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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Bullshots : The Thread

JerCotter7 on 04 June 2014
Justagamer said:
curl-6 said:
fps_d0minat0r said:

Well look again. In 05, the particle effects from the gun and the grenade launcher look like they were from arcade games in the 1990's.

The helghast look like they were from PS1, and the remaining character models like they were from PS2. Filters dont upgrade character models and make pixar movie looking faces realistic.

I have looked again.

And the character models aren't upgraded; they may be better proportioned aesthetically in the final game, but they are also blockier.

Then there's the animations, which are jerky and unnatural in the game, but fluid and lifelike in the trailer.

Let em have it, curl. I agree with you. Taking off the fanboy goggles, anyone can see the 2005 reveal is a class above the actual ps3 game. Some people are willing to see things for what they are, others are not. 2005 reveal>ps3 release

See why post crap like this? It makes your whole argument invalid. Anything you say from now on in regards to KZ2 can be taken with a grain of salt. Funny thing is I agree that the E3 reveal is better technically but the final game is better graphically.



Around the Network
fps_d0minat0r on 04 June 2014
curl-6 said:
fps_d0minat0r said:

Well look again. In 05, the particle effects from the gun and the grenade launcher look like they were from arcade games in the 1990's.

The helghast look like they were from PS1, and the remaining character models like they were from PS2. Filters dont upgrade character models and make pixar movie looking faces realistic.

I have looked again.

And the character models aren't upgraded; they may be better proportioned aesthetically in the final game, but they are also blockier.

Then there's the animations, which are jerky and unnatural in the game, but fluid and lifelike in the trailer.


I disagree, the newer one looks like the polygon count has been upped. Just look at the ATAC for example. Much more detail, much more textures, much more animations. Same with the guns and armour and clothing, big improvements.

I'm not sure what you mean about animations. Looks identcal to me in the cutscenes and improved in the gameplay.



fps_d0minat0r on 04 June 2014
Justagamer said:
curl-6 said:
fps_d0minat0r said:

Well look again. In 05, the particle effects from the gun and the grenade launcher look like they were from arcade games in the 1990's.

The helghast look like they were from PS1, and the remaining character models like they were from PS2. Filters dont upgrade character models and make pixar movie looking faces realistic.

I have looked again.

And the character models aren't upgraded; they may be better proportioned aesthetically in the final game, but they are also blockier.

Then there's the animations, which are jerky and unnatural in the game, but fluid and lifelike in the trailer.

Let em have it, curl. I agree with you. Taking off the fanboy goggles, anyone can see the 2005 reveal is a class above the actual ps3 game. Some people are willing to see things for what they are, others are not. 2005 reveal>ps3 release


Its funny how almost all of that comment applies to yourself.



curl-6 on 04 June 2014
fps_d0minat0r said:

I disagree, the newer one looks like the polygon count has been upped. Just look at the ATAC for example. Much more detail, much more textures, much more animations. Same with the guns and armour and clothing, big improvements.

I'm not sure what you mean about animations. Looks identcal to me in the cutscenes and improved in the gameplay.

On the in-game characters I could spot polygon edges around their collars, on scarves, etc.

And the animations, like with most games, transition awkwardly from one pose or animation to the next in a very unlifelike way. They go straight from standing still to running, for example. In the trailer it all flows together naturally.



walsufnir on 04 June 2014
Machina said:
Basically post any press screenshot posted prior to a game's release and it'll be a bullshot, which makes me wonder why people keep falling for it over and over again. My theory is gamers simply see what they want to see and are willing to delude themselves if it pictures a game they want to like in a favourable light.

And they even keep on defending the bullshit that was once posted as this thread shows us.



Around the Network
fps_d0minat0r on 04 June 2014
curl-6 said:
fps_d0minat0r said:

I disagree, the newer one looks like the polygon count has been upped. Just look at the ATAC for example. Much more detail, much more textures, much more animations. Same with the guns and armour and clothing, big improvements.

I'm not sure what you mean about animations. Looks identcal to me in the cutscenes and improved in the gameplay.

On the in-game characters I could spot polygon edges around their collars, on scarves, etc.

