Just to point out, it's not dynamic destruction, it's scripted destruction. If you throw a grenade at a stone pillar it blows up the same way every time, launch a rocket a bridge it goes into it's destruction script, not like Red Faction where you can destroy stuff bit by bit.

And while I haven't seen the textures first hand playing, I know that teh cell or anything else for that matter doesn't have the power to have actual textures with depth, they are all just wrappers that look like they have depth. Maybe KZ2 has prettier wrappers, but it will still have wrappers.

And this is what I'm talking about with hype goggles. Just attributing stuff to it that it's not actually even doing.

Lmao, I have to agree with this post =)

I think this thread would be better if you posted a couple at a time, so we can actually see them not at 5 FPS.

@the vagabond7

I have no idea what you are talking about...

I am talking about the actual 3D models. As you might have overheard in my other post, I 3D model characters and stuff. With 3D models you can do one of two things. Make them extremely indetailed from the start or make them just detailed enough from a modelers standpoint, then just wrap them up with good textures.

Gears, as are all UE3 games, emphasize the later. They work less on a super high poly count on a model, instead simply layer over top of them with really well done texture work that gives off the impression of depth.

Killzone 2 on the other hand has really high poly count on each particular object in the game. These models are so detailed there are probably the same number of polys in one character in killzone as there are in an entire level in Gears 2. Then what GG has done is add hi res textures, or wraps to them making them even better. The game's physics also adds another level of realism to the environments with realistic breeze control, wall chipping and deterioration depending on the surroundings, realistic lighting effects to an ungodly level.

Vega, I understand you do not want to buy into excessive hype because in the end you feel they ruin games. That I get, whole heartedly. Yet just because it may seem too good to be true doesn't mean it is.

I am sorry but this is the most radically fallacious lie I have ever heard. It is ridiculous.

Brilliant! Why didnt I think of that. Thx.

I originally had about 15 up there so imagine what that was like LOLZ! I will place different ones that I might have missed periodically so they can be bigger and clear to see, as well as run at full FPS.

Actually, they make a super high poly version and use that to build normal maps for characters (and likely same for objects).  You make it sound like that's being cheap or lazy, personally I think it's the better way that throwing millions of poly's at things.

Anybody can make a high poly object, it actually takes skill to work within a defined set of rules.  If you have those rules then that even allows you to have more objects.  I highly doubt they left everything in the game high poly.

-edit-

lolITTTech, that's why you think like that.  I'm sorry and I'm really not trying to sound mean to you here, but I know many studios that flat out won't even look at people that from any of the ITT Tech or AI schools and for good reason.  I don't know anything about the quality of your work, but in general, those schools are there just to take your money and not to teach you.

-edit #2-

And so I don't sound like so much of an ass, let me add more to the lolITTTEch part.

The people that come out of the ITTTech game schools and are good are good because they are good.  ITTTech didn't do anything to make them good other than to give them a small boost perhaps.  The rest of the people that come out of there are mediocre at best, do not know how to work in teams, do not know how to work with other disciplines, and just aren't people that are very marketable.

 Dude, seriously? Did you even READ my second post?

Really...don't reply unless you read what I said first -_- 

I don't see how people can look at a short video of FPS and say it has better gameplay then another FPS. What are you looking for to make this decisions? All look the same to me :S

I think you have to play it, to see how it controls, see how it feels to shoot people, run around, throw a grenade and everything to really know if the gameplay is the same.

OMG!!! Look at that ground texture work. THe way the light hits it......UUUGH!  And the hand with the gun. Wanna know how you get the light and the ground to play like that? You model the actual bumbs and indents in the ground, THEN texture over it. Then all you gotta do is set up material types and level of refraction/reflection.

Lighting Effects are unmatched! That explosion looked something like out of an Action movie, particles flying through the air and slowly comign down. THe light from explosion even gives off a glare right in the eye. You can even see the fine tuned details of the gun, every whole, screw, nook and cranny.

Not to mention not a AA issue in sight that many try to claim the PS3 has issue with.

EXACTLY! Thats what I'm getting at, it looks the same to me as Call of Duty  did in terms of gameplay. As for normal FPS, there are actually many ways to tell how the gameplay is different from one to the next, but you summed up my point. It looks like Call of Duty: Killzone, i.e. they both look the same. 

Not saying its bad or good, just saying it looks pretty much exactly like Call of Duty. LOOKS. And from LOOKS, you can tell a whole bunch about things. Controls don't make a game different from another if they have the same gameplay.