KILLZONE, BAD?

Shadow Wulf · Post by **Shadow Wulf** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 7:47 pm

yeah but I wish they added music to the game. I like listening to music while im shooting grunts. ofcourse hearing the helgast shouting out orders and taunts aswell as hearing gunshots are always pleasant.

WolvenOne · Post by **WolvenOne** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 7:58 pm

Okay, just to clarify a point. The PS3's power is fairly well segmented in comparison to many previous consoles. The GPU of course handles the vast majority of the rendering while the traditional components of the CPU handle gameplay, the traditional components can also handle AI and Physics to an extent. What's unusual are the 7 additional Sub-Proccesers *SPU's* that were designed for very scientific tasks *AI and Physics.*

Long story short, you can have good graphics and good physics or AI at the same time because the latter is being handled by different proccesers. The questionmark is how good can things be if you use advanced AI and advanced physics at the exact same time. Since there are only 7 SPU's, it's very possible that all 7 could be needed to do highly advanced physics, which would leave the PowerPC core to handle the AI.

As for the PS# having graphics good as the Final Fantasy Movie. Short answer, no, it's possible to get graphics that could pass for something out of the FF movie at a very quick glance, but the level of detail will definitly be lower and side by side almost anybody would be able to tell..

Furthermore a HUGE part of why CG movies look so good is because of things like lighting and dynamic camera angles that're maticulessly thought out by artists. Videogames are dynamic, the lighting, the camera angles change at a moments notice to reflect the every changing situation within the game. As such things will ALWAYS look rougher in videogame form then movie form even IF the level of detail were the same.

Oh, as an afterthought, there's also things like facial expressions and such that are always going to be a bit more limited in game form.

WolvenOne · Post by **WolvenOne** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 9:14 pm

and for the record, that last post was mainly just me wanting to speek in geekineese for just a little bit longer. ;)

Shadow Wulf · Post by **Shadow Wulf** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 8:03 pm

but u made a good point.

Vuldari · Post by **Vuldari** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 3:33 pm

http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2005/20050912l.jpg

WolvenOne · Post by **WolvenOne** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 5:43 pm

Okay, first off, to correct an earlier point. I did a little research and a first generation PPU can only do about 30 thousand Ridged Bodies, not 50 thousand. Though that's still quite impressive.

As for Penny Arcade, well, I don't really consider them to be a fair source of analysis. I mean, first and formost, what they showed there was an EA title which was not designed to fully utilize the console it was built for. EA titles have a history of being rather cheaply slapped together to begin with and they have a long history of throwing around a lot of CG and such, even in the advertisments for thier current gen games.

Further more it should also be pointed out that advanced lighting effects and such are often done last and they can have a dramatic impact on the look of a title. Many early Xenon Screenshots looked horrible but newer screenshots released within the past month of the very same title look MUCH better. I won't say that it'll make a difference for an EA game as EA games are notoriously cheap, but it's something to keep in mind.

We will not see what either console is fully capable of until at least a year after the launch. This is a fact, as most "early games," tend to have thier engines constructed on PC's or for beta-kits that're much less powerful then the final hardware. Any source pointing to CURRENT screenshots and yell, "AHA!" don't really KNOW how console development works, or they're simply being cynical.

That being said, I must reiterate that video games will NOT look like current CG movies for quite a while if EVER. Sure we'll eventually see titles that "at a quick glance," could pass for CG, but when people sit down to really scrutinize them, they will tell the difference easily.

The only way we'll ever get REALLY close to CG movie quality detail wise, is if computer developers figure out some funky piece of hardware that allows computers to render NURBS at 60 frames per second alongside polygons. Frankly that's not gonna happen soon, it'll probably be another 10 years before we can see hardware like that.

Even if we did have hardware like that, there's a lot of other more practical factors. Simply put, video-games ARN'T movies, don't expect them to look like em.

