KILLZONE, BAD?

[Shadow Wulf]

I just got KILLZONE and let me tell you that this game is actually really fun. true the endless shooting and the level is pretty straight foward, but its just simply awsome, not the best game I played though. What I cant understand is why do half of the gaming magazines give it a bad review. the best Ive seen killzone was given was a 7.5 from gameinformer, and a 3/5 from gamepro which is like giving it a 7. I personaly agree to gameinformer, I might give it an 8. Its no Halo killer,but mabey the second one will. If you have played KILLZONE tell me what do you think about it.

I personaly found 3 glicthes in the game: The face sometimes gets all pixalated and blocky at first then it goes to normal after a while, the disapearing enemie through the first level, and the levels maps disapears out of the blue when your farther(only happened once in the 3 level).

[Morkulv]

Killzone is a Dutch game, so it rules.

But seriously, a friend of mine has Killzone and I enjoyed playing it. Multiplayer is cool as well.

[hydrocarbon]

I don't like how some referred to it as the potential Halo-killer. The two games have pretty different themes, worlds/environments and such, and therefore can only really be compared due to the fact that they're both FPS.

That said, I own it (Collector's Edition, haha), and I quite like it. I really like the storyline and settings, and whilst it took me a while to get used to the controls (FPS on a console is a lot harder than on a PC!). The futuristic world was a bit less far-fetched than other interpretations, and I liked that. Gameplay was good, and the enemies had good AI. Also, I thought some of the lines between the characters in the cutscenes were great

Templar: So, did you make any new friends during training?
Luger: ...Are you asking me if I got laid?
Templar: (embarassed) No! Uh...

Overall I think Killzone's great. The next-gen trailer I saw for its incarnation on the PS3 looks freaking awesome, too.

[Shadow Wulf]

yup its awsome, KILLZONE 2 is going to be bad a**, I like the cutscene in killzone 1 aswell, I just cant believe how well guerilaz did with the graphics for the little ps2.

[Searif]

I prefered pariah confusing but fun

[Morkulv]

Bweh, didn't like Pariah. I own a demo-disc witch includes the demo of Pariah. The controls are really weak. Turning around takes ages, and thats just wrong, especially in a first-person shooter.

[Lived Eht]

KILLZONE is an awesome game. The only problem is, DO NOT play it if you get motion sick easily. When you throw a grenade, the camera moves. Camera moves when you get your weapon back out after chucking a grenade. Changing weapons moves the camera. And I really don't like the scope on the sniper rifle. But enough of my rants, jusy go out and rent it to see if it's for you. And if not, perhaps Delta Force: Black Hawk Down will float your boat. Killing ragheads is always fun, right?

[Short Tail]

only thing is that the demo played at e3 was not ingame footage but was actualy a movie that they hired a company to make sorry to burst the bubble

[Shadow Wulf]

only thing is that the demo played at e3 was not ingame footage but was actualy a movie that they hired a company to make sorry to burst the bubble

yeah I know, but Im pretty shure the graphics are going to be that good or even better.

[Vuldari]

only thing is that the demo played at e3 was not ingame footage but was actualy a movie that they hired a company to make sorry to burst the bubble

yeah I know, but Im pretty shure the graphics are going to be that good or even better.

phbt...

...most of the lighting effects, close to that polygon count, and only nearly as detailed textures, but the detail and variety of the characters reactions to the surrounding environment will not be even Close to as dynamic as it appeared in that "demo". When you play, the game characters will still feel almost as brainless and repetitive as they do in the current generation of games. ...the in-game camera angles will not be quite so dramatic...and you'd better beleieve that there will be considerable slowdown durring the high action points...just like the current High-End games.

X-Box 360 and PS3 are not THAT powerful...despite how much Sony and Microsoft (and overenthusiastic fans) may try to convince you otherwise.

..the game will probobly still "rock your socks off" regardless.

[Shadow Wulf]

Yes but the statitics shows that the 360 and ps3 is 4 years ahead of the PC, 4 YEARS!!! Now Look how far we came across from 2000 to 2004 now thats a big diffrerence, the AI want be that realistic but the movement are going to be more realistic than current generations console.

[Vuldari]

Yes but the statitics shows that the 360 and ps3 is 4 years ahead of the PC, 4 YEARS!!!

X-Box 360 and PS3 are not THAT powerful...despite how much Sony and Microsoft (and overenthusiastic fans) may try to convince you otherwise.

...*cough*..."exageratedbull$^%"...*cough*...

[WolvenOne]

actually I've thuroughly poked at the architecture and the demo's, plus I've done a lot of background research on the demo's and to be blunt, both machines are highly impressive.

To give you all an idea what I'm talking about....


