PDA

View Full Version : KillZone is Pre-Rendered


Pages : [1] 2 3

Vagrant Zero
05-19-05, 04:23 PM
Alright let me straight up say I'm the biggest PS3 fanboy on these forums and I very much doubt anyone is going to challenge me on that position. With that said it should give me some instant credibilty since I'll be taking PS3s big bad down a few notches.

Ok, my argument is going to stem primarly from 2 things, Shadows and Lighting. Let's first look at Shadows.

http://www.elysiumcore.com/ps3/killzone-next-gen-20050516075937991.jpg

Take a look at the Shadows. What do you see? Pretty much nothing...they're not casting anything on themselves. Compare that this picture of UR3.

http://www.elysiumcore.com/ps3/gears-of-war-20050517012709709%5B1%5D.jpg

Notice that the self shadows are clearly defined. They look like the result of a mathematical calculation instead of the result of someone using a smudge tool to give the impression of shadows.

It becomes even more evident that the shadows in killzone aren't being cast by an "engine" [sorry guys, I'm not technically jargon inclined] and were instead added by a human being in the following image.

http://www.elysiumcore.com/ps3/killzone-next-gen-20050516075934164.jpg

To be blunt, in the terms of realistic casting games like Metal Gear Solid 2 had better shadows. I believe it's painfully obvious that a computer calculation wasn't responsible for those shadows. If they were they would be clearly defined lines [even soft shadows are clearly defined] whereas these shadows are...blobs. It's like the 16-bit days, when sprites would have black blobs for shadows.

Alright that was my first point. Now onto my second point. Take a look at the lights right above the blonde guys head in the first killzone picture. Notice something? The lights don't seem to be interacting with the building. Oh sure they're creating some saturation in the same way photoshoped light sources do. But they're not reflecting [I think it's called specular something, forgot the name, Nvidia's 2nd in command was talking about it in the Sony E3 Press Conference when he was showing off Luna and the G70] at all. Now contrast that with the light we see un the UR3 pic, namely the Caution Keep Out sign. Notice how the middle is brighter but not only that it's uneven in it's brightness, like it's reacting to the shape and depth of the metal. Not only that but the light seem slanted towards the left, whereas the killzones lights look like completely evenly spread out blobs...again.

Well I wish I knew all the technical jargon, I'm sure I'd have done a much better job at explaining my position, but I don't, so I winged it. What do you guys think? Still think it's real-time?

GamerGuyX
05-19-05, 04:28 PM
Wait a minute, wait a minuite. I thought that the Killzone 2 footage being pre-rendered was already confirmed but that the end result will look just as good if not better than the pre-rendered footage.

BioHazZarD
05-19-05, 04:29 PM
It is now but i dont care.. its the end results that will count. And remember they rushed everything for E3 just to show something. But we all know PS3 has the power to render amazing stuff.

gmontem
05-19-05, 04:30 PM
I can see self-shadowing in the Killzone shot. Hint: Look at the eyes. ;)

Vagrant Zero
05-19-05, 04:39 PM
I can see self-shadowing in the Killzone shot. Hint: Look at the eyes. ;)

That's not self-shadowing, that's someone using a smudge tool.

And yes it was confirmed that Killzone was pre-rendered, but it was confirmed by the Epic guys..so I'm not exactly sure if that's confirmation.

Regardless though, I'm amazed that people need confirmation. I could tell right away it was pre-rendered [I just got around to watching the trailer....god damned Guild Wars eats free time for breakfast]. And yes I do expect the final product to look better than that.

nVidi0t
05-19-05, 05:50 PM
That trailer was pre rendered. No doubt about it.

evilchris
05-19-05, 05:54 PM
That trailer was pre rendered. No doubt about it.