Vuldari · Post by **Vuldari** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 6:29 pm

Do all the "research"and number crunching you want...the truth will remain that most first, second and even third generation XB360 and PS3 titles will likely only look a little bit better than the best XB and PS2 titles, despite having oodles of extra power in comparison. (...as the comic demonstrates)

Having double or triple or even ten times the number of polygons in a sprite, higher res textures, more reflective surfaces and dynamic lighting sources and some extra processing power still left over to play with for physics and AI will not make as much of a noticable difference as you may think (unless the game developers use them brilliantly well).

If utilized to their full, theoretical potential, the current gen systems could surely play games with graphics and dynamic environments more impressive than most of the games that will be released for PS3 in it's first year. ...though few of even the most higly celebrated game developers are brilliant enough to pull that off.

Of course, there will be the exeptions where a game will be built around it's graphics and cinematics as it's main selling point (in which case, those games will be mindbogglingly beautiful) , but most will not be like that.

You're right...Penny Arcade is not exactly the definitive source for the complete truth on the next generation consoles. ...but these guys have been deep in the buisness of videogame fanaticism longer and deeper than I have, and it seems they suspect exactly the same thing that I do.

Sorry to bust your bubble, but it is quite likely that the conclusions made in that comic are far more truthful than you seem to be willing to believe.

Just know this. Numbers are decieving. You could look at the numbers and see that the PS2 was X# times more powerful than the PS1, and then look at the same comparitive numbers and see that the jump from the power of the PS2 to the PS3 is equally, if not much MORE impressive (Numerically speaking), and assume to find a mathematically equivilant jump in the quality of the graphics from one to the other...but you would be fooling yourself.

(For example,) An 8 GHZ PC processor does NOT make a computer twice as fast as one with a 4 GHZ one. The difference is undeniably noticable and appreciated...but dissapointingly less significant than one might hope.

...just don't set yourself up for too much of a dissapointment. Some next gen games will only look "as good" as the best current gen ones, and a few may even look worse. Most of the rest will only look a little better, while a precious rare few will hint at what the hardware is truely (thoretically) capable of. ...just don't hold your breath waiting for games that look almost like the tech demos. They will be few, far between, and a long time comming.

WolvenOne wrote:That being said, I must reiterate that video games will NOT look like current CG movies for quite a while if EVER. Sure we'll eventually see titles that "at a quick glance," could pass for CG, but when people sit down to really scrutinize them, they will tell the difference easily.

The only way we'll ever get REALLY close to CG movie quality detail wise, is if computer developers figure out some funky piece of hardware that allows computers to render NURBS at 60 frames per second alongside polygons. Frankly that's not gonna happen soon, it'll probably be another 10 years before we can see hardware like that.

Even if we did have hardware like that, there's a lot of other more practical factors. Simply put, video-games ARN'T movies, don't expect them to look like em.

It sounds like we both have mostly reasonable pespectives on what we actually expect to seen in the next generation of videogames. The main difference being that I think you're expectations are still a little too high, while you think I'm pessamisticly naive about what this new technology is capable of in the right hands.

Maybe the real difference is in how capable we think the game developers will be in utilizing this new hardware to it's true potential.

Whatever it is...I think we both just need to wait and see what happens. Likelyhood is...we will both be suprised. ...for good and/or bad...

Shadow Wulf · Post by **Shadow Wulf** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 6:43 pm

Jesus Vuldari, dont you believe the next generation systems are going to be 3 times better than the current systems, I mean the best looking the ps2 and xbox titles that up now will be practicly dated when the new systems come out.

Vuldari · Post by **Vuldari** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 6:54 pm

Shadow Wulf wrote:Jesus Vuldari, dont you believe the next generation systems are going to be 3 times better than the current systems, I mean the best looking the ps2 and xbox titles that up now will be practicly dated when the new systems come out.

I only wish...

That would be awsome! ...but NO. I Absolutely do NOT believe the Next-Gen games will be "Three times Better" than the current gen ones.

