicaly than KZ2.
Please elaborate. (Seriously, I'm just curious to know your point of view, not meaning to hate or anything.)
boy i really dont want to do this. its going to turn the thread into a war.
ok, Much higher resolution Textures, much more detailed lighting (Global HDR. yes we know other games have done this but not nearlyas sophisticated) Destructable Vegetation with physics. Environmental detail such as water which rivals bioshock, (kill a fish in the water it bleeds and fogs it up as it goes down stream. subtle details such as this.) Much more things going on, on screen ALL on a scale of 16 KM FULLY modeled. Hell if you want to you can take a banshee fly up through the volumetric clouds and into the upper atmosphere where day becomes night and stars appear. and easily a dozen more littel details i dotn even remember.
Killzone 2 has a much more realistic art style which does make it "look" better to our eyes. but technicaly, i would have to say no. but i dont see how it compares when halo 3 does all that killzone two doesnt on 16 km and not in a linear level.
i cant comment on the AI. but killzone does seem to have igher poly models. but then again halo 3 is pushing much more geometry on its scale. like i said you cant compare the two. i dont mean it as "omg halo 3 pwns it yocant compare" but you cant compare because of the difference in the way it was created.
Log in to comment