Killzone [Archive] - PSO-World.com

ShinMaruku

Jul 11, 2007, 07:45 AM

On 2007-07-11 05:01, amtalx wrote:
Eh... Its pretty, but Sony has droppped the ball so many times with this system its difficult to get excited about anything. I've also learned not to look forward to anything until its sitting in my console. Sony is just so full of $#!% these days...

Now with this game. :E
I think only in price and some games they dropped the ball. But this is their time. XD

Kent

Jul 11, 2007, 09:16 AM

It's quite pretty, I'll give it that.

...Of course, that's assuming this was a real-time, in-game trailer, like they claimed the previous one was. :/

But what's getting people so excited about this game? What's going to set it apart from the otherwise pretty generic slew of other first-person shooters out there (Resistance, Unreal, etc.)?

amtalx

Jul 11, 2007, 09:53 AM

Hopefully it will play as good as it looks. The original Killzone was pretty awful though.

ShinMaruku

Jul 11, 2007, 10:56 AM

Killzone played bad because the PS2 was weak.
http://i9.tinypic.com/53gh06a.gif
Dance bitch!

McLaughlin

Jul 11, 2007, 11:08 AM

On 2007-07-11 07:16, Kent wrote:
It's quite pretty, I'll give it that.

...Of course, that's assuming this was a real-time, in-game trailer, like they claimed the previous one was. :/

But what's getting people so excited about this game? What's going to set it apart from the otherwise pretty generic slew of other first-person shooters out there (Resistance, Unreal, etc.)?

If it's not real-time, I'm going to piss myself laughing.

It looks shiny, but otherwise, like Kent said, what makes it different?

ShinMaruku

Jul 11, 2007, 11:15 AM

From I saw clipping and physics working. Not realtime? WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Sekani

Jul 11, 2007, 06:19 PM

At the moment, Killzone 2 is all style and no substance. PS3 owners and those who don't have either a 360 or a PS3 yet are gonna be awed, and I can't really blame them. Any respectable 360 owner though is going to be pretty jaded by what they've shown since we already have the visually impressive Gears of War and the upcoming Call of Duty 4. Both of these have the gameplay to back up their graphics. Killzone isn't there yet.

Personally I think PS3 fanboys want a "Halo-killer" so badly that they're getting hyped over nothing. I'd expect more commotion over Metal Gear Solid 4, that should be the PS3's marquee title right now.

Para

Jul 11, 2007, 06:27 PM

The HELL WITH HALO AND KILLZONE

UNREAL TOURNAMENT III BABY!

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/21492.html

[ This Message was edited by: Para on 2007-07-11 16:30 ]

ABDUR101

Jul 11, 2007, 07:11 PM

Maybe Sony just needs to make their consoles abit harder to code and develop games for. Honestly, if you're fighting to code a develop a game, you're losing time on what the game should truely be, a peice of art in all forms(content, handling, and art direction). If it's a bitch to do the code work; you're only going to get frustrated so many times before you say "Thats about what we want...it'll do".

There's only two games that had me interested from the PS3 line-up, and that was a game based on aerial dragon combat; but even the previews said the controls were gawky; and Warhawk. The original Warhawk was truely awesome to play, I can still remember playing a mission over an ocean with flying aircraft carriers shaped like hammerheads and whales, releasing all kinds of fighters to come after me, and you'd blow apart the carriers peice by peice and they'd eventually start lurching toward the ocean below, until finally crashing into a magnificent cascade of water.

And the individual fighters were awesome to shoot down too, because you could follow them all the way down as they made their final death-spirals and impacted the water. =]

Ah well; if you own a PS3, enjoy what you have. Thats what it comes down to with everything you own; enjoy it for what it is. If people enjoy Killzone 2 for the gore and the guns-blazing fun; who am I to say nay?

ShinMaruku

Jul 11, 2007, 09:23 PM

On 2007-07-11 16:19, Sekani wrote:
At the moment, Killzone 2 is all style and no substance. PS3 owners and those who don't have either a 360 or a PS3 yet are gonna be awed, and I can't really blame them. Any respectable 360 owner though is going to be pretty jaded by what they've shown since we already have the visually impressive Gears of War and the upcoming Call of Duty 4. Both of these have the gameplay to back up their graphics. Killzone isn't there yet.

