Killzone 2 is only 30 FPS!!!!!

it's only running in 720P. wow, what a waste of a good game. PS3 runs at 1080P, why would they lower the quality? Sony, step up or step out.bluntiss

720P does not mean betetr quality. most games that ARE 1080 p native, get less detailed textures or slower framrate.

1080p is not so easy for big games. 720P is still the hotspot. you just like to say 1080P and think it does wonders. wrong.

precisely! people love to use the new lingo, without even knowing the impact it has on the games. 720p (1280x720) is the sweetspot for console gaming, because it is a lot easier on the systems to output at that resolution. Now 1080p(1920x1080) is a LOT more taxing on the system, and something like killzone 2, it would be very hard to get it at that res with a good solid 30fps. Hell most computer systems cant even output games at that resolution. Unless youve got an 8800 or 2900XT.

Now with 30fps. A good steady and solid 30fps is perfectly fine. Specially when it is locked at 30fps. Wow COD4 is running at 60fps. Thats that, this is KILLZONE. Dont compare two completely different games and stop abusing the words some of you console gamers have learnt this year.

I am shocked. To my knowlege I never knew that Killzone 2 is only 30 FPS. With the PS3s power Killzone 2 should definetly be 60 FPS. I found this out from Game Informer earlier today. Plz comment.

coolguy681

Its just not needed for a console FPS to be 60 frames, Halo is 30, Resistance is 30, even Unreal Tournament III is 30 and all those are very good games.

As long as it's a smooth 30 FPS you will not notice the difference. The human eye can only detect something like 27 anyway. Movies run at 24.

As long as there are no drops it will be fine.

You have to understand that they have to strike a fine balance between textures/lighting etc and framerate. They can ramp it up to 60 FPS but they would sacrifice a lot of the lighting/textures and the general atmosphere of the game to achieve it.

So far from watching the gameplay vids, they did strike a pretty damn good balance for KZ2.

[QUOTE="bluntiss"]it's only running in 720P. wow, what a waste of a good game. PS3 runs at 1080P, why would they lower the quality? Sony, step up or step out.furtherfan

720P does not mean betetr quality. most games that ARE 1080 p native, get less detailed textures or slower framrate.

1080p is not so easy for big games. 720P is still the hotspot. you just like to say 1080P and think it does wonders. wrong.

Bluntiss = pwned

lol

most fps are 30 fps. resistance was, gears of war looks like it was, halo 2 and halo were.

the only reason 30 was bad for madden is cuz sports games need to look like they are having a natural flow of movement.

60 fps shouldnt be expected these days, its a bonus to some games though.

it's not even out yet

they can make it 60

[QUOTE="furtherfan"]

[QUOTE="bluntiss"]it's only running in 720P. wow, what a waste of a good game. PS3 runs at 1080P, why would they lower the quality? Sony, step up or step out.D_Znuhtz

720P does not mean betetr quality. most games that ARE 1080 p native, get less detailed textures or slower framrate.

1080p is not so easy for big games. 720P is still the hotspot. you just like to say 1080P and think it does wonders. wrong.

Bluntiss = pwned

:lol:

[QUOTE="pettman1970"]

[QUOTE="Lo_Rising"]30 frames is fine for shooters people, it can still be a great game, just look at the halo series 30 frames and its silky smoothbizzy420

I will respectfully dissagree that Halo is silky smooth. When I used to PC game if a game didn't run at 60 to 80 frames per second; it was time for me to upgrade. Halo is locked at 30 fps and is for the most part tolarable to me as is every first person shooter that is locked at 30.I just prefer the more realistic movements of 60 fps.

thats what im saying man, console gamers have been playing games at 30fps since forever, and Pc gamers usually play at 60-100fps, thats why pc gamers can easily tell the difference, but console gamers cant.

Ever since I stopped playing high end PC games I have missed the super high frame rates and the good ole days of high res. crt monitors with high refresh rates. For the life of me I can't believe that this concept escapes most console gamers. You can see the difference in 30 fps and 60 plus. If you can't then you do not have an eye for detail at all. I work with graphic arts for a living and can spot details in it's smallest form. Movies being only 24 fps was originally adopted because of the cost per foot of film material. Some older movies were filmed at 30 fps and look so much clearer and smooth due to the extra frames yet still maintains it's cinematic feel. The HD era has madesub 60 fps games much more noticeable to many due to the extra detail these sets show. So in the end; if you can't see the difference in 30 and 60 know that there is a difference that shows and you just can't pick the details out.