More like an average of 179% ( > "1 3/4" times) better, with the BEST being only ALMOST three times as good (graphically speaking). ...more like Two and an half...

BETTER...but not that much better.

Shadow Wulf · Post by **Shadow Wulf** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:21 pm

I say 250% look at it this way, think of the graphics making a jump from the playstion 1 to the playstion 2.

Vuldari · Post by **Vuldari** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:29 pm

Shadow Wulf wrote:I say 250% look at it this way, think of the graphics making a jump from the playstion 1 to the playstion 2.

...so that's what you're expecting...

I'm expecting more like the difference between the Dreamcast and The X-Box.

Shadow Wulf · Post by **Shadow Wulf** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:34 pm

Dreamcast was actually fairly powerful if you look at some of their games, like shenmue...that game was very, very detailed and DOA2 looked glamourus.

Shadow Wulf · Post by **Shadow Wulf** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:35 pm

oh and I played killzone online last night, it was awsome but some people just decided to make the match 500 kills

. the game has almost no lags suprisenly.

WolvenOne · Post by **WolvenOne** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:49 pm

My biggest expectation is "Large Environment," and "realistic physics."

I also expect advanced particle effects to pop up which makes things look alot better then merely doubling the polygon count do. See, I'm not "guessing," what the next gen consoles are going to be capable of. I'm estimating.

I'm going... "Okay, take a Half Life 2 model, throw in particle effects, HDR lightning and advanced particle effects," and expecting things to look like that, but with better physics and larger environments.

Vuldari · Post by **Vuldari** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:59 pm

Shadow Wulf wrote:Dreamcast was actually fairly powerful if you look at some of their games, like shenmue...that game was very, very detailed and DOA2 looked glamourus.

I know...Shenmue, Soul Calibur 1, and some other games looked spectacular on Dreamcast. I'm expecting alot more polygons, textures and light sources to add up to not that much that the average gamer will notice at first glance.

I've not seen anything yet to make me believe otherwise...but I have seen multiple examples of Next-Gen Sequils looking only marginally better their predecessors.

Most of the Early screenshots of the next gen, and even current gen games look better than they will actually look. That's marketing. Even NINTENDO is guilty of this. Example: The Screenshots released of Zelda: TP are all in a resolution higher than the Gamecube can actually output. They can do that by rendering it through the more powerful development hardware they use to make the game with.

Don't beleive the game developers...they LIE!...ALL of them...

Vuldari · Post by **Vuldari** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 8:08 pm

WolvenOne wrote:My biggest expectation is "Large Environment," and "realistic physics."

I also expect advanced particle effects to pop up which makes things look alot better then merely doubling the polygon count do. See, I'm not "guessing," what the next gen consoles are going to be capable of. I'm estimating.

I'm going... "Okay, take a Half Life 2 model, throw in particle effects, HDR lightning and advanced particle effects," and expecting things to look like that, but with better physics and larger environments.

Now THAT is a reasonable estimate. Most Next gen games will look at least as good or better than the HL2 "Lost Coast" aria. ( hopefully with better physics. Though the physics in HL2 were widely used, they were not quite realistic.)

Shadow Wulf · Post by **Shadow Wulf** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 8:14 pm

not quite realistic!!! what do you mean, it was great!! unlike anything youve ever seen before

Vuldari · Post by **Vuldari** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 8:29 pm

Shadow Wulf wrote:not quite realistic!!! what do you mean, it was great!! unlike anything youve ever seen before

You can move stuff in more ways than in any other game before it...but objects do not fly and fall quite right, and the vehicles (boat and buggy) move very strangely. "Best Physics in a Videogame...ever..." I totally agree. ...but there is alot of room for improvement.

Shadow Wulf · Post by **Shadow Wulf** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 8:37 pm

well thats true, but you gotta admit its pretty damn good for a game who tries hard on physics unlike other games.

