Killzone public beta later this year (Yes, another Killzone thread)

[one]

Anyway it's now developed by the first party and new members far outnumber the original members in the team, I look at it as yet another SCE WWS showcase title, this time produced and developed in continental Europe. There's no denying that the artificial hype for KZ1 sold more copies than it deserved, SCE themselves could hope some hype for KZ2 by arranging an event at E3 but this time with more confidence in game quality.

One thing I'm curious about is whether the deferred rendering or some other graphics/physics technology employed in the new Killzone could get something that reasonably distinguishes itself from other contemporary games. The development began in 2004 and it remains to be seen if they could correctly predict what is possible with PS3 in 2007 and what looks fresh among all games in 2007.

 

[morlock]

Maybe Guerillas research of WordlLight with SecondIntention can make the graphics stand out in a way that it looks more of a film rather than a digital rendering?

Efficient PRT mesh format using 12 bytes per vertex - only as much data as a floating-point normal!
CPCA compression allowing arbitrary order of PRT simulation with the same per-vertex size and runtime cost. Higher orders cost more CPU time and CPCA basis table storage, but the GPU cost remains constant.
Multiresolution shadow maps giving crisp shadows both close-up on small details and in the distance on large buildings. Shadow map selection avoids use of the stencil buffer completely.
Depth guided screen-space shadow filtering for soft shadows without depth artifacts.
Local cubemaps for both specular lighting and PRT Spherical Harmonic diffuse lightsource generation.
Real-time implementation of Geigel and Musgrave tonemapping. This simulates the nonlinear behaviour of different negative and print film emulsions allowing the user to input film characteristic curve data and see the real-time world rendererd as though photographed with the film they have selected. http://secondintention.com/portfolio/worldlight/

Either way this game will be far better designed than Halo 3. The Halo series have IMO the poorest character design of them all , maybe not Master Chief, but the rest just looks bad. I can't even make out what the brutes is supposed to look like.

 

[one]

Maybe Guerillas research of WordlLight with SecondIntention can make the graphics stand out in a way that it looks more of a film rather than a digital rendering?

Either way this game will be far better designed than Halo 3. The Halo series have IMO the poorest character design of them all , maybe not Master Chief, but the rest just looks bad. I can't even make out what the brutes is supposed to look like.

Though this Worldlight is talked about as if it's what appears in KZ2, is it compatible with the deferred rendering technology already identified as one actually implemented in KZ2?

It's reported there was a closed-door tech demo for KZ2 at GDC in March but it failed to impress viewers, if it already showed all the core graphical characteristics of it other than a complex game scene there's little hope that the presentation at E3 can do better except for showing cool art and direction like MGS4 does.

As for the Halo 3 design, I think it just shows what is well received in America, nothing else.

 

[morlock]

Yeah, the Worldlight is pure speculation. But something in secondintentions portfolio must have impressed Guerills to sign a research contract with them.

 

[betan]

It's reported there was a closed-door tech demo for KZ2 at GDC in March but it failed to impress viewers, if it already showed all the core graphical characteristics of it other than a complex game scene there's little hope that the presentation at E3 can do better except for showing cool art and direction like MGS4 does.

Yep, people with high expectations of Killzone 2 gfx seem to forget that small GDC presentation didn't impress anybody. But while I don't have any OMG expectations, I do expect improved graphics since at the time of GDC, one of the developers said they were trying to match the trailer for E3.

 

[nintenho]

I think I heard that the demo at GDC was just a physics demo which would explain why they would show it and why the graphics weren't impressive. I think it was a demo showing lighting coming into a room as the wall was blasted away.

 

[crazygambit]

I think I heard that the demo at GDC was just a physics demo which would explain why they would show it and why the graphics weren't impressive. I think it was a demo showing lighting coming into a room as the wall was blasted away.

Yeah it was in the same vein as Motorstorm's GDC mud deformation demo. It looked considerably worse than the final game and it was meant to showcase their deformable terrain tech, nothing else.

I expect KZ to look pretty good, though I'm much more interested in how it's going to play. I have to say though, after some of the comments in this thread (especially the long one from Terarrim) I'm starting to get really hyped up for E3.

 

[archangelmorph]

I may not be well informed as I mostly play FPSs on PC, but besides Goldeneye can you show me a financial success story even comparable to Halo's?

No I can't.. But doing so would be irrelevant to the discussion because it's not only multi-million+ seller games which spark other developers to draw inspiration from (or outright copy) them..

