Killzone 2 pre-release discussion thread
- Thread starter ihamoitc2005
- Start date
- Status
I'm not sure you actually read the whole thing as it clearly states that they add objects in real time in addition to real time particle physics.
In addition if you actually watch that building explode/collapse, you can tell that image is only a small part of what is going on. The roof collapses as well as the areas shown in the image. In addition to the debri and cloud of dust large metal sheats, sections of concrete and metal scafolding drop to the ground.
The overall image works very well and is jaw dropping. Both the bridge scene and building collapses have really impressed journalists and gamers with the amount of deformation and physics going on. The fact that real time physics are also being used should mean that these large set pieces are slightly diffrent each time on playthrough.
And I think that the attention to detail GG are putting into the game to try to get the fact that it is a warzone and structures are not just field dressing is very impressive indeed imo.
I think you're imagining more real-time additions than are really being used.
All the flooring, concrete, steel and roofing, is prerendered. The additions are smoke particles (don't need collision detection) and little bits of debris (could get away with no collision detection). The vid shows these sort of extras aren't included en masse.Guerilla said:
People are being impressed in the same way they are impressed by a Hollywood special effect - it looks good! They aren't being impressed by the amount of realtime phsyics or deforation because there isn't much of that in this scene or with this technique.
1) Barely different, as the realtime additions are only effects. The lumps of building will fall in exactly the same ways every time.
2) All things being equal, unless they randomise the physics engine each play-through, the realtime calculations should generate the same result every time.
Artistically, yes, it's a good move. That's distinct from technical achievement though. The technical achievement here is how they've managed to get the animation information into the game, and I don't think that's anything particularly difficult.
If entire buildings were destructable and physically modelled, there wouldn't be much game to talk about. Even "highly destructable" Bad Company is rigidly special-cased. The power isn't there to do FEM on everything in the world and have a game on top running at 30FPS 
Besides which, unless a player replays the same scene over and over, they wouldn't notice that it was precalculated. Even if they did that, does it affect their gameplay in any way? It's absolutely the right decision - don't waste cycles on something which can be precalculated, doesn't add anything to the game and will most likely go unnoticed to all but the members of B3D...
Just a slight nitpick, it's the movement (animation if you like) which is precalculated. I'm sure it's rendered on the fly.
Besides which, unless a player replays the same scene over and over, they wouldn't notice that it was precalculated. Even if they did that, does it affect their gameplay in any way? It's absolutely the right decision - don't waste cycles on something which can be precalculated, doesn't add anything to the game and will most likely go unnoticed to all but the members of B3D...
Just a slight nitpick, it's the movement (animation if you like) which is precalculated. I'm sure it's rendered on the fly.
Yes, bad choice of words on my part given 'rendering' is tied exclusively to image construction in this field. Change 'pre-rendered' to 'pre-calculated' - The geometry and on-screen rendering is of course realtime.
As for why you'd do it, you're absolutely right, but we need to make the distinction between in game calculated physics and scripted physics, not just because we're nit-picky, but also because it affects the game. If you see a fabulous building collapse in a trailer, you might think all buildings are that destructible and gameplay will involve squashing baddies with blown-up buildings. This requires a reality check as to what is actually in the game.
As for why you'd do it, you're absolutely right, but we need to make the distinction between in game calculated physics and scripted physics, not just because we're nit-picky, but also because it affects the game. If you see a fabulous building collapse in a trailer, you might think all buildings are that destructible and gameplay will involve squashing baddies with blown-up buildings. This requires a reality check as to what is actually in the game.
the ignoramus
Regular
Frankly, I'm more concerned with how the actual game feels to play.
Reports from numerous sources do not sound reassuring; the common complaint is that the movement, or more specifically the aiming feels imprecise.
Strangely, other sources have complimented the controls; IGN claims that while the controls take a some time to adjust to, eventually you appreciate the heft and weight of the weapons, as they make your actions feel more deliberate--though they do mention there is some twitch gameplay.
It seems to me that the developers are trying to simulate the feeling of being a heavily armoured soldier weighted down by weapons and ammunition. Watching the gameplay vids, I notice that whenever a player chooses the sprint option, it looks like he is accelerating from a slow jog to a full sprint. (this could simply be an effect of the motion blur)
If these kinds of design decisions survive the beta testing phase, we could have a problem. Some players like those kinds of touches, but the gamers used to the swift, decisiveness of the shooting in COD4 and Halo will not take kindly to KZ2's controls. I dont like that KZ2's controls already seem polarizing.
