Quantcast
Community Discussion: Blog by Emrah | Emrah's ProfileDestructoid
Emrah's Profile - Destructoid

DestructoidJapanatorTomopopFlixist





About
Badges
Following (2)  



I know Killzone 2 multiplayer is somewhat still active, but I'll talk about it as past, now that the new Killzone is coming.

Killzone 2 had great multiplayer, and emphasis on team-play was great. To win, people had to work as a team. However, people love to earn points. They want to be the top player in team. Strangely, they forget that winning would earn them 1.5x points, not contentrating on winning but securing more points in a short time, while waiting for other "suckers" on his team to complete the objectives. Sure, incapacitating enemy helps the team win, but this has to be done near the objective, not the other end of the map.

In KZ2, fragging was the single  most effective way to earn points. To put it into If you killed 3 opponents with headshots in a body count objective, you earned more points that a person who had actually planted a bomb to score for the team. In the body-count objective, you may be killed 30 times, while killing 3, thereby making your team lose the body-count. But congratulations, you have earned more points than the guy that won the search&destroy (bomb-plant) objective.

In BFB I know Killzone 2 multiplayer is somewhat still active, but I'll talk about it as past, now that the new Killzone is coming. Killzone 2 had great multiplayer, and emphasis on team-play was great. To win, people had to work as a team. However, people love to earn points. They want to be the top player in team. Strangely, they forget that winning would earn them 1.5x points, not contentrating on winning but securing more points in a short time, while waiting for other "suckers" on his team to complete the objectives. Sure, incapacitating enemy helps the team win, but this has to be done near the objective, not the other end of the map. In KZ2, fragging was the single  most effective way to earn points. To put it into perspective: If you killed 3 opponents with headshots in a body count objective, you earned more points that a person who had actually planted a bomb to score for the team. In the body-count objective, you may be killed 30 times, while killing 3, thereby making your team lose the body-count. But congratulations, you have earned more points than the guy that won the search&destroy (bomb-plant) objective. In BFBC2, for example, you do not need to be a killing machine to be amongst the top players. Support your team well as an engineer or medic, and you'll be amongst the top. My hope is that object-completion will be heavily rewarded in Killzone 3. But so far, this doesn't seem to be the case, from what I've seen in videos of the beta. I hope Guerrilla Games changes the way players earn points: Massive points should be awarded for object completion. In body count, kill minus death should be taken into consideration for assigning points, on top of a baseline symbolic point award for each kill that is the same throughout the match. So you should be awarded less points for killing 10, but dying 20 times, than a person who has killed 10, but died 5 times. Kills around objectives should earn more points than the baseline. This is true for holding your ground in a capture&hold session, but this should be extended to e.g. supporting a person who is defusing / planting a bomb. If you kill an enemy shooting at your team's bomb planter, thereby saving him instead of lurking in some other corner to get easy kills, you should be awarded more points for it. I'm eagerly waiting for Killzone 3, although Guerrilla games seems to do little to avoid another frag-fest.








I'm going to pull a 640k-ought-to-be-enough-for-everybody, but hear me out:

720p 4xAA is pretty much sufficient for mind-blowing visuals. Why stress the hardware unnecessarily?

Would you be bothered if your game looked as good as a high def (720p) movie? Would you be bothered if your game didn't run at 1080p, but with real-time caustics, global illumination, radiosity, sub surface scattering, motion blur, realistic DOF, sub-pixel displacement mapping, fur / hair rendering, voxel particles, skeletal / muscle simulation, gas / liquid simulation at 720p 60fps?

As if we got all of these running together at 720p, we want our visuals to run at 1080p..

So why the 1080p madness? The games don't look all that different at 1080p from 720p.. It's the rendering, stupid..

Also:
This looks more realistic:


Than:


Although the first picture effectively has quarter the amount of pixels of the second, and upscaled with the simplest scaling algorithm, not even with the fancy methods most quarter-decent tv sets use, it looks more realistic than the second picture. Mind you that pixel count difference between 720p and 1080p is not even this dramatic.

I hope I made sense.