I totally disagree with you here. I have been playing FPSs since Wolfenstein 3D, and I sincerely believe Halo didn't bring anything new to the table at all in terms of single-player experience. Atmosphere and immerse experience? For me it is a slow paced FPS with mediocre story and I consider listing Half Life (or even Deus Ex just because it had RPG elements) inferior to Halo, big insult to those games.

Well fair points.. I guess such is subjective in that respect but to me it's quite clear that Halos ability to tell a compelling story (in terms of the delivery over the substance) and immerse the player in the universe played a great part in it's mass market success (otherwise why don't we see other FPSs with comparable gameplay quality reach the same level of financial acclaim..?)

Totally irrelevant indeed, as I have no reason to believe Killzone adopted anything from Halo at all. It might or might not, wouldn't care in anycase.

If you don't then why draw arguement against my initial post to begin with?? My original point stood that it was unlikely the Killzone devs drew any kind of inspiration/motivation from Halo and thus, the developers never intended the game to "counter it".. You contended with that and now your changing your stance again? I'm confused..

Please ask yourself these questions: If you were Sony, you looked at the competition's only offering which was a successful example of its genre, wouldn't you try to counter somehow? Would it be wise to ignore a game that created Xbox and indirectly 360? Did Sony publish any FPS other than Killzone?

No...
I for one know that Sony's perception of the importance of any single genre (or anyone elses success in that area) are much lower than you seem to believe.. Would it be wise to ingore the game that "created xbox" as you say? Well in truth Sony couldn't "counter it" anyway since:-

- They don't publish for the same platform that game is on
- Eve if they did develop a more successful game on that platform and in the same genre, it wouldn't take away from that games success or appeal since the IP has already established itself and accumulated the sales to define it's successes.. The idea that it could is rather silly and implies that somehow no more than one game of a particular genre on the same or separate platforms can have equal success both critically and financially to any other..?!

I don't know, I may be death wrong of course but I still think Killzone owes Halo a lot. And that is not an insult to Killzone nor a praise of Halo as a game.

I agree the original Killzone does owe Halo at least something considering it's infleunce in the hype of Killzone came directly from the media moniker (Halo Killer) given to the game.. How it could be argued that this is just as much the product of the media itself over Halo (the same excitement and hype generation could have still been present for the game in its own right at that time even if Halo wasn't there as a comparator..)

 

[Love_In_Rio]

deleted post. wrong place, sorry

 

[Titanio]

Yep, people with high expectations of Killzone 2 gfx seem to forget that small GDC presentation didn't impress anybody.

Reports were mixed on the GDC demo's graphical credentials. Some seemed reasonably impressed, and some did not. Everyone, of course, had to throw in the caveat that it didn't look like the trailer, but I'm not sure if I'd mistake that for being unimpressed with what was shown in its own right.

That said, physics/destructibility seemed to be the highlights from what was described, though.

e.g. Gamespot:

As with the previous Killzone trailer, the game looks like it has the potential to make quite a splash for the PlayStation 3 if it delivers on its promise. The action looks fast and detailed, and it seems to be covering all the right bases. The visuals are looking sharp, and the vast scale of the outdoor areas is impressive, while the indoor spaces we saw were good and claustrophobic.

GameDaily:

Before we exited, we were teased with a brand new Killzone video, which looked nowhere near the level of the CG video shown at E32005, but it did look quite good, probably visually on par with some of what we've seen in the Metal Gear Solid 4 trailers.

I always agree with keeping low expectations, however

 

[Vic]

^ Agreed.

I see KZ2 as nothing more than a great title that fills the void of exclusive FPS shooters on the PS3 platform. I certainly dont see it as a mass console mover as Halo is to the X360.

Given the fact that there has been so much hype surrounding the game, and that Resistance has sold 2m copies already, I expect Killzone to sell extremely well whether its good or not. Its only real competitor will be Haze, and that game has a lower profile and probably wont be the graphical tour de force that Killzone will be.

 

[betan]

No I can't.. But doing so would be irrelevant to the discussion because it's not only multi-million+ seller games which spark other developers to draw inspiration from (or outright copy) them..

Well fair points.. I guess such is subjective in that respect but to me it's quite clear that Halos ability to tell a compelling story (in terms of the delivery over the substance) and immerse the player in the universe played a great part in it's mass market success (otherwise why don't we see other FPSs with comparable gameplay quality reach the same level of financial acclaim..?)

I assume the most obvious reason of Halo's success would be coming to a console space for which there was no competition or even "real" FPS experience at all. I can go on and pointlessly theorize social aspects, low expectations, nationalism, etc but I am pretty sure there is no way original Halo would be what it is today if it stayed on PC (or Mac, Bungie style).

