NEW:Killzone SF updated in-game Models

Let's see those characters in the environments during gameplay. Because so far all we see are character models like this:

Which is a far cry from the models in the original post.

Here, so I can here some more delusional console trolls complain some more about how a 6 year-old game couldn't possibly look more real than their beloved Killzone

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Aidenfury19"]

Dude, give it up. Even if you acknowledge Crysis was a great looking game for the time, it was still a great looking game FOR THE TIME. It's six years old and it shows in textures that lack detail, lighting that doesn't look right, and foliage which is poor by comparison to what can be done now.

If it some scenarios it does look better than Killzone Shadowfall it sure as heck isn't shown in any of the screenshots you've posted so far and you're really just spamming the thread at this point.

Aidenfury19

You can't honestly look at those pics and tell me that you have KZ-SF pics that look more like a photo... more like real life.  If you think KZ does, you need to go outside more.  

Real life doesn't have uniform distribution of sunlight (almost entirely without shadows) so blinding that it makes the gaps between tree leaves look like snow. Oh and for the record, everything except for (maybe) the foliage that I've seen in Killzone so far looks distinctly better, the enormous flaws in those screenshots ruin it for whatever areas it might be superior in.

The lighting in Crysis is just fine.  You've never been in a locale where the sun washed things out?  There are shadows all over the place.  What are you talking about?

They look amazing, but I'm still not interested.

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]

[QUOTE="Aidenfury19"]

Already did, see my edit. The only thing that might be better is the skin shader and that is far from certain given that we haven't seen how light interacts with skin in Killzone.

Aidenfury19

The only thing the downsampling does for Killzone is make them look sharper, it doesn't magically conjure up cloth and skin shaders where there were none before. As I said before, barring the level of AA on the models everything there is entirely achievable in-game.

Your screenshot may have been a poor choice, but in it there is EXTREMELY little actual detail to the clothing on Psycho compared to Killzone. Character models are more than a (entirely bald and uncovered) head.

[QUOTE="Aidenfury19"]

Can we please stop quoting the forum breaking Crysis 1 image spam? Thanks.

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"] Right click, open in new tab. And see it's beauty.faizan_faizan

Already did, see my edit. The only thing that might be better is the skin shader and that is far from certain given that we haven't seen how light interacts with skin in Killzone.

The only thing the downsampling does for Killzone is make them look sharper, it doesn't magically conjure up cloth and skin shaders where there were none before. As I said before, barring the level of AA on the models everything there is entirely achievable in-game.

Your screenshot may have been a poor choice, but in it there is EXTREMELY little actual detail to the clothing on Psycho compared to Killzone. Character models are more than a (entirely bald and uncovered) head.

Posting separately because Gamespot forums are STILL broken. Oh and yes, I would appreciate a full body shot (text link please, we're getting enough screenshot spam already).

Let's see those characters in the environments during gameplay. Because so far all we see are character models like this:

Which is a far cry from the models in the original post.

kalipekona

Here, so I can here some more delusional console trolls complain some more about how a 6 year-old game couldn't possibly look more real than their beloved Killzone

hartsickdiscipl

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

2007 PC game with 3 free mods installed-

 

KZ-SF:

 

Douevenlift_bro

I have Crysis 1 and 2 and run em with and without mods. KZ:SF looks better than it without a doubt. Stop embarassing yourself

I agree about Vanilla Crysis.  I have not played the mods, but even then the game is hard enough to run already (even all these years later) and the mods probably don't make it easier.  Not to mention Crysis has so many rough areas, and pictures don't show a lot of them.

Posting separately because Gamespot forums are STILL broken. Oh and yes, I would appreciate a full body shot (text link please, we're getting enough screenshot spam already).

[QUOTE="kalipekona"]

Let's see those characters in the environments during gameplay. Because so far all we see are character models like this:

Which is a far cry from the models in the original post.

Aidenfury19

Here, so I can here some more delusional console trolls complain some more about how a 6 year-old game couldn't possibly look more real than their beloved Killzone

hartsickdiscipl

Also, I don't see subsurface scattering in those KZSF models, one advantage for Crysis 3.