Killzone 2 is a graphical power house, just like gears of war these games will run a smooth 30fps.

To me a smooth 30fps is great for this type of game, for racing games like forza and gt5 60 fps is noticeable and gives a better senseof speed.

Basicly games that are of such high quality like kz2/gears are not going to be 60 fps untill devs figure things out better on both console.

I have no worries about the frame-rate on killzone, everything looks great in killzone 2 except the AI, im hoping they sort that out as ive read several previews from leipzig and watched some video's and the AI is a mess, they will do some cool move like a roll or something to get into to cover and then they jump straight out of cover right into gunfire, not even firing they just jump out in front of you and look like a rabbit stuck in headlights.

Theres a few months left(well i wouldnt be surprised if killzone 2 came fall 08, just like ass creed,alan wake and many other games were ment to be out early 07, it happens every year) but either way im quite sure(well im hoping) this gets fixed as the AI the way it is will ruin the game IMO.

[QUOTE="bizzy420"][QUOTE="pettman1970"]

[QUOTE="Lo_Rising"]30 frames is fine for shooters people, it can still be a great game, just look at the halo series 30 frames and its silky smoothpettman1970

I will respectfully dissagree that Halo is silky smooth. When I used to PC game if a game didn't run at 60 to 80 frames per second; it was time for me to upgrade. Halo is locked at 30 fps and is for the most part tolarable to me as is every first person shooter that is locked at 30.I just prefer the more realistic movements of 60 fps.

thats what im saying man, console gamers have been playing games at 30fps since forever, and Pc gamers usually play at 60-100fps, thats why pc gamers can easily tell the difference, but console gamers cant.

Ever since I stopped playing high end PC games I have missed the super high frame rates and the good ole days of high res. crt monitors with high refresh rates. For the life of me I can't believe that this concept escapes most console gamers. You can see the difference in 30 fps and 60 plus. If you can't then you do not have an eye for detail at all. I work with graphic arts for a living and can spot details in it's smallest form. Movies being only 24 fps was originally adopted because of the cost per foot of film material. Some older movies were filmed at 30 fps and look so much clearer and smooth due to the extra frames yet still maintains it's cinematic feel. The HD era has madesub 60 fps games much more noticeable to many due to the extra detail these sets show. So in the end; if you can't see the difference in 30 and 60 know that there is a difference that shows and you just can't pick the details out.

What you are saying is true. I usually get 60+fps on my pc games but does that mean that 30 fps is bad at all? No 30fps is fine for me and plenty of other pc gamers. And like bizzy said, console gamers have been playing at that framerate for a while now. Why is it so important. This technical talk is just being thrown around daily now. 30fps is fine for games as long as its steady. If its a shaky 30fps with multiple dips then there would be a case in that but as this game isnt even in beta i believe and we havent even seen much new footage or details, the state of the game is obviously unknown. This thread needs to be closed or just left to die.

[QUOTE="pettman1970"][QUOTE="Liquid-Prince"][QUOTE="pettman1970"]

[QUOTE="Liquid-Prince"]Do people even know what the FPS means... Our eyes can't even see as fast as 24 FPS, and besides the game is a shooter not some sort of extremly fast paced racing game. Liquid-Prince

This argument never ceases to amaze and amuse me. My eyes must have never gotten the memo on this whole "The eyes can't see more than bla bla bla".

A human eye can not pick up the anything after 24 frames/second. Example: You have 24 pictures and you play them in a slideshow at 24 FPS, you can just about see every image flash in that second even if you can't comprehend the given shapes and such, but anymore then that and our eyes just glue a bunch of blurs together.

I'm not talking flashing pictures in front of your face. I'm saying when playing computer games to console games; I can see the difference in a locked in 30 fps and a stable 60 fps. Thats it plain and simple.

Oh really...so your telling me that after you saw the gameplay demo you realized that Killzone 2 was running at 30FPS...

The human eye can perceive just over 60 fps. There are many articles relating to this located on the web here is a link to one such article.

http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_3.html

[QUOTE="G-Legend"][QUOTE="Coldplay07"]

[QUOTE="rogerjak"]I prefer a steady 30 FPS then a crappy and unstable 60 .FPSrogerjak

Not always the case some games dip in framerate when they're at 60. Just because it's 60 doesn't mean it will ALWAYS be smooth sometimes games are made at 60 but they dip and the game becomes choppy in some points and I think a steady 30 FPS with motion blurr is better because of the amount of things in KZ2. A 60 FPS could have a lot more problems taking away from the experience of the game therefore losing hype and reviews giving it a harsher score. RFOM ran at 30 FPS and there were no problems so it's not a big deal.

~hi G

I just realised that a bunch of the people that make sense on this site are all on my PSN buddy list. Here's to us guys! CHEERS!

[QUOTE="pettman1970"][QUOTE="bizzy420"][QUOTE="pettman1970"]

[QUOTE="Lo_Rising"]30 frames is fine for shooters people, it can still be a great game, just look at the halo series 30 frames and its silky smoothMiguel16

I will respectfully dissagree that Halo is silky smooth. When I used to PC game if a game didn't run at 60 to 80 frames per second; it was time for me to upgrade. Halo is locked at 30 fps and is for the most part tolarable to me as is every first person shooter that is locked at 30.I just prefer the more realistic movements of 60 fps.

thats what im saying man, console gamers have been playing games at 30fps since forever, and Pc gamers usually play at 60-100fps, thats why pc gamers can easily tell the difference, but console gamers cant.

Ever since I stopped playing high end PC games I have missed the super high frame rates and the good ole days of high res. crt monitors with high refresh rates. For the life of me I can't believe that this concept escapes most console gamers. You can see the difference in 30 fps and 60 plus. If you can't then you do not have an eye for detail at all. I work with graphic arts for a living and can spot details in it's smallest form. Movies being only 24 fps was originally adopted because of the cost per foot of film material. Some older movies were filmed at 30 fps and look so much clearer and smooth due to the extra frames yet still maintains it's cinematic feel. The HD era has madesub 60 fps games much more noticeable to many due to the extra detail these sets show. So in the end; if you can't see the difference in 30 and 60 know that there is a difference that shows and you just can't pick the details out.

What you are saying is true. I usually get 60+fps on my pc games but does that mean that 30 fps is bad at all? No 30fps is fine for me and plenty of other pc gamers. And like bizzy said, console gamers have been playing at that framerate for a while now. Why is it so important. This technical talk is just being thrown around daily now. 30fps is fine for games as long as its steady. If its a shaky 30fps with multiple dips then there would be a case in that but as this game isnt even in beta i believe and we havent even seen much new footage or details, the state of the game is obviously unknown. This thread needs to be closed or just left to die.

The reason this fps talk keeps coming up nowadays is because fangirls think its a way to prove their console of choice is the most powerfull, And its all certain people now in terns of technical meanings when talking about games.

Personally i dont really care about frames per second aslong as my game is not like a slideshow, epic made a decison to have gears at 30fps so they could push high res textures and what not, its basicly one or the other at the moment on consoles, either beautiful graphics ie gears/killzone and 30 fps, or sacrifice certain graphical aspects for 60 fps ie forza 2.

And thats the way it should be 60 fps in games like forza and gt5 make a big difference and other fast moving games, 30 fps for gears/killzone/bioshock and others is fine.

People just think since the madden fiasco that 30 fps is bad, and because killzone runs at 30 fps its a negative against the game, but when really its not.

Its time gamers let the techinical jargon to developers and we concentrate on things that matter like gameplay,Ai,graphics,controls,storyline,muti-player etc etc.

Anyone else here besides me who is more concerned with how good the gameplay is versus worrying about what framerate the game has?

Maybe it's because I've been gaming long enough to know what it was like to have to use a paddle controller or write a batch file to play a game but last time I checked it was still gameplay that made a game great and not what framerate it had. If it turns out to be more fun than a carful of inebriated strippers (okay, yes, that'd be an exaggeration - but you get my point) are we really gonna give a sh*t that it's only 30 fps?

Anyone else here besides me who is more concerned with how good the gameplay is versus worrying about what framerate the game has?

Maybe it's because I've been gaming long enough to know what it was like to have to use a paddle controller or write a batch file to play a game but last time I checked it was still gameplay that made a game great and not what framerate it had. If it turns out to be more fun than a carful of inebriated strippers (okay, yes, that'd be an exaggeration - but you get my point) are we really gonna give a sh*t that it's only 30 fps?

ogie_s

I agree with you, the only time frame-rate comes to mind is when its affecting the gameplay.

I'd take an awesome game at 30 fps over and average game at 60 fps anyday.

I've heard this for some time, 30 fps+720p. Kinda dissapointing.solidscryer

I agree with u it is dissapointing. The PS3 always play up to 1080p. I thought this was next-gen.

[QUOTE="solidscryer"]I've heard this for some time, 30 fps+720p. Kinda dissapointing.coolguy681

I agree with u it is dissapointing. The PS3should alwaysplay up to 1080p. I thought this was next-gen.

Alright... this whole FPS talk is getting a little crazy. 30 fps is very good. If the game never goes below that there will never be a hiccup! Here'slink to a video of a guy with a computer (similar... hmmm... strange... to the one I have in my sig) he get's 540 fps on FEAR. Does he need 540 fps to enjoy FEAR? HELL NO! So why? Just because it's a another competition about the size of your ****.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUqB_tMY-jY

[QUOTE="solidscryer"]I've heard this for some time, 30 fps+720p. Kinda dissapointing.coolguy681

I agree with u it is dissapointing. The PS3 always play up to 1080p. I thought this was next-gen.

This is next gen, 720p is a high defination picture, dont buy into the 1080p true hd nonsense, 720p is still hd, in most interviews devlopers say 720p is the sweet spot to help keep the frame-rate high and the graphics gorgeous, name one 1080p game that looks better than killzone 2 or gears of war there isnt one console game.

720p is more than enough, the difference between SD and 720p hd is huge, the difference between 720p and 1080p is not that big.

Also 720p is just as good as 1080i they both have there advantages for certain tyoe of games but neither is better than the other, well IMO 720p is better because its a progressive display, heres a quick explanation.

720p vs 1080i. A 720p signal is made up of 720 horizontal lines. Each frame is displayed in its entirety on-screen for 1/30th of a second. This is know as progressive scan (hence the 'p')The quality is like watching 30 photographic images a second on TV. A 1080i signal comprises 1080 horizontal lines but all the lines are not displayed on-screen simultaneously. Instead, they are interlaced (hence the 'i'), ie every other lines is displayed for 1/60th of a second and then the alternate lines are displayed for 1/60th of a second. So, the frame rate is still 30 frames per second, but each frame is split into two fields, which your brain then puts together subconsciously.

Most of the time interlacing works fine, but for fast moving images, such as sports like baseball and hockey it can cause problems which manifest themselves as a 'stepping' effect on-screen. Progressive scan signals don't have this problem and so are better suited to sports.

30 fps + 720p is great for games, great for movies etc etc, people need to stop buying into the PR babble gams company talk about.

wow, and i thought the ps3 was supposed to be this mighty machine. Speaking of which, dont you guys get sick of playing the same games for almost a year now?

wow, and i thought the ps3 was supposed to be this mighty machine. Speaking of which, dont you guys get sick of playing the same games for almost a year now?

[QUOTE="Miguel16"][QUOTE="pettman1970"][QUOTE="bizzy420"][QUOTE="pettman1970"]

[QUOTE="Lo_Rising"]30 frames is fine for shooters people, it can still be a great game, just look at the halo series 30 frames and its silky smoothshadystxxx

I will respectfully dissagree that Halo is silky smooth. When I used to PC game if a game didn't run at 60 to 80 frames per second; it was time for me to upgrade. Halo is locked at 30 fps and is for the most part tolarable to me as is every first person shooter that is locked at 30.I just prefer the more realistic movements of 60 fps.

thats what im saying man, console gamers have been playing games at 30fps since forever, and Pc gamers usually play at 60-100fps, thats why pc gamers can easily tell the difference, but console gamers cant.

Ever since I stopped playing high end PC games I have missed the super high frame rates and the good ole days of high res. crt monitors with high refresh rates. For the life of me I can't believe that this concept escapes most console gamers. You can see the difference in 30 fps and 60 plus. If you can't then you do not have an eye for detail at all. I work with graphic arts for a living and can spot details in it's smallest form. Movies being only 24 fps was originally adopted because of the cost per foot of film material. Some older movies were filmed at 30 fps and look so much clearer and smooth due to the extra frames yet still maintains it's cinematic feel. The HD era has madesub 60 fps games much more noticeable to many due to the extra detail these sets show. So in the end; if you can't see the difference in 30 and 60 know that there is a difference that shows and you just can't pick the details out.

What you are saying is true. I usually get 60+fps on my pc games but does that mean that 30 fps is bad at all? No 30fps is fine for me and plenty of other pc gamers. And like bizzy said, console gamers have been playing at that framerate for a while now. Why is it so important. This technical talk is just being thrown around daily now. 30fps is fine for games as long as its steady. If its a shaky 30fps with multiple dips then there would be a case in that but as this game isnt even in beta i believe and we havent even seen much new footage or details, the state of the game is obviously unknown. This thread needs to be closed or just left to die.