If you don't then why draw arguement against my initial post to begin with?? My original point stood that it was unlikely the Killzone devs drew any kind of inspiration/motivation from Halo and thus, the developers never intended the game to "counter it".. You contended with that and now your changing your stance again? I'm confused..

The claim that Halo's success motivated Guerrilla/Sony doesn't imply they copied any aspects of the game. So for me gameplay similarities or differences are totally off topic.

No...
I for one know that Sony's perception of the importance of any single genre (or anyone elses success in that area) are much lower than you seem to believe..

While its perception may be low, I find missing FPS genre a little suspicious for a company like Sony that draws its main strength from diversity of offerings. It cannot really be coincidence its only offering came on the same month, in the same year as competition's sequel.

Would it be wise to ingore the game that "created xbox" as you say? Well in truth Sony couldn't "counter it" anyway since:-

- They don't publish for the same platform that game is on

You totally lost me here. I think it is well known fact that games or even genres drive sales. Why would they want to loose more potential customers? If Halo came on PS2 instead there would really be no reason to counter it..

- Eve if they did develop a more successful game on that platform and in the same genre, it wouldn't take away from that games success or appeal since the IP has already established itself and accumulated the sales to define it's successes.. The idea that it could is rather silly and implies that somehow no more than one game of a particular genre on the same or separate platforms can have equal success both critically and financially to any other..?!

Assuming most gamers don't print money or time, it is obvious that similar games released at the same time fight with each other in terms of sales. And even if they are released on different platforms console moving sales still fight with each other, not to mention multi-console owners.
I think what is sillier is ignoring a game because it is an established IP.

I agree the original Killzone does owe Halo at least something considering it's infleunce in the hype of Killzone came directly from the media moniker (Halo Killer) given to the game.. How it could be argued that this is just as much the product of the media itself over Halo (the same excitement and hype generation could have still been present for the game in its own right at that time even if Halo wasn't there as a comparator..)

If I were to believe Killzone's existence is purely coincidental and independent of Halo I would say Killzone lost more sales because of both Halo:CE, Halo 2, and strict time-to-market constraints. After all the Halo-killer title might have damaged Killzone in the long run as well.

 

[DemoCoder]

Halo was novel *on consoles* because it was one of the few pure-FPS, plus it had nice cinematics, voice acting, and graphics, dolby sound, but from a level design perspective, it sucked (Library level anyone?) Boring, repetitive textures and level architecture. In fact, so repetitive in places that people got confused.

However, I'd argue that GoldenEye on N64 was better, and of course, 1998's Half-Life blew away Halo in design. And in no way does Halo multiplayer compare to HL, CS, DoD, etc.

I bought Halo for one reason: it was a launch title, and had good eye candy. But I didn't like the game about halfway through it (it seems their designers put most of the effort in the first few levels), and I don't really like FPSes on consoles anyway due to sucky controls. On the PC, Halo is a big "meh"

 

[Inquisitive_Idiot]

Halo was novel *on consoles* because it was one of the few pure-FPS, plus it had nice cinematics, voice acting, and graphics, dolby sound, but from a level design perspective, it sucked (Library level anyone?) Boring, repetitive textures and level architecture. In fact, so repetitive in places that people got confused.

However, I'd argue that GoldenEye on N64 was better, and of course, 1998's Half-Life blew away Halo in design. And in no way does Halo multiplayer compare to HL, CS, DoD, etc.

I bought Halo for one reason: it was a launch title, and had good eye candy. But I didn't like the game about halfway through it (it seems their designers put most of the effort in the first few levels), and I don't really like FPSes on consoles anyway due to sucky controls. On the PC, Halo is a big "meh"

Why is it then that I enjoy Halo more than Half-Life? I think both games are at the pinnacle of FPS gaming, but if I had to choose one I would chose Halo over Half-Life. I really think the notion that because Halo is on the console it is somehow inferior to a FPS on the PC is rediculous. This also applies to your statement about Counter-Strike and Day of Defeat, both of which are great multiplayer games but do not really do anything better than Halo. In fact, I prefer Halo's method of matchmaking to the traditional server lists your find in those games.

In the end, I think it all comes down to personal preference and in no way can someone claim that one title is better than the other outright.

 

[StefanS]

Locked. Hugely off topic. If there's interest in further discussing the significance of Halo etc. for console FPS, pm me and I'll export the posts out of here into a new thread.

Stefan