Graphics War!!! Halo 3 (Xbox360) versus Killzone 2 (PS3)

Some may call me a lemming because I just own an xbox 360. It doesnt stop me from admitting that KZ looks better then Halo 3 in the graphics department. Look at both the trailers shown for E3 and then decide and the decision is pretty clear. Hopefully both will be awesome games so everyone wins.aDDiKt24

I actually admire what Guerilla does.

A mix of pre rendered lighting and real time, no shadows at the beginning of the trailer..... these illusions just make the game look really nice.

Killzone looks better imo. Will it be able to surpass Halo 3 in terms of quality though? Who knows, but it's a tough game to beat for sure.

Can't wait to play Halo MP again.

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

Did you just question how big Halo's levels are going to be?

According to Bungie, if you stitched all of their multiplayer maps together, it's still not bigger as their smallest single player level. And considering the multiplayer level "Sandtrap", that's freakin' huge.

bengilder

yes as i said we heard its big but we havent seen it. like i say seeing is beliving. Im just stating that we cant really compare them both yet cause bungie isnt letting us look too much into the single-player game so we dont know how big we get to see on screen at once (cause all we seen is looking at the wall or a cliff or at master cheif). Its just that we need bigger and better screenshots thats shows this off or at least a video (yes i know there was the e3 trailer but as i said they dont show off how big the level is).

If you watch the E3 trailer, you'll see there are some areas that are reminescent of the open spaces found in Assault on the Control Room.

We don't need to be spoon fed every single thing. Sometimes you can put the puzzle pieces together.

I'm not speaking for KZ, but Halo 3's levels are going to be huge.

I'm watching it over and over again as I type this. What's wrong with it?

When we spar in martial arts, it looks almost like that. Remember, the Brute is stronger than anyone could conceive here on Earth.

FrozenLiquid

The marine's body seems to have no mass and the animation occurs at a frame rate that would have been right at home on the original XBox. Actually, there are several games on PS2 that show violence to humanoid bodies in a far more realistic way; think of the scene where Col. Volgin is beating Naked Snake's ass in, during that scene in MGS 3; or the way it looks when Bruce lands his step-forward kick on an opponent in Tekken 5.

It isn't about how hard the body is being struck; it's that it seems to be nearly weightless because of the way it animates. It's also about the fact that the frame rate is embarrassingly low. I didn't see anything in all the KZ2 footage that looked so rough.

[QUOTE="WeeWeeJumbo"] I am SO TIRED of seeing flailing arms when guys have been thrown into the air. Have you guys seen that awful moment in the Halo 3 trailer where the Elite grabs a human by the hand and kicks him through a doorway? FrozenLiquid

I'm watching it over and over again as I type this. What's wrong with it?

When we spar in martial arts, it looks almost like that. Remember, the Brute is stronger than anyone could conceive here on Earth.

I think he's talking about how bad the animation was.

hey this is a god thread its shows what if halo 3 looks like if it had the killzone darkish look and such. http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=25767437

also he puts up a good point the graphics in halo has a sort of cartoonish look (like blue and yellow sparks and stuff with nice rich colours) and killzone graphics is aiming for a more realistic war look so to be honest they are totaly different games and are looking to go for a different graphics goal.

Dont judge Killzone yet. Its still in the Alpha stages :cry:

LMAO lemmons

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

[QUOTE="WeeWeeJumbo"] I am SO TIRED of seeing flailing arms when guys have been thrown into the air. Have you guys seen that awful moment in the Halo 3 trailer where the Elite grabs a human by the hand and kicks him through a doorway? inertk

I'm watching it over and over again as I type this. What's wrong with it?

When we spar in martial arts, it looks almost like that. Remember, the Brute is stronger than anyone could conceive here on Earth.

I think he's talking about how bad the animation was.

Yeah..... perhaps if the guys was smacked by a human sized fella, that would've been bad. But he was getting walloped by God only knows how powerful than thing is.