I can't stand that. It's such a cheat to fans as it has nothing to do with the system. "Oh but the graphics will be better in the final version than this here fancy pre-rendered version we've worked on since November!! "

Sony's hype machine is the worst. I'll never forget the "photo realism" promised by the PS2's "emotion engine". I'm not saying PS3 will be bad, I'm saying all this press apparently has NOTHING to do with the actual system and is all hot air.

aaahhh52
05-19-05, 06:21 PM
I'm not saying PS3 will be bad.
Yeah you are lol, while i do agree with your point (for both systems), seriously you try to nit pick every little thing that could be wrong with the ps3, yet you do nothing of the sort with the xbox. You act like your trying to take an objective view of both systems, but i havent seen anything in any of your comments that gives a nod towards the ps3. </rant>

oldsk00l
05-19-05, 06:32 PM
I can't stand that. It's such a cheat to fans as it has nothing to do with the system. "Oh but the graphics will be better in the final version than this here fancy pre-rendered version we've worked on since November!! "

Sony's hype machine is the worst. I'll never forget the "photo realism" promised by the PS2's "emotion engine". I'm not saying PS3 will be bad, I'm saying all this press apparently has NOTHING to do with the actual system and is all hot air.

Remember xbox's robot?

LOL

The "realtime version" was like 100x crappier

De ja vu is weird huh?

Knot3D
05-19-05, 06:36 PM
Here we go again :rolleyes:

Anyway, about the hard edged shadows : do you know soft shadows ? The kind that's more realistic than those hard edged Gears of War ones. It's being done on my pc in SplinterCell Chaos Theory. Yes, that's more computational intensive.

The basics of CG lighting is the same. In apps like 3Ds Max, Maya, Cinema4D etc, there are :

Least render intensive

- Hard shadows
- Soft Shadows
- Area Shadows

Most render intensive.

Realtime Radiosity is still way too far off, but we'll see even more softshadowing techniques used in next gen games on both the 360 as the PS3.

Now look at the texture and geometry of the concrete at the right ; that would be unacceptable in any high budget CGi movie....

pic link (http://www.gamer.nl/images/content/Erwie/200505/1116455817_4.jpg)

Vagrant Zero
05-19-05, 06:38 PM
I can't stand that. It's such a cheat to fans as it has nothing to do with the system. "Oh but the graphics will be better in the final version than this here fancy pre-rendered version we've worked on since November!! "

Sony's hype machine is the worst. I'll never forget the "photo realism" promised by the PS2's "emotion engine". I'm not saying PS3 will be bad, I'm saying all this press apparently has NOTHING to do with the actual system and is all hot air.

And what would you have them do? The RSX isn't ready [hasn't even been taped out from the looks of it]. Would you rather they miss E3 altogether?

Here we go again :rolleyes:

Anyway, about the hard edged shadows : do you know soft shadows ? The kind that's more realistic than those hard edged Gears of War ones. It's being done on my pc in SplinterCell Chaos Theory. Yes, that's more computational intensive.

The basics of CG lighting is the same. In apps like 3Ds Max, Maya, Cinema4D etc, there are :

Least render intensive

- Hard shadows
- Soft Shadows
- Area Shadows

Most render intensive.

Realtime Radiosity is still way too far off, but we'll see even more softshadowing techniques used in next gen games on both the 360 as the PS3.

Now look at the texture and geometry of the concrete at the right ; that would be unacceptable in any high budget CGi movie....

pic link (http://www.gamer.nl/images/content/Erwie/200505/1116455817_4.jpg)

I think you missed the point. The point wasn't hard or soft shadows, the point was that shadows aren't clearly defined as they have been in pretty much every recent game [D3, HL2, CoR, FC, etc etc]. Those shadows look like they were added in by someone, not a computer.

Secondly, this ISN'T a high budget CGi movie so what's your point? I've never understood this fasination without pointing out flaws as somehow proof of real-time. OMFGWTFBBQ that rock is teh pooh, must be real-time. You gotta be kidding me right?

And lastly those lights aren't interacting with the buildings. Sorry, but as the Epic guys pointed out, it's pre-rendered. If you want further proof of what I mean by those lights being "off", check out the sony press conference. About 30 minutes in they begin demonstrating the latest features of the RSX using Luna.

http://a1234.m.akastream.net/7/1234/5372/1/gamespot.download.akamai.com/5372/netshow/gslive/2005/05/2stream_sonypress_e305_hi.wmv

vX
05-19-05, 06:48 PM
Pre-rendered or not, it's another year till we'll get to play it, so in my eyes, i'm like who gives a f&ck right now. =) no offense to the creator of this thread, just my thing. After drooling over doom 3 and half-life 2 for frickin years, i've learned to enjoy whats out now or on the very soon list, and let stuff a year or two away wait until a year or two.

