Killzone 2. What the heck is wrong with todays FPS!

[chewbachman]

I was playing Killzone 2 today when it struck me. This game came out in 2009 and I am seeing visual effects on a 9 year old system that I rarely see on "next gen" consoles or even on PC. The guns were punchy and weighty, the enemies provided great visual feed back as they noticeably reacted to every bullet impact, and the effects were fantastic all without making use of PhysX. What is the excuse here for todays developers? This console had 512 mb ram with a graphics card that would make an iphone strut with pride. What the heck is wrong!? Resolution and fps are great, but why aren't these effects a standard thing yet?

[Doctor Evil (My Deep Trap)]

Publicado originalmente por chewbachman:

I was playing Killzone 2 today when it struck me. This game came out in 2009 and I am seeing visual effects on a 9 year old system that I rarely see on "next gen" consoles or even on PC. The guns were punchy and weighty, the enemies provided great visual feed back as they noticeably reacted to every bullet impact, and the effects were fantastic all without making use of PhysX. What is the excuse here for todays developers? This console had 512 mb ram with a graphics card that would make an iphone strut with pride. What the heck is wrong!? Resolution and fps are great, but why aren't these effects a standard thing yet?

"We need more.. money!" -devs

[Dono Kill TF2]

People love to ♥♥♥♥♥ about visuals and fps, so companies focus on that more than gameolay

[𝓋𝓇𝒾𝓈𝓀𝒶]

Publicado originalmente por Mister Cutie Chan Patootie:

People love to ♥♥♥♥♥ about visuals and fps, so companies focus on that more than gameolay

well video games are a visual medium so it stands to reason that people will care about graphics and frames per second

[chewbachman]

Publicado originalmente por abadeer:

Publicado originalmente por Mister Cutie Chan Patootie:

People love to ♥♥♥♥♥ about visuals and fps, so companies focus on that more than gameolay

well video games are a visual medium so it stands to reason that people will care about graphics and frames per second

I am not stating that gameplay is unimportant, just curious as to why we have seen so very little of what was present in this title in 2009.

[Gurrarn]

Killzone 2 is a mediocre FPS at best tbh. Reason it looked so good was because the comapny developed the game specifically for the PS3, so they could put all of their efforts into optimizing for one platform whereas multiplats cannot which may also explain why a lot of modern games appear to not look as good (although I personally thought KZ2 was ugly, to each their own I suppose)

[Mark S.]

i was playing killzone 2 as well and i thought it was pretty good for ps3, but certainly not as pretty as PC

[supertrooper225]

Publicado originalmente por Anor Londo:

Killzone 2 is a mediocre FPS at best tbh. Reason it looked so good was because the comapny developed the game specifically for the PS3, so they could put all of their efforts into optimizing for one platform whereas multiplats cannot which may also explain why a lot of modern games appear to not look as good (although I personally thought KZ2 was ugly, to each their own I suppose)

Killzone 2 looked great technically. But its art style was very bland. Yea, the reason it looked that good is because Sony supported its devs to optimize the game for the PS3. There was nothing great about that game. I didn't like the mechanics. The gunplay felt pretty good but the enemies felt too bullet spongey and there was nothing but a standard COD type story with no moments of pause or story exposition. Decent multiplayer though.

[chewbachman]

Publicado originalmente por Anor Londo:

Killzone 2 is a mediocre FPS at best tbh. Reason it looked so good was because the comapny developed the game specifically for the PS3, so they could put all of their efforts into optimizing for one platform whereas multiplats cannot which may also explain why a lot of modern games appear to not look as good (although I personally thought KZ2 was ugly, to each their own I suppose)

And it did ugly so good. Place was supposed to look like a hell hole. As for the series on a whole, mediocre it may be, but most consider Killzone 2 to be a stand out title with divisive, "meaty" controls. The controls made you feel like a person not a camera dolly, which I rather enjoyed.

[chewbachman]

Publicado originalmente por Mark S.:

i was playing killzone 2 as well and i thought it was pretty good for ps3, but certainly not as pretty as PC

I agree it certainly does not look better than pc, this is due to our higher resolutions and framerates, anti-aliasing, anisotropic filtering etc etc. I am reffering to the visual flourishes and effects alone. I saw a enemy soldier fall to my fire while firing an RPG. He fell midfire which destabilized the rocket sending it corkscrewing in the distance. Smoke blowing in the wind, shell casings glinting off of light sources as they leave the weapon, the little things that go a looong way. I wonder why we don't see more of this.

[gleofrocga]

Publicado originalmente por chewbachman:

Publicado originalmente por Mark S.:

i was playing killzone 2 as well and i thought it was pretty good for ps3, but certainly not as pretty as PC

I agree it certainly does not look better than pc, this is due to our higher resolutions and framerates, anti-aliasing, anisotropic filtering etc etc. I am reffering to the visual flourishes and effects alone. I saw a enemy soldier fall to my fire while firing an RPG. He fell midfire which destabilized the rocket sending it corkscrewing in the distance. Smoke blowing in the wind, shell casings glinting off of light sources as they leave the weapon, the little things that go a looong way. I wonder why we don't see more of this.

The true test: was it volumetric smoke?

[chewbachman]

As I recall it was, I remember there being a big hullaballoo about how if you blow the bridge early enough in the first level a landing craft would zoom through the smoke leaving a concentric wake. Trickery? maybe.

edit: just looked it up, yes it was volumetric.

[Saint Pablo]

I just noticed that most FPS back in the day are somewhat more enjoyable than the ones today.Even the FPS from early days that I've never played until now are more fun than the FPS games today.

[supertrooper225]

Publicado originalmente por Sly Cooper:

Publicado originalmente por Greed:

I just noticed that most FPS back in the day are somewhat more enjoyable than the ones today.Even the FPS from early days that I've never played until now are more fun than the FPS games today.

So...
Cod 1 is better than Cod AW?

More like Unreal Tournament games had better multiplayer than any COD. Or how Half Life is better than most single player FPS games released today.

[supertrooper225]

Publicado originalmente por Sly Cooper:

Publicado originalmente por supertrooper225:

More like Unreal Tournament games had better multiplayer than any COD. Or how Half Life 2 is better than most single player FPS games released today.

Fixed.

And of course Unreal Tournament was better.
I had only heard of it before I took a tour of Epic Games. Then I saw it's sign in a hallway, and found a livestream of the game much later on.

Half Life 1 was arguably the better game in terms of setting, atmosphere, yadda yadda yadda...But that argument is pointless. Both of them were pretty much awesome. And better than just about all FPS's released these days. And yea, Unreal Tournament was awesome too. Especially 2004.

[Mr. Tex]

The problem is that triple-a games have become more about graphics than anything else.

Its not hard to see why. Just look at how our gaming media behaves, reviewers and critics alike, their main criteria for a good and fun game is the graphics, the cosmetic stuff. Not the gameplay, not the content.

Mainstream gamers are then influenced by how our media behaves, so they end up mainly caring about graphcis as well, regardless of what the actual content is.

No wonder that we get triple-a games today that are not as good as our older games, whether on console or PC.