I don't want to sound sick or anything, but has anyone seen that video of a guy trying to run across the motorway and getting hit by a car? Bad animation? No.... he just got hit by 3 tonnes moving at 80 mph. And he looked like he was a piece of paper floating in the air.

Dont judge Killzone yet. Its still in the Alpha stages :cry:

LMAO lemmons

silverjiken

Even though this seems to a post slung out as bait, I'll just like to say one thing.

Even in these early stages, Killzone is at the same tier as Halo 3. One thing though, how is it that Halo was given such a free ride through all the pre-alpha, alpha and beta stages and no other game is really given that same luxury. Everyone's complaining about low-res textures in an alpha build for Killzone yet it was so taboo to speak ill of Halo's graphics during a similar time frame.

What gives? Payback since people still voiced their opinion on Halo 3 [which was shot down as nothing but fanboy BS, along with the hope things would get better] or a double standard?

hey this is a god thread its shows what if halo 3 looks like if it had the killzone darkish look and such. http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=25767437

also he puts up a good point the graphics in halo has a sort of cartoonish look (like blue and yellow sparks and stuff with nice rich colours) and killzone graphics is aiming for a more realistic war look so to be honest they are totaly different games and are looking to go for a different graphics goal.

bengilder

I personally don't think KZ 2 is going for a realistic look. I think it's going for a surreal look in a different manner from Halo.

Basically, everything's a little exaggerated.

If you watch the E3 trailer, you'll see there are some areas that are reminescent of the open spaces found in Assault on the Control Room.

We don't need to be spoon fed every single thing. Sometimes you can put the puzzle pieces together.

I'm not speaking for KZ, but Halo 3's levels are going to be huge.

FrozenLiquid

im suppose your right there. that halo 3 has a more open enviroment and not narrow paths and stuff and lots of objects.

However what we do need to compare is city halo vs city killzone (which we have a city killzone) or a landscape halo vs landscape killzone (which we have a landscape of halo.)

so really we need 2 screenshots of the same type of this to compare before we find out which graphics look best. and yes i know we can puzzle things together but i would just like to see stuff were we dont like idk a video of 5 minutes of halo 3 (surely that wont give too much away about it) of a level that is.

Bases on the videos i ve seen Killzone 2 Hands downis afar better grahical prsentation and thats coming from Xbox 360 owner i dont even see how you could compare the 2 its just no contest. Oh and dont base your oppinion on the screenshots when it could take you not long to watch both games in motion

Bases on the videos i ve seen Killzone 2 Hands downis afar better grahical prsentation and thats coming from Xbox 360 owner i dont even see how you could compare the 2 its just no contest. Oh and dont base your oppinion on the screenshots when it could take you not long to watch both games in motion

James567

Agreed

Some may call me a lemming because I just own an xbox 360. It doesnt stop me from admitting that KZ looks better then Halo 3 in the graphics department. Look at both the trailers shown for E3 and then decide and the decision is pretty clear. Hopefully both will be awesome games so everyone wins.aDDiKt24

i know what you man. people have barely seen killzone they think they know everthing about it. as if phil harrison would let this game turn out like the first one.

[QUOTE="-Spock-"][QUOTE="Lilac_Benjie"] I agree really. Killzone 2 is too dark.skyform

It's meant to be like that. The atmosphere wouldn't be the same if it was too bright.

Yeah but why did cows bash Gears for it's darkness, even if Gears is not dark, only in some levels.

Gears has very different colour and brightnes in every level but cows don't know that because they never played it and then they come with stupid coments, that in gears you don't see anything other then darkness, that the game is all dakr and not impressive graphical, poor fanboys, im glad that im non fanboy, that really must be stupid, hating other consoles and games that you don't even know:roll:

Excuse me, what the **** are you talking about? Cow? Grow up kid.. :roll:

Those Halo screens are from a build thats almost finished. Like 2 moths the game ships. Killzone on the other hand wont be finished until at least 7 months. You cant possibly compare them right now. Although KZ2 doesnt look that bad for an early build, so it has lots of potential. So I put my money on KZ2 to have the best console graphics next year.abudjasim

Cool, so you know how Bungie works and operates?