The reason this fps talk keeps coming up nowadays is because fangirls think its a way to prove their console of choice is the most powerfull, And its all certain people now in terns of technical meanings when talking about games.

Personally i dont really care about frames per second aslong as my game is not like a slideshow, epic made a decison to have gears at 30fps so they could push high res textures and what not, its basicly one or the other at the moment on consoles, either beautiful graphics ie gears/killzone and 30 fps, or sacrifice certain graphical aspects for 60 fps ie forza 2.

And thats the way it should be 60 fps in games like forza and gt5 make a big difference and other fast moving games, 30 fps for gears/killzone/bioshock and others is fine.

People just think since the madden fiasco that 30 fps is bad, and because killzone runs at 30 fps its a negative against the game, but when really its not.

Its time gamers let the techinical jargon to developers and we concentrate on things that matter like gameplay,Ai,graphics,controls,storyline,muti-player etc etc.

Exactly and thats what pc gamers have been doing forever. With them they can drop the resolution a bit, lower the texture quality and eye candy a bit, and get some killer frames OR they can play it all maxed out at a res of 1920x1200 and deal with something around 20-30fps or even sub 20 if their pcs cant handle it. Developers for the pc have to optimize it for all platforms and leave it up to the user to choose how they want their game to look and run.

But for the console gamers they dont have that luxury. They're working with predetermined hardware. They've all got the same hardware so developers have to make all the decisions. You want a game that looks amazing with crazy physics, lighting and high res textures. Enjoy and be content with the 30fps. If u want them to dumb down the textures and lighting just for another 30 frames when 30 is already good enough then there is something wrong with you. Next thing you know, your complaining that the graphics suck and the game is a flop.

Gimme a break

Killzone 2 is a graphical power house, just like gears of war these games will run a smooth 30fps.

To me a smooth 30fps is great for this type of game, for racing games like forza and gt5 60 fps is noticeable and gives a better senseof speed.

Basicly games that are of such high quality like kz2/gears are not going to be 60 fps untill devs figure things out better on both console.

I have no worries about the frame-rate on killzone, everything looks great in killzone 2 except the AI, im hoping they sort that out as ive read several previews from leipzig and watched some video's and the AI is a mess, they will do some cool move like a roll or something to get into to cover and then they jump straight out of cover right into gunfire, not even firing they just jump out in front of you and look like a rabbit stuck in headlights.

Theres a few months left(well i wouldnt be surprised if killzone 2 came fall 08, just like ass creed,alan wake and many other games were ment to be out early 07, it happens every year) but either way im quite sure(well im hoping) this gets fixed as the AI the way it is will ruin the game IMO.

shadystxxx

you guys piss me ooff the video in leipzig had weaker AI becuz sony was showing details gamespot even said that in one of the reviews god -_-

wow, and i thought the ps3 was supposed to be this mighty machine. Speaking of which, dont you guys get sick of playing the same games for almost a year now?

Delbert84

get out fanboy

[QUOTE="solidscryer"]I've heard this for some time, 30 fps+720p. Kinda dissapointing.coolguy681

I agree with u it is dissapointing. The PS3 always play up to 1080p. I thought this was next-gen.

I am shocked. To my knowlege I never knew that Killzone 2 is only 30 FPS. With the PS3s power Killzone 2 should definetly be 60 FPS. I found this out from Game Informer earlier today. Plz comment.coolguy681

wow, and i thought the ps3 was supposed to be this mighty machine. Speaking of which, dont you guys get sick of playing the same games for almost a year now?

Delbert84

720p is more than enough, the difference between SD and 720p hd is huge, the difference between 720p and 1080p is not that big. Also 720p is just as good as 1080i they both have there advantages for certain tyoe of games but neither is better than the other, well IMO 720p is better because its a progressive display, heres a quick explanation.shadystxxx

[QUOTE="shadystxxx"]

Killzone 2 is a graphical power house, just like gears of war these games will run a smooth 30fps.

To me a smooth 30fps is great for this type of game, for racing games like forza and gt5 60 fps is noticeable and gives a better senseof speed.

Basicly games that are of such high quality like kz2/gears are not going to be 60 fps untill devs figure things out better on both console.