WolvenOne · Post by **WolvenOne** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 10:00 pm

I think note that advanced particle physics make a BIG difference. Particle Effects of course have been used for awhile in games but they've always been very simplistic and mainly used for little more then semi-fancy light-shows.

Advanced physics are a little different. Say for example, somebody fires a smoke bomb. Well with advanced particle effects using advanced physics, they can not only throw up thousands of virtual particles to simulate the dots, but they can have them move in a way that actually simulates real smoke. For example, something could move through the smoke cloud and it'd distort based on that movment accordingly.

This however, is actually a fairly simplistic use of the technalogy. More advanced uses can do things like simulate the distortion caused by large amounts of hot steam in the air, or a heavy mist hanging on the landscape.

So, even games using the same sort of models as in Half Life 2, could end up looking a whole lot better then half Life 2 with the correct use of particle effects.

WolvenOne · Post by **WolvenOne** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 10:59 pm

Incase folks are wondering. You can see examples of what games with advanced physics and particles acceleration look like at the URL below.

http://www.ageia.com/press/press4.html

Sadly, not only are most of these demo's put together using hardware running at roughly 1/4th the power of the final PPU's, but most of them are artistically pretty uninspiring.

However, with a little imagination it would give people quite a good idea of what might be possible with such effects in the hands of a good artist.

Also, these files are HUGE! Not only are they huge but most of them are running in slow motion for some reason.

Vuldari · Post by **Vuldari** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 11:07 pm

Absolutely...Particle effects ROCK! ...but really good ones are extremely hardware intensive.

Even the PS3 could easily bog down by extensive use of that technique. It's basicly like rendering every particle of dust in a cloud as individual solid, interactive objects...with real-time physics applied to each one.

The result is effects unlike anything we've ever seen before, (and it looks pretty d*** cool to boot), which add a very significant element of realism to the game environments. You can bet that such effects will be used ALOT...but it will be a balancing act. The more particle effects you see in an aria, the less other cool stuff you will see simultaniously. It will not take long for game developers to max out the preccessing abilities of the system with flashy stuff like that.

For example: In a game like "Splinter Cell" where the only characters on screen will often be just the player and one or two enemies, it would be possible to combine advanced dust / smoke/ steam Particle-Effects with dynamic, real-time lighting and shadow effects to allow enemies to cast shadows, not only on the ground and walls, but even on the cloud from the smoke bomb...or be able to see beams of light shinig through a cloud of mist realisticly. (Very cool...very pretty).

However...it would not be reasonable to expect to see those same effects in a heated firefight on the surface of a planet with a hundred enemies around firing projectiles in Halo 3.

The N-G systems will be capable of doing some cool stuff that were not possible on the old hardware, like advanced particle effects, more realistic physics, more inteligent AI, and so on, but only in limited application, and not likely all at once, or if so, only in scaled down form.

I'm not bashing the new hardware, or saying that it is not impressive. I'm just trying to keep it real. It is true that the new systems will be very, very powerful...but it will take a huge portion of that extra power to apply these advanced features to the new games. And thats just when you apply them to current gen-level game engines. When you ramp up the polygons, textures, and number of active objects on screen (cars, soldiers, monsters, chickens...whatever), and add destructable envoronments, and advanced sound effects (like sound echoing off the side of a building) then fewer and fewer of these effects will be able to be applied.

Take the Game "Full Auto" for example. (The released screeshots are decieving, as they are extra-detailed still renders of the in game models, not actually running in the in-game, real-time environment).

If you watch the videos of the game in motion, it only looks marginally better (though better is still Better), than the Best XB racers. The reason for this is not because the programmers were lazy, but rather because the game includes a huge amount of destructable elements, including the vehicles and anything you can crash into or fire a missle at in the game. That hogs up so much of the available proccessing power that detail had to be scaled back in other arias to allow it all to run at a steady, smooth framerate. The result is a game with alot more cool explosions than you've ever seen in a car combat game before, but one that does not look as impressively realistic as some other games...even games like GranTurismo 4 on PS2. (...though very, very shiny...)