They have stated that they work the best under pressure, so until the very last minute will they start doing leaps and bounds. It's like how I work :lol:

Those Halo screens are from a build thats almost finished. Like 2 moths the game ships. Killzone on the other hand wont be finished until at least 7 months. You cant possibly compare them right now. Although KZ2 doesnt look that bad for an early build, so it has lots of potential. So I put my money on KZ2 to have the best console graphics next year.abudjasim

Hey look everyone, its a bungie insider. How did you manage to get all of this top secret information? :roll:

i know what you man. people have barely seen killzone they think they know everthing about it. as if phil harrison would let this game turn out like the first one.

PowerCharged

Of course they would. Because in their eyes the first one wasn't even bad. The official playstation magazines all gave it 9's out of 10. They were in complete denial because they'd hyped it to oblivion. Why else would they make it their keynote game to show off for the PS3's unveiling? Clearly they think the first one was pretty good.

And if they hyped the original to such supreme heights and allowed it to ship being the mediocre load of nothingness it was, what makes you think it'll be any different this time?

Yeah..... perhaps if the guys was smacked by a human sized fella, that would've been bad. But he was getting walloped by God only knows how powerful than thing is.

I don't want to sound sick or anything, but has anyone seen that video of a guy trying to run across the motorway and getting hit by a car? Bad animation? No.... he just got hit by 3 tonnes moving at 80 mph. And he looked like he was a piece of paper floating in the air.

FrozenLiquid

What I'm talking about wouldn't change depending on how hard the humanoid body was struck. Look, if you don't agree that the animation of that kick is bad, well, fine, but I'm not the only one who found that moment to be a depressingly low point of the presentation. I mean, do you remember the way it looked in The Lord of the Rings, when Sauron was flinging guys left and right with his club? That looked awesome. They looked like human bodies being struck with incredible force. Do you not see the difference between the way their bodies reacted to the club, and the way the marine's body reacts to the kick? It's not about his rate of acceleration, it's about the way his body looks. And the crummy frame rate.

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

Yeah..... perhaps if the guys was smacked by a human sized fella, that would've been bad. But he was getting walloped by God only knows how powerful than thing is.

I don't want to sound sick or anything, but has anyone seen that video of a guy trying to run across the motorway and getting hit by a car? Bad animation? No.... he just got hit by 3 tonnes moving at 80 mph. And he looked like he was a piece of paper floating in the air.

WeeWeeJumbo

What I'm talking about wouldn't change depending on how hard the humanoid body was struck. Look, if you don't agree that the animation of that kick is bad, well, fine, but I'm not the only one who found that moment to be a depressingly low point of the presentation.

I see it all the time when we're caught off guard in martial arts. Yeah it looks weird, and you don't see it everyday.

I think the punch the marine tries to give before the actual flailing is a little jarring. It's like he built up no energy at all.

Funny watching a game finished in developement compare to a PS3 game that has 8 or 9 months left in developement. I love the way Killzone 2 flows and its realistic showing. Halo is very pretty and with sharp textures.

Screen shots Halo

Actial gameplay Killzone.

Funny watching a game finished in developement compare to a PS3 game that has 8 or 9 months left in developement. I love the way Killzone 2 flows and its realistic showing. Halo is very pretty and with sharp textures.

Screen shots Halo

Actial gameplay Killzone.

caseypayne69

I don't usually agree with much that you say but I think you hit the nail on the head here; in fact, this is a trend we see in many comparisons between PS3 and 360 games.

[QUOTE="caseypayne69"]

Funny watching a game finished in developement compare to a PS3 game that has 8 or 9 months left in developement. I love the way Killzone 2 flows and its realistic showing. Halo is very pretty and with sharp textures.

Screen shots Halo

Actial gameplay Killzone.