Personally I think PS3 fanboys want a "Halo-killer" so badly that they're getting hyped over nothing. I'd expect more commotion over Metal Gear Solid 4, that should be the PS3's marquee title right now.

Same could be said of Gears as if it;s all style and no substance but if the environments are destructible and one can manipulate weather and the unique style the first Killzone had I'm sure it's gonna be good.

MGS is a known quantity that's gonna be good but the true marquee titles are FF and GT which we know little about. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_frown.gif

McLaughlin

Jul 11, 2007, 09:28 PM

You haven't played Gears of War then. >_>

Kent

Jul 11, 2007, 10:19 PM

I was honestly surprised when they weren't using Project Gotham Racing 4 screenshots and videos to "show off" Gran Turismo 5.

Oh, and lol @ Unreal Tournament 3. That was pretty interesting, since Microsoft announced some partnership with Games for Windows Live and Epic, then Sony announced their weakest timed-exclusive ever "from the creators of Gears of War."

McLaughlin

Jul 11, 2007, 10:26 PM

I'm still confused as to how Sony still thought Assassin's Creed was a PS3 exclusive, when the night before Microsoft unveiled a playable demo of the game. >_>

And we get Virtua Fighter 5 exclusive online multiplayer.

ShinMaruku

Jul 11, 2007, 10:28 PM

It was first shown on a 360 but it's Ubi-soft that did that not Sony. If Sony didn't buy rights how can they think that?
You guys are funny. XD

McLaughlin

Jul 11, 2007, 10:43 PM

On 2007-07-11 20:28, ShinMaruku wrote:
It was first shown on a 360 but it's Ubi-soft that did that not Sony. If Sony didn't buy rights how can they think that?
You guys are funny. XD

What?

If you're trying to say that Sony doesn't think Assassin's Creed is their exclusive, you should watch their press conference. They actually said it during their showing. >_>

Para

Jul 11, 2007, 10:52 PM

On 2007-07-11 20:19, Kent wrote:

Oh, and lol @ Unreal Tournament 3. That was pretty interesting, since Microsoft announced some partnership with Games for Windows Live and Epic, then Sony announced their weakest timed-exclusive ever "from the creators of Gears of War."

Who cares about the timed exclusive? PC controls ftw UT3 ftw.

However.. I find it funny that quite a few GoW fans are qq'ng about the delay in the 360 release of UT3.

ShinMaruku

Jul 11, 2007, 11:00 PM

UT3 at 120fps FTW!

amtalx

Jul 11, 2007, 11:46 PM

??? UT hasn't been good since the original (UT not Unreal). And 120 FPS? don't quote me, but I don't think the current display standards will allow that.

ShinMaruku

Jul 12, 2007, 12:35 AM

UT2 can be damn well run on 120fps so I hope for atleast 60fps and not that bullshit 30 that Halo uses. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Kent

Jul 12, 2007, 11:59 AM

On 2007-07-11 21:46, amtalx wrote:
??? UT hasn't been good. And 120 FPS? don't quote me, but I don't think the current display standards will allow that.

Fixed that up for you.

And 120 FPS certainly is possible - just get one of those quad-SLI systems, a quad-core CPU, and at least three gigs of RAM, and you're good to go.

Hell, my laptop can push out Quake III and Diablo II at about 150fps... Of course, that's nowhere near the ballpark Epic is playing in.

Remember; just because your monitor can't display above a certain framerate (good luck finding a decently-priced monitor that goes over 90Hz), doesn't mean your hardware can't pump out more than that.

amtalx

Jul 12, 2007, 11:59 AM

AFAIK, the current maximum for any HDtv display is 60 fps, and standard displays like NTSC certainly cant do 120. Unless you are talking about running it on a PC, in which case I hate you for having such a nice setup.

amtalx

Jul 12, 2007, 12:39 PM

Sorry folks, I meant for TVs specifically. I know those have some limitations. Computer monitors on the other hand can do some pretty sick stuff. I remember downloading an old Pitfall demo that didn't have a frame rate limiter on it. I started it up and almost horked all over my keyboard. I turned on the frame rate counter and it was something around 500. I'm pretty sure my display wasn't actually outputting that much, but that's what was being processed.

ShinMaruku

Jul 12, 2007, 02:06 PM

I'll run UT3 on my PC I ODed on it... XD

Para

Jul 12, 2007, 02:50 PM

On 2007-07-11 21:46, amtalx wrote:
??? UT hasn't been good since the original (UT not Unreal). And 120 FPS? don't quote me, but I don't think the current display standards will allow that.

wtf u talking about? UT has been great and still great.

Though I know many people just couldnt handle the fast pace action and the really high emphasis of 3D action of UT but that doesn't make UT a bad game.

Kent

Jul 12, 2007, 03:22 PM

Unreal Tournament, really, isn't "great." It's good technology for the time at which it's released, but otherwise, the game is really just the standard for generic FPS games.

I, personally, like innovation. I grow tired of the generic arena-based FPS rather quickly - I like stuff that brings new things to the table that change the way the game's played, which is really the opposite of Unreal.

Of course, if you like arena-based first-person shooters... Then Unreal Tournament is probably the best thing you could ever ask for, in that regard.

ShinMaruku

Jul 12, 2007, 06:13 PM

UT runs so damn fast and the mods really add to the value. When you got it at 120fps it's so smooth that you can really make thinks get real good if one invests time in building skill.
Killzone seems to be very great with how one can break down the world around you. I don't think people payed much attention to the chaingun gutting down the cover.
Then you got the minor mechanics of the game, look how the hands twitch slightly when fire and the re-load was godly.

Sekani

Jul 12, 2007, 06:53 PM

Haze > Killzone 2. Actually, Haze > every FPS I've seen so far at E3.

Don't believe me? Go look up the trailer. It's a PS3 exclusive by the way.

ShinMaruku

Jul 12, 2007, 09:53 PM

Unless haze allows me to raze my enviorment and be loaded up straight from Home iot will just be a companion piece.
And it's timed. 360 will get it later.

Sekani

Jul 12, 2007, 11:34 PM

Really? Nice.

As for Home... eh... from the demo it looked like a bit much for just an interface. I mean it's cool and all, and I definitely get the concept behind it, but.... I need more info before I can say anything else.

amtalx

Jul 13, 2007, 07:12 AM

On 2007-07-12 12:50, Para wrote:

On 2007-07-11 21:46, amtalx wrote:
??? UT hasn't been good since the original (UT not Unreal). And 120 FPS? don't quote me, but I don't think the current display standards will allow that.

wtf u talking about? UT has been great and still great.

Though I know many people just couldnt handle the fast pace action and the really high emphasis of 3D action of UT but that doesn't make UT a bad game.

Basura! The original UT was awesome. UT2k3 and all of its subsequent incarnations have been garbage compared to the original. They have the same problem that Quake suffered from, nerfed weapons. One of the things I really liked about UT was making people cry with my Flak Cannon and ASMD usage. Now the Flak Cannon is a fly swatter. Don't get me wrong, the games aren't BAD, but it was a lot more fun to annihilate people in UT.

ShinMaruku

Jul 14, 2007, 11:19 PM

http://i9.tinypic.com/664vgcp.gif

Do not force everyone to load these large gifs please, link to them instead.

[ This Message was edited by: HAYABUSA-FMW- on 2007-07-14 23:00 ]

RuneLateralus

Jul 15, 2007, 12:52 AM

I did not care about the first Killzone. The PSP version didn't do much for me on the series either. It will take a lot to impress me with the second one...and I don't mean with pretty pictures.

I am not saying it will suck, but still, there will always be that factor of trying to bank on a series that was hyped, but failed to capture it.

I would say it has a lot to live up to, but that would be giving the series way too much credit for the little it has done.

[ This Message was edited by: RuneLateralus on 2007-07-14 22:54 ]

ShinMaruku

Jul 15, 2007, 01:39 AM

From what I seen it's gonna do fine. The AI reacts to the enviroment being taken apeart aroudn them. It's all the subtle things.

McLaughlin

Jul 15, 2007, 08:52 AM

Right, but there's nothing that sets the game apart from the rest of the bad FPS games out there. It has nothing to it that makes me go "I want that game, and I can justify wasting $500-$600 to play it."

Kent

Jul 15, 2007, 12:11 PM

Half-Life 2 made people say that.

Then, Half-Life 2 was released, and as it turns out, was playable on an older PC while still looking fantastic - so people ended up getting to buy the pinnacle of single-player FPS experiences, without having to overhaul their machines. Until some more information comes out as to why Killzone 2 won't be "generic FPS travesty #957," it just looks pretty, and that's it. :/

ShinMaruku

Jul 15, 2007, 12:41 PM

I don't see thing in Half-life react when pillars they hide behind get destroyed or anything like that. You guys just focus on the looks and not the subtleties.

