Killzone is not console gfx king

[QUOTE="brennan7777"]

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

It is something ps3 fanboys made up so they can have something that is better than 360.

Heirren

I'm confused. Ps3 has better graphics.

Not on Call of Duty Black Ops, The 360 version is a lil better, but that's not what counts. I think Killzone has amazing graphics but i fell Black Ops is the graphics King of 2010

The Graphics/Gameplay is awesome(played on 360).

Black Ops isn't as good as Killzone 2, but on my PC it looks good.

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/3094/blackops201012191723198.png

Black Ops isn't as good as Killzone 2, but on my PC it looks good.

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/3094/blackops201012191723198.png

mitu123

Well on pc sure. Starcraft2 on pc looks better than all of the above.

[QUOTE="Heirren"]

[QUOTE="themyth01"] What is console graphics king suppose to be? who decides what it is? BigBoss154

It is something ps3 fanboys made up so they can have something that is better than 360.

Actually it means what is the best looking video game on the Seventh Generation of Video Game consoles.

It's quite simple really.

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

GS doesnt have a console grafix king.

DroidPhysX

not this nonsense again...

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

KZ2 looks great. Getting off your high horse might give you a better view.

blaznwiipspman1

i have a ps3 and a 360, and nothing looks good anymore now that Ive gotten used to the pc. The ONLY decent looking game Ill acknowledge is uncharted 2, god of war and the gears series. Thats it.

Yea and thats complete trash, Most games from 2005 onward on pc still look far worse then KZ3 and thats pretty much fact.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

Black Ops isn't as good as Killzone 2, but on my PC it looks good.

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/3094/blackops201012191723198.png

topgunmv

Well on pc sure. Starcraft2 on pc looks better than all of the above.

LMAO no it doesnt.

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

KZ2 looks great. Getting off your high horse might give you a better view.

TheSterls

i have a ps3 and a 360, and nothing looks good anymore now that Ive gotten used to the pc. The ONLY decent looking game Ill acknowledge is uncharted 2, god of war and the gears series. Thats it.

Yea and thats complete trash, Most games from 2005 onward on pc still look far worse then KZ3 and thats pretty much fact.

Except for the part where most UE3 PC ports look better than any console game does.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

i have a ps3 and a 360, and nothing looks good anymore now that Ive gotten used to the pc. The ONLY decent looking game Ill acknowledge is uncharted 2, god of war and the gears series. Thats it.

Filthybastrd

Yea and thats complete trash, Most games from 2005 onward on pc still look far worse then KZ3 and thats pretty much fact.

Except for the part where most UE3 PC ports look better than any console game does.

Um no they dont. Most UE3 ports look like the console versions in higher res , they still feature simplistic lighting and weak geometry.

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

Black Ops isn't as good as Killzone 2, but on my PC it looks good.

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/3094/blackops201012191723198.png

TheSterls

Well on pc sure. Starcraft2 on pc looks better than all of the above.

LMAO no it doesnt.

Sure it does.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

Well on pc sure. Starcraft2 on pc looks better than all of the above.

topgunmv

LMAO no it doesnt.

Sure it does.

Um no it doesnt and im comparing gameplay vs a cutscene.

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

LMAO no it doesnt.

TheSterls

Sure it does.

Um no it doesnt and im comparing gameplay vs a cutscene.

http://ps3.ign.com/dor/objects/886158/god-of-war-iii/images/god-of-war-iii-20100310054644231.html?page=mediaFull

That starcraft2 cutscene is rendered in real time, it isn't an in-engine recording.

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

hmm maybe my eyes aren't that great or something since Im not really that impressed

blaznwiipspman1

most likely, you just hate the art style. On a technical level, it's the 3rd best looking console game at the moment.

I know the difference between an art style and the technical graphics as I mostly game on the pc at 1080p at decent settings. Well thats just the limitation of a $300 console with parts costing much less than that.

Dude stop lying! Tell me PC gamer what PC games are you playing from 2005 that look better then Killzone 2 ? You know what im really impressed by that game, i beat Crysis and Warhead couple of times and im still really really impressed by KZ2 that game is gorgeous. Sure there are few games on PC that look better but not that many, Metro, Crysis, Empire, Arma 2 with Expansion, and thats about it ? Let me know if i missed something.

Killzone 2 does like pretty good, but the amount of blur they put on the game is questionable. =\

Uncharted 2 looks the best on the ps3, but its levels are not as expansive as kz2. So each to their own.

I've played through Crysis/ Warhead on high settings and I still thought KZ2 was a great looking game.

You're right, nothing is because there's no such thing. However iUncharted 2 is the best looking game on consoles for sure.

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

most likely, you just hate the art style. On a technical level, it's the 3rd best looking console game at the moment.

telefanatic

I know the difference between an art style and the technical graphics as I mostly game on the pc at 1080p at decent settings. Well thats just the limitation of a $300 console with parts costing much less than that.

Dude stop lying! Tell me PC gamer what PC games are you playing from 2005 that look better then Killzone 2 ? You know what im really impressed by that game, i beat Crysis and Warhead couple of times and im still really really impressed by KZ2 that game is gorgeous. Sure there are few games on PC that look better but not that many, Metro, Crysis, Empire, Arma 2 with Expansion, and thats about it ? Let me know if i missed something.

Oblivion. That's right. You may say LOL NO WAI, but mods keep games from years back looking good to this day. Morrowind from 2002 even looks pretty good with mods, wish I still had the video of it. Far Cry from 2004 has mods that make it look as good/even better.

I was playing KZ2 the other day and noticed how good it...wasn't. At the time it came out I thought it looked pretty good, but there's so much crap going on that helps hide the uglies of the game.

I've played through Crysis/ Warhead on high settings and I still thought KZ2 was a great looking game.

Freshenizer

I've played through Crysis/ Warhead on high settings and I still thought KZ2 was a great looking game.

Freshenizer

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

not this nonsense again...

theuncharted34

I say there is. Many people use this term and nobody stops us.

It's just a term for the best looking game on consoles. sorry mate! :D

Aw yes, because there so many games, aside Crysis and Metro, that look better than KZ! Oh, wait...

ohh PC gamers once again feel the need to remind console gamers that games running at max settings on high end PC's look better than console titles... annoying but unfortunately it happens on a weekly basis :)

Why cant just PC gamers accept that there can be a 'Console Graphics King term' cause PC being also a gaming platform doesnt mean its can be grouped with consoles.. Consoles and PC's while both being able to run games are not the same..

A Porsche is a car just like the VW Golf but do you see them being compared? NO... why? cause the Porsche being a sports car gets compared to cars which fall in its cathegory (Ferraris, Lamborghini etc etc)..

So when gamers say wow KZ3 is shaping up nicely and looks great, they dont need the usual sad PC GAMER to post Crysis pics or else remind them that HIGH END PC can run better looking titles..

Btw i game on all systems (except DS cause i dont have it) and i was still amazed at many console/PSP titles and how they looked visually... I also love Starcraft2 but for those who state it looks better than the likes of GOW3, Uncharted2, Geow2, KZ2 & 3 etc etc they probably need to check their eyes :)

I'm always amazed at the assumptions people make when I ask them to stop using the term "console graphics king". I own every since released since 1980, and have played more games *on any given system* than the people who only own that system. Chances are if you've heard of a game that will be coming out in a year, I've already played that game. I don't care about systems, just games. But the term "console graphics king" is idiotic. Not only does it immediately say "consoles can't keep up with ________" (because if they could, why couldn't a console game beat a PC game in graphics?) but it also implies anything "less than" a console is irrelevant (handhelds, portable systems). And given that "graphics" is a completely subjective term (frankly I think Farmville looks better than quite a few "fancy 3D games" that people rave about) why would you even bother categorizing? - The ONLY reason people use the term "console graphics king" is because they want their "System of Choice" to have a trophy that is won on defendable grounds. They want to have "mine is better than yours" and be able to say "my game has technically better graphics" while still excluding anything that would make their argument have to be subjective. People want to make extremely subjective arguments and pretend they're logical, scientifically sound points. - So no, right out, toss out the "console graphics king" point. As the scientist said to the last male panda on earth, pointing at the last female panda on earth... "you're probably going to die as a species, the genetic variety is just gone, sorry"... stop shrinking the pool to the point of irrelevance. subrosian

am sorry but i disagree..

every item in life is compared (household goods, cars, mobile phones etc etc) but they are put in cathegories.. these cathegories vary from price range, functionatlity etc etc..

If everything else is 'split' in order to make fair comparisons why shouldnt the same apply for gaming systems??

why do you even remotely think it would be fair today comparing a 4-5yr old console to a high-end PC (with latest tech) when it comes to visuals?I dont believe one can play Crysis, Metro2033 etc on a 5yr old PC at max settings.. (however upcoming titles like Geow3, KZ3, Uncharted3 etc will still be played on the same old 4-5yr old consoles)

would it be fair to compare a Ferrari to a Honda Civic in order to state which performs better on a track?? but if you say Consoles cant have a seperate cathegory when it comes to declaring graphics king titles, you're saying a top end sports car has to be put in the same cathegory as a family car..

We all know that High-end PC's perform better technically, by accepting this we are in no way stating consoles are crap.. However having a 'console Graphics king title' is far from being idiotic, its just saying which is the best looking title on consoles.. A console is not a PC, so it can have a seperate cathegory..

[QUOTE="subrosian"]I'm always amazed at the assumptions people make when I ask them to stop using the term "console graphics king". I own every since released since 1980, and have played more games *on any given system* than the people who only own that system. Chances are if you've heard of a game that will be coming out in a year, I've already played that game. I don't care about systems, just games. But the term "console graphics king" is idiotic. Not only does it immediately say "consoles can't keep up with ________" (because if they could, why couldn't a console game beat a PC game in graphics?) but it also implies anything "less than" a console is irrelevant (handhelds, portable systems). And given that "graphics" is a completely subjective term (frankly I think Farmville looks better than quite a few "fancy 3D games" that people rave about) why would you even bother categorizing? - The ONLY reason people use the term "console graphics king" is because they want their "System of Choice" to have a trophy that is won on defendable grounds. They want to have "mine is better than yours" and be able to say "my game has technically better graphics" while still excluding anything that would make their argument have to be subjective. People want to make extremely subjective arguments and pretend they're logical, scientifically sound points. - So no, right out, toss out the "console graphics king" point. As the scientist said to the last male panda on earth, pointing at the last female panda on earth... "you're probably going to die as a species, the genetic variety is just gone, sorry"... stop shrinking the pool to the point of irrelevance. Malta_1980

am sorry but i disagree..

every item in life is compared (household goods, cars, mobile phones etc etc) but they are put in cathegories.. these cathegories vary from price range, functionatlity etc etc..

If everything else is 'split' in order to make fair comparisons why shouldnt the same apply for gaming systems??

why do you even remotely think it would be fair today comparing a 4-5yr old console to a high-end PC (with latest tech) when it comes to visuals?I dont believe one can play Crysis, Metro2033 etc on a 5yr old PC at max settings.. (however upcoming titles like Geow3, KZ3, Uncharted3 etc will still be played on the same old 4-5yr old consoles)

would it be fair to compare a Ferrari to a Honda Civic in order to state which performs better on a track?? but if you say Consoles cant have a seperate cathegory when it comes to declaring graphics king titles, you're saying a top end sports car has to be put in the same cathegory as a family car..

We all know that High-end PC's perform better technically, by accepting this we are in no way stating consoles are crap.. However having a 'console Graphics king title' is far from being idiotic, its just saying which is the best looking title on consoles.. A console is not a PC, so it can have a seperate cathegory..

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]

KZ2 looks great. Getting off your high horse might give you a better view.

lundy86_4

i have a ps3 and a 360, and nothing looks good anymore now that Ive gotten used to the pc. The ONLY decent looking game Ill acknowledge is uncharted 2, god of war and the gears series. Thats it.

Hmmmm... Odd, I have been a PC gamer for a long time and I have no trouble finding good looking games. For example, Uncharted 1 + 2, Gears 1 + 2, MGS4, KZ2, Mirror's Edge, FFXIII, RDR, Mass Effect 1 + 2, plus more.

I think Killzone looks great, and I play Crysis on the highest settings with mods and 2-4x AA. Also, the closest artstyle in a game that I have seen from 2005-2010 PC games that relates to Killzone would probably be F.E.A.R., and even on highest settings, F.E.A.R. 1 looks pretty bad in comparison. When Killzone 2 came out, I was still blown away even after playing Crysis just based on the shere visual fidelity of that kind of software being run on 2005 hardware. I don't feel like posting screens, so...Weird_Jerk

F.E.A.R. 2 on PC looks better than KZ2

heck it isnt even any type of gfx king, it looks like garbage. I am a predominantely PC gamer and this is my honest opinion. But I also think Uncharted looks great on the ps3. This is probably because the levels are all really small. Killzone looks like arse sorry, if you want to see a real gfx in an fps play any PC game from 2005 onward lol.

blaznwiipspman1

[QUOTE="Weird_Jerk"]I think Killzone looks great, and I play Crysis on the highest settings with mods and 2-4x AA. Also, the closest artstyle in a game that I have seen from 2005-2010 PC games that relates to Killzone would probably be F.E.A.R., and even on highest settings, F.E.A.R. 1 looks pretty bad in comparison. When Killzone 2 came out, I was still blown away even after playing Crysis just based on the shere visual fidelity of that kind of software being run on 2005 hardware. I don't feel like posting screens, so...Hakkai007

F.E.A.R. 2 on PC looks better than KZ2

I really really really disagree. The engine for FEAR 2 looks like source. Its lighting and polycount, among other aspects, look extremely downgraded from Killzone 2. Please do not mistake me for a fool. I've examined both games very thoroughly and can tell that KZ2 uses mixes of lighting (static and dynamic) coupled with POM and bump mapping to look amazing. That trick completely obliterates non-specular and simplistic effects in PC games from 2005-2006 imo. FEAR uses some similar tricks with the bump mapping, and even for a PC game, the textures look like ass, akin to KZ2. If you had examined or even played both games on an HD television or monitor, you would see that Killzone 2 beats FEAR, not only in polycount and lighting, but also effects like explosions, particle effects, etc.

it's a 6 th gen game what do you expect from it :Pbadtaker

GS doesnt have a console grafix king.

DroidPhysX

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

GS doesnt have a console grafix king.

JohnF111

[QUOTE="JohnF111"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

GS doesnt have a console grafix king.

Ravensmash

People still use the term "console graphics king"? Good lord... why? That's like winning a foot race against a tree. You win! Congrats?subrosian

cool story bro. btw, YOU MAD!!

[QUOTE="subrosian"]People still use the term "console graphics king"? Good lord... why? That's like winning a foot race against a tree. You win! Congrats?TheBigBadGRIM