Slashdot Mirror
Killzone 2 Back in Action
After a bout of radio silence, yesterday Sony unveiled Killzone 2 as it stands today. Those attending the event seem duly impressed. Eurogamer's Tom Bramwell points out that the level of cynicism has been set quite high, after the pre-rendered 2005 trailer prompted a lot of hard feelings among journalists. Just the same, Susan Arendt of Game|Life is of the opinion that the wait was worth it: "Most of the action we saw was basic run-and gun--working your way up and down, through the buildings of the city to reach various checkpoints. We saw a fight with a mini-boss that was relatively unremarkable, but it did at least end with a fairly satisfying 'boom.' The level culminated with the destruction of an arc weapon--basically an antenna that draws electricity from lightning and releases it to destroy troops ... Killzone 2 is loud, dirty, and violently elegant. If you have a PS3, you're going to want this game. If you don't have a PS3 you might have to figure out how you're going to get one." For more details, check out the Killzone 2 trailer Sony has released as well as the quick Q&A on the game at PS3 Fanboy.
that Sony/PS3 get for everything it seems these days, and the millions of Xbots, bloggers and even proper news sites, that will gun down everything Sony does, or spind things in a negative way, the fact they all came away saying great things about Killzone 2, means that, for a rational gamer, without Sony hate blurring things, this is some seriously impressive stuff.
Review : It's generic, you just shoot shit and it's got loud sound.
Review conclusion : YOU MUST BUY THIS GAME! IT IS BEST GAME EVER!!!
Excuse me while I work out what the fuck is going on with these guys. Why would a generic, shoot 'em up be a must buy when it's being labeled as a generic shoot 'em up with no real originality or redeemable qualities at all?
Game journalism, because Mario didn't make sense either.
I like muppets.
The cell processor has nothing to do with the graphics.
I'm still not willing to take that as the actual graphics till I see someone playing it on a box attached to a HiDef Screen. Trailers, even ones with "gameplay" footage can be very misleading.
Still as an xbox owner I am rather impressed, and competition between the companies is a good thing.
You mad
is there a reasoning behind your pompous bullshit comment or you just wanting to thread crap? killzone had amazing graphics and a great concept, good all around gameplay. what are you looking for? i am guessing you want to go play pokemon arena or something along those lines... if you don't think killzone is a great game your wrong
is this sony's secret weapon to save the ps3?
Actually it can be used for many things, you can do some of the more general stuff in the cell then toss it onto the RSX for the actual rendering. Its actually pretty damned neat what they can do with that thing.
You mad
If you don't have a PS3 you might have to figure out how you're going to get one.
Um, walk into a store, grab one of the shelf, proceed to checkout counter, pay?
More Twoson than Cupertino
"We saw a fight with a mini-boss that was relatively unremarkable,"
Ya not a good first impression
Provided cutting-edge graphics would be provided by PS3 hardware instead of removed PS2 hardware from the PS3, the big answer is yes.
It's not like they're using the Emotion Engine as a coprocessor while running PS3 games.
More Twoson than Cupertino
Wow. Joke post, right? You can't be serious about Killzone.
No, he's quite right. While the RSX is the primary workhorse for the PS3's graphics, the Cell is also designed to act as a coprocessor when additional resources are required.
The PS3, for all intents and purposes, had a PS2 inside it for emulation. That was taken out in the new revisions. The PS2 hardware can't be accessed by a PS3 game.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
So removing hardware only used for playing PS2 games is going to somehow reduce performance on games that don't even use the aforementioned hardware?
Doesn't your question basically ask "Are they going to defeat the point of a console by removing the idea of one performance standard in game? At least a performance standard that can't be change by the user in a cheap fashion.
You mad
Ah, my mistake. Thanks for the clarification!
Ok so... that was one of the most nonsense reviews of a supposedly "AAA" title I've read in some time. The wait was worth it for a "fairly linear... basic run and gun... mini boss that was quite unremarkable..." ????? If that's all it takes PS3 owners to get super-excited about a game, then things are grim indeed.
It's a generic shooter with a fittingly generic name. Even the "favorable" review manages to make this painfully obvious.
I like basketball!!1!
What are you talking about? Even if future PS3s consolidate hardware, it does not break their ability to play existing PS3 titles.
Has it been rated yet? It would be quite interesting if this were rated AO.