I have no worries about the frame-rate on killzone, everything looks great in killzone 2 except the AI, im hoping they sort that out as ive read several previews from leipzig and watched some video's and the AI is a mess, they will do some cool move like a roll or something to get into to cover and then they jump straight out of cover right into gunfire, not even firing they just jump out in front of you and look like a rabbit stuck in headlights.

Theres a few months left(well i wouldnt be surprised if killzone 2 came fall 08, just like ass creed,alan wake and many other games were ment to be out early 07, it happens every year) but either way im quite sure(well im hoping) this gets fixed as the AI the way it is will ruin the game IMO.

Mrbiggerdems

you guys piss me ooff the video in leipzig had weaker AI becuz sony was showing details gamespot even said that in one of the reviews god -_-

Well the gamespot preview of the leipzig build mentions nothing on AI.

http://uk.gamespot.com/events/leipzig07/story.html?sid=6177525&pid=928377&tag=topslot;action;1

Here is a comment by part of the development team.The developer admitts the problems and says they are working on it.

"The AI was not "toned down" as such, but if the player has god-mode on he wont have to use cover or play tactically so of course the AI will seem a little weaker in practice. That said, there is still a lot to be done to the AI till release and we know there are problems with it, some of which are not neccessarily the AI itself. For instance there is many states of animation that the AI can find itself in and going from one stance to the next can take a little bit of time making them feel a little sluggish occasionally. Or the AI is not allowed to react as they are too heavily scripted in a certain corner. Either way, we know what the problems are and where improvements can be made. Have we not delivered on the other fronts yet? "



Seb Downie - QA Manager - Guerrilla Games "

There is plenty previews on the internet speaking about the AI problems, the developer said they didnt dumb down the AI, god-mode was on but god mode doesnt make AI dumb.

Im not bashing the game im very excited about killzone 2.

But i think the poor AI is a legitimate worry, i do believe it will be fixed but at the moment it's a problem.

People who defend something regardless of the truth out their in video format and written format, even from the mouth of the dev itself p me off.

It bugs me now that nobody can have a legitimate negative comment about anything ps3 on this board without fangirls getting upset, same thing happens on the 360 forum, people need to stop defending a piece of electrical equipment or a software program like its there mother.

I am shocked. To my knowlege I never knew that Killzone 2 is only 30 FPS. With the PS3s power Killzone 2 should definetly be 60 FPS. I found this out from Game Informer earlier today. Plz comment.

coolguy681

I prefer a steady 30 FPS then a crappy and unstable 60 .FPSrogerjak

[QUOTE="shadystxxx"]720p is more than enough, the difference between SD and 720p hd is huge, the difference between 720p and 1080p is not that big. Also 720p is just as good as 1080i they both have there advantages for certain tyoe of games but neither is better than the other, well IMO 720p is better because its a progressive display, heres a quick explanation.gizmo_logix

Yes the difference will be more noticable in a 50"-70" hdtv, but as far as my expierence with the two the difference is not that big, i never said it was a small difference i said the difference between SD and 720p is huge the difference between 720p and 1080p is not that big meaning the difference between 720p and 1080p is notas bigas the difference between SD and 720p.

The reason the word true hd gets thrown around is because its a sony marketing ploy, 1080p sony hdtv have true hd/ full hd on a sticker.

So what your saying is 1080p is true hd and 720p is false hd, no they are both a high definination picture/display only 1080p is a higher defination display.

I never said 720p was the same as 1080p i said the difference is not as huge as the difference between sd and 720p.

And also mydescription was not 720p vs 1080p it was 720p vs 1080i.

So is Resistance whats the big dealAlphaRedWolf

Resistance was garbage. Killzone 1 was garbage. FFS remake Red Faction

Looks amazing, and is smooth at 30FPS. SMooth 30FPS > Jumpy Frame rate. If they dont think they cant push it higher, they wont. The last thing they want Killzone 2 to have is a jumpy framerate. Play it safe. its fine here cause it looks so damn good!JumpingMirrior

So r u telling me that there is no possible way of killzone 2 playing better at 60 FPS?

[QUOTE="JumpingMirrior"]Looks amazing, and is smooth at 30FPS. SMooth 30FPS > Jumpy Frame rate. If they dont think they cant push it higher, they wont. The last thing they want Killzone 2 to have is a jumpy framerate. Play it safe. its fine here cause it looks so damn good!coolguy681

So r u telling me that there is no possible way of killzone 2 playing better at 60 FPS?