And the animations, like with most games, transition awkwardly from one pose or animation to the next in a very unlifelike way. They go straight from standing still to running, for example. In the trailer is all flows together naturally.


It does that in the final game too. Its has the most lifelike movement. Even if you play in fps mode, you can feel the momentum even if you strafe, not just sprint and stop. Its also visible in other players, even in online mode which is impressive.



curl-6 on 04 June 2014
fps_d0minat0r said:
curl-6 said:
fps_d0minat0r said:

I disagree, the newer one looks like the polygon count has been upped. Just look at the ATAC for example. Much more detail, much more textures, much more animations. Same with the guns and armour and clothing, big improvements.

I'm not sure what you mean about animations. Looks identcal to me in the cutscenes and improved in the gameplay.

On the in-game characters I could spot polygon edges around their collars, on scarves, etc.

And the animations, like with most games, transition awkwardly from one pose or animation to the next in a very unlifelike way. They go straight from standing still to running, for example. In the trailer is all flows together naturally.


It does that in the final game too. Its has the most lifelike movement. Even if you play in fps mode, you can feel the momentum even if you strafe, not just sprint and stop. Its also visible in other players, even in online mode which is impressive.

Throughout the campaign I saw my enemies and squadmates switch awkwardly between poses and routines; stand still, then suddenly start running; turn, then snap into their idle pose.

I'm not bashing the game, mind you; 99% of games have this same thing. You see it in everything from Killzone to COD to Halo to Battlefield.

But the trailer showcased something more; a continuous fluidity of character movement that didn't make it through to the final product.



fps_d0minat0r on 04 June 2014
curl-6 said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
curl-6 said:
fps_d0minat0r said:

I disagree, the newer one looks like the polygon count has been upped. Just look at the ATAC for example. Much more detail, much more textures, much more animations. Same with the guns and armour and clothing, big improvements.

I'm not sure what you mean about animations. Looks identcal to me in the cutscenes and improved in the gameplay.

On the in-game characters I could spot polygon edges around their collars, on scarves, etc.

And the animations, like with most games, transition awkwardly from one pose or animation to the next in a very unlifelike way. They go straight from standing still to running, for example. In the trailer is all flows together naturally.


It does that in the final game too. Its has the most lifelike movement. Even if you play in fps mode, you can feel the momentum even if you strafe, not just sprint and stop. Its also visible in other players, even in online mode which is impressive.

Throughout the campaign I saw my enemies and squadmates switch awkwardly between poses and routines; stand still, then suddenly start running; turn, then snap into their idle pose.

I'm not bashing the game, mind you; 99% of games have this same thing. You see it in everything from Killzone to COD to Halo to Battlefield.

But the trailer showcased something more; a continuous fluidity of character movement that didn't make it through to the final product.

I'm not sure why that happened to you throughout the game but I only had a few stutters during the autosaves.



SvennoJ on 04 June 2014
curl-6 said:
SvennoJ said:
curl-6 said:
Lawlight said:
 


Yeah, the final KZ2 game looked much better than this.

Not even close; it cranks up the shiny-ness and glare/contrast filters to try to look better, but even Killzone Shadowfall on PS4 doesn't have animations/smoke/explosions as good as the 2005 trailer.

The lighting is better in the final game, and the visuals are also more consistent overall, eg the faces stand out pretty weird in the reveal trailer.
It was a target render or basically concept art as they didn't have anything yet

The final game has a more striking style due to its heavy use of filters, shiny surfaces, and glare, but beyond these flashier aesthetics, things like animation and alpha/particles are far simpler.

Yup, they used what they had in '05 to spice things up, the flame effects look pretty dumb though. 05 has the smoke effects turned up to the max to hide the rather simple lighting. Animation is all tailor made for the trailer, it's one long cutscene as they admitted.

It's a bullshot trailer, as any trailer is years before release. Still the final game looks more pleasing despite less smoke effects and stitched together animations. The trailer looks even more grey and a bit cartoony in a way, not fitting the style of the final game. It would make an interesting looking game too.



zarx on 04 June 2014



@TheVoxelman on twitter

Check out my hype threads: Cyberpunk, and The Witcher 3!