What is the real difference between playing a game that has the sole purpose of killing a bunch of people a game that has the sole purpose of killing a bunch of people in a different country? Someone recently joked that Manhunt should have stated that the people were terrorists, and they'd have been okay on rating.
For my money, a game that attempts to realistically recreate the experience of war -should- be Adult Only, as real adults don't even fair all that well for the real experience. (Mental trauma is almost unavoidable when taking someone's life.)
It's too bad the ESRB doesn't have to stated exactly why they chose the rating they did, because we'd soon know if they chose AO out of spite or because it genuinely warranted it.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
Kinda like useing VRAM to augment your onboard video card?
There is hopeful symbolism in the fact that flags do not wave in a vacuum. --Arthur C. Clarke
Think of it this way, you can do some of the general geometry and get the basics of the scene. Then you take it from the cell and send it to the RSX and let the RSX do the lighting and application of shaders and what not.
I'm talking from memory and I may not be saying that right but its the general Idea.
You mad
really didn't play it too much but the graphics at the time were amazing compared to any game out. but i just wanted to continue with im right your wrong mentality since that what seems to work. suprised he didn't add a 1st post WOOT! comment at the end
Gotta love how not many people have looked at PC games on high end systems then... I heard the same crap about the Halo 3 beta, HD or not, I was not that impressed by it, It had graphics I saw 2 years ago with things like Half life 2: episode 1 and battlefield 2142. Cell or not, I'd rather see it on a PC anyway.
Killzone wasn't that appealing to be either, but there's no reason to think them team can't take feedback from that game and make a better game this time round.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
OK, we have found out 1st idiot...
Unless Killzone 2 is a PLAYSTATION2, game, removal of the Playstation 2 from from Playstation 3 will make zero difference to a Killzone..
Did you skip school some something, or does stupid run in your family?
"We've captured things like muzzle flashes, reloads, and how a weapon feels and reacts in your hand. We want it to be as realistic as possible."
Everything except for actual damage, presumably. Show me a level where someone gets shot in the foot and limps for the rest of the level, and I'll be impressed. How about head-shots that actually kill or incapacitate an enemy?
I'm also pig-sick of 'futuristic' shooters where the available weaponry for 90% of the game is a pistol, a shotgun and an assault rifle. Where's the gauss-rifles, the beam weapons, the wire-guns, the imagination?
But hey, why bother, when you can churn out another corridor run'n'gun game, but with more polygons. 'Cause that makes everything better, right?
I just watched the trailer, I was not impressed.
It just looks like another FPS.
If they are going to make FPSes on consoles, there needs to be a keyboard and mouse adapter, I'm tired of trying to play games like this with a controller.
I hooked my computer up to my HDTV, and I have my fill of FPSes that way. Theres no reason to buy a game like this when I have countless other FPSes that are amazing on my computer.
I remember when Killzone was touted as PS2's Halo-killer, but when I watched the intro and saw him fight in one of the levels, I found it to be another cookie-cutter shoot-em'-up with the same trench-based battles, running n' gunning, and post-apocalyptic scenario that every other shooter on the PS2 had. Best cheesy line? "What the f---'s a Shakespeare?" At this point I realized Killzone was ripping off Battlefield Earth, and anyone desperate to ripoff that storyline - whether it be the film or the novel the film was based upon - should consider a creative writing course at their local community college.
It seems like once Halo and Halo 2 (and now the upcoming Halo 3) came out, everybody and their grandmother wanted to release a FPS to cash in on the hype. It's a shameless attempt at earning "easy money" through derivative, overused game design and unimaginative storytelling. The most unfortunate problem with this is the fact that this is the state of the video game industry at present. Everyone wants to stick with what's safe, nobody wants to do anything unique or imaginative.
Don't even make me go into bitching about the title. "Killzone"? How about "Place where you blow stuff up real pretty?" Pardon the cynicism, I just can't stand how easy it is for people to get into this industry with such severe lack of imagination.
I might be in the minority here, but I'm not a huge gamer. I didn't grow up with Nintendo or Sega, I'm not a Counterstrike master, I prefer Bejewled to Tetris, I never played Duke Nukem or DOOM or Myst. That said, I've always found the Killzone games irresistably attractive due to their Saving Private Ryan-esque, post-apocalyptic, frantic atmosphere, the sweeping environments and orchestral score, the sound work, the surreal environments, and most importantly, the Helghast, who are so frighteningly sinister and menacing that I enjoy the game most when I'm inflicting the most painful death possible on them. The whole franchise is like an interactive sci-fi action movie. It's not groundbreaking, it's not revolutionary, it doesn't draw me in. It's something I can sit down and enjoy after a frustrating day at work, something I can fire up when friends are over and there's nothing on HBO.
