Killzone 2 dev admits screenshots 'touched up'


Recommended Posts

Killzone 2 dev admits screenshots 'touched up'

killzone2-touch-up.jpg

Even virtual worlds need to visit the powder room before parading in public. The practice of 'touching up' is something our shallow, image-conscious society accepts (heck, we expect it!), so long as the object doesn't stray too far from our idealized imaginations. So when Guerrilla Games rolled out a new batch of Killzone 2 screens, captured from this year's E3 demo, fans noticed the images looked a little too good to be true, drawing obvious connections to Killzone's infamous E3 2005 debut trailer, which substituted actual game content with pre-rendered 'target' video.

Guerrilla QA manager Seb Downie joined the discussion on the PlayStation Forums, admitting, "[The screenshots] are only the tiniest bit touched up ... there was a little bit of colour-correction done and some minor polish, but nothing major." The comparison image above, also posted in the discussion (via PSU), seems to corroborate Downie's admission, revealing sharper colors and deeper contrasts in the 'doctored' screen on the right (effects that seem within the limits of standard display settings; i.e., a television could be capable of displaying both the dull and stylized versions of this scene by tinkering with its display settings). Also, the "original" version of the image is a frame snagged directly from video, so it's subject to a certain amount of blurring that's not necessarily an accurate depiction of gameplay frozen in that instant. In any case, how can a screenshot ever tell the truth? Downie concludes that Killzone 2 simply "looks better in motion."

Source: Joystiq

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of developers do this with screenshots (N)

I dunno if it's for better or worse that the developers have actually admitted to touching the screens up.

I've seen plenty of videos of KZ2 actually being played, and it looks great anyhow.

But regardless of how good it looks, we all know this screenshot touchup "shocker" will steal the thunder for a while :hmmm:

They are only the tiniest bit touched up. Short answer is yes. Long answer is that there was a little bit of colour-correction done and some minor polish, but nothing major. Still very close to reality and it looks better in motion in my opinion.

Seb Downie - QA Manager - Guerrilla Games

Source: http://boardsus.playstation.com/playstatio...id=17675#M17675

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea, because these are the first developers to ever do this right?

I think we should know that most screen shots that are released usually go through somewhat of the same process.

But of course, these are the Killzone developers, and have been found to be cuaght lying about what they have shown before, so from now on I must take every jab at them so that I can to portray them in a bad light.

Oooo, sense the sarcasm. :p

Not that it matters to me much, I know how the game looks on the trailer, and it looks great, what they do after that matters naught to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read this news earlier without seeing any screens of the differences in original vs the corrected images. The developer in the interview made it sound like a small differnce but from those thumbnails it's quite a big one if you ask me. They mentioned they used colour correction but WOW, talk about over kill. The game looks so dull normally, no wonder they had to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first pic looks too faded. The second, as DrunknMunky said, is overkill.

Thats because the 1st pic was taken from a compressed video source so there is smoothing, blurring and looks faded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hm.. I don't remember Bioshock looking touched up? The game is every bit awesome as it was shown in screenshots.

Touchups to screenshots these days come from mostly PS3 developers. Just look at Haze, Lair then this Killzone 2. Why is it that Ratchet didn't have the need to touch up screenshots, or Call of Duty 4?

It's because when you have a game that sucks, you need to do whatever you can to attract people and this includes of course misleading and lying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats because the 1st pic was taken from a compressed video source so there is smoothing, blurring and looks faded.

Oh come on, look at it. They touched it up so much the shadows look so much better it almost looks like a different engine, video compression won't do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First developers to ever do it or not, why have they not been sued for false advertising yet? Why have more development houses who do this not been sued for false advertising?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm interested to know if "touching up" screenshots for a videogame can be considered a form of false advertising.

well several things really... considering that you really can't go and buy a game, play it, say "oh it sucks" and return it, we are heavily relying on screenshots and videos to make a decision whether we like the game or not (graphically that is) in addition to the gameplay. As you can't really test the gameplay if there's no demo, you are really stuck with only screenshots and videos. Not to mention reviews that are for the most part bought by publishers these days anyways.

So if someone tries to manipulate the very thing you base your decision on whether or not you will buy the game, it is very well being considered misleading and false advertising. If you can't see that, then you really have a problem in perceiving the state of things as they are.

With complete objectivity Sony and a lot of games showcased coming to PS3 not only had touched up screenshots but the videos that need to show you gameplay were pre-rendered and animated instead of real gameplay. Of course a lot of companies are to blame for this, but recently and the past year, it seems that mostly games for PS3 have been doing this. Several examples, Killzone 2, Haze, Motorstorm, Uncharted.. They all released pre-rendered footage as gameplay either on E3 or other events. They've been busted for it too by the community, especially the case with Killzone 2 and Motorstorm. Even though Uncharted looks pretty good, it's nowhere near to what it was shown.

Take all of the above in consideration and yes, this is completely lying and misleading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who cares? It's marketing... do you bitch and complain that McDonalds' food doesn't look like the commercial?

I sure do bitch and complain, to myself atleast, but that doesn't stop me buying and enjoying the end product.

Though I personally prefer BK. :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not the same thing. McDonalds' food is still made of the same ingredients, and thus the experience (if you can call it that) of consuming the organic matter of which it is composed is the same.

The graphics of a game are the "stuff" of the game and the basis upon which many make their buy-or-do-not-buy decision. If I see a screenshot and my system matches the requirements for the game, I expect it to look like the screenshot on my system.

The nearest fast-food analogy here would be a different ratio of real beef to "filler material" in the McD's burger, rather than how it's made up to look on TV. With McD's, the main point is the ingestion of the food, more than the food's appearance. With the game, the appearance is a more significant point (until you get into the age-old graphics/gameplay debate, but either way it's less cut-and-dry than a McD's burger).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The nearest fast-food analogy here would be a different ratio of real beef to "filler material" in the McD's burger, rather than how it's made up to look on TV. With McD's, the main point is the ingestion of the food, more than the food's appearance. With the game, the appearance is a more significant point (until you get into the age-old graphics/gameplay debate, but either way it's less cut-and-dry than a McD's burger).

Lol, complete BS. Many people would say how food looks is just as important as how it tastes. Presentation is a huge factor in how food is judged. Is sitting around bitching about a doctored screenie really worth it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. Again, it's false advertising. In years past, companies have been nailed to the wall for it.

And no, it's not complete BS. With food, you can make the same materials look a different way and they're still the same organic molecules. With a game, the look IS the materials.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks a lot worse in this one:

post-2250-1197323936_thumb.jpg

The untouched one almost looks black and white, with the flames colored in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this shows is that they don't have confidence in their game. If you have to touch it up, then why don't you touch up THE GAME and not just the screens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EA, Microsoft, 2K, Sony, EVERYONE does it, so why care now? This is just even stupid to be news as we all know screen shots are always touched up.

This is simply not true...

Here.. for example.. 2K Games Bioshock:

Official screenshot from their web site:

mediascreenshot.jpg

Game taken screenshot:

gamescreenshot.jpg

You can click here to see the game screenshot in full resolution:

http://loot-ninja.com/wp-content/uploads/2...09/bioshock.jpg

The media screenshot on 2k games site is just shrunken down so it looks a little bit nicer because the size of the image itself. They did absolutely nothing to the screenshot.

Here:

http://www.2kgames.com/index.php?p=games&title=bioshock

To answer your question.. NO, not everyone lies and misleads.. only the ones who have a crappy game and need to sell it and what they are doing is pretty much illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.