Killzone 3 Announced

Sony has officially taken the wraps off of Killzone 3, providing a ton of information about the third installment in the popular FPS franchise. The game will pick up where Killzone 2 left off, the levels will be much larger than in the past, and it will contain support for 3-D mode. Eurogamer has a detailed hands-on report about the game. Quoting: "Encounters have lost much of their predictability. More open design gives the AI more options, as well as freeing the player from the necessity of hide and peek. This means that it's now a much more viable option to get up close and personal with the Higs, unleashing the multi-stage and context-sensitive CQC kills with rifle butts and the trusty knife. ... For stage three of the hands-on we're introduced to perhaps the most exciting piece of new hardware — the jetpack. Initially only coming attached to a Helghan shock trooper, this insectoid assault platform is a four-winged, one-man affair, complete with a unlimited supply of ammunition for the attached large-calibre machine gun. Fighting them from the ground puts you in a precarious situation, putting you on the backfoot as you balance the necessity of looking upwards with the dangers of the sheer ice-cliffs around you. ... From the ground the pack will propel you upwards to around 15 feet, with the glide period afterward giving you the freedom to traverse sizable gaps. There's a booster, too — squirting you forward in short bursts if you're falling just short of an edge. Controls are light and agile, with the disconcerting verticality soon becoming second nature. "

Comments

Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

War with Iran?

3D, eh?

[enderjsv]

Am I the only one that thinks 3D might be a little overrated, at least in a cinematic sense. Granted, I'm interested to see how well it would work in a video game with such detailed graphics, but I really don't see all that much of a point to it. Then again, maybe I'm just being a grumpy old gamer annoyed by kids and their fancy-smancy third dimension.

Re:3D, eh?

[pandrijeczko]

The way I look at it, as a grumpy old gamer myself, is that if