Why isn't Sony catering to people like me? I don't give a shit about the next gaming revolution, I want a centralized, versatile media center with stuff I can play with, listen to, watch, and hack. If they just laid off the overly aggressive DRM, worked in tandem with the movie and music industry to implement a cheap, online distribution model, pumped out more games like Killzone and Assassin's Creed and brought down the price a little, I would be out the door right now and taking the weekend off.
These claims of Nintendo and Microsoft dominating the "casual userbase" are overstated, I think. I have no desire to play Resident Evil 4, neither does my grandmother. So are the arguments that game consoles shouldn't be used as media platforms. I'm sure there are countless people out there like me, and it's sad that Sony is skimping on so many little things. Everything is in place. The hardware is there, the market is there, the potential is there. Why can't Sony just go the extra mile?
Damn, I can't believe I'm seriously considering buying a PS3.
Uhh, you don't understand. The software emulation is for PS2 titles...not PS3 titles. So your "big question" is irrelevant.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
As much as I thought the parent to your OP was definitely being stupid, I have to agree with EveryNickIsTaken. The game is a great example of why graphics don't make a game. The graphics were great for a PS2 game, but had horrible mechanics, wretched animation, and boring gameplay. I have a PS3 and I'm going to be skeptical about this game until I can actually play a demo or get a review.
Mediocre, maybe. Sucks? I think that's overstating it a bit.
I wrote an in-depth review of Killzone when I finished it, which you can find here:
Killzone Review
For those who don't want to read the whole thing or skip down to the summary, I concluded that it was not as good as the "Halo Killer" hype, but not as bad as the post-release reviews would have you believe. I did manage to extract some enjoyment from it.
But if Killzone 2 is more of the same with some pretty added to it, it certainly won't be a system-seller for me.
That's pretty ironic since the X-Box seller at this point is pretty much Gears of War and the upcoming Halo 3.
Is there a reason you replied to a pompous bullshit comment with your own pompous bullshit comment? Get over yourself, Killzone was a POS. Sure it was pretty. The game play/mechanics/story were horrible. I haven't met 1 person to say contrary yet. OF course accept you. But that doesn't count.
oogly boogly!
Gears of War actually has quite innovative gameplay. It doesn't feel at all like a "typical shooter." As for Halo, it is less innovative than Gears in ways but it also has a legacy that far precedes Killzone, let alone notions of a "typical shooter."
I like basketball!!1!
Eh, Killzone really had some things going for it.
1. The existence of underslung shotguns on the Helghast weapons. Kinda like the underslung 870 used in the 'master key' system for the M-16/M-4/AR-15.
2. Unlike in many games, you could disable auto-reload for your secondary weapon so that you don't offline your primary weapon just because you touched off a shotgun blast for suppressive fire.
3. Sprinting was kinda neat.
4. I actually liked the sniper rifle's aiming system. It felt more 'real' - like you had to shift and reposition the rifle more for large shifts, than for small.
I would be half inclined to wager that most of the folks who bashed Killzone 1 haven't got any experience with real guns.
My 229 is all the Sig I need http://thegunwiki.com/
I've never been a big fan of FPS games on consoles because their gameplay simply isn't suited for a gamepad controller, not in my hands anyways. So the first, and only, console FPS that really did something for me was Gears of War - which I hoped would spark a trend in Console FPS games. Well it sure doesn't look like Sony has picked up on that yet, because it sure seems like Killzone 2 will be doing every single mistake in terms of gameplay that puts me off the gameplay.
Given the weird review dichotomy (this game is mediocre, YOU MUST HAVE IT!), and the general crappiness of reviews in general lately. . . I'd hold out for the demo.
I also hear there are people who will actually rent you a game for a few bucks a day.
This sig was generated randomly by one million monkeys with Speak 'n Spells. . .
Killzone 2 got so much hype because
1) pretty pre-rendered trailer
2) there's not much else to get excited about on the PS3
Wow, what an endorsement! I bet they printed that on the box :-)
Are you retarded? I wrote it got so much attention due to the prerendered trailers. The trailers were prerendered. We only got to see in-game footage during the last few days. By the way, I own a PS3, you stupid Sony shill. You're not doing your employer any favours by insulting your customers.