Reports from numerous sources do not sound reassuring; the common complaint is that the movement, or more specifically the aiming feels imprecise.
Strangely, other sources have complimented the controls; IGN claims that while the controls take a some time to adjust to, eventually you appreciate the heft and weight of the weapons, as they make your actions feel more deliberate--though they do mention there is some twitch gameplay.
It seems to me that the developers are trying to simulate the feeling of being a heavily armoured soldier weighted down by weapons and ammunition. Watching the gameplay vids, I notice that whenever a player chooses the sprint option, it looks like he is accelerating from a slow jog to a full sprint. (this could simply be an effect of the motion blur)
If these kinds of design decisions survive the beta testing phase, we could have a problem. Some players like those kinds of touches, but the gamers used to the swift, decisiveness of the shooting in COD4 and Halo will not take kindly to KZ2's controls. I dont like that KZ2's controls already seem polarizing.
Yes, Lair is the perfect embodiment of a good idea not appreciated. Most gamers expect instant, unrealistic responses. Educating them to expect something different, and stick with it long enough to adjust and not be prejudiced against it, is going ot be some feat.
jandlecack
Banned
As long as the level or game design isn't broken and crappy as it was in Lair, I don't think a very realistic feel to the aiming/movement will hinder KZ2's success.
I for one would be pissed if they made the realistic, gritty KZ2 gunfights feel like Counter-Strike or Halo. Don't think I'm the only one.
I for one would be pissed if they made the realistic, gritty KZ2 gunfights feel like Counter-Strike or Halo. Don't think I'm the only one.
Jack_Tripper
Newcomer
Then let them go play Halo and COD4 - where is it written that all games have to look, feel or even play in the same manner
Jack
In the Gospel According to Game Sales, where variants ddn't sell well...
I don't know if there are any real stats on the matter, but developers and publishers must be wary of breaking the mould, hence creating yet another FPS in the first place! If previews from FPS players are saying 'the controls are naff', then a change will have to be made to satisfy the market, unless Guerilla feel there's a massive, untapped FPS market that hasn't bought FPS games to date because they lacked reaslitic weighty weapons slowing motions down.
Luckily, they also can't create the most generic game possible. It's going to need something to stand out in a crowded genre. And this being a flagship title, it's going to be expected.
I don't mind them trying to add the impression of weight to the weapons. The first Killzone did that very well. It also had that slow starting and ending sprint, and a lot of other small touches that added to the realism.
I don't mind them trying to add the impression of weight to the weapons. The first Killzone did that very well. It also had that slow starting and ending sprint, and a lot of other small touches that added to the realism.
It's not something they can win at, either. If they take CoD4's control scheme, they'll also get people saying it's a CoD4 ripoff. (I've already seen it!)
I don't think talk of ripoffamongery (good word, huh?!) will hurt sales, whereas complaints that it has bad controls will. Personally I like the idea in principle, but without it being an option, it's quite a gamble. And it can't really be an option unless they have separste servers for different control types.
I wouldn't be surprised if they go for realism in the SP, but remove some of those small touches in the MP to make the controls more responsive. Rfom does this, and it works very well there.
I never understood why some people call Killzone 2 a CoD4 rip-off. Killzone has always been about realism.
I never understood why some people call Killzone 2 a CoD4 rip-off. Killzone has always been about realism.
I believe a previewer actually called KZ2 as Cod 4 with space marines i.e. copying from Cod 4. Funny thing is that one of the things that KZ1 done right was the gun realism. Any imrpovments in the weight, animation and gunplay is more a natural progression form KZ1 to 2 with maybe the exception of FP cover.
Last edited by a moderator:
the ignoramus
Regular
Because it's an easy, thoughtless comparison that's why.
I always laugh a bit at the COD4 comparisons.
The game is being called Killzone 2, but it's the spiritual sequel to Killzone Liberation, which featured boss fights, a variety of enemy classes, and impressive enemy AI--stuff the COD games ,1 through 4, have never had.
The boss fights are what I want to see the most;given the audio-visual standards of this game, GG have the potential to create some balls to the wall, high quality boss fights.
In fact Guerilla has hinted that they striving to do just that. They claim the mini-boss ,the Heavy, is just a small taste of some "much larger" boss fights.
