New Killzone Info!

[Dunchan25]

It averaged just a hair under 80%, but ya it's a start. Stil though, they don't exactly have AAA written all over em.

Dunchan25 - I said developer not publisher, and I'm refering to Guerilla Games.

I know, however, they share information together unlike when Guerilla developed killzone 1. Sony was not in complete control over them then - they are now. So Sony is the developer and publisher, I know you already know that So to sat Sony as a developer is unproven is a mouth full.

 

[Bad_Boy]

The origonal Killzone wasnt released when the system was fresh, it was a title launched 4+ years into the consoles life so why would the review be effected with uba-graphics syndrome? After that long of a time games actually get rated 95% on their gameplay, which killzone lacked. Games that launch when they look just dead sexy compared to everything else out there get a substantial boost in reviews and will continue to. If they can hit a 2-3 year launch window into the consoles life the graphics will still look fresh and impressive if it looks like that CGI.

I'm not sure what you mean. Games are reviewed only by graphics the first 1-2 years of the console life?

Or it just wasn't that great in my opinion? Sorry, but your first tactic was to say I had not even played it or that it wasn't my cup of tea. That's really not the best of ways to defend a game you're calling great. While it was a nice game, it wasn't great.

Trust me, theres no tactic. I'm not the only one who thinks the game was great. "Outstanding" from IGN, and "Great" from gamespot is not..uhh...great?

 

[Lycan]

I think Killzone could have been a benchmark had it enjoyed better framerate and AI routines. It was an artistic feat and, to an extent, the game delivered on the story and background. I really loved the level design. What I really disliked, besides the two points mentionned initially, is some stupid dialogues here and there...
Not a great game, but one that is worth playing...
Back to KZ III (or II), I do have aspirations...but they are mainly related to graphics and animation. I can't say I'm waiting for Guerilla to set a benchmark, but I'm waiting for them to reveal the technological side of it knowing : 1) the pression 2) The commitement of Sony.'..

 

[SugarCoat]

I'm not sure what you mean. Games are reviewed only by graphics the first 1-2 years of the console life?

In terms of what people view as a total impact of how good a game is going to be? Course. Look at Halo 2. People complained about the textures yet Halo 1 was praised for amazing visuals. Thats because Halo 2 arrived years into the console life and graphics could no longer be a primary seller nor were peaple gaping in awe the same way they did when the origonal launched, or when Doom 3 launched, or the same way they're gaping in awe at Gears Of War now. 3-4 years from now no ones going to give graphics the same attention on the consoles when PCs are doing far more impressive things and consoles have peaked out.

You'd have to be pretty damned blind to not notice that when an image gets posted with high res textures and high poly counts people dont start drooling and pondering how 'amazing' the game is. 99% of the hype around a game is based on the screenshots and how good it looks, most times people could care less about the story or how immersive the game might be, let alone what new things, if any, it brings to the genre.

 

[Bad_Boy]

In terms of what people view as a total impact of how good a game is going to be? Course. Look at Halo 2. People complained about the textures yet Halo 1 was praised for amazing visuals. Thats because Halo 2 arrived years into the console life and graphics could no longer be a primary seller nor were peaple gaping in awe the same way they did when the origonal launched, or when Doom 3 launched, or the same way they're gaping in awe at Gears Of War now. 3-4 years from now no ones going to give graphics the same attention on the consoles when PCs are doing far more impressive things and consoles have peaked out.

You'd have to be pretty damned blind to not notice that when an image gets posted with high res textures and high poly counts people dont start drooling and pondering how 'amazing' the game is. 99% of the hype around a game is based on the screenshots and how good it looks, most times people could care less about the story or how immersive the game might be, let alone what new things, if any, it brings to the genre.

Ah ok, I misunderstood your post then I think. To a certain extent I think I agree with that, but sometimes graphics just cannot save the gameplay. Genji for example, gets a lot of praise for graphics (8.5 @ ign), but the gameplay seems so dated it wasnt enough to save the reviews (6.0 @ ign overall). In other cases, your statement applies pretty well. Many are due to launch time jitters and reviews are based mainly on how good a game looks instead of how it plays, but hype definately can play a part of that.

Though I think this may be going a little off topic.