WeeWeeJumbo

I don't usually agree with much that you say but I think you hit the nail on the head here; in fact, this is a trend we see in many comparisons between PS3 and 360 games.

Well, to be fair, the 360 lineup of '08 and '09 have not been unveiled yet.

By the way when does Heavenly Sword come out?

textures and detail: HAlo3 by FAR

character animation and art direction: KZ2 BY FAR

textures and detail: HAlo3 by FAR

character animation and art direction: KZ2 BY FAR

furtherfan

Um, there is really no winner for art direction.

That is something purely subjective in video games.

[QUOTE="PowerCharged"]

i know what you man. people have barely seen killzone they think they know everthing about it. as if phil harrison would let this game turn out like the first one.

Ninja-Vox

Of course they would. Because in their eyes the first one wasn't even bad. The official playstation magazines all gave it 9's out of 10. They were in complete denial because they'd hyped it to oblivion. Why else would they make it their keynote game to show off for the PS3's unveiling? Clearly they think the first one was pretty good.

And if they hyped the original to such supreme heights and allowed it to ship being the mediocre load of nothingness it was, what makes you think it'll be any different this time?

Yeah your absolutley right sony are gonna lets this game turn out completly rubbish.

I suppose the 40 million dollars ( or was it 20? ) they put into the project wasnt actually spent on game development but was spent on nappies for employees with weak bladders.

And suppose the fact that sony have spent 2 years on the project drasticly incresed the size of the develoment team and intend to keep developing it for another 8 months isnt because they want to make the game as good as it can be. No that time is gonna be spent by the gurrelia and sony teams smoking crack, highering prostiutes, binge drinking and loads of other activities but certainly not ondeveloping and testing the game to make it good.

Sarcasm aside Could sony cock up Killzone? of course they could. But so could any game developer. However it is clear to me that they putting in as much resouces as possible for that not to happen

[QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"][QUOTE="PowerCharged"]

i know what you man. people have barely seen killzone they think they know everthing about it. as if phil harrison would let this game turn out like the first one.

James567

Of course they would. Because in their eyes the first one wasn't even bad. The official playstation magazines all gave it 9's out of 10. They were in complete denial because they'd hyped it to oblivion. Why else would they make it their keynote game to show off for the PS3's unveiling? Clearly they think the first one was pretty good.

And if they hyped the original to such supreme heights and allowed it to ship being the mediocre load of nothingness it was, what makes you think it'll be any different this time?

Yeah your absolutley right sony are gonna lets this game turn out completly rubbish.

I suppose the 40 million dollars ( or was it 20? ) they put into the project wasnt actually spent on game development but was spent on nappies for employees with weak bladders.

And suppose the fact that sony have spent 2 years on the project drasticly incresed the size of the develoment team and intend to keep developing it for another 8 months isnt because they want to make the game as good as it can be. No that time is gonna be spent by the gurrelia and sony teams smoking crack, highering prostiutes, binge drinking and loads of other activities but certainly not ondeveloping and testing the game to make it good.

Sarcasm aside Could sony cock up Killzone? of course they could. But so could any game developer. However it is clear to me that they putting in as much resouces as possible for that not to happen

40 million is nothing. Seriously, it's not.

I love it how cows quote that it's more expensive than the most expensive Dutch film or whatever it is. Yeah, when you got Transformers going at $150 million dollars, and that's not the most expensive film made in the US, one just has to wonder how good the production values of the movie was, right?

I'm not sure the exact cost of Too Human, but it's huge. And not many people would rush to say that game is AAA material now, would they (although I'd disagree)?

[QUOTE="James567"][QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"][QUOTE="PowerCharged"]

i know what you man. people have barely seen killzone they think they know everthing about it. as if phil harrison would let this game turn out like the first one.

FrozenLiquid

Of course they would. Because in their eyes the first one wasn't even bad. The official playstation magazines all gave it 9's out of 10. They were in complete denial because they'd hyped it to oblivion. Why else would they make it their keynote game to show off for the PS3's unveiling? Clearly they think the first one was pretty good.