Vuldari · Post by **Vuldari** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 11:24 pm

WolvenOne wrote: Sadly, not only are most of these demo's put together using hardware running at roughly 1/4th the power of the final PPU's...

...Not only are they huge but most of them are running in slow motion for some reason.

Oh please...listen to yourself. Try not to get sucked into the hype.
"...it's only running at 25% power..." Bah...that may be true, but 100% power will not make that much of a significant difference. ...it's misleading.

...I wonder why the "advanced" effects are running so slow, even in the demos? ...oh yeah... maybe because the hardware is being maxed out by even an "artisticly uninspiring" display of the effect. ...just maybe...

...stating that the hardware in only running at partial power, (though surely at least partially true) is just an excuse. You are seeing the limits of the new technology allready. Cleaver programming will make it run better in the future...but it will still stress even the PS3 considerably.

BTW: Are there any perticualr effect demos you suggest I look at. Downloading them all will take a long time.

WolvenOne · Post by **WolvenOne** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 11:31 pm

Okay, again, the PS3 has 7 Co proccesers that're pretty much designed specifically for things like physics and AI. They can do rendering but they arn't all that good for it. So quite a large chunk of the slack can be picked up by those when it comes to particle effects.

That being said, yes, mostly likely you'll only see them fully utilized in smaller environments like sewers and such. *Can you imagine playing the sewer in Half Life 2 but having the pipes spew out steam whenever they're shot?*

That doesn't mean they won't be used at all in larger environments. Just that they'll stick to stuff a bit more simplistic for them.

Now, as per early next gen games looking little better then say, Xbox titles. To anybody whom has observed the industry a long time, this isn't entirely new.

Some of the new SNES titles looked little better then games for the NES, many of the early PSX titles wern't that big of a leap over the SNES, many N64 games didn't look like that big of a jump over, and the Dreamcast was accused of looking only slightly better then the N64.

There's a simple reason for then phenoma. As anybody familier with with the industry will tell it. It takes at LEAST one to two years for developers to actually begin to use the full powers of the console.

Infact, according to a lot of industry insiders, it can take up to 4 years for developers to figure out how to COMPLETLY optimize things. Anybody whom looks at an early screenshot for an unfinished game of an unreleased console and yells "AHA! The Hardware's weak!" Has NO idea how console game development WORKS.

This includes Penny Arcade, or rather, I would say it ESPECIALLY includes Penny Arcade. They're probably okay as game critics but when it comes to hardware and game development they really don't seem to have a clue.

Of course I'm no expert either, but I've been poking around in videogames at least as long if not longer then the folks at Penny Arcade I assure you.

Okay, let me put things this way. Half Life 2, running at full settings on the PC, looks MUCH better then ANYTHING the X-Box could do. The Xenon howerever is more powerful then all but the most utterly rediculess Gaming PC's on the market right now.

(I would say all, but on occasion you hear talk of gamers with machines sporting 2 Duel Core CPU's a 2 GeForce 7800 GTX's.)

So given that a top end PC can easily outdo an X-Box, it's illogical to state that thier successer will not also easily outdo an X-Box. Especially once the developers are given enough time to optimize Software for the platform.

So either you're exagerating things or you're looking at extreme cases, and assuming theyll be the norm.

WolvenOne · Post by **WolvenOne** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 11:36 pm

Okay, specifically, what I heard is that the beta drivers for the hardware could only support 1/4th the amount of ridged bodies and 1/4th the amount of particles the final hardware was capable of.

As per why it's so slow. I would actually assume that they're trying to slow things down so developers got a better look at things. Most of these demo's were made for developers conferences and not the general public.

As per which one I would suggest. Well I'm actually still going through em. I'll let you know when I find one that strikes my fancy.