... Most of the dev-kits running at the E3 (which is what games were being demoed on,) were alpha and beta kits meaning that there were running at roughly 1 to 2/3rds the power of the final PS3 depending on the model of the kit. The Killzone 2 trailer, was rendered on an older weaker kit and was still managed to render that particuler trailer at roughly 15 to 20 frames per second. Now for the record, that trailer was ran off a video and the frame-rate was fixed a little in pre-production to make it appear less choppy.

(I should also note that the little bit near the beggining of that demo was indeed pure CG. It simply switched to PS3 rendered scenes when the aircraft landed.)

Similerly, most of the XB-Circle's demo's were running off of older dev-kits which according to the press were roughly 1/3rd as powerful as the final hardware. None of them were designed to fully utilize the hardware and in many cases the demo's were simply ported from thier PC counterparts. The few demo's that did make use of the consoles power behind closed doors, looked a LOT better.

Now I could go into advanced tech speak and talk about what exactly each console is capable of but I'll spare you the head-ache. To be honest I hardely understand that stuff myself.

[Vuldari]

Maybe you dont remember, or just were not following this stuff back then, but when the PS2 first was announced, Sony released the numbers for the "official" system specs of the system, and based on those numbers, the PS2 would have been about 10 times as powerful as it really is.

The technobabble means nothing. There are bottlenecks and roadblocks in the the hardware that will not allow ANY of the next gen systems to perform at the levels the initial numbers suggest at.

All that "it's only running at 1/3 power" Bull $%&* is all talk. Just wait untill the full-playable demos get out, and the pre-release "preview" games that the game site/mags get. What we will all see will be impressve, for sure, but not all that... The 100% systems still won't be able to render all that...not with Actual gameplay going on, rather than just scripted cut-scenes. ...though with the amount of action that is usually going on in those games, you likely wont notice the stuff they have to cut out.

...basically...all three New consoles (including Nintendos...though they allready indirectly admitted that it will be the weakest of the three...which isn't as pathetic as it sounds, as the PS2 is the weakest of the current gen systems and performs quite well.) will rock, and will be as powerful as, or moreso than the most powerful gaming PC's on the market today*, (but performing even better because of the steady, stable hardware environments.). ((*Tomorrow on the other hand...)) However...though they may employ new technologies that are not currently available for PC's, those advances are not the "Quantum Leaps" the technobabllers would like you to beleive they are.

Case in point...go to the Baphnedia- Elderscrolls website and look at the screenshots of the X-B 360 version compared to the PC version. You may notice (as I did) that both look equally as sweet. The only difference is, the 360 version will play at full power on All XB360s, whereas, the PC version likely will not look like that on your PC...without expensive PC upgrades, that is.

Regardless of what Sony and Microsoft would like you to believe, the capabilities of the next Gen console games will only ride at the top of the equivilant PC market (equivilant...not surpassing)...and only for a year...untill NEW-new technology hit's the market which makes the ever evolving PC's take the lead again untill the PS4 generation.

..."four years ahead"?... Pah...leeaaseeeee...

Don't believe everyting you read online, or in magazines.

(...take my own words with a grain of salt as well, for that matter...as I don't know all the facts either. Just beware anything that sounds too good to be true...because it almost allways is.)

[WolvenOne]

Actually I've seen the PS2 tech demo's you speak of and they didn't look all that impresive to me. I've seen a similer level of graphics in many of the top-tier PS2 titles.

Now, to be honest, the Cell in and of itself, probably is quite a ways ahead of a PC CPU when it comes to Physics and AI performance. The entire PC gaming industry is preparing to fire back by introducing acceleration cards specifically for physics and AI, however these cards will drastically increase the price of computers and it'll take quite a long time for them to permeate the market.

PC's, honestly, are really beggining to show thier age. Thier architecture is ill-suited to graphics rendering which is why more and more of the load is put on the shoulders of the GPU.

It is true that they can continue to improve thier randering capabilities in this fashion for awhile longer. However already the industry is running into a financial barior on HOW pretty they can make thier games before it's financially irresponsible. So until they can find ways to lower development costs, better rendering hardware is mostly pointless.

[Short Tail]

I still find it funny that e3 was supposed to belong to the xbox 360 like all the media hype said it would but look what won best of e3... the pc game "Spore" (which will rule if they do what they sy there are gonna do) and i think the 360 only won 2 awards and those were console categories only. platforms beating computers... I dont think so

[Vuldari]

Actually I've seen the PS2 tech demo's you speak of and they didn't look all that impresive to me. I've seen a similer level of graphics in many of the top-tier PS2 titles.

I wasn't talking about tech demos...i'm talking about the numbers they tossed out about what it "theoretically" was capable of before they actually started running stuff on it. (Like the claims they are making now about the actual hardware being two to three times more powerful than the demo kits.)

Hold back your expectations about what the new hardware can actually do untill it is truely up and running. Rendering a beautiful CG cutscene in real-time and claiming that actual gameplay will look just as good is nonsense. Again...even if certain parts of the hardware that played those tech demos were not quite up to spec yet, multiplying the precessor speeds and such by three does NOT mean three times as many renderable polygons, nor three times the frame rate, nor three times as many advanced computations. Computer hardware does not work so simply.

Try not to let yourself get sucked into the hype around the "Cell" proccesor to easily. Sony is trying very hard to convince the skeptic public at large that it is the greatest thing to happen to grahics processing since the silicon chip... ...but we are still just talking "theoretical" power here. We'll just have to wait and see what it can REALLY do.

The new hardware may be able to render such beautiful "scripted cut-scenes" in real-time, at smooth framerates, but once you apply physics to all of the objects in game, plus enemy AI, etc. having grahics at the level of that KZ tech demo simply won't be possible. ...although, again, with stuff blowing up all around and nothing standing still long enough for you to inspect it's intricate details, you probobly won't notice that the graphics are dummed down a bit, and will convince yourself that they really ARE that good.

The Graphics on the PS3 360 and even the Revolution will blow you away, and will not dissapoint...I do not argue that. ...but you will not see graphics at the level of that tech demo outside of in-game cut-scenes.

[WolvenOne]

Again, according to the research I've done that demo was largely not CG, the very beggining and the very end was, the rest was rendered by the PS3 Dev Kits.

As per AI, well, it's hard to say, PC-CPU's are typically very poor for AI and Physics where-as the Cell seems to be designed specifically for that purpose. From what I've read it could get really down impressive with the right coding.

[WolvenOne]

Okay, here's basically what I'm trying to say.

The biggest limiting factors to games for the PS3 and Xenon, is going to be cost and programer skill, the hardware is just powerful enough that most companies will have a hard time fully utilizing it.

PC's are about to hit this point as well. Infact the only gaming rigs that arn't about to his that point, are portables and quite likely the Nintendo Revolution. *Nintendo's been hinting that it'll be quite a bit less powerful then it's competitors, plus it's been confirmed that it'll only render lower resolution imagry.

[Shadow Wulf]

Im just saying that the graphics for the ps3 and 360 are going to look better than the Movie clips you see in todays console. I bet you anything it will.

[Vuldari]

Again, according to the research I've done that demo was largely not CG, the very beggining and the very end was, the rest was rendered by the PS3 Dev Kits.

As per AI, well, it's hard to say, PC-CPU's are typically very poor for AI and Physics where-as the Cell seems to be designed specifically for that purpose. From what I've read it could get really down impressive with the right coding.

The biggest limiting factors to games for the PS3 and Xenon, is going to be cost and programer skill, the hardware is just powerful enough that most companies will have a hard time fully utilizing it.

PC's are about to hit this point as well. Infact the only gaming rigs that arn't about to his that point, are portables and quite likely the Nintendo Revolution. *Nintendo's been hinting that it'll be quite a bit less powerful then it's competitors, plus it's been confirmed that it'll only render lower resolution imagry.

Research? ...you mean reading the hype?

CG=Computer Generated...which is what all videogames are. What I meant was, it was all scripted animation and none of it was interactive gameplay.

Yes, current PC hardware models are flawed and outdated, but just because this new "cell" technology is newer and slightly better does not mean that it can do everything that the old tech could not. It is merely a step in the right dirrection.

Im just saying that the graphics for the ps3 and 360 are going to look better than the Movie clips you see in todays console. I bet you anything it will.

I'd take that bet.

Some of the CG cutscenes in games like Final Fantasy X-2 and XII are extrodinarily spectacular. There is NO WAY even a fourth generation PS3 or XB360 title will look Better than this in active gameplay.

...Though some will come Damn Close.

[WolvenOne]

actually there's been quite a lot of research done on the Cell Procceser by university proffesers and the like. The CPU is quite a big deal to a lot of people in the industry.

and no, it's not merely "slightly," better then current PC CPU's. A single core Pentium 4 is only capable of activly tracking roughly 100 ridged bodies, a duel-core is capable of tracking around 6000, the Xenon CPU is capable of tracking somewhere around 12 to 15 thousand, and the Cell, according to Agaia, can track ridged bodies about on par with a dedicated Physics Proccesing Unit, which if I remember correctly is about 50 thousand.

(It should be noted that Agaia is supplying physics technalogy to all three console camps. It should also be noted that the Cell architecture appears to be far more similer to a P-PU then a traditional general purpose CPU and this is likely why the number is so high.)

Going from 100 to 15 thousand is quite a large jump in and of itself, 100 to 50 thousand is downright absurd, especially when fully destructable environments can be created with less then 5000.

(For the record, Half Life 2 only used about 40 ridged bodies at any one period of time.)

There are of course a few questionmarks. Most professers whom studied the Cell were researching a version of the CPU that's slightly more powerful then the one being used in the PS3. The PS3 version has a few less SPU's, and it's unknown exactly how this'll impact performance. They know it'll still be capable of generating absurdly good physics, as well as generating very good AI, however it's not been revealed how well the CPU will be able to handle both similtainiously.

However, again, it takes fewer then 5000 ridged bodies to make a fully destructable environment, so in the case of both machines they're likely to be more then powerful enough.

[Set]

This picture almost reminds me of Soul Calibur 2, which I have for the Gamecube.

[Vuldari]

actually there's been quite a lot of research done on the Cell Procceser by university proffesers and the like. The CPU is quite a big deal to a lot of people in the industry.

and no, it's not merely "slightly," better then current PC CPU's. A single core Pentium 4 is only capable of activly tracking roughly 100 ridged bodies, a duel-core is capable of tracking around 6000, the Xenon CPU is capable of tracking somewhere around 12 to 15 thousand, and the Cell, according to Agaia, can track ridged bodies about on par with a dedicated Physics Proccesing Unit, which if I remember correctly is about 50 thousand.

(It should be noted that Agaia is supplying physics technalogy to all three console camps. It should also be noted that the Cell architecture appears to be far more similer to a P-PU then a traditional general purpose CPU and this is likely why the number is so high.)[size]

Going from 100 to 15 thousand is quite a large jump in and of itself, 100 to 50 thousand is downright absurd, especially when fully destructable environments can be created with less then 5000.

(For the record, Half Life 2 only used about 40 ridged bodies at any one period of time.)

There are of course a few questionmarks. Most professers whom studied the Cell were researching a version of the CPU that's slightly more powerful then the one being used in the PS3. The PS3 version has a few less SPU's, and it's unknown exactly how this'll impact performance. They know it'll still be capable of generating absurdly good physics, as well as generating very good AI, however it's not been revealed how well the CPU will be able to handle both similtainiously.

However, again, it takes fewer then 5000 ridged bodies to make a fully destructable environment, so in the case of both machines they're likely to be more then powerful enough.

...well color me "IMPRESSED"

It seems that the Cell processor is a bit more impressive than I had previously been informed. However...I still don't believe most of the absurd claims and assumptions people have been making about what the next gen consoles will be capable of. Every generation since the N64, and back when "Voodoo" graphic cards were hot, I've heard people raving about the unbelievable things the new hardware was capable of, and every time I was right to be skeptical.

...but I give up...go on believing that the PS3 will have grahics as detailed as "Final Fantasy: The spirits Within", AND have the most inteligent AI ever AND have all Environments be fully destructable (ala "GeoMod" tech) all at the same time. It's not gonna happen. The Cell processor isn't that powerful. (Okay, okay...I know most of you don't have such absurd expectations, but I've heard enough from people who do, outside of this forum that I don't even bother to roll my eyes any more when I hear such outragious claims.)

This picture almost reminds me of Soul Calibur 2, which I have for the Gamecube.

Yeah...I noticed that too. That was the best looking Next-Gen screen shot of a character in a real-time Gaming Environment I could find. (Excluding "Tech Demos" and Images from Cut-scenes.) The fact that it hardly looks better than the best of Current Gen only supports my theory.

*Nintendo's been hinting that it'll be quite a bit less powerful then it's competitors, plus it's been confirmed that it'll only render lower resolution imagry.

PS3 is gonna Rock (I've never denied that for a second)...and XB360 is rocking almost as much (grahically), while Revolution Will Rock with a little less shine and glitter than the other two, but still blow away anything we've seen on the current gen platforms.

I do have one question though. How many here have "Progressive Scan" Capable Televisions? Of those who do...how many are capable of displaying 1080p or even 1080i or 720p? Not many... if any at all, I suspect.

For those who DO have HD screens, the Revolution will output all Revolution games at 480p standard. However, for the rest of us (like myself) who are still using old-school TVs to play games on, the capacity to output at a higher resolution will be insignaficant, as all we will see is standard TV def anyway.

I don't know about you, but even if HDtv's get cheaper in the next couple years (which they will), I don't expect to come into an extra $2,000.00 cash to buy one between now and then. ...do you?

[Vuldari]

...oops...

I sort of made this an unpleasant conversation to be a part of hunh...

...Ignnore my ranting attempt at a reality check... I'm done.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*"We now return to your previoulsly scheduled conversation"*

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess I'm missing out... KillZone looks like a pretty sweet franchise. I love blowing stuff up...

...just one more reason why I will want to get a PS3, if I can afford one...