Is there something I'm missing in those screenshots? cause the second one looks legitimately worse.
And that post was after the game came out. And after making statements such as these.
"So, having a constant 60 is not actually better than having a 'lot of the time' 60. It sounds weird, but it's actually true. Because usually in the moments where we're going to drop framerate, either you're already dead or it's too late anyway."
"We didn't want to make any graphical concessions. We didn't want to say, we can run at 60 constantly if we just half the resolution and take out all the destructibility and remove all the glass, for example. We didn't want to do that. We wanted to keep it really pretty and try to make it 60.
"It's just we can't go out and say we're always 60, because that's lying. We're very close. And I challenge anybody to notice, without Digital Foundry looking at it, that there are large drops."
As far as resolution and effects, those two screenshots look the same. At best there seems to be a little more bloom in the first one, though the second one appears to have been taken at a lower point (all the buildings are higher) and so maybe it just hasn't reached the point where you see the sun. But outside of that detail, the smoke plumes look the same, the textures look mostly the same (the building textures look improved on the bottom picture), the explosions look the same. That's just me.
I know the post was after the game came out. My point was they didn't skirt around it. They were very forthcoming in that post and broke it down technically when they didn't really have to. I personally think that what happened here is a world of difference to what happens with most of these types of situations. First of all, there's the fact that no one even realized until months after the release of Killzone. Most of the time, the pixel counters are able to see sub-reported resolutions before a game is even released. This time, it wasn't until Digital Foundry did a report on it, that it was discovered that the native rendering resolution wasn't 1080p. Seriously, the fact that it took this long is amazing and a credit to GG (this coming from someone who generally doesn't like KZ). Then, instead of not responding or skirting around the issue, they responded.
Also they're mostly right about the whole 60 situation. I heard people complaining that Super Mario 3D World isn't truly 60fps because it drops in random situations where you're not even playing. If you're expecting a game to never ever ever dip below 60, then you're going to be even more surprised than I suspected when I made
this thread. Again, it sounds like he's being really forthright with his reasoning for making the decisions he made and this doesn't sound like a "downgrade" to me. In my opinion, it doesn't fall in the same category as these infamous screenshots and the watchdogs fiasco.