And if they hyped the original to such supreme heights and allowed it to ship being the mediocre load of nothingness it was, what makes you think it'll be any different this time?

Yeah your absolutley right sony are gonna lets this game turn out completly rubbish.

I suppose the 40 million dollars ( or was it 20? ) they put into the project wasnt actually spent on game development but was spent on nappies for employees with weak bladders.

And suppose the fact that sony have spent 2 years on the project drasticly incresed the size of the develoment team and intend to keep developing it for another 8 months isnt because they want to make the game as good as it can be. No that time is gonna be spent by the gurrelia and sony teams smoking crack, highering prostiutes, binge drinking and loads of other activities but certainly not ondeveloping and testing the game to make it good.

Sarcasm aside Could sony cock up Killzone? of course they could. But so could any game developer. However it is clear to me that they putting in as much resouces as possible for that not to happen

40 million is nothing. Seriously, it's not.

I love it how cows quote that it's more expensive than the most expensive Dutch film or whatever it is. Yeah, when you got Transformers going at $150 million dollars, and that's not the most expensive film made in the US, one just has to wonder how good the production values of the movie was, right?

I'm not sure the exact cost of Too Human, but it's huge. And not many people would rush to say that game is AAA material now, would they (although I'd disagree)?

ROFL 40 million dollars is nothing? What kind of ish are you smoking? Can I have some?

Show me ANY other console FPS that has spent more on development than that.

[QUOTE="skyform"][QUOTE="-Spock-"][QUOTE="Lilac_Benjie"] I agree really. Killzone 2 is too dark.-Spock-

It's meant to be like that. The atmosphere wouldn't be the same if it was too bright.

Yeah but why did cows bash Gears for it's darkness, even if Gears is not dark, only in some levels.

Gears has very different colour and brightnes in every level but cows don't know that because they never played it and then they come with stupid coments, that in gears you don't see anything other then darkness, that the game is all dakr and not impressive graphical, poor fanboys, im glad that im non fanboy, that really must be stupid, hating other consoles and games that you don't even know:roll:

Excuse me, what the **** are you talking about? Cow? Grow up kid.. :roll:

Probably you are the one who should grow up because you don't even understand what i wrote:roll:

[QUOTE="James567"][QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"][QUOTE="PowerCharged"]

i know what you man. people have barely seen killzone they think they know everthing about it. as if phil harrison would let this game turn out like the first one.

FrozenLiquid

Of course they would. Because in their eyes the first one wasn't even bad. The official playstation magazines all gave it 9's out of 10. They were in complete denial because they'd hyped it to oblivion. Why else would they make it their keynote game to show off for the PS3's unveiling? Clearly they think the first one was pretty good.

And if they hyped the original to such supreme heights and allowed it to ship being the mediocre load of nothingness it was, what makes you think it'll be any different this time?

Yeah your absolutley right sony are gonna lets this game turn out completly rubbish.

I suppose the 40 million dollars ( or was it 20? ) they put into the project wasnt actually spent on game development but was spent on nappies for employees with weak bladders.

And suppose the fact that sony have spent 2 years on the project drasticly incresed the size of the develoment team and intend to keep developing it for another 8 months isnt because they want to make the game as good as it can be. No that time is gonna be spent by the gurrelia and sony teams smoking crack, highering prostiutes, binge drinking and loads of other activities but certainly not ondeveloping and testing the game to make it good.

Sarcasm aside Could sony cock up Killzone? of course they could. But so could any game developer. However it is clear to me that they putting in as much resouces as possible for that not to happen

40 million is nothing. Seriously, it's not.

I love it how cows quote that it's more expensive than the most expensive Dutch film or whatever it is. Yeah, when you got Transformers going at $150 million dollars, and that's not the most expensive film made in the US, one just has to wonder how good the production values of the movie was, right?

I'm not sure the exact cost of Too Human, but it's huge. And not many people would rush to say that game is AAA material now, would they (although I'd disagree)?