Here, so I can here some more delusional console trolls complain some more about how a 6 year-old game couldn't possibly look more real than their beloved Killzone

 

hartsickdiscipl

The lighting is nice, but everything else is a mess.

http://i2.minus.com/iBUSSaUuzkhAt.jpg

Also, I don't see subsurface scattering in those KZSF models, one advantage for Crysis 3.

faizan_faizan

Much better comparison, I'll still stick by my original stance which is that Killzone matches Crysis 2/3 models, but I could see an argument for them being a bit better. In any case, there still remains no question at all that they're the best models on consoles and not by a narrow margin either at the moment.

The lighting is nice, but everything else is a mess.

RawDeal_basic

Pretty much, although the lighting doesn't impress me either. I'd actually argue for the vines in the upper left corner of that screenshot are the most impressive thing about that image just because they look the most accurate IMO.

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

 

First two look like shit. Since when did having a white sky make a game look good?

 

The last two are horrible. There's like almost no anistrophic filtering and the foliage looks like it blends into all one color.

hartsickdiscipl

I take it you've never actually been outside in anything other than ideal weather conditions.  That would explain your statements.  

MyForest is not cloudy and cloud days don't look the begining of a super nova.

Here, so I can here some more delusional console trolls complain some more about how a 6 year-old game couldn't possibly look more real than their beloved Killzone

 

hartsickdiscipl

You're making Crysis look bad you know that right?

Looks like I need to post some screens and teach you how make Crysis look good with REAL graphics mods. Not that dumb TOD sh!t that makes everything look white washed.

Oh so we're posting Crysis pics again? I might as well join in:P:

Well this thread got drowned in Mehsis screens quickly.

Stay classy hermits.

Well this thread got drowned in Mehsis screens quickly.

Stay classy hermits.

ReadingRainbow4

Pretty much..at least the last batch don't look like somebody decided to set gamma at 90.

Oh so we're posting Crysis pics again? I might as well join in:P:

 

 

mitu123

Even you are making Crysis look bad.

[QUOTE="ShoulderOfOrion"][QUOTE="Aidenfury19"]

Anyone who suggests that Killzone has anything less than the best-looking character models in a console game so far lacks all credibility. Quantum Break does not compare (much less detail on the character textures, blurrier, clothing doesn't seem to animate at all), nor does anything else that has been shown up to this point. Pointing to an old E3 demo is futile as those tend to be created several weeks or even months prior to E3 and using youtube videos to try to disprove it is even more transparent in its futility: video compression artifacts aren't hard to detect.

Guerilla has verified those models are in-game, not in-engine which is likely what the Quantum Break pics/gifs released so far were (notably the tweet claiming it was in-game was later deleted) and even if they were both in-game the Killzone character models are clearly superior. If you doubt that they can be done in-game, then you're mistaken: aside from the level of AA shown it is entirely possible given that those would be the highest LoD models in-game which means only one would be likely to be shown at a time.

If the game comes out and no such models are in-game then you can claim ownage, until then you'd do well to shut your mouth unless something is shown that matches what Killzone brings to the table because what they showed looks to match Crysis 2/3 on PC.

Aidenfury19

Where is the proof of that? Even if I conceded that point outright, which I don't, it still doesn't come close to matching Killzone.

 

 

Even you are making Crysis look bad.

Jebus213

[QUOTE="ReadingRainbow4"]

Well this thread got drowned in Mehsis screens quickly.

Stay classy hermits.

Aidenfury19

Pretty much..at least the last batch don't look like somebody decided to set gamma at 90.

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

 

 

Even you are making Crysis look bad.

mitu123

Posting separately because Gamespot forums are STILL broken. Oh and yes, I would appreciate a full body shot (text link please, we're getting enough screenshot spam already).

[QUOTE="kalipekona"]

Let's see those characters in the environments during gameplay. Because so far all we see are character models like this:

Which is a far cry from the models in the original post.

Aidenfury19

Here, so I can here some more delusional console trolls complain some more about how a 6 year-old game couldn't possibly look more real than their beloved Killzone

hartsickdiscipl

Just as you ignore the mediocre textures, low poly character models, and baked-in lower quality lighting in the in-game screenshots released by Guerrilla.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

 

 

Even you are making Crysis look bad.

22Toothpicks

[QUOTE="22Toothpicks"][QUOTE="mitu123"]You think the 1st shot is bad? Wut?

mitu123

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]

http://i2.minus.com/iBUSSaUuzkhAt.jpg

Also, I don't see subsurface scattering in those KZSF models, one advantage for Crysis 3.

Aidenfury19

Much better comparison, I'll still stick by my original stance which is that Killzone matches Crysis 2/3 models, but I could see an argument for them being a bit better. In any case, there still remains no question at all that they're the best models on consoles and not by a narrow margin either at the moment.

The lighting is nice, but everything else is a mess.

RawDeal_basic

Pretty much, although the lighting doesn't impress me either. I'd actually argue for the vines in the upper left corner of that screenshot are the most impressive thing about that image just because they look the most accurate IMO.

Jeeze. There is nothing wrong with the lighting. Have you ever been to the tropics? The sun passes directly overhead and the intensity of the light is stronger. The Crysis engine   recreates that kind of lighting very well.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="22Toothpicks"] Fanboy eyeballs work different than yours and mine apparently...22Toothpicks

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

 

 

Even you are making Crysis look bad.

mitu123

No anistrophic filtering and little to no anti-aliasing.

Without AF all the textures are blurry so what is there to see?

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="22Toothpicks"] Fanboy eyeballs work different than yours and mine apparently...22Toothpicks

I'm not a C1 fanboy dumbass. :roll:

I've made multiple threads in the past telling people they overrate Crysis's graphics and criticize them for posting downsampled pics.

Without AF+POM, SweetFX and 5 texture mods the game looks like ass to me.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

 

 

Even you are making Crysis look bad.

Jebus213

No anistrophic filtering and little to no anti-aliasing.

Without AF all the textures are blurry so what is there to see?

Remedy's website. And it blows killzone away. ShoulderOfOrion

Linky? Also, sorry but no. The character models and environments are far less detailed AND are much smaller.

After rewatching the Quantum Break trailer I'd even be willing to concede some parts of it were in-game rather than in-engine, the problem is the pics/gifs that you guys post..which again don't match up the newer stuff released for Killzone Shadowfall despite the smaller scale would fall into the in-engine category, not in-game (and there does appear to be a distinct difference in quality).

This would be in-game if anything is: Linky

Even ignoring the fact that the game as a whole will likely be far less fast-paced/interactive than Killzone (meaning devs don't have to worry about a number of things that Killzone will) the level of detail there is far, far lower than Killzone. In fact the only way it would really appear to beat current gen systems is in resolution.

Here is the trailer I used at the time captured, if you can find better source material feel free to post it, but it wouldn't do much except for make the image a bit cleaner.

Just as you ignore the mediocre textures, low poly character models, and baked-in lower quality lighting in the in-game screenshots released by Guerrilla.

kalipekona

Which I'm justified in doing as we literally have no idea which parts of those images are final and which are not, aside from the character models which we know are already outdated compared to what they have in the game now.

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"]You think the 1st shot is bad? Wut?

mitu123

No anistrophic filtering and little to no anti-aliasing.

Without AF all the textures are blurry so what is there to see?

They look blurry and not as sharp as they should be. Anything with less then 16x AF on PC is disgusting. I force AF in all of my games.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

 

No anistrophic filtering and little to no anti-aliasing.

 

Without AF all the textures are blurry so what is there to see?

Jebus213

They look blurry and not as sharp as they should be. Anything with less then 16x AF on PC is disgusting. I force AF in all of my games.

Jeeze. There is nothing wrong with the lighting. Have you ever been to the tropics? The sun passes directly overhead and the intensity of the light is stronger. The Crysis engine   recreates that kind of lighting very well.

kalipekona

Dude, I lived around 2000 miles from the equator for the vast majority of my life in what would be classified as a subtropical area, I've been in actual deserts in summer during high noon multiple times, and I've traveled as close as 1000 miles to the equator, I know something about sunlight and it doesn't look like that.

[QUOTE="StrongBlackVine"]

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"] When you have nothing else to counter with, you use irrelevant material to use it as a counter.kalipekona

I have never posted anything saying Killzone SF surpasses or even equals Crysis 3 visuals. Crysis 3 was a critical failure and commercial flop...fact. It only gets mentioned as a graphics comparison.

That's moronic and false. Plenty of reviewers gave Crysis 3 scores in the 90s. I would take Crysis 3's gameplay over Killzone 3's gameplay any day.