Mr. Hunt
05-19-05, 07:00 PM
The point wasn't hard or soft shadows, the point was that shadows aren't clearly defined as they have been in pretty much every recent game [D3, HL2, CoR, FC, etc etc]. Those shadows look like they were added in by someone, not a computer.

Yes... and he was saying that there are different types of shadows. "defined" shadows are basically hard shadows... I myself don't care much for shadows that look like another character completely because they are so defined... I like soft shadows.

killahsin
05-19-05, 07:00 PM
As much as i hate, literally, sony for the ps2. I do love their tv's though. The ps3 is not the ps2. The cpu alone can do things even the most high end computer any of us has here can't do. And as much as i would love sony to fail and fall flat on their face due to the bs they did with the ps2. Thats not going to happen this time. The cell is literally no joke and is one scary piece of hardware. When you have physics and ai running on 100 characters and not even effecting the performance of eachother or the speed at which the geomotry can be drawn, that is a very scary thing. It's very scary(career wise for me) when you think about the fact that msft might not allow windows on future cell platforms, but thats a whole other topic.

I am getting both systems. I have completly no doubt in my mind that the ps3 is very capable of doing kz in real time down to the videopost and animations. Now whether or not that is in fact real time i admit i have some doubts. But the one thing i know for sure, is stuff like that isn't far off, and your in a 5 year window right now till we see engines that blow stuff like that out of the water. After that it's all patches. Hell in 5 years you may see windows desktop enviornments that blow stuff like that out of the water.

We are very much one leap away from bridgeing 2 mediums and honestly thats a good thing. So personally i'm not hating on either system, im loving the xbox 360 and very much impressed by the ps3 right now. But very much scared of cell.

I'm buying both consoles, because both will kick ass. And im getting a revolution too. Ahh and sli g70's on a dual dual setup would be nice.

EDIT: for vagrant. Not saying this is the case, but tricks like that can be done in video post. Which can now be done by both these consoles.

Knot3D
05-19-05, 07:12 PM
No offense Vagrant Zero, but i do know my 3D stuff ( heh at least for what i'm worth with Cinema4D and Maya )

In that scene on top of the bridge there is light from all sides, if it were a real situation. It's not true global illumination probably like in super high end cgi movies and THAT is exactly the reason why some of the background scenery looks unaffected.

If it were 100% prerendered ; the render would have rendered ALL effects for all objects, incl. those buildings. One would have to consciously put NO GI & NO RAYcasting - rendertags on those background buildings to have them stay unaffected in prerendered footage. So it is way more likely that, like in current games, this is just evidence of limited lightsources which do not affect some background scenery.

The part under the bridge also shows some Hellghast soldiers whose shaders and textures seem a bit unaffected by the darkness of the underside of the bridge ; that means they are out of 'reach' of any lightsource. Prerendered radiosity would have bounced photons onto the models.

So, these things sum up my opinion that this footage is visual concept made on alpha devkits which emulate final PS3 specs as near as they can go.

Also, this is just only Guerrilla. Konami's on PS3 ! I wouldn't be surprised if MGS4 will make this stuff look a bit weak.

Vagrant Zero
05-19-05, 07:12 PM
Yes... and he was saying that there are different types of shadows. "defined" shadows are basically hard shadows... I myself don't care much for shadows that look like another character completely because they are so defined... I like soft shadows.

Wait you guys have lost me. By Soft Shadows do you mean the feature present in some video games like Knights of the Old Republic? as that's the only soft shadows I'm aware of. Because if you mean those types of soft shadows they are still cleary defined if not hard-edged. I can still make out arms, legs, and a head. Basically I can tell the shadow belongs to a humanoid character. The shadows in killzone could belong to dragons for all I know. They don't even remotely give the shape of a human.

As for the lights, why aren't they using Specular Highlights? The 6800s are capable of it, maybe a bit slow but that's what SLI is for.

Either it's Pre-Rendered or it's a really underwhelming Real-Time.

GamerGuyX
05-19-05, 07:17 PM
Hey guys I was just watching G4's E3 Live footage and they interviewed SCEA Executive Vice President Jack Tretton and he stated that the Killzone 2 footage was not, I repeat NOT pre-rendered. It was all in-game according to him.

evilchris
05-19-05, 07:20 PM
Yeah you are lol, while i do agree with your point (for both systems), seriously you try to nit pick every little thing that could be wrong with the ps3, yet you do nothing of the sort with the xbox. You act like your trying to take an objective view of both systems, but i havent seen anything in any of your comments that gives a nod towards the ps3. </rant>

I haven't seen any shananigans yet with regards to the Xbox 360, that's why. I DID when Xbox was announced, and bashed MS for it. Just not this time, yet at least.

evilchris
05-19-05, 07:22 PM
Remember xbox's robot?

LOL

The "realtime version" was like 100x crappier

De ja vu is weird huh?

Yeah I do, total lie by Microsoft. I think Sony is doing the same thing. Showing pre-rendered movies is BS.

They could have easily just showed the design, the projected specs, and things of that sort.

Vagrant Zero
05-19-05, 07:29 PM
I haven't seen any shananigans yet with regards to the Xbox 360, that's why. I DID when Xbox was announced, and bashed MS for it. Just not this time, yet at least.

Check out this thread if you haven't already.

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=50815

Don't go assigning halos to demons.

Vagrant Zero
05-19-05, 07:35 PM
Just found this link.


http://ps3.ign.com/articles/616/616591p1.html

Defintely pre-rendered.

Knot3D
05-19-05, 07:40 PM
Maybe, but he goes ON RECORD, that the final game will look like it.

Is the Killzone sequence a fair example of what people can expect from realtime gameplay on PlayStation 3?

Jan-Bart: Yeah, it's basically a representation of the look and feel of the game we're trying to make.

Vagrant Zero
05-19-05, 07:59 PM
Maybe, but he goes ON RECORD, that the final game will look like it.

Is the Killzone sequence a fair example of what people can expect from realtime gameplay on PlayStation 3?

Jan-Bart: Yeah, it's basically a representation of the look and feel of the game we're trying to make.

Never was arguing that. In fact in my original post I said I expect killzone to look BETTER when it's running in real-time compared to pre-rendered.

karkrash81
05-19-05, 08:25 PM
Actually the lighting in the Killzone pic is more physically accurate. Go out on a cloudy day and look at people’s shadows on themselves and on the ground. Hard shadows are the least complex shadow to render. True shadows lose sharpness as they extend away from the casting object (area shadows).

No game as of yet has been able to accurately recreate real lighting to a convincing degree. Doom 3 may have had mathematically accurate shadows but they lacked indirect illumination. The shadows were pure black. On a cloudy day lighting would be very soft and diffuse. Killzone’s sky is not clear so the lighting seems appropriate.

I’m looking outside now and nothing has hard shadows whatsoever…they’re all rather nondescript and quite blurry.

Personally I believe that the killzone vid was prerendered but It looks damn nice anyway…

And usually prerendered always looks better than in game because you can render things you can't do in real time...

kev13dd
05-19-05, 08:39 PM
XBox 360 came out and gave an honest representation of where they are right now

A bunch of the games looked very crummy at this stage of development for both software and hardware. And a few of them made my computer cry in jealousy. For PS3 to come out and give a prerendered game and say "the real one should be just like this" is complete BS to me. If the real one "should look like that" then why not just show us the real one rather than a prerender? "Well, it's not done yet" THEN DON'T SHOW IT

Honesty is a big deal to me when it comes to products. I don't want to be mislead, because I'm spending a VERY LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY and something not easily gone back on. I saved up for an entire summer for my original X-box, and I got exactly what I thought I was ganna buy. If I passed up 6 months of not having the 360, to buy the PS3, which turned out not even close to what they showed me... then I'm ganna be upset, plain and simple

How different the poll for 360 vs PS3 would be if Killzone hadn't been shown at E3...

K