You don't see the enviormental destruction, some folks at E3 were surprised by how they took away the cover the Hellghast moved accordingly.
Same could be said of Crysis expect when you can use the suit to chock out a guy fling him up and go all DMC on him, then run,jump and punch through a celing and drop in on guys.
I'm gonna get both.
All I need is 4gig of RAM and I'll be set. Gots the Quad already. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_razz.gif

Yuicihi

Jul 15, 2007, 05:47 PM

Makes me wish I had a PS3, or was willing to drop the cash at the moment.

But, it looks pretty and will hopefully play pretty as well.

Kent

Jul 15, 2007, 09:08 PM

On 2007-07-15 10:41, ShinMaruku wrote:
I don't see thing in Half-life react when pillars they hide behind get destroyed or anything like that. You guys just focus on the looks and not the subtleties.

I'm focusing on the looks because it's what's there. I'm going to go ahead and assume you've never actually played Half-Life 2, because there are things that can get destroyed, and yes, the AI does actually react to such things.

It's an AI routine that's basically an extension of the whole "if there's a clear line between you and the enemy, move to avoid it" thing - it doesn't mean he's specially reacting specifically to destroyed structures, it means his AI routine is running just another check it does in every situation - get behind stuff to not get shot.

Hell, it happens in Gears of War. There's destructable cover - if an AI opponent's cover gets taken out... Guess what? They move. Any decent AI would.

You don't see the enviormental destruction, some folks at E3 were surprised by how they took away the cover the Hellghast moved accordingly.
Oh, really?

I've played Phantom Dust, a game that's probably deeper than any first-person shooter anyone will ever make (sans Portal, but that's not really a "shooter"). The environment is almost completely destructable, and the AI in that game does react accordingly, and uses cover properly.

Destructable environments are nice and all, but it's really not a game-defining feature - not since Red Faction, anyway. Features like that are really special the first time around, but after they, you kinda expect such things. Wait until more games have a Gravity Gun in them and physics puzzles, if you don't get my point already.

McLaughlin

Jul 15, 2007, 10:19 PM

Phantom Dust was a wicked game.

Kent

Jul 16, 2007, 06:12 AM

On 2007-07-15 20:19, Obsidian_Knight wrote:
Phantom Dust was a wicked game.

Indeed. It gives me nerdgasms, still, just from thinking about it.

And it was recently made backwards-compatible, too, and it looks great on the 360.

Sekani

Jul 16, 2007, 10:35 AM

The E3 build of Killzone 2 didn't have full environmental destruction according to some reports I read; instead there were just specially placed objects designed to be blown up when hit with munitions fire or grenades.

Two features it does have that up the cool factor in my book are the way enemies react to where they got shot at (not the first game to do this, but it still looks good), and the apparent inclusion of actual bosses and mini-bosses, something uncomfortably rare in most FPS games.

At the end of the day Killzone could be a worthy PS3 alternative to Gears of War. Not exactly worth buying a system for though... at least not for me.

Kent

Jul 16, 2007, 11:09 AM

...Or it could end up being just another FPS. You know, run, point, shoot, duck... No real new gimmick or anything like that.

The same kind of thing that every McPublisher puts out, all the time - just much prettier.

RuneLateralus

Jul 17, 2007, 02:58 AM

On 2007-07-16 08:35, Sekani wrote:
At the end of the day Killzone could be a worthy PS3 alternative to Gears of War.

No it won't be. Killzone is an FPS. Gears of War is a 3rd person tactical shooter in the sense you can't run and gun. To Halo 3, yes it is an alternative. But right now, there really isn't anything like Gears on the PS3 (maybe until Ghost Recon comes out...but that is more unforgiving than Gears can be).

It is like the Resistance vs Gears thing that happened at the PS3's launch. They are two different styles of games. It is unfair to compare them on the same level.

Sekani

Jul 17, 2007, 11:34 AM

The big draw to Gears of War (for me anyway) was the cinematic experience; it made you feel like you were playing an interactive movie. From what I can tell Killzone seems to be trying to create a movie-like experience as well. Halo fails completely in this aspect.

Admittedly though I have seen almost nothing notable in terms of actual gameplay.