By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - Killzone 2 (E3 2005) vs ShadowFall

ethomaz on 10 March 2013

I have to stop the video after 3:20 to laugh because this part is hilarious... the guys are amazing bad and funny.

BTW if it is not gameplay... I don't know what is.



Around the Network
ethomaz on 10 March 2013
Hynad said:
With all the over the top yelling that has been going on on this show when they try games, I think they suck on purpose most of the time, because the audience think these reactions are funny.

I couldn't watch the video all the way through because they were just so predictably annoying.

They did because I can't watch the video without laugh a lot... so funny... thanks @UnitSmiley for remember me about this video.

Edit - Fixed the right person to post the video.



UnitSmiley on 10 March 2013

Haha yeah it was pretty funny watching him play it. But at least it deals with the doubts about it being real gameplay. Also, yeah the controller is sexy actually.



TheFallen on 10 March 2013

The overall look and atmosphere of  KZ2 is way better than the cgi. Sure it may not be technically better, but that target render looks dull and lifeless and not fun to play at all.



JazzB1987 on 10 March 2013
UnitSmiley said:
JazzB1987 said:

Was it 100% the same as the stuff you see in the "video"  same textures same effects etc?

I know that there is screenshots of the new killzone that look better than the video   (video has engine related motion blur  but the screenshot is supersharp and also has a slightly different angle at the exact same place)


You know its no work at all to make a great looking game and come up with  even better looking video.  (its just the next step of bullshot  but this time its with a video not screenshot)


I know this vid it looks awesome but my point still stands   Its not guaranteed to be the game graphics. I also know that there is screenshots out there (like the one where the player lands on the border and this gunship shows up) that look sharper without motion blur. This cannot be a direct feed screenshot from the same build that was shown at the Sony presentation since the engine has motion blur and no matter how often you play the same scene there will always be this motion blur because its an ingame cutscene .

Again I am not saying that the game looks worse than the footage we see I just say that people should believe their own eyes before they say something is FACT.  I actually never said the game looks worse than the videos at all  :) I just said its not 100% quaranteed to be ingame footage which is true. But people argue that anyways lol.

I question most of Sony's stories/etc  after what happened to the "all games 1080p/60fps 2 HDMI-port Playstation 3" and I think thats somewhat understandable  and there is a WindWaker WiiU mockup video where the guy tried to sync his hands movements to the video that was shown on his gamepad and it worked 70% of the time but its okay since the guy/girl is no professional.

So even if they show Jimmy holding a controller so far away from the camera that I cannot really see what he is doing and  where he randomly presses buttons it can still be a timed "show" for the audience where Jimmy knew when it was his turn to take the controller and act like he was playing it even tho it was a video. I am not saying that this happened but that this is a possibility.

So again its not proven to be ingame graphics. Since the game is not out. And that was the whole point of my comment  IT IS NOT 100% proven and I dont get why people try to argue that because I did not say something wrong I actually said something that is factual.

Btw here is the WindWaker Mockup Video.



I know that this is somewhat of a stupid comment but as said before  I never argued that the game looks great or anything I just said it is not 100% sure to be ingame graphics and my "conclusion" is based on facts whereas saying "its is 100% ingame graphics" is not.

Sorry for derailing but I had to tell you guys what I ment because you clearly misunderstood.

P.S. I wonder how the 2005 CGI trailer would have looked like when they would have had the effects todays games (like BF3 or Crysis 3) have. I mean Crysis1 on PC also looks great but it lacks the visual punch of modern games. Sure Crysis 1 has better geometry etc  but its just missing something.



Around the Network
Hynad on 10 March 2013
JazzB1987 said:
UnitSmiley said:
JazzB1987 said:

Was it 100% the same as the stuff you see in the "video"  same textures same effects etc?

I know that there is screenshots of the new killzone that look better than the video   (video has engine related motion blur  but the screenshot is supersharp and also has a slightly different angle at the exact same place)


You know its no work at all to make a great looking game and come up with  even better looking video.  (its just the next step of bullshot  but this time its with a video not screenshot)


I know this vid it looks awesome but my point still stands   Its not guaranteed to be the game graphics. I also know that there is screenshots out there (like the one where the player lands on the border and this gunship shows up) that look sharper without motion blur. This cannot be a direct feed screenshot from the same build that was shown at the Sony presentation since the engine has motion blur and no matter how often you play the same scene there will always be this motion blur because its an ingame cutscene .

Again I am not saying that the game looks worse than the footage we see I just say that people should believe their own eyes before they say something is FACT.  I actually never said the game looks worse than the videos at all  :) I just said its not 100% quaranteed to be ingame footage which is true. But people argue that anyways lol.

I question most of Sony's stories/etc  after what happened to the "all games 1080p/60fps 2 HDMI-port Playstation 3" and I think thats somewhat understandable  and there is a WindWaker WiiU mockup video where the guy tried to sync his hands movements to the video that was shown on his gamepad and it worked 70% of the time but its okay since the guy/girl is no professional.

So even if they show Jimmy holding a controller so far away from the camera that I cannot really see what he is doing and  where he randomly presses buttons it can still be a timed "show" for the audience where Jimmy knew when it was his turn to take the controller and act like he was playing it even tho it was a video. I am not saying that this happened but that this is a possibility.

So again its not proven to be ingame graphics. Since the game is not out. And that was the whole point of my comment  IT IS NOT 100% proven and I dont get why people try to argue that because I did not say something wrong I actually said something that is factual.

Btw here is the WindWaker Mockup Video.



I know that this is somewhat of a stupid comment but as said before  I never argued that the game looks great or anything I just said it is not 100% sure to be ingame graphics and my "conclusion" is based on facts whereas saying "its is 100% ingame graphics" is not.

Sorry for derailing but I had to tell you guys what I ment because you clearly misunderstood.

P.S. I wonder how the 2005 CGI trailer would have looked like when they would have had the effects todays games (like BF3 or Crysis 3) have. I mean Crysis1 on PC also looks great but it lacks the visual punch of modern games. Sure Crysis 1 has better geometry etc  but its just missing something.


Are you for real? 

Ha ha ha! It's kinda cute actually though. You're basically saying that the game looks too good to be true...

Your conclusion isn't based on facts. It is based on an assumption that Jimmy and his guest were in fact faking... The video isn't suggesting that. You choose to believe that it's all a big staged conspiracy. But there's actually nothing that supports your conclusion. Since all the games played on Jimmy's show have always been real. Proven by their releases, of course. So, really... you should really be careful with those conspiracy theories...



ethomaz on 10 March 2013

lol somebody is in denial... the demo is playable gameplay... it's impossible to not be... even when Jimmy is changing the controller with the other guy the char stop a little seconds... and after the dude is so bad that you really can say it is playing the game.

Did you really watched the video?



UnitSmiley on 10 March 2013
JazzB1987 said:
UnitSmiley said:
JazzB1987 said:

Was it 100% the same as the stuff you see in the "video"  same textures same effects etc?

I know that there is screenshots of the new killzone that look better than the video   (video has engine related motion blur  but the screenshot is supersharp and also has a slightly different angle at the exact same place)


You know its no work at all to make a great looking game and come up with  even better looking video.  (its just the next step of bullshot  but this time its with a video not screenshot)


I know this vid it looks awesome but my point still stands   Its not guaranteed to be the game graphics. I also know that there is screenshots out there (like the one where the player lands on the border and this gunship shows up) that look sharper without motion blur. This cannot be a direct feed screenshot from the same build that was shown at the Sony presentation since the engine has motion blur and no matter how often you play the same scene there will always be this motion blur because its an ingame cutscene .

Again I am not saying that the game looks worse than the footage we see I just say that people should believe their own eyes before they say something is FACT.  I actually never said the game looks worse than the videos at all  :) I just said its not 100% quaranteed to be ingame footage which is true. But people argue that anyways lol.

I question most of Sony's stories/etc  after what happened to the "all games 1080p/60fps 2 HDMI-port Playstation 3" and I think thats somewhat understandable  and there is a WindWaker WiiU mockup video where the guy tried to sync his hands movements to the video that was shown on his gamepad and it worked 70% of the time but its okay since the guy/girl is no professional.

So even if they show Jimmy holding a controller so far away from the camera that I cannot really see what he is doing and  where he randomly presses buttons it can still be a timed "show" for the audience where Jimmy knew when it was his turn to take the controller and act like he was playing it even tho it was a video. I am not saying that this happened but that this is a possibility.

So again its not proven to be ingame graphics. Since the game is not out. And that was the whole point of my comment  IT IS NOT 100% proven and I dont get why people try to argue that because I did not say something wrong I actually said something that is factual.

Btw here is the WindWaker Mockup Video.



I know that this is somewhat of a stupid comment but as said before  I never argued that the game looks great or anything I just said it is not 100% sure to be ingame graphics and my "conclusion" is based on facts whereas saying "its is 100% ingame graphics" is not.

Sorry for derailing but I had to tell you guys what I ment because you clearly misunderstood.

P.S. I wonder how the 2005 CGI trailer would have looked like when they would have had the effects todays games (like BF3 or Crysis 3) have. I mean Crysis1 on PC also looks great but it lacks the visual punch of modern games. Sure Crysis 1 has better geometry etc  but its just missing something.


I see what you mean, and you have the right to be sceptical. Afterall the KZ2 cgi was said to have been real gameplay back when it was shown. That being said, i'm pretty sure THIS time it's a safe bet what was shown is the real deal. Especially after watching Jimmy play it, there is no way they made a video of someone playing bad and told Jimmy to just play a long :p



Aldro on 10 March 2013

Seeing the first two pictures really blows my mind. Technology is crazy.



curl-6 on 10 March 2013
TheFallen said:

The overall look and atmosphere of  KZ2 is way better than the cgi. Sure it may not be technically better, but that target render looks dull and lifeless and not fun to play at all.

I disagree; the CGI trailer portrayed a gritty and realistic approach to warfare not seen in the more traditionally game-y final product. The demo looked like being in an actual war; KZ2 the game felt like shooting your way through a series of overly organized skirmishes.