Crysis 3 has metascore of 76 on PC/PS3 and 77 on Xbox 360. Killzone 3 has a metascore of 84. So you are liar unless you have a loose definition of "plenty" and I will take Killzone over Cryflop 3.

[QUOTE="ShoulderOfOrion"]Remedy's website. And it blows killzone away. Aidenfury19

Linky? Also, sorry but no. The character models and environments are far less detailed AND are much smaller.

After rewatching the Quantum Break trailer I'd even be willing to concede some parts of it were in-game rather than in-engine, the problem is the pics/gifs that you guys post..which again don't match up the newer stuff released for Killzone Shadowfall despite the smaller scale would fall into the in-engine category, not in-game (and there does appear to be a distinct difference in quality).

This would be in-game if anything is: Linky

Even ignoring the fact that the game as a whole will likely be far less fast-paced/interactive than Killzone (meaning devs don't have to worry about a number of things that Killzone will) the level of detail there is far, far lower than Killzone. In fact the only way it would really appear to beat current gen systems is in resolution.

Here is the trailer I used at the time captured, if you can find better source material feel free to post it, but it wouldn't do much except for make the image a bit cleaner.

Just as you ignore the mediocre textures, low poly character models, and baked-in lower quality lighting in the in-game screenshots released by Guerrilla.

kalipekona

Which I'm justified in doing as we literally have no idea which parts of those images are final and which are not, aside from the character models which we know are already outdated compared to what they have in the game now.

You guys always crawl back to that excuse. Well, the game isn't finished yet...blah, blah, blah. And yet, I have never seen huge leaps in graphics between an unfinished version and final version of a game. The things people typically point out really aren't that significant. It will surely improve, don't get me wrong, it simply won't be that dramatic.

So, what is the point in discussing any of this? I will bet anything, thogh, that when Killzone Shadow Fall releases it will look pretty much how it looks in the videos we have now.

You guys always crawl back to that excuse. Well, the game isn't finished yet...blah, blah, blah. And yet, I have never seen huge leaps in graphics between an unfinished version and final version of a game. The things people typically point out really aren't that significant. It will surely improve, don't get me wrong, it simply won't be that dramatic.

So, what is the point in discussing any of this? I will bet anything, thogh, that when Killzone Shadow Fall releases it will look pretty much how it looks in the videos we have now.

kalipekona

It's not an excuse, it's a reason (and yes these things are different). The new character models shown are MUCH improved over the ones shown in February and evidently reused during E3, that is reason enough to give them the benefit of the doubt.

[QUOTE="kalipekona"]

You guys always crawl back to that excuse. Well, the game isn't finished yet...blah, blah, blah. And yet, I have never seen huge leaps in graphics between an unfinished version and final version of a game. The things people typically point out really aren't that significant. It will surely improve, don't get me wrong, it simply won't be that dramatic.

So, what is the point in discussing any of this? I will bet anything, thogh, that when Killzone Shadow Fall releases it will look pretty much how it looks in the videos we have now.

Aidenfury19

It's not an excuse, it's a reason (and yes these things are different). The new character models shown are MUCH improved over the ones shown in February and evidently reused during E3, that is reason enough to give them the benefit of the doubt.

That guy is liar any way. Said Crysis 3 had lots of 90+ reviews with a metascore of 76....

[QUOTE="Aidenfury19"]

[QUOTE="kalipekona"]

You guys always crawl back to that excuse. Well, the game isn't finished yet...blah, blah, blah. And yet, I have never seen huge leaps in graphics between an unfinished version and final version of a game. The things people typically point out really aren't that significant. It will surely improve, don't get me wrong, it simply won't be that dramatic.

So, what is the point in discussing any of this? I will bet anything, thogh, that when Killzone Shadow Fall releases it will look pretty much how it looks in the videos we have now.

StrongBlackVine

It's not an excuse, it's a reason (and yes these things are different). The new character models shown are MUCH improved over the ones shown in February and evidently reused during E3, that is reason enough to give them the benefit of the doubt.

That guy is liar any way. Said Crysis 3 had lots of 90+ reviews with a metascore of 76....

The two aren't mutually exclusive, but yeah without a doubt Killzone 2 (and 3) scored much higher overall.

