Killzone: first pics

megateto

Newcomer
Killzone1.jpg


Killzone2.jpg


ops2_killzone_screen2_big.jpg


killzone_02_big.jpg


ops2_killzone_screen1_big.jpg


Is it up to what it was expected..is it really that good?

It looks great for me, but as I don't have much criteria...
 
Looks good, but it would seem the hypemachine has claimed another victim.

edit: ok, I'm just really not very impressed much at all (with the graphics). Hopefully the game will be better, cause if someone can point out what I'm missing, it seems pretty generic to me!
 
Looks good enough to me.
Would like if it was more colourful though. Even if this looks more realistic than for example Halo, i'd prefer a more shiny, colourful and even cartoony look.

The models and environments seem to be much more detailed and varied than any current fps on any console, and even without bumpmaping. The art even resembles a little Half Life 2.
If the framerate is a constant above 30, or preferably stable 60 fps, then at least technically it looks like it will be a Halo beater :p

But where are the enemies in these pictures, is that why they looks so unexiting, because there is hardly any action in them, thus they do not fire my imagination.

Edit: ...and the fog... :(
 
rabidrabbit said:
Looks good enough to me.
Would like if it was more colourful though. Even if this looks more realistic than for example Halo, i'd prefer a more shiny, colourful and even cartoony look.
The models and environments seem to be much more detailed and varied than any current fps on any console, and even without bumpmaping. The art even resembles a little Half Life 2.
If the framerate is a constant above 30, or preferably stable 60 fps, then at least technically it looks like it will be a Halo beater :p

Do warzones look colourful? :/
I wouldn't like another 'TS2' slapstick shooter... what PS2 really needs is this
 
Sorry,I don't know the source of this, I'll ask in a minute..but take this:

Overall:
- Gorgeous graphics
- 60 Frames per second
- No slowdowns
- Not too futuristic weapons
- Great handling
- Full customizable controls
- A cool Shotgun
- Wastelands and destroyed cities backgrounds
- Ability to hold 2 weapons at a time
- (for example) R1 fires the right weapon (pistol) and R2 fires left weapon (grenade)
- Not a very futuristic world
- Lots and lots of fun
- Blood
- A really cool enemy design
- Extras to unlock
- A mode similar to Geo mod on background and also on enemies.

Single Player:
- Involving and deep storyline.
- Lots of hours of gameplay.
- Very good enemy AI
- A very hide-and-seek game, and not just run and shoot game (like any PC FPS)

Multiplayer:
- Lots and lots of different modes.
- No cheats
- Ranking
- customizable skins
- lots of skins to chose from.

Seems that in the Edge article they mention something about slowdowns, but there is still time..[/b]
 
Evil_Cloud said:
Do warzones look colourful? :/
I wouldn't like another 'TS2' slapstick shooter... what PS2 really needs is this
Well no, but that's how I'd like it more. I don't mean everything should be coloured bright purple, green and orange (like Halo), but splashes of colour here and there would brighten the look considerably.
It's just that since Quake, I've found this colour scheme offputting and depressing, it almost makes me not wanting to play the game.
But these are just pictures of unfinished game. MGS3 has a limited colour pallette, but it looks still interesting. Maybe when there are explosions, laser fire and such, the game will look tons better.
 
rabidrabbit said:
Looks good enough to me.
Would like if it was more colourful though. Even if this looks more realistic than for example Halo, i'd prefer a more shiny, colourful and even cartoony look.

The models and environments seem to be much more detailed and varied than any current fps on any console, and even without bumpmaping. The art even resembles a little Half Life 2.
If the framerate is a constant above 30, or preferably stable 60 fps, then at least technically it looks like it will be a Halo beater :p

But where are the enemies in these pictures, is that why they looks so unexiting, because there is hardly any action in them, thus they do not fire my imagination.

Edit: ...and the fog... :(

I don't know what you're talking about wrt the models, the textures on them are pretty darn blurry :?

Based on those 4 pictures (which suck btw, but congrats to SCEE for not doing a 1600x1200 dev-kit AA fest), IMO, the visuals aren't even a Halo 1 "beater", let alone a Halo 2 "beater". I'm thinking this is a 60fps game though, those definitely don't look worthy of 30fps :?

The premise is intriguing though, so I'm open to more/better pictures and videos to change my mind.
 
In my monitor I don't see much textures on models, but imo they seem quite detailed polygonwise.
Halo's ceratinly are more colourful, but I'd still say this is more detailed and varied, and more important 60 fps (if the facts are true).
But the too close fog could be what ruins the game, thought I'd never see it again fps games.
Edit: after a bit of gamma correction in my monitor, I see what zurich was talking about muddy model textures. They are quite muddy, and I quess was wrong in saying the models look more detailed than in Halo. I prefer Halo's crispier soldiers. But the environments still look more detailed in Killzone.
 
Foggy, but those looks good.

Those soldiers looks like they are from manga call Eden.

Impress me more than Halo 2 that's for sure. Have to see more, if it was to rival HL2. Too bad these are FPS. Not my favourite genre.
 
