Killzone 3 never quite hits the same levels. To its fans, the strength of Killzone 2 was the visceral intensity of its combat, and the way that built and built to unprecedented levels as the game went on. Is this necessarily a bad thing? Has something been lost along the way? Sure. In fact, with its settings, its action sequences and its greater reliance on cinematics and massive action set-pieces, it actually feels a lot like Call of Duty. The odd thing is, however, that when you take all these changes together, Killzone 3 no longer feels quite like Killzone. PS: if only people who actually played the considered games would offer an opinion about those very games, lot's of threads wouldn't get derailed and hence closed.Movement, meanwhile, is now faster, more instantly responsive and more fluid, without that sense of fatigue that characterised the old Killzone 2 experience. In my opinion, destruction is one of the most important features an action game should have.but only DICE seems to understand.that is why for me, all other games are just one league below. Technically, it must be BF3, because they have destruction. What I like best: if you watch the KZ2 making of, all the developers talked about what their goal was with the post processing, what the call the 'analogous' look - if find it astounding that they did all this on purpose and everything they intended actually clicked with me the same way they wanted.īut technically, I think the lack of some form of HDR rendering is a really dramatic compromise. With respect to KZ2, the postprocessing is indeed the feature what makes it special to me. MLAA does not work at all, except for the jungle level, where it works really good. I agree, KZ3 IQ is not good, and AA is a clear step back compared to KZ2. I'd say that KZ2 even if it has QAA and has a slight blur when compared to KZ3 has better IQ IMO, in fact it's a rare case where QAA actually fits the art direction and the overall look of the game resulting in a more CG like look. KZ3 IQ is second to none? you're clearly overreacting.if anything the IQ and MLAA in particular is a mixed bag on KZ3, there are places that are very clear while in others the shimmering is really apparent. Personally I can't consider a game where the frame-rate goes down to 18-25fps a lot of the time a technical marvel even if it does things that no other game does but that's just me. Thing is that even if Crysis 2 does some really impressive things on the consoles (which surely does) the most disappointing thing is that the frame-rate doesn't hold up even if they went sub-HD with a cheap AA solution. Personally I would pick KZ2 to showcase the tech mainly due to its unique look and no game does a "theater of war" as surreal as this game does.ĭoesn't almost every console game make some significant compromises? See Halo 4 which looks amazing IMO but lacks SSAO and motion blur when compared to Reach for example to achieve a better IQ, it's fixed hardware that we're talking about so I guess that's expected. Sub HD, sever pop ins, ghosting, blurry textures, less than stellar AA and low fps really drag it down. ![]() On the other hand the darker and grittier style of KZ2 along with that shadow casting muzzle flash, volumetric particles and more prominent OMB brings out the unique KZ look more.Īs for Crysis 2 it's got the longest laundry list of tech features but strongly hindered by an equally long list of technical issues. Speaking of particles, yes they have cut back from the rather amazing looking volumetric particles in KZ2, but still they are very abundant on screen and definitely more so than in KZ2. It has an immediate leap over KZ2 in terms of high res textures, more polygons on screen, much bigger scale and better character models. I think KZ3 has the best balance in graphical features, image quality and performance when compared to the other two.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |