First Killzone screenshot/details? So says USAToday..

No.
You crashing here and going through it to blow-up this "arc-gun".

We must look at differend walkthrougs.
2:47
Doors, windows, objects for hiding, preaty detailed and freaking far away from player.

Yeah.
They must be loaded, when you get near.
'Cause it's too not optimal load them, when you must run 15-20 minutes to them.

Look closer.

Just as in Halo 3, as far as I saw.

Look closer.

 

the cover system ppl the cover system!!!

 

Take another look at that killzone demonstration...or any other killzone 2 vid on the net for that matter.

hint: killzone has a cover system.

 

I think he is talking about the environment which seems out of reach of the player.

Anyway, even the first one had relatively large environments (admittedly foggy) in addition to corridor shooting, and given the similarities I don't see any reason why Killzone 2 should stick to indoors and alike.

The question I have is whether the game engine actually supports and will be using forward rendering for open environments given that the debug unit needs to display the type of rendering.

Of course it may just be a marketing thing, we'll see.

 

And he's right, really. I don't know why anyone would dispute it. The large expansive scenery you see just before crashing is exactly that: scenery. Nothing in the way of enemies/interactive assets because you don't see those until after your vehicle lands.

Once you're on foot, the game pushes you through the level in such a way that resource control is very tight i.e. GeOW. What they've shown at this point doesn't suggest that we can expect battles of Halo's magnitude.

 

have you even watched the developer's walk through? he paused the game and zoom into the environment and suggested that they are all dynamic.

 

The logical question that arises after you watch the large-scale geometry streaming that shows the expansive scenery is, why they got to implement it like that in the first place. If you wanted to show it in some cloudy cut scenes you could slap a 2D background. Why?

Yeah smokes are moving and lights are flickering.

 

That part is actually zoomed, so there's slightly more than what you assume, a testament to game's geometry pushing capabilities.

Don't want to talk much about Halo 3's magnitude, and honestly it being mentioned makes me miss Laa-Yosh's previous tag.

But though the demo definitely does not suggest open warfare, it's also funny to assume the game won't have any as if those guys cannot remove the all the buildings and replace with lowpoly ground geometry and a few obstacles here and there.

 

The same reason you saw this done in Rainbow Six Vegas. A 2D background is only correct at one perspective, and moving through the environment at that distance would be terrible, visually.

Say you're driving at night and you look at the moon. It doesn't really matter if it's 3D or 2D because it is so far away that your displacement doesn't destroy the illusion - the angle doesn't change much as you drive straight whilst looking at the moon. However, your viewing angle of buildings or objects close to you changes much more significantly.

Purely as an example, in Halo 2 you can see something similar being implemented in the second level of the game:



Whilst the city was clearly modeled, the actual game-play did not reflect anything nearly as large in scale; there were certainly a lot of open areas, but the number of enemies on-screen at a time was not that big, even compared to Halo: CE.

edit: Here's Rainbow Six Vegas (same idea)


So it is not safe to assume that KZ2 could have larger scale battles despite showing a fly-through of a 3D modeled city.

 

Really? I thought the cut scene in the beginning of the KZ2 demo is fixed and has only one perspective.

 

Nope, the detached the camera and went closer to a couple of buildings, etc to prove that it was 3d and real time

 

You took me wrong, I know it's 3D of course What I mean is the background of the cut scene could be substituted with a 2D CG movie background. Imagine these flying intruders superimposed on the E3 2005 trailer. In the actual cut scene you can't move the camera.

 

This bears clarification: Giving comparison to GeOW or Halo 3 only serves to provide a frame of reference for what to expect; either approach can be very good but at this point it seems one is more suited to how the engine is being handled. At this point it's looking like a corridor / wide arena shooter.

Yes the lights and particles in the level are dynamic, but apart from the first two shuttles and their riders, that really is all you see at the time (or rather that's all that's there).

As for why it is the way it is, the dev mentioned that it's for the sake of seamlessly being able to go between cutscenes and gameplay.

 

In that same vein, you may as well ask why they didn't just make a pre-rendered scene involving not only the background, but also the foreground.

 

Killzone 2 is confirmed to have vehicle combat

now tell me...wouldn't that be necessary to have "open" levels ?

/thread.

 

Open in the sense that you'll be fed content under controlled circumstances, yes. The devs did mention that a streaming system would be in place after all. Otherwise I'd expect that sacrifices might be made (like level/scene complexity) to afford the kind of "open levels" you have in mind.

What kind of forum did you come from where this is at all appropriate?

 

Though it's not the case with that particular cut scene, your player character may have different armors and weapons and the foreground can represent it!

 

I don't see why you would have to sacrifice much of the scene complexity for open levels...

 

Relax man i kid

yes we will wait n see

 

Frankly, I don't know how they'll approach it. I just think that might be the inevitable case if they intend to show a lot of anything beyond architecture.

I have a feeling we'll be able to speculate more in the future when there's more than that one level to go off of.