Bringing Too Human into this wasn't really a smart idea since, it's been in development for about 10 years and still doesn't manage to impress as well as other titles. I'm speaking about the graphics, but the gameplay that we've been presented looks quite rigid.

In my opinion at least.

ROFL 40 million dollars is nothing? What kind of ish are you smoking? Can I have some?

Show me ANY other console FPS that has spent more on development than that.

Amnesiacx

You've got your own computer, spend countless hours on WoW.... I don't think you need the money mate.

Seriously, in the entertainment industry, 40 million isn't much.

Maybe compared to Gears of War, which is only $10 mil. Then again, wasn't most of the work done on the UE 3.0?

Bringing Too Human into this wasn't really a smart idea since, it's been in development for about 10 years and still doesn't manage to impress as well as other titles. I'm speaking about the graphics, but the gameplay that we've been presented looks quite rigid.

In my opinion at least.

inertk

It's more than just graphics mate.

In any case, Shenmue was 70,000,000 all up.

Too Human is the most expensive video game to date.

[QUOTE="James567"][QUOTE="Ninja-Vox"][QUOTE="PowerCharged"]

i know what you man. people have barely seen killzone they think they know everthing about it. as if phil harrison would let this game turn out like the first one.

FrozenLiquid

Of course they would. Because in their eyes the first one wasn't even bad. The official playstation magazines all gave it 9's out of 10. They were in complete denial because they'd hyped it to oblivion. Why else would they make it their keynote game to show off for the PS3's unveiling? Clearly they think the first one was pretty good.

And if they hyped the original to such supreme heights and allowed it to ship being the mediocre load of nothingness it was, what makes you think it'll be any different this time?

Yeah your absolutley right sony are gonna lets this game turn out completly rubbish.

I suppose the 40 million dollars ( or was it 20? ) they put into the project wasnt actually spent on game development but was spent on nappies for employees with weak bladders.

And suppose the fact that sony have spent 2 years on the project drasticly incresed the size of the develoment team and intend to keep developing it for another 8 months isnt because they want to make the game as good as it can be. No that time is gonna be spent by the gurrelia and sony teams smoking crack, highering prostiutes, binge drinking and loads of other activities but certainly not ondeveloping and testing the game to make it good.

Sarcasm aside Could sony cock up Killzone? of course they could. But so could any game developer. However it is clear to me that they putting in as much resouces as possible for that not to happen

40 million is nothing. Seriously, it's not.

I love it how cows quote that it's more expensive than the most expensive Dutch film or whatever it is. Yeah, when you got Transformers going at $150 million dollars, and that's not the most expensive film made in the US, one just has to wonder how good the production values of the movie was, right?

I'm not sure the exact cost of Too Human, but it's huge. And not many people would rush to say that game is AAA material now, would they (although I'd disagree)?

Firstly i own a Xbox 360 so enough of the lame cow thing.

$40 million is a massive buget for a videogame wasnt gears of war 10 million? And cant really compare film bugets to game bugets

Firstly i own a Xbox 360 so enough of the lame cow thing.

$40 million is a massive buget for a videogame wasnt gears of war 10 million? And cant really compare film bugets to game bugets

James567

And you also never quoted the Dutch film. So I didn't call you a cow.

Gears was $10 mil. They didn't quote the UE 3.0 costs.

Shenmue, the second most expensive game of all time, is $70,000,000. Too Human is beyond that.

How long has Killzone 2 been in development?

[QUOTE="James567"]

Firstly i own a Xbox 360 so enough of the lame cow thing.

$40 million is a massive buget for a videogame wasnt gears of war 10 million? And cant really compare film bugets to game bugets

FrozenLiquid

And you also never quoted the Dutch film. So I didn't call you a cow.

Gears was $10 mil. They didn't quote the UE 3.0 costs.

Shenmue, the second most expensive game of all time, is $70,000,000. Too Human is beyond that.

How long has Killzone 2 been in development?

Well I hope Too Human becomes the next Counter-Strike or Starcraft or whatever big-selling title you may want to use, otherwise they'll be deep in the ****.

[QUOTE="Amnesiacx"]ROFL 40 million dollars is nothing? What kind of ish are you smoking? Can I have some?

Show me ANY other console FPS that has spent more on development than that.

FrozenLiquid

You've got your own computer, spend countless hours on WoW.... I don't think you need the money mate.

Seriously, in the entertainment industry, 40 million isn't much.

Maybe compared to Gears of War, which is only $10 mil. Then again, wasn't most of the work done on the UE 3.0?

Wow, great argument. You sure got me there!

P.S. You're arguing about videogames on a videogame message board and you're attempting to act like the cool guy by making fun of someones playtime on a certain videogame? See the irony there?

P.P.S. Nice 850+ posts on this message board in exactly 1 month there guy.

[QUOTE="Lilac_Benjie"] I agree really. Killzone 2 is too dark.-Spock-

It's meant to be like that. The atmosphere wouldn't be the same if it was too bright.

Exactly, Killzone, Not FriendZone

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"][QUOTE="Amnesiacx"]ROFL 40 million dollars is nothing? What kind of ish are you smoking? Can I have some?

Show me ANY other console FPS that has spent more on development than that.

Amnesiacx

You've got your own computer, spend countless hours on WoW.... I don't think you need the money mate.

Seriously, in the entertainment industry, 40 million isn't much.

Maybe compared to Gears of War, which is only $10 mil. Then again, wasn't most of the work done on the UE 3.0?

Wow, great argument. You sure got me there!

P.S. You're arguing about videogames on a videogame message board and you're attempting to act like the cool guy by making fun of someones playtime on a certain videogame? See the irony there?

P.P.S. Nice 850+ posts on this message board in exactly 1 month there guy.

What else am I suppose to do while writing scripts? I can't exactly play video games. So I talk about them!

And damn, I'm already on 850?

Not only does that show I'm on GS so often, I've been up almost every night writing! Whoops...

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"][QUOTE="James567"]

Firstly i own a Xbox 360 so enough of the lame cow thing.

$40 million is a massive buget for a videogame wasnt gears of war 10 million? And cant really compare film bugets to game bugets

Thompsonwhore

And you also never quoted the Dutch film. So I didn't call you a cow.

Gears was $10 mil. They didn't quote the UE 3.0 costs.

Shenmue, the second most expensive game of all time, is $70,000,000. Too Human is beyond that.

How long has Killzone 2 been in development?

Well I hope Too Human becomes the next Counter-Strike or Starcraft or whatever big-selling title you may want to use, otherwise they'll be deep in the ****.

I know.

It better be good so heaps of people will buy it....

Well I hope Too Human becomes the next Counter-Strike or Starcraft or whatever big-selling title you may want to use, otherwise they'll be deep in the ****.

Thompsonwhore

Me too. I'm all for non-shooters being developed on 360; it has something of an image problem in that regard, and while I know I'm gonna love me some Brothers in Arms, Half-Life 2 Orange Box, and Gears when I get my own 360, I think it's important for headline titles to explore different territory. Also, Eternal Darkness was such an intensely creative and interesting game, I don't want Silicon Knights to disgrace themselves.

[QUOTE="Thompsonwhore"]

Well I hope Too Human becomes the next Counter-Strike or Starcraft or whatever big-selling title you may want to use, otherwise they'll be deep in the ****.

WeeWeeJumbo

Me too. I'm all for non-shooters being developed on 360; it has something of an image problem in that regard, and while I know I'm gonna love me some Brothers in Arms, Half-Life 2 Orange Box, and Gears when I get my own 360, I think it's important for headline titles to explore different territory. Also, Eternal Darkness was such an intensely creative and interesting game, I don't want Silicon Knights to disgrace themselves.

The game will be fine.

It's whether or not they get back all the money.

Looking at how they market the game (The E3 trailer was very much like film marketing), they're building this up for something we don't can't imagine. Let's just pray that it pays off.