I don't know how someone can say the models have high poly counts as these pics don't even show enough for one to come to that conclusion. That second pic seems to be a realtime cutscene so it's not a good indicator either. I like the art direction of the game though, but it seems to borrow a little from HL2. It looks good for a PS2 game IMO but it's no Halo beater in the graphics department. However if it's running at 60fps than that's a big plus in my book.
 
PC-Engine said:
I like the art direction of the game though, but it seems to borrow a little from HL2.

We (in Biolgy) call that Evolutive Convergence (different routes to reach to the same point: birds have wings, insects do as well)... Don't think they could have retouched their art stuff in what, less than three months?
 
Am I the only one noticing the fog in pictures 2 and 4 ? Don't know if to keep slow down to a minimum or to ehance the game. But that is crazy fog crazy close . Other than that the game looks pretty good.
 
megateto said:
PC-Engine said:
I like the art direction of the game though, but it seems to borrow a little from HL2.

We (in Biolgy) call that Evolutive Convergence (different routes to reach to the same point: birds have wings, insects do as well)... Don't think they could have retouched their art stuff in what, less than three months?

Actually all they needed to do was globally desaturate the colors and change single character model of the one cloned soldier ;)

I doubt it's coincedence or whatever you want to call it.
 
I think it looks pretty cool. Lots of geometry, a good sense of scale (the valley, the open hall with those high walls (perhaps a killzone?)), cool atmospheric SFX (sun blurring through the clouds), even the fog enables new gameplay options (hide&seek, infrared vision, hard to sniper or to be snipered). The overall art-direction looks and feels a lot more like the real thing ... war and killing goes not well with candy-ass graphix. Just my $0.02, what the heck do I know ... I don't even like FPS

Next I would like to see some action ... bring on the gameplay movies SCEE :!:
 
my god, what has happened to these forums? These are some of the most impressive screens I've seen of any game lately (if they are screens). Obviously, all this forum cares about is amount of textures etc. Disgusting.

If this is stable 60. Wow, I'm blown away.

BTW; basing of these screens, how can this not be better graphically than HALO? Halo was ugly for one, slow for the other. I'm puzzled, I really am. :?
 
PC-Engine said:
I don't know how someone can say the models have high poly counts as these pics don't even show enough for one to come to that conclusion. That second pic seems to be a realtime cutscene so it's not a good indicator either. I like the art direction of the game though, but it seems to borrow a little from HL2. It looks good for a PS2 game IMO but it's no Halo beater in the graphics department. However if it's running at 60fps than that's a big plus in my book.
But the models are almost the major thing that those pictures show! At closer look the models do have some low-poly element like biceps and elbow area, but they do have much acessories on them, and the gun is quite detailed.
Still I would say they are about MGS2 (and 3) level of detail.

for all that is known, all of these pictures could be from real-time cut scenes. But more likely they will not even appear in the finished game as shown here. They are just propably just put together using the in-game engine to represent the gameplay and visuals.
 
PC-Engine said:
Actually all they needed to do was globally desaturate the colors and change single character model of the one cloned soldier ;)

I doubt it's coincedence or whatever you want to call it.

Game making never stops amazing me if things are really that simple..And I talked about convergence, not coincidence.
It's all about setting: it's not the same to place your game in a near future (no laser beams) than in a really futuristic place, Halo style.
 
Models arent have as bad..though this is possibly closer to the real game, with the usual PS2 IQ.

ops2_killzone_screen1_big.jpg

ops2_killzone_screen2_big.jpg


Heres hoping they BOuncer BLUR them all!~ :LOL: Thats the best experience with PS2 IQ.

60fps with good AI and environmental interaction/physics, it should seeth the first good FPS on PS2. To be fair i dont expect a Halo2 killing, less to say Halo1, in all.

For its exclusive buyout and hype, i expect a stellar FPS performance, unless of course SCEE did another TR:AOD again.... :p
 
Phil said:
my god, what has happened to these forums? These are some of the most impressive screens I've seen of any game lately (if they are screens). Obviously, all this forum cares about is amount of textures etc. Disgusting.

If this is stable 60. Wow, I'm blown away.

BTW; basing of these screens, how can this not be better graphically than HALO? Halo was ugly for one, slow for the other. I'm puzzled, I really am. :?

:oops:

Like, I've stared at the pics for a good 5 minutes or so dissecting them, and I can't wrap my head around what's so impressive..

The Bad

1) Draw distance seems to be low (from the fog)
2) Character textures are mighty blurry in places (the bags on the soldiers being the worst)
3) Pic 3 and 5 shows some mipmap issues and aliasing (5 being the worst)
4) Poly counts don't really seem to be all that high, the soldiers arms are very blocky, the scope on the gun is an octagon, and the environments are all very hard-edged.

The Good

1) Art direction looks nice, though I'm interested in some more varied, war torn environments (ie: blown out cities).
2) Foilage looks nice, chances are its animated (which is good)
3) Pic 1 and 5 shows a nice bloom lighting effect
4) Is said to be 60fps

However, based on these 4 pictures, to me the bad out weighs the good. This was hyped to have "teh best graphx evar", and compared to other showcase titles for PS2 (like MGS3), I really can't see how this stands up.

I'd bring Halo into this, but the 30 vs 60 debate has been done to death and really detracts from any meaningful discussion.
 
Back
Top