First Killzone screenshot/details? So says USAToday..
- Thread starter Titanio
- Start date
I, on the other hand, never played it. I'm certain though, that our opinions would be very different had I tried the game.
That's why I mentioned the reviews. My opinion is just that, an opinion. The only thing that comes close to objectivity is professional reviews, or even better their average, as in gamerankings and the likes.
Let me get this clear, I have never judged the engine. Maybe reading my posts would help
The game looks great but it doesnt have anything technically impressive, and with technically impressive I mean effects (advanced effects and lighting). And to me advanced effects and lighting does a huge impact on a game.
As I said before it´s without doubt one of the best looking console games if not the best looking console game!:smile:
Last edited by a moderator:
Best looking without being technically impressive? That's technically impressive by itself...
I was talking about the best looking game on consoles (and it´s still not settled if it is), not on PC.
The art-work does very much.
Last edited by a moderator:
Not really, ART is the most differensiating thing imo.
Look at Xbox's PGR2 vs PS2 GT4.
PGR2 had better polygon counts, better textures, more advanced shaders, better draw distance, better everything, on paper anyway.
GT4 looked better, because of art.
I did read your posts - I also am aware of your posting history that shows a pattern that seems all too familiar...
My flaw with your post is that you are criticising the game for not being technically impressive, but at the same time point out that you are not interested in what the engine is capable of? Isn't knowing what the engine is capable of, the technical impressiveness of it? You can't argue a point without understanding it!
As for what makes KillZone 2 impressive: I'd say the the lighting in particular is what makes this title (visually) so impressive. Having 500 lights that are dynamic and influence the scene is very impressive IMO. Together with the fact that just about every object around has a dynamic shadow, moves and reacts to bullets, players in a correct way. Physics are impressive as well. Then there are the walls that can break (to a degree) and are deformable which should also enhance the gameplay dynamics. Having played the old KillZone, I'm betting the AI will be nothing short of impressive once it's finished as well.
I'd rather have a lesser looking environment but fully interactive, than brilliant impressive levels with next to no interactivity in them. KillZone 2 is heading in the right direction.
Anyway, you made your point about what you think the game looks like and I think it's been understood. Time to move on.
I did read your posts - I also am aware of your posting history that shows a pattern that seems all too familiar...
My flaw with your post is that you are criticising the game for not being technically impressive, but at the same time point out that you are not interested in what the engine is capable of? Isn't knowing what the engine is capable of, the technical impressiveness of it? You can't argue a point without understanding it!
As for what makes KillZone 2 impressive: I'd say the the lighting in particular is what makes this title (visually) so impressive. Having 500 lights that are dynamic and influence the scene is very impressive IMO. Together with the fact that just about every object around has a dynamic shadow, moves and reacts to bullets, players in a correct way. Physics are impressive as well. Then there are the walls that can break (to a degree) and are deformable which should also enhance the gameplay dynamics. Having played the old KillZone, I'm betting the AI will be nothing short of impressive once it's finished as well.
I'd rather have a lesser looking environment but fully interactive, than brilliant impressive levels with next to no interactivity in them. KillZone 2 is heading in the right direction.
Anyway, you made your point about what you think the game looks like and I think it's been understood. Time to move on.
Good then you know that I follow this thread (reason: cause this can turn up to be a great game)
.Seems to me like you are the one not understanding. You see, the developers may be able to do CG with the engine but I dont care since I know that any console is to weak to do that. What i´m trying to say is that just because the Engine supports something it doesnt mean that the game made with the Engine will have this stuff, that´s why I rather check out how the game looks and not what the engine can do.
I´m pretty sure that I have heard the developers say that there´s max 10 dynamic lights at onces.
Dynamic shadow on every object, advanced physics and walls that can break is something I see every day I play Company of Heroes (tweaked) and advanced A.I. I see in FarCry. What I´m trying to say is that the things you mention is nothing new, but still very nice in a game and impressive if many things happens at once.
Well IMO it depends how much of the environment they will have to sacrifice.