EDIT: It would appear that unless you count 9 (out of 47) as "lots" you're correct that he was at least mistaken.

[QUOTE="StrongBlackVine"]

[QUOTE="Aidenfury19"]

It's not an excuse, it's a reason (and yes these things are different). The new character models shown are MUCH improved over the ones shown in February and evidently reused during E3, that is reason enough to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Aidenfury19

That guy is liar any way. Said Crysis 3 had lots of 90+ reviews with a metascore of 76....

The two aren't mutually exclusive, but yeah without a doubt Killzone 2 (and 3) scored much higher overall.

EDIT: It would appear that unless you count 9 (out of 47) as "lots" you're correct that he was at least mistaken.

Killzone 2 metascore of 91 and Killzone 3 is 84. Both much higher than Crysis 3 and both Killzone games had over 80 reviews.

*edit* You agreed with me. I misread your post at first.

[QUOTE="kalipekona"]

Jeeze. There is nothing wrong with the lighting. Have you ever been to the tropics? The sun passes directly overhead and the intensity of the light is stronger. The Crysis engine   recreates that kind of lighting very well.

Aidenfury19

Dude, I lived around 2000 miles from the equator for the vast majority of my life in what would be classified as a subtropical area, I've been in actual deserts in summer during high noon multiple times, and I've traveled as close as 1000 miles to the equator, I know something about sunlight and it doesn't look like that.

Yeah it does. Bright sunlight can definitely produce a similar kind of a scene. I've seen it with my own eyes. I've traveled to tropical countries several times and I, too, live in a sub-tropical desert area. 

I think you are just being overly critical of Crysis and not critical enough of Killzone Shadow Fall. They are both clearly very good looking games, but some people are overhyping KZSF again just like they do with most Sony exclusives.

[QUOTE="Aidenfury19"]

[QUOTE="kalipekona"]

Jeeze. There is nothing wrong with the lighting. Have you ever been to the tropics? The sun passes directly overhead and the intensity of the light is stronger. The Crysis engine   recreates that kind of lighting very well.

kalipekona

Dude, I lived around 2000 miles from the equator for the vast majority of my life in what would be classified as a subtropical area, I've been in actual deserts in summer during high noon multiple times, and I've traveled as close as 1000 miles to the equator, I know something about sunlight and it doesn't look like that.

Yeah it does. Bright sunlight can definitely produce a similar kind of a scene. I've seen it with my own eyes. I've traveled to tropical countries several times and I, too, live in a sub-tropical desert area. 

I think you are just being overly critical of Crysis and not critical enough of Killzone Shadow Fall. They are both clearly very good looking games, but some people are overhyping KZSF again just like they do with most Sony exclusives.

Keep playing your great graphics while we play great overall games.

[QUOTE="StrongBlackVine"]

[QUOTE="Aidenfury19"]

It's not an excuse, it's a reason (and yes these things are different). The new character models shown are MUCH improved over the ones shown in February and evidently reused during E3, that is reason enough to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Aidenfury19

That guy is liar any way. Said Crysis 3 had lots of 90+ reviews with a metascore of 76....

The two aren't mutually exclusive, but yeah without a doubt Killzone 2 (and 3) scored much higher overall.

EDIT: It would appear that unless you count 9 (out of 47) as "lots" you're correct that he was at least mistaken.

What is 47 people out of the millions of gamers that exist? A very tiny fraction. So, yes, 9 is significant. It means that there are likely many tens of thousands of gamers that would agree.

An average of 76 is by no means a failure. It still represents a good game.

In any case, I don't put much stock in review scores. Some of my favorite movies and games scored fairly low on metacritic, while some games and movies I thought were pretty 'meh' scored very well. I only care about my own judgement. And I think the Crysis games are fairly decent. Not my favorite games by any means, but still better than most shooters (aside from shooters like Half Life 2 and Bioshock Infinite heavy on atmosphere and narrative, which I enjoy much more). 

[QUOTE="Aidenfury19"]

[QUOTE="StrongBlackVine"]

That guy is liar any way. Said Crysis 3 had lots of 90+ reviews with a metascore of 76....

kalipekona

The two aren't mutually exclusive, but yeah without a doubt Killzone 2 (and 3) scored much higher overall.

