That's how Resistance is for me, the gameplay is just so smooth, it makes it hard to go back to anything else. If anything I hope Killzone PS3 takes a cue from what Resistance is doing and make sure that the gameplay is smooth, varied and things like level layout and controls are done well.
New Killzone Info!
- Thread starter Ons::lob::
- Start date
That's how Resistance is for me, the gameplay is just so smooth, it makes it hard to go back to anything else. If anything I hope Killzone PS3 takes a cue from what Resistance is doing and make sure that the gameplay is smooth, varied and things like level layout and controls are done well.
Laa-Yosh said:
Not sure what this has to do with what you quoted from me? I didn't say they weren't complicated just that asset scheduling has always been and will continue to be simpler and more predictable than engineering tasks and that production rate of art assets scale better. Can't say I've seen too much in the last 12 years in the industry to make me believe differently.
Last edited by a moderator:
Killzone CGI makes me look forward to NEXT gen 
I think, considering G80 and R600 are only the first of several graphics generations until then, it should be I guess, easily do-able and then some. Makes me happy...
________
LULY_HORNY live
I think, considering G80 and R600 are only the first of several graphics generations until then, it should be I guess, easily do-able and then some. Makes me happy...
________
LULY_HORNY live
Last edited by a moderator:
There's too much for me to catch up in this thread, (and even some Halo talk?) but here's my take on the project and Guerilla.
Guerilla surely didnt offer any REAL AAA games. They made two games on the PS2 of which one sucked AFAIK and the other one got mixed impressions (Killzone). Killzone on the PSP got some pretty nice reviews but I didnt play it.
A month ago I decided to get Killzone although I hesitated. I found it cheap and wanted to see what they achieved with it. (this is the first FPS PS2 game I ever bought btw. I am not a fan of FPS)
The game surely gives mixed impressions. There are many flaws in it, but at the same time it doesnt fail to give you the impression that the developers really have skills and talent.
The problems of the game are many though and feels rushed due to hardware limitations.
First of all its trying to offer too much in the visual quality that it takes away from thinks like physics, sound and AI.
Visually the game is underrated IMO. The textures, art direction, and general design is impressive. Actually too impressive for a PS2 game.
Now I am at a level which introduces some pretty nice weather and rain effects, and it gives a very realistic feel.
It doesnt fail to impress me visually.
Also the feel of your character running, and separate head movement add truelly to the level of realism. Because of this I cant go back to playing other FPS. Movement and reloading in other FPS games is like controlling a robot which moves on wheels rather than feet.
The AI sometimes works great as well. There are instances where it's extremely smart. There is variation in enemy behaviour. They dont always react the same way. On the other hand there are AI gltches. Your main companions that follow you in the whole game wont hesitate in many instances to stand in the middle of the battle and take hits.
Enemy AI sometimes is taking cover on the wrong wall (like looking at the opposite direction of you) and all he does is go back and forth from the wall like he is stuck there (not even shooting).
Other times when an enemy is placed between you and another comrade of yours he just cant decide which one of you to shoot.
Rugdoll physics is messy btw. Characters get impossible postures, stuck in walls and things like that.
There are also other glitches like walking through pillars in one area.
Some placeholders durintg the game's early development werent completely removed
Sound effects chosen are superb. Unfortunately the quality of some sounds isnt all that great (comrade and enemy voices arent very clean). Gun sounds sometimes get inexcusably muted.
Its also too linear.
But still strangely I enjoy this game. Its a paradox that I enjoy it more than other FPS I played which got better scores. I cant explain why for sure. Probably its the emphasis on the battles and scripted events. It doenst force you to move on huge enviroments trying to find out what to do.
Indeed the fights are pretty well made despite the glitches. The game as a total offers a challenge, the enemy AI is really hard despite the glitches and causes trouble (simply running like crazy shooting is a BAD IDEA) so you have to use some strategy to move on, the game has superb visuals and art direction, your main character animation is unmatched IMO (unfortunately the other characters surrounding you arent that believably animated. Their animation need work. Its very bad) and the scripted events in the game make it more believable because it adds involvemnt and a story into it.
For example you will get into an area where lots of comrades are there in a middle of a fight. Once there you can see in the distance of the city artillery fire being shot and smoke. There are realistic sound effects of war happening in the backround probably miles away from where you are. There are some destroyied infrastructure arround you which hints that previously there was a fierce fight. Your comrades shoot towards a building from the opposite direction to draw back the enemy fire. Then they tell you that we have to move on and find a way to get to that building.
Note that "we" are another building connected to the other one through something that seems like a bridge. So we move towards there. But there are enemies on the other side. So all comrades take their positions on windows to cover up a stealth main comrade (called Luger or something like that) who has to move on that bridge and blow up the door on the opposite site. So I have to help by taking a sniper rifle and help my comrades cover her up with fire.
