They should have attempted and succeded to make the game run natively in 1080p...BF4 is a bad precedent.

Killzone's AA was really not that great, but far more worse and distracting were the not that rare massive texture pop-ins from quite rough to high-res textures. That was disappointing to me.

TXAA has a problem: it tends to blur the image too much. The heavy blur in Ryse comes from that kind of blur with SMAA 1tx  (and not really from the upscaling).

SMAA 2tx is the best post processing AA out there without pure super sampling SSAA (it uses temporal super sampling only by "smartly cheating" using previous frames). Even DF said it reluctantly in the Infamous face-off. If you want better stuff you have to use at least the very expensive 4xSSAA or combine SMAA 2tx with 4xMSAA.

But using only 4xMSAA has problems: it doesn't deal with shader aliasing and it leaves some aliasing particularly on motion.

And 2xMSAA is more expensive than SMAA 2tx, do you think the AA used in Titanfall XB1 is better than SMAA 2tx? I don't think so. You can still see aliasing even with 4xMSAA. That's why even the games using only 4xMSAA (like many PC games or even the Order) must use other post process blurring solution to hide the problems not dealt with like the aliasing in motion and shader aliasing. 

The ideal in fact would be to combine MSAA + SMAA 2TX: it has already been done and is called SMAA 4x.

Well I guess the aliasing issue in Titanfall is most releated to 792p than the AA... I'm sure that with 1080p plus 2xMSAA it will like inFAMOUS in terms of AA... that is my guess.

I really like MSAA or SSAA.... I think for consoles the best option is yet 1080p + MSAA... I wanted to see how inFAMOUS could look using 4xMSAA for example.

Better have no AA than blurry messy shitty AA. Let it keep evolving.

Yes. yes and yes. But developers are afraid of 10% of people complaining about "I can see the jaggies". 

So they just wreck completely their game by adding a big vaseline filter.

But you know, not all developers do that. Some really care about image quality hopefully because they understand that clarity and sharpness is really important in gaming.

(*headsup* I'm a Sony fan)

I've always had a major problem with how the KZ games looked. I couldn't believe that people thought KZ2 looked good at all. It looked like a flickering mess with tons of popin to me. The same goes for Shadowfall unfortunately. I agree with you 100%.

More than this is the disappointment that a apparantly talented (I suppose they are?) studio would work on a by-the-numbers game in a crowded genre with THE MOST GENERIC, stupid title ever. Killzone - think about it. Where's the intrigue that a name like Halo brings for instance? So disappointing. I wish they'd do something else entirely. And to the fans - well, you know what - even the worst games ever had fans, so there you go. I think it's a waste of time.

rant over

I must say though, the intro vid in KZ2 was incredible. But that's hardly worth much is it? 

I would rather have they putting that resource on better texture, better models, better fps or leave it unitilized than to lazy AA to have a mark on a checklist. Sony could use that 3,5Gb of reserved RAM and make a standard AA decent so shitty devs don't make a worst game because it's cool to have AA.

I mean it depends on the game.  BL2 on PC uses it well and it looks alright.  However it will always add some blurring.  I do prefer real AA more as well.  I even think SSAA is worth the hit since it is second to none in quality...

Funny because I already complained just exactly about that. A game called "killzone" would never have the Halo greatness just because only the title of the game implies it's just a generic FPS (even if it's really not the case).

A game about a "zone" where you could "kill" people? Seriously. Not really an ambitious nor a compelling title. When you think that the Killzone sci-fi story is itself rather interesting but they really have to change the title of the game.

Also you know Killzone developers never really cared about sharpness/image quality in their games. Don't forget that they released Killzone 2 with a big bad vaseline filter with Quincunx. But then released Killzone 3 with the great sharp morphological MLAA. Then the blurry FXAA for Killzone 4.

For me this inconsistancy shows a real lack of interest about image quality also with the sick inducing dose of motion blur. What interest them is how much they can push polygons and shaders on the GPU (MLAA was GPU free on PS3 so...). Even if Killzone 4 is still great looking because they really weren't kidding with the heavy dose of shaders/effects/polygons/vomiting inducing motion blur in this game...

Yes I do hate motion blur too. I mean they use some of the most impressive motion blur in the world of gameing...in a 60fps Multiplayer game? Who does that?