Does crysis 3 looks better than killzone 2 e3 2005 trailer?

or we still didnt reach it?

Just went to look at it on Youtube since I've not seen it in ages. It looks so bad. I say loads of games look better than it.

Good to know:)

the characters faces in todays games, has a lot more details, but the clothes textures still look very nice in the trailer.

Forget Crysis 3, the actual game Killzone 2 was far more impressive.  There's nothing good about that demo aside from how clean it is, as is cgi.

Yet another horribly stupid thread of trying to compare something old to something new in a vain attempt at making fun of it. Pathetic.

Yet another horribly stupid thread of trying to compare something old to something new in a vain attempt at making fun of it. Pathetic.

Gargus

Aside from the animations (it was a CGI trailer after all), Crysis 3 actually looks better in a lot of ways. That CGI trailer was built to be "within spec" of some very generous specifications which the PS3 clearly didn't have. The particle effects are just too robust to be real time, the lighting (especially for the time) was just too smooth, and the picture was too clear. 

I remember in my days of fanboysim I used to defend that trailer. Oh I was so young and stupid.

Meh alot of elements in the e3 demo look worse then KZ2 Final, only good things that I can see are explosions, Aliasing and Animation. Texture wise its poor in some parts and effect wise the fire is awful

Nice links in the OP.

Also yes I think C3 looks better. The animations and transitions were better in the KZ2 trailer though

Aside from the animations (it was a CGI trailer after all), Crysis 3 actually looks better in a lot of ways. That CGI trailer was built to be "within spec" of some very generous specifications which the PS3 clearly didn't have. The particle effects are just too robust to be real time, the lighting (especially for the time) was just too smooth, and the picture was too clear. 

I remember in my days of fanboysim I used to defend that trailer. Oh I was so young and stupid.

Wasdie

Graphically it looks much better than KZ2 CGI but of course the animations and lips syncing is much worst during C3 gameplaysilversix_

Aside from the animations (it was a CGI trailer after all), Crysis 3 actually looks better in a lot of ways. That CGI trailer was built to be "within spec" of some very generous specifications which the PS3 clearly didn't have. The particle effects are just too robust to be real time, the lighting (especially for the time) was just too smooth, and the picture was too clear. 

I remember in my days of fanboysim I used to defend that trailer. Oh I was so young and stupid.

Wasdie

Forget Crysis 3, the actual game Killzone 2 was far more impressive.  There's nothing good about that demo aside from how clean it is, as is cgi.

Chozofication

The actual game came nowhere near that CGI trailer. Killzone 2 is not impressive by PC standards at all. 

Forget Crysis 3, the actual game Killzone 2 was far more impressive.  There's nothing good about that demo aside from how clean it is, as is cgi.

Chozofication

wait are you comparing a CGI trailer to an actual game?

[QUOTE="Chozofication"]

Forget Crysis 3, the actual game Killzone 2 was far more impressive.  There's nothing good about that demo aside from how clean it is, as is cgi.

kalipekona

The actual game came nowhere near that CGI trailer. Killzone 2 is not impressive by PC standards at all. 

[QUOTE="Chozofication"]

Forget Crysis 3, the actual game Killzone 2 was far more impressive.  There's nothing good about that demo aside from how clean it is, as is cgi.

faizan_faizan

killzone 2 2005 trailer doesnt even look good.. plenty of games this gen have surpassed itcampzor

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"][QUOTE="Chozofication"]

Forget Crysis 3, the actual game Killzone 2 was far more impressive.  There's nothing good about that demo aside from how clean it is, as is cgi.

123Sippi

Dat butthurt.

Why do people keep constantly going back to that 2005 trailer like its somehting special still?

It isnt.

There are alot of games running on current gen hardware that look much better

Other than the character models and some effects (like smoke or explosions), i would say that many games look better than it. Maybe even on 360 and PS3.

By miles.

KZ2 E3 2005 doesn't even look good, so yes, Crysis 3 looks much better. 

Heck, even KZ2 looks better than the E3 2005 trailer

Gee, I would HOPE it would look better than footage from a trailer in 2005...:roll: NYrockinlegend

Forget Crysis 3, the actual game Killzone 2 was far more impressive.  There's nothing good about that demo aside from how clean it is, as is cgi.

Chozofication

Just went to look at it on Youtube since I've not seen it in ages. It looks so bad. I say loads of games look better than it.

gameofthering

Other than the character models and some effects (like smoke or explosions), i would say that many games look better than it. Maybe even on 360 and PS3.

PAL360

Technically speaking, CGI will always be better than real-time.

CGI uses millions of polygons and pre-rendered effects so it's not really comparable to real-time graphics.

What looks better from a aesthetic standpoint is another matter.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Technically speaking, CGI will always be better than real-time.

CGI uses millions of polygons and pre-rendered effects so it's not really comparable to real-time graphics.

What looks better from a aesthetic standpoint is another matter.

 

AM-Gamer

Technically speaking cgi from 2005 that was used in games will rarely look better then whats out now.  Crysis 3, Killzone:SF and a host of other high end titles blow that CGI trialer out of the water.  For its time it seemed to good to be true but we have far surpassed that. 

[QUOTE="AM-Gamer"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Technically speaking, CGI will always be better than real-time.

CGI uses millions of polygons and pre-rendered effects so it's not really comparable to real-time graphics.

What looks better from a aesthetic standpoint is another matter.