With other words there was a great effort to give the sense of involvement of a real war and that you indeed belong on a side which you have to help and protect.
Also even your main comrades who are totally invunerable sometimes have trouble. So they may be forced to remain covered or take shots because they cant kill the enemy. So you have to help in the situation to take these enemies out so you will help yourself and them progress.
Participation in events is key
other FPS feel like its just you and the enemy and that your comrades are just unrelated pawn units which may make your life easier for you. Killzone puts you in a battle zone, in a team, in which you are just as vulnerable as your simple comrades.
Unfortunately though there are too many bugs and glitches in the game and a sense of a rushed job. many onwers of the game often find it unfortunate that a game which has so many great elements that could be found only in AAA titles, at the same time has so many problems. It doesnt feel like issues from which the game is suffering are a result of laziness but mostly a result of deadline pressures and hardware limitations.
The Guerilla shows in Killzone that they have the creative talent and skill to achieve great results. But they didnt show it well. So I kind of have faith that Killzone on the PS3 can be something great than just a mediocre title. They have the time on a more powerful hardware, lots of support from Sony to bring out something good and the amount of people working on it shows that the project is big.
Now I dont know if they can satisfy the HUGE expectations they created with the target render, something I doubt (but who knows) but atleast it has the potential to become something big nevertheless
Guerilla surely didnt offer any REAL AAA games. They made two games on the PS2 of which one sucked AFAIK and the other one got mixed impressions (Killzone). Killzone on the PSP got some pretty nice reviews but I didnt play it.
A month ago I decided to get Killzone although I hesitated. I found it cheap and wanted to see what they achieved with it. (this is the first FPS PS2 game I ever bought btw. I am not a fan of FPS)
The game surely gives mixed impressions. There are many flaws in it, but at the same time it doesnt fail to give you the impression that the developers really have skills and talent.
The problems of the game are many though and feels rushed due to hardware limitations.
First of all its trying to offer too much in the visual quality that it takes away from thinks like physics, sound and AI.
Visually the game is underrated IMO. The textures, art direction, and general design is impressive. Actually too impressive for a PS2 game.
Now I am at a level which introduces some pretty nice weather and rain effects, and it gives a very realistic feel.
It doesnt fail to impress me visually.
Also the feel of your character running, and separate head movement add truelly to the level of realism. Because of this I cant go back to playing other FPS. Movement and reloading in other FPS games is like controlling a robot which moves on wheels rather than feet.
The AI sometimes works great as well. There are instances where it's extremely smart. There is variation in enemy behaviour. They dont always react the same way. On the other hand there are AI gltches. Your main companions that follow you in the whole game wont hesitate in many instances to stand in the middle of the battle and take hits.
Enemy AI sometimes is taking cover on the wrong wall (like looking at the opposite direction of you) and all he does is go back and forth from the wall like he is stuck there (not even shooting).
Other times when an enemy is placed between you and another comrade of yours he just cant decide which one of you to shoot.
Rugdoll physics is messy btw. Characters get impossible postures, stuck in walls and things like that.
There are also other glitches like walking through pillars in one area.
Some placeholders durintg the game's early development werent completely removed
Sound effects chosen are superb. Unfortunately the quality of some sounds isnt all that great (comrade and enemy voices arent very clean). Gun sounds sometimes get inexcusably muted.
Its also too linear.
But still strangely I enjoy this game. Its a paradox that I enjoy it more than other FPS I played which got better scores. I cant explain why for sure. Probably its the emphasis on the battles and scripted events. It doenst force you to move on huge enviroments trying to find out what to do.
Indeed the fights are pretty well made despite the glitches. The game as a total offers a challenge, the enemy AI is really hard despite the glitches and causes trouble (simply running like crazy shooting is a BAD IDEA) so you have to use some strategy to move on, the game has superb visuals and art direction, your main character animation is unmatched IMO (unfortunately the other characters surrounding you arent that believably animated. Their animation need work. Its very bad) and the scripted events in the game make it more believable because it adds involvemnt and a story into it.
For example you will get into an area where lots of comrades are there in a middle of a fight. Once there you can see in the distance of the city artillery fire being shot and smoke. There are realistic sound effects of war happening in the backround probably miles away from where you are. There are some destroyied infrastructure arround you which hints that previously there was a fierce fight. Your comrades shoot towards a building from the opposite direction to draw back the enemy fire. Then they tell you that we have to move on and find a way to get to that building.
Note that "we" are another building connected to the other one through something that seems like a bridge. So we move towards there. But there are enemies on the other side. So all comrades take their positions on windows to cover up a stealth main comrade (called Luger or something like that) who has to move on that bridge and blow up the door on the opposite site. So I have to help by taking a sniper rifle and help my comrades cover her up with fire.
With other words there was a great effort to give the sense of involvement of a real war and that you indeed belong on a side which you have to help and protect.
Also even your main comrades who are totally invunerable sometimes have trouble. So they may be forced to remain covered or take shots because they cant kill the enemy. So you have to help in the situation to take these enemies out so you will help yourself and them progress.
Participation in events is key
other FPS feel like its just you and the enemy and that your comrades are just unrelated pawn units which may make your life easier for you. Killzone puts you in a battle zone, in a team, in which you are just as vulnerable as your simple comrades.
Unfortunately though there are too many bugs and glitches in the game and a sense of a rushed job. many onwers of the game often find it unfortunate that a game which has so many great elements that could be found only in AAA titles, at the same time has so many problems. It doesnt feel like issues from which the game is suffering are a result of laziness but mostly a result of deadline pressures and hardware limitations.
The Guerilla shows in Killzone that they have the creative talent and skill to achieve great results. But they didnt show it well. So I kind of have faith that Killzone on the PS3 can be something great than just a mediocre title. They have the time on a more powerful hardware, lots of support from Sony to bring out something good and the amount of people working on it shows that the project is big.
Now I dont know if they can satisfy the HUGE expectations they created with the target render, something I doubt (but who knows) but atleast it has the potential to become something big nevertheless
Last edited by a moderator:
I ve seen and playied better FPS like HL2, Far Cry and Timepslitters2. Still Killzone is visually impressive game for a PS2 game . And no its not running at 10-15fps. Its not 60fps, its not fast but its 30fps which most of the time is steady.
I dont know where you got that idea
Probably you judge it by some trailers released of the game. When I saw these trailers I believed that the game was overrated visually and that the framerate was horrible. The final game though is a different story
What killed the game are the many bugs and glitches. It is actually underrated in many elements.
They planned and tried to do too many things that were impossible unfortunately for an outdated hardware such as the PS2 to work well.
Half-Life's success and following, beyond the mods that is, is because of its great story and how Valve really stuck you in the middle of it, the Gears of War story must be friggan amazing i've seen people discussing it every...no wait i havent. Some reviewers even comment that they dont even know what the hell the story was about when they finished nor did they really care. Halo's shooter gameplay was not amazing, infact many games, including lower budget titles like "The Thing", which was recieved quite poorly by the gaming community despite receiving rather decent reviews, controlled almost the exact same way. Any time someone links Halo to innovation or amazing gameplay i want to rub my eyes with a moist towelette.
You mean like Doom 3 had?
"A+, must buy! Nothing comes close!" Games have and will continue to sell blockbuster numbers based only on their engine and graphics. Well thats just plain wrong. The game had large spreads in numerous gaming magazines prior to launch and even before being acquisitioned by Microsoft as an exclusive Xbox title. It was originally planned for the PC. Do you not remember the moaning about its delayed launch because Microsoft wanted it for Xbox and the hate toward Microsoft for stripping PC gamers of it? Please Scooby, you dont know what you're talking about if you think for one second what you said is true. Halo had a very, VERY, large following prior to its launch based almost entirely on pre-released screenshots and previews, some of which were released well in advance of its launch.
Gears of War was no different and neither is Killzone 3. Games and discussions about games not yet released are almost entirely based around how good it looks (they may actually be good, but the question does remain does the game deserve near perfect scores?), just deal with that fact and stop railroading with excuses. Believe it or not criticism can help to push more and more innovation into games so we hopefully get more unique and interesting titles instead of more games that crap out becoming generic FPS number nine thousand two hundred and six because they blew their budget on the damn 3D engine.
Last edited by a moderator:
omg, i cant believe this, how can a one sentence news from gamespot about something which i forgot amount to a 3 pages thread in a short time? just imagine, yes just imagine when Guerilla release the first ever real time screen shot of the game, i think this forum will go berserk. oh wait berserk is an understatement.
Did you even play the game?
You mean like Doom 3 had?
That is very, very true, unfortunatly.
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...
Sure, I'd say Gears of War looks pretty amazing. But it looks like a game. Killzone did not leave that impression with me. Killzone looked like Final Fantasy:TSW. And yeah, the lighting is probably responsible for a lot of that. Thats the #1 thing we wont see. #2 is that quality global shadowing. Simply not possible. The 3rd is polygonal assets. The models in the game are far too high poly. With optimizations, I bet they could achieve 30-40k main character models (like the people in your squad) w/normal maps, and allow up to 10-15 high LOD 30-40k main enemies, and a bunch of lower LOD ones on screen at once. Even that is, to me, a high ceiling that probably won't be reached (with reasonable next-gen (aka gears esque) environments, effects).
The Killzone trailer is in my eyes far above that level. So I guess what I'm saying is that none of it is possible. Seems you agree
.
Last edited by a moderator: