Actually, yes. What's so great about those GT shots? But I will hand it to their artists, though. They know how to choose a color palette that absolutely nails the look and feel of 'reality'. And their angles & presentation are top notch.. those behind the car shots have the feel of being shot through a real zoom lens or something.

Like GT4 will look that good :)

I agree, Killzone looks great...and the fog is most likely part of the mood of the game....as the trailer has no fog in it, on a different level.

Hey, I love my PS2 as much as anyone. All I'm saying is it can't graphically compare to what's coming out on PC, and even on XBOX right now. If you saw that screen shot and read that it was a new PC game, you probably would have thought to yourself that it's just another PC FPS, but for the PS2 (just like those GT4 pics), it looks amazing.

I've always been a subscriber to gameplay over pretty graphics, although I admit it does help.

noonan4224 - I dare you to find a PC game running on a $200 computer that looks as good as Killzone. You know what, I dare you to find a PC game running on a $300 computer that looks as good as Killzone.

See my point? On the hardware provided, this game looks amazing. This game looks better than Xbox and GC games. Comparing this game running on a $200 machine to a game running on a $2000 machine is rediculous.

I would just wait until they release the final product. Many, many times screenshots, and even videos look alot better than when the product is actually released.

Josh-First off, chill down a bit. One thing that is for sure it....it's only a video game. We're not talking life and death here. No need to make it personal. Second, in my first post all I said was it looks good for a PS2 game. I in no way expect a PS2 game to look as good as the PC stuff coming out. I don't understand why you're taking this so personally. Am I wrong?? It does look better than what you usually see on PS2. That was all I was trying to say. No more of this foolishness please.

I am one of the few people on the board who shows any respect for the PS2. Most have jumped on the Xbox or GC wagon and use the claim everything looks better on that hardware. When you say it "looks good for a PS2 game" why do you qualify it? It looks good for a game on any video game system, regardless of platform.

You say PS2 games can't compare to games on Xbox, but you are wrong. Games such as Jak II and Ratchet and Clank 2 have been described as the best looking platformers on any platform, including Xbox and PC. Just admit that this game looks amazing for a videogame, not just because of your biases against PS2.

The PS2 is only being 66% utilized at the moment. I would like to hear about how much power is being utilized to create games for the Xbox and GC which can't compare graphically to these games. And no, this isn't life or death, but this is a Videogame Forum.

Okay. This will be my last post about this issue. I am in no way biased against the PS2. I own one. I waited in line overnight for release day. I would never sell it. I also own a XBOX, and GC. I don't like one over the other. You want me to say that it looks amazing for a videogame, but I can't. Compare it to Rainbow Six 3 for PC and XBOX, compare it to Halo. It doesn't compare to those graphically, nor to a bunch of other games. You said yourself that it's not fair to compare it to a PC game, but your last post says that it does. Make up your mind. And I would love to see some proof that the PS2 is only 66% utilized right now. That my friend is a load of crap. Face the facts, it's been out for years now. There's not much more it can do. If you would like some facts showing that XBOX is capable of better graphics, I'll post every head-to-head that IGN has done. They will prove my point for me.

the AI is pretty moronic in the new gameplay vid
I really hope they fix that

Regarding the under utilization of the PS2, here's an article from SCEE itself with numbers and pretty graphs. (it's in PDF by the way). Note the 2% utilization of VU0 (see p.14). :) Not to say that they ever will be able to utilize the machine 100%, but there is still a ways to go.

noonan4224 - sorry to hear that you think it is a load of crap, but here is the word directly from Sony:

http://www.technology.scee.net/scees...rHaveWeGot.pdf

It describes how the PS2 is still not being used anywhere close to its capability. And I did say you can compare videogames to the PC, I just said that it has been done and the PS2 has come on top for some genres. I still don't condone it, but if it is to be done, I can't misquote someone just because they did it. I would also disagree that this:

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/....html?page=156

Looks better than what we have seen from Killzone so far. :lol:

I dunno I still think this is revolutionary :lol:

http://www.gamespy.com/devcorner/jan...rlson/pong.gif
:p

I'm been wtaching this damn pong game for about five minutes now and no one's scored! BTW - My money's on the person on the right (I smell a comeback).

You just want to have your cake and eat it, too.

On the one hand, you get angry if we qualify praise with "for the ps2". You want us to say that it's good for any game.

Yet on the other hand, you want us to exclude all modern PC games from consideration! And by the way, good PCs only cost about $1000 these days and, though I shouldn't have to explain this to you, they cost more than consoles because they do so much more than gaming. A $125 video card, however, can kick a PS2's proverbial ass.)

You can't have it both ways. If you don't want people to qualify it with "for the PS2", then it's only logical that it be compared to every commonly available game out there. Otherwise, it's only reasonable to say it's good for a PS2.

I don't want you to exclude any modern PC games (never said that). I just don't see how comparing a game running on a $180 piece of hardware to a game running on a $400 video card would prove anything. Its like comparing a Yugo to a Cadillac and saying the Cadillac is more luxurious. I really don't care if you want to compare this game to Doom 3 or Half Life 2, just don't spend $400 on a video card and try to prove your point.

New video available

Takes forever to download but looks pretty amazing. The outdoor environments are huge and framerate is quick too. Enemy AI is still untuned as can be seen.

:drool:

Its going to be a great game when they get the enemy AI down.

Continuing my one-man-hype-machine, here are some new shots that look pretty darn good.

you are not alone....

Since when does the PS2 crank out 1024x 768 images? Those are renders.

What's the big deal with this game? The footage I saw on TechTV looked pretty blah (Turok: Dinosaur Hunter was the first thing I thought of). Here's Penny Arcade's take on the title:

Killzone: Honestly, I don't know what the big deal is. Going by current release dates, Killzone itself will launch a week after Halo 2 - honestly, I'd just stop development right now. I've played both, networked and all, and Killzone doesn't even rank Little Brother status. There was some nice geometry, but it wasn't even "Nice Geometry" - it was just better and faster than I expected on the Playstation 2. It's like when you see an old man hobble over to the mailbox all by himself. Getting the mail is no herculean act. And there is nothing startling or noteworthy about Killzone.

Add me to the list who doesn't understand the hype around this game.

I played it at e3 and was impressed, the graphics are decent and it makes a great realistic shooter. Without splitscreen and LAN, though it will be no "Halo Killer."

If they fix the horrible reload times, and the slightly chunky framerate...it will be much better than Halo...but maybe not Halo 2. Halo suffered from drab environments (or should I say basically 2 different environments repeated to death), the same 3 enemies, and dull color schemes. Killzone looks so much better, just doesnt play very smooth yet. We shall see come the fall.