 

AM-Gamer

Technically speaking cgi from 2005 that was used in games will rarely look better then whats out now.  Crysis 3, Killzone:SF and a host of other high end titles blow that CGI trialer out of the water.  For its time it seemed to good to be true but we have far surpassed that. 

Not really.

Not even the best PCs today could run that trailer at playlable framerates due to tons of polygons, advanced smoke and lighting effects and stuff like that.

It had better given that KZ2 matched it aside from some of the volumetric effects.

EDIT: And the amount of AA.

[QUOTE="AM-Gamer"]

[QUOTE="AM-Gamer"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Technically speaking, CGI will always be better than real-time.

CGI uses millions of polygons and pre-rendered effects so it's not really comparable to real-time graphics.

What looks better from a aesthetic standpoint is another matter.

 

nameless12345

Technically speaking cgi from 2005 that was used in games will rarely look better then whats out now.  Crysis 3, Killzone:SF and a host of other high end titles blow that CGI trialer out of the water.  For its time it seemed to good to be true but we have far surpassed that. 

Not really.

Not even the best PCs today could run that trailer at playlable framerates due to tons of polygons, advanced smoke and lighting effects and stuff like that.

[QUOTE="NYrockinlegend"]Gee, I would HOPE it would look better than footage from a trailer in 2005...:roll: Mozelleple112

No were not, KZ 2 beat the CGI trailer in some ways and was behind in others.  Next gen titles are easily on par with last gen CGI.

[QUOTE="AM-Gamer"]

[QUOTE="AM-Gamer"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

Technically speaking, CGI will always be better than real-time.

CGI uses millions of polygons and pre-rendered effects so it's not really comparable to real-time graphics.

What looks better from a aesthetic standpoint is another matter.

 

nameless12345

Technically speaking cgi from 2005 that was used in games will rarely look better then whats out now.  Crysis 3, Killzone:SF and a host of other high end titles blow that CGI trialer out of the water.  For its time it seemed to good to be true but we have far surpassed that. 

Not really.

Not even the best PCs today could run that trailer at playlable framerates due to tons of polygons, advanced smoke and lighting effects and stuff like that.

LMAO what?  The smoke effects were the only thing not possible on current gen.  High end PCs and the new consoles easily surpass it in every way.

Crysis 3 is the most technically superior people superior game in the world.

Even Killzone 2 itself ended up looking better than the 2005 trailer.

Not even close

The animations are too good

[QUOTE="Mozelleple112"][QUOTE="NYrockinlegend"]Gee, I would HOPE it would look better than footage from a trailer in 2005...:roll: AM-Gamer

No were not, KZ 2 beat the CGI trailer in some ways and was behind in others.  Next gen titles are easily on par with last gen CGI.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="AM-Gamer"]

Technically speaking cgi from 2005 that was used in games will rarely look better then whats out now.  Crysis 3, Killzone:SF and a host of other high end titles blow that CGI trialer out of the water.  For its time it seemed to good to be true but we have far surpassed that. 

AM-Gamer

Not really.

Not even the best PCs today could run that trailer at playlable framerates due to tons of polygons, advanced smoke and lighting effects and stuff like that.

LMAO what?  The smoke effects were the only thing not possible on current gen.  High end PCs and the new consoles easily surpass it in every way.

Toy Story would need about 7.5 TFLOPS of compute power to run in real-time (would be possible on today's top PCs), PS3 has, like, 0.2 TFLOPS and PS4 1.8 TFLOPS.

What makes you think CGI could run in real-time on the consoles?

What "looks" better is subjective (add more color and the PS3 game looks "better" than the CGI trailer), what can run on certain hardware is not.

[QUOTE="AM-Gamer"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

 

Not really.

Not even the best PCs today could run that trailer at playlable framerates due to tons of polygons, advanced smoke and lighting effects and stuff like that.

nameless12345

LMAO what?  The smoke effects were the only thing not possible on current gen.  High end PCs and the new consoles easily surpass it in every way.

Toy Story would need about 7.5 TFLOPS of compute power to run in real-time (would be possible on today's top PCs), PS3 has, like, 0.2 TFLOPS and PS4 1.8 TFLOPS.

What makes you think CGI could run in real-time on the consoles?

What "looks" better is subjective (add more color and the PS3 game looks "better" than the CGI trailer), what can run on certain hardware is not.

[QUOTE="AM-Gamer"]

[QUOTE="Mozelleple112"] Well then again, CGI is so far ahead of actually game graphics. Just look at for example FFXIII CGI, or the CGI in Deus EX, or SCII, D3 etc. We are YEARS behind that technology.faizan_faizan

No were not, KZ 2 beat the CGI trailer in some ways and was behind in others.  Next gen titles are easily on par with last gen CGI.

That doesn't change the fact that next gen models blow it out of the water. Poly's are not as important when you have advanced shaders and that's a area where the CGI trailer looks like garbage.  Its the reason new video cards didn't focus on pushing more Poly's because they get better results with what the have.  That trailer looks horrid compared to modern games

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]

[QUOTE="AM-Gamer"]

No were not, KZ 2 beat the CGI trailer in some ways and was behind in others.  Next gen titles are easily on par with last gen CGI.

AM-Gamer

That doesn't change the fact that next gen models blow it out of the water. Poly's are not as important when you have advanced shaders and that's a area where the CGI trailer looks like garbage.  Its the reason new video cards didn't focus on pushing more Poly's because they get better results with what the have.  That trailer looks horrid compared to modern games