I wouldnt be surprised if we saw some MGS inspired encounters in KZ2; Liberation has a mech influence reminiscent of Metal Gear and the developers say that they are big fans of that series.
Anyone's that's played Liberation shouldnt expect Killzone 2 to play out like COD4, because that would mean GG would almost totally abandon the design philosophy that made Liberation such a great little game.
Last edited by a moderator:
RenegadeRocks
Legend
The slow controls(if you want to call it that ) worked very well in the Original Killzone and I am looking forward to that. It was the reason, along with the atmosphere, that it stood out and felt different from other FPS. The "slow controls" introduced reloading animations into FPS games, which even the COD series has embraced. KZ was what started the whole "Cinematic" feel thing in the games and now people are wary that these very touches that made it cinematic and special in the first installment will ruin the third game ! People need something to talk about and they pick anything they can.
Anyways, MP previews are already showing that the game feels tight and top-notch, so, open-up your minds to something different.Everybody is scared of change, but if there is no difference then there is no reason to buy a new game.
) worked very well in the Original Killzone and I am looking forward to that. It was the reason, along with the atmosphere, that it stood out and felt different from other FPS. The "slow controls" introduced reloading animations into FPS games, which even the COD series has embraced. KZ was what started the whole "Cinematic" feel thing in the games and now people are wary that these very touches that made it cinematic and special in the first installment will ruin the third game ! People need something to talk about and they pick anything they can.Anyways, MP previews are already showing that the game feels tight and top-notch, so, open-up your minds to something different.Everybody is scared of change, but if there is no difference then there is no reason to buy a new game.
from the other thread
http://www.gamekyo.com/images1_4_28913.html
its hard due to the shadow softening technique theyve employed to actually notice the shadows, but noone can argue that theyre not there
look at the guy off in the distance under the bright light, theres a shadow under him. also like I said, the red eyes are casting shadows as well (perhaps only one light) also its placed a bit before the actual eyes in the picture
see this
http://www.gamekyo.com/images1_4_28913.html
its hard due to the shadow softening technique theyve employed to actually notice the shadows, but noone can argue that theyre not there
http://www.gamekyo.com/images3_4_28913.html
look at the guy off in the distance under the bright light, theres a shadow under him. also like I said, the red eyes are casting shadows as well (perhaps only one light) also its placed a bit before the actual eyes in the picture
Red eyes: I don't think there are any shadows; the reason why it's not illuminating the entire cloth in front of his mouth is that the normals are facing away.
Dude in the distance: you're imagining things here.
http://www.gamekyo.com/images1_4_28913.html
Shadow here is very evident.
http://www.gamekyo.com/images2_4_28913.html
No shadows on this image at all.
Some shadows are pretty clear here, some are lacking.
The - totally obvious - explanation is that not all lights are created equal and some will not cast shadows. Geometry counts and memory consumption can add up very quickly, particularly with a game like KZ that uses deferred rendering to compute dozens, sometimes maybe even hundreds of lights per scene. Most games only have one shadow casting light altogether, so when your character moves into a shadow cast by a building, his own shadow disappears.
(This is also why screen space ambient occlusion is such a popular feature, it adds contact shadows regardless of the lighting and helps to ground objects and characters into the scene. KZ would obviously benefit from it too and Guerilla has talked about looking into it, but with all their other post processing effects going on they may not have the resources.)
I don't know why you seem to be unable to accept this.
Dude in the distance: you're imagining things here.
http://www.gamekyo.com/images1_4_28913.html
Shadow here is very evident.
http://www.gamekyo.com/images2_4_28913.html
No shadows on this image at all.
Some shadows are pretty clear here, some are lacking.
The - totally obvious - explanation is that not all lights are created equal and some will not cast shadows. Geometry counts and memory consumption can add up very quickly, particularly with a game like KZ that uses deferred rendering to compute dozens, sometimes maybe even hundreds of lights per scene. Most games only have one shadow casting light altogether, so when your character moves into a shadow cast by a building, his own shadow disappears.
(This is also why screen space ambient occlusion is such a popular feature, it adds contact shadows regardless of the lighting and helps to ground objects and characters into the scene. KZ would obviously benefit from it too and Guerilla has talked about looking into it, but with all their other post processing effects going on they may not have the resources.)
I don't know why you seem to be unable to accept this.
- Status
Similar threads