Yes the game gets very enjoyable with partly interactive environment.
But most I would like to have both interactive envirnoment and beautiful amazing environments.
Last edited by a moderator:
But you know that that was for one whole level, not a frame. Still great that a whole level has 500 dynamic lights but you dont see that many at the same time. The question would be how many dynamic lights do other games have for a whole level... but not in this thread.
It shure is heading in the right direction.
Implosion warning... :smile:
Last edited by a moderator:
Excellent point, shows how good art can make a game look better than a technically more advanced game. Yet becouse it looks better by art doesn't mean the machine running it is more powerful!
Indeed.
Props to the artists!
When top notch art and tech are combined, a classic is either in the making or about to be destroyed by horrible design, gameplay or marketing decisions.
Hey I for one don't like the art direction of this game one bit, because everything look colourless and grey. It'd make sense in a creepy game or in stone cold art games like Diablo, but in a conventional shooter it does look boring.
Apart from the technically impressive details of the game, I wouldn't expect a great game.
Wasn't its prequel Killzone, the supposed *Halo killer*, released on PS2 a few years back? Weren't the controls abosolutely terrible?.... And there was no jump button so little half foot bricks would keep you from walking a certain direction. Or am I thinking of a different game?
Apart from the technically impressive details of the game, I wouldn't expect a great game.
Wasn't its prequel Killzone, the supposed *Halo killer*, released on PS2 a few years back? Weren't the controls abosolutely terrible?.... And there was no jump button so little half foot bricks would keep you from walking a certain direction. Or am I thinking of a different game?
Keep in mind that this level shown is at an area where dark clouds hangs over so it's practically night. (look at intro before descending down under the clouds)
Other levels will have other lightingconditions and environments.
The original Killzone was'nt that great so that means they can't make a great game out of KZ2?
FYI you can jump in KZ2, but as it's supposed to realistic you can't shoot while jumping. They show it in the dev-demo from GC. Looks really good.
The media hyped it as a halo killer not the developers
killzone was held back by the ps2 as im sure guerrila ambitions were way too high for the hardware.
they redeemed themselfes with killzone liberations (psp game) which still to this day is the best psp game out there.
guerrila are very talented people and i wouldn't for one seconds doubt there abilities to make a great game , they arnt held back by hardware now and have $50 mill budget to boot not to mention 160 people on the team.
killzone will be amazing qoute me on that.
I have no doubt in my mind that KZ2 will be amazing both visually and in terms of gameplay, however that is one ridiculous statement.
KZ1 was bug ridden and rushed out, broken AI being the most apparent thing, it has nothing to do with the PS2 not being powerful enough, and everything to do with Guerilla running out of money to polish the game before release. The game simply wasn't finished
Not sure about a $50m budget, think its more like $25m isnt it?
Still, I think Sony have spent a load of money on the project, and want it to be a visual tour de force. There's little doubt in my mind that it'll be the best-looking console game, (at least until GT5 falls) seeing as GG would have another 6 months-plus to work on it since E3. Still, thats what Sony would have expected.
For me, the key is multiplayer. The singleplayer should be good, as it wont have been rushed like KZ1, and it has some innovative ideas (particularly with the Helgast being able to manipulate the weather). I'm really looking forward to the multiplayer beta--cant be long now!
Overall, I dont think Sony can lose. Such is the hype surrounding the game, it'll more than likely sell several million copies.
They actually ran out of memory on certain things.
killzone was actually a pc game orginally then adapted to the ps2, some assets and huge set peices had to be removed and the AI had to be toned down for the campaign as it done its own thing instead of following the AI routines and making use of the level design, ( see killzone multi player to know what im talking about ).it was all a big cluster fuck.
but yes budget was another concern too .
Guerilla Game also made Killzone: Liberation for PSP, which turned out to be a good game. According to gamerankings.com, the average score is: 80%. There is still hope.
(WTH, EGM and 1UP rated this game 5.67 and 5 out of 10 respectively ? EGM's review link gave a Java error, so I don't know what their complains are)