EDIT: It would appear that unless you count 9 (out of 47) as "lots" you're correct that he was at least mistaken.

What is 47 people out of the millions of gamers that exist? A very tiny fraction. So, yes, 9 is significant. It means that there are likely many tens of thousands of gamers that would agree.

An average of 76 is by no means a failure. It still represents a good game.

In any case, I don't put much stock in review scores. Some of my favorite movies and games scored fairly low on metacritic, while some games and movies I thought were pretty 'meh' scored very well. I only care about my own judgement. And I think the Crysis games are fairly decent. Not my favorite games by any means, but still better than most shooters (aside from shooters like Half Life 2 and Bioshock Infinite heavy on atmosphere and narrative, which I enjoy much more). 

Then why did you say it and not make it clear you were referring to individual reviews rather than game site/professional reviews? It's not even that I disagree with most of what you're saying, but it's misleading whether or not that is what you intended.

[QUOTE="kalipekona"]

[QUOTE="Aidenfury19"]

Dude, I lived around 2000 miles from the equator for the vast majority of my life in what would be classified as a subtropical area, I've been in actual deserts in summer during high noon multiple times, and I've traveled as close as 1000 miles to the equator, I know something about sunlight and it doesn't look like that.

StrongBlackVine

Yeah it does. Bright sunlight can definitely produce a similar kind of a scene. I've seen it with my own eyes. I've traveled to tropical countries several times and I, too, live in a sub-tropical desert area. 

I think you are just being overly critical of Crysis and not critical enough of Killzone Shadow Fall. They are both clearly very good looking games, but some people are overhyping KZSF again just like they do with most Sony exclusives.

Keep playing your great graphics while we play great overall games.

I own a PS3 and Xbox 360 in addition to my PC, so there is very little I miss out on. If you don't own a good gaming PC, however, you are missing out on some great exclusives and playing significantly inferior multiplats.

[QUOTE="kalipekona"]

[QUOTE="Aidenfury19"]

The two aren't mutually exclusive, but yeah without a doubt Killzone 2 (and 3) scored much higher overall.

EDIT: It would appear that unless you count 9 (out of 47) as "lots" you're correct that he was at least mistaken.

Aidenfury19

What is 47 people out of the millions of gamers that exist? A very tiny fraction. So, yes, 9 is significant. It means that there are likely many tens of thousands of gamers that would agree.

An average of 76 is by no means a failure. It still represents a good game.

In any case, I don't put much stock in review scores. Some of my favorite movies and games scored fairly low on metacritic, while some games and movies I thought were pretty 'meh' scored very well. I only care about my own judgement. And I think the Crysis games are fairly decent. Not my favorite games by any means, but still better than most shooters (aside from shooters like Half Life 2 and Bioshock Infinite heavy on atmosphere and narrative, which I enjoy much more). 

Then why did you say it and not make it clear you were referring to individual reviews rather than game site/professional reviews? It's not even that I disagree with most of what you're saying, but it's misleading whether or not that is what you intended.

He made it sound like it was universally agreed upon by reviewers that it was complete crap. All I said is that it received quite a few scores in the 90s and that it wasn't a critical failure. Even for people who put a lot of stock in review scores, an average of 76 still represents a decently good game. 

[QUOTE="Aidenfury19"]

[QUOTE="ShoulderOfOrion"] Quantum Break is in-game. ShoulderOfOrion

Where is the proof of that? Even if I conceded that point outright, which I don't, it still doesn't come close to matching Killzone.

[QUOTE="ShoulderOfOrion"][QUOTE="Aidenfury19"]

Where is the proof of that? Even if I conceded that point outright, which I don't, it still doesn't come close to matching Killzone.

killzowned24

Yeah, but it's also one of the most amazing looking games this gen. Sure, the 360 wasn't powerful enough to run it at full 720p resolution, but that is because of everything it is doing. It still has some of the best lighting I have seen in a game. The PC version looks amazing.

[QUOTE="killzowned24"][QUOTE="ShoulderOfOrion"] Remedy's website. And it blows killzone away. kalipekona

Yeah, but it's also one of the most amazing looking games this gen. Sure, the 360 wasn't powerful enough to run it at full 720p resolution, but that is because of everything it is doing. It still has some of the best lighting I have seen in a game. The PC version looks amazing.