 

[pakotlar]

The origonal Killzone wasnt released when the system was fresh, it was a title launched 4+ years into the consoles life so why would the review be effected with uba-graphics syndrome? After that long of a time games actually get rated 95% on their gameplay, which killzone lacked. Games that launch when they look just dead sexy compared to everything else out there get a substantial boost in reviews and will continue to. If they can hit a 2-3 year launch window into the consoles life the graphics will still look fresh and impressive if it looks like that CGI.

Honestly if it looks like the CGI, and I don't mean any semantical variations on "like" or "CGI", it will look impressive in 2015.

 

[pakotlar]

In terms of what people view as a total impact of how good a game is going to be? Course. Look at Halo 2. People complained about the textures yet Halo 1 was praised for amazing visuals. Thats because Halo 2 arrived years into the console life and graphics could no longer be a primary seller nor were peaple gaping in awe the same way they did when the origonal launched, or when Doom 3 launched, or the same way they're gaping in awe at Gears Of War now. 3-4 years from now no ones going to give graphics the same attention on the consoles when PCs are doing far more impressive things and consoles have peaked out.

You'd have to be pretty damned blind to not notice that when an image gets posted with high res textures and high poly counts people dont start drooling and pondering how 'amazing' the game is. 99% of the hype around a game is based on the screenshots and how good it looks, most times people could care less about the story or how immersive the game might be, let alone what new things, if any, it brings to the genre.

I don't think you have much of a base to substantiate this argument. Okami was praised highly for its stylized visuals, and yet was released in the 6th year of the console. Similar thing goes for GC and RE4, splinter cell double agent, both of which were praised for their graphics (the latter less so than the former). Sure, visual "wow" will be more present in the first couple months of the system, but that wow wears off pretty quickly. Even Gears of War, which looks absolutely fantastic, was no as rediculously impressive as it was when the first preview was debuted. I was more wowed by Ghost Recon than Gears simply because it was the first true "next-gen" visual experience we had this generation. But was Gears marked down for not being first? Certainly not.

 

[Kittonwy]

At least the game wouldn't be hurting in terms of budget and staff. I think if PSP Killzone is any indication, they're moving in the right direction. They have much to live up to, so I wish them a lot of luck. I want them to succeed though, because it would mean having another great game to play on my PS3.

 

[SugarCoat]

I don't think you have much of a base to substantiate this argument. Okami was praised highly for its stylized visuals, and yet was released in the 6th year of the console. Similar thing goes for GC and RE4, splinter cell double agent, both of which were praised for their graphics (the latter less so than the former). Sure, visual "wow" will be more present in the first couple months of the system, but that wow wears off pretty quickly. Even Gears of War, which looks absolutely fantastic, was no as rediculously impressive as it was when the first preview was debuted. I was more wowed by Ghost Recon than Gears simply because it was the first true "next-gen" visual experience we had this generation. But was Gears marked down for not being first? Certainly not.

no base? wander into any thread posting simple screenshots of a game and marvel at the many predctions of how good, amazing, anticipated the game is going to be based on pixel count alone. Games have and will continue to sell on their engine alone because many people really are that easy to please. To deny that is just dumb.

I've always found the Halo series nothing more then a basic FPS with a cheasy story stolen straight from a weekend B-Sci-Fi flick, yet look at the HUGE hype around the title not to mention the A++++ reviews. Much of that hype is born from the graphics, even look at the early halo threads here. I believe theres one where someone felt the need to start a thread saying Halo 3 didnt look interesting because the game isnt up to his visual standards. Yep, it really is that simple. Super sexy over the top looking game + marketing machine = A+ title.

 

[Dr. Nick]

With all of the hype behind this game I think Sony will do what is necessary in order to make it AAA even if it means that Killzone 2 might not technically be a "Guerilla" title.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Of course the break down of project members is the big if. Art tasks generate much fewer dependancies and scale much better that engineering resources.

Trust me, they do now. The level of detail expected from a game like KZ (look at Gears) is so high that you can no longer have a single person working on an asset, the complexity of the assets increases chances for errors, you'll need internal quality checking at all stages of the pipeline, and so on...

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Honestly if it looks like the CGI, and I don't mean any semantical variations on "like" or "CGI", it will look impressive in 2015.

Actually, Gears already surpassed some aspects of that CGI trailer, in the level of polish and the art direction of the characters and enviroments. It was to be expected, Epic had years to work on every asset, whereas the CGI team had a short schedule. I'd expect KZ to have comparably good looking characters and such.

The more problematic aspects are the GI lighting, the fire and smoke effects, and the general complexity of the battle scene, complete with the number of allied and enemy soldiers, the amount of action going on, and the war zone feel. Some of those can be faked, some will be quite difficult.

And then there's the image quality: antialiasing, texture filtering, shading. This just won't happen on this generation of consoles and the difference will be there. But I fully expect Sony to release oversized-downsampled screenshots first to cover this up, the same way we've recieved uberAA Gears shots in the beginning...

 

[Laa-Yosh]

I've always found the Halo series nothing more then a basic FPS with a cheasy story stolen straight from a weekend B-Sci-Fi flick, yet look at the HUGE hype around the title not to mention the A++++ reviews. Much of that hype is born from the graphics, even look at the early halo threads here.

I disagree. In fact, the very first level of Halo (Pillar of Autumn) looked so ugly when we've first tried the game, that many of my friends already concluded that the game sucks. But they've kept playing and changed their minds - because of the gameplay.

Halo's success, both critical and financial, is the result of its game design. There's a lot of thought and experience behind it, and the actual shooter gameplay is a lot better than Half-life 2, for example. Or have you ever noticed how CliffyB keeps talking about Bungie's design concepts in Gears interviews?

 

[fulcizombie]

If they make this game totally linear(something along the lines of gears) like the 1st killzone was it might have a chance approaching the CGI trailer.If they make it similar to Halo1(with big battelfields) then there's no chance in hell that it will look close to the trailer.All this when taking into account that they've hired like a thousand people (or something...) working on the graphics.

Anyway Halo3,even if it has mediocre graphics(which i think it won't,esp. in single player) will make killzone2 obselete before it releases.

The fact that there are some people(though not that many as 2 years ago) hyped for a killzone sequel is a testament to the power of the playstation brand.That's like xbox fans wishing for sequels to games like Tao feng and Brute force.

 

[habbe]

Anyway Halo3,even if it has mediocre graphics(which i think it won't,esp. in single player) will make killzone2 obselete before it releases.

What are you talking about ?.. 2 games that is not yet released and you are making statements about what is obsolete and not.

Both games has a pretty big budget so hopefully the devs will make something good out of all that money.

 

[fulcizombie]

What are you talking about ?.. 2 games that is not yet released and you are making statements about what is obsolete and not.

Both games has a pretty big budget so hopefully the devs will make something good out of all that money.

I am talking about how the sequel to the best (by a huge margin) console fps franchise will make the sequel to a horrible(not just mediocre) fps obselete.

Killzone was no better than red faction or the EA bond games.The fact that some sony fans are digging to find some qualities in that game doesn't make it better than what it was,overhyped trash.

 

[macabre]

Halo was overhyped too. I haven`t played Killzone, but I don`t think it`s possible to have indoor levels that are poorer designed than Halo`s.

 

[habbe]

fulcizombie

Some sequels come out better and some worse, even from talented studios.. Hype or not.

 

[Arwin]

What I remember about Killzone, (apart from the billions of horrible speculative threads about Killzone 2) is that it managed graphics and sound on the PS2 in an FPS game that had so far not been considered possible on the PS2. I think that's the single merit of Killzone. I listened to some 1up and EGM podcasts recently that had some second opinions on Gears of War, pointing out some notable flaws with it and thinking that the game's reviews and general reception had been influenced a lot by the strength of its graphics and presentation. The hype about Killzone back then was comparable, although the backlash regarding the gameplay obviously far less severe for Gears.

 

[Phil]

What I remember about Killzone, (apart from the billions of horrible speculative threads about Killzone 2) is that it managed graphics and sound on the PS2 in an FPS game that had so far not been considered possible on the PS2. I think that's the single merit of Killzone. I listened to some 1up and EGM podcasts recently that had some second opinions on Gears of War, pointing out some notable flaws with it and thinking that the game's reviews and general reception had been influenced a lot by the strength of its graphics and presentation. The hype about Killzone back then was comparable, although the backlash regarding the gameplay obviously far less severe for Gears.

I would also like to point out that the game had some amazing art-direction behind it - from the musical score to the attention to detail and the gritty look to the game. Certainly quite an impressive feat for a PS2 game. I didn't like the game personally, but that was more due to framerate and the slow feal of the game... then again, I didn't really give it a go either. Maybe I will someday, when I can overcome my fetish for 60fps games. Until then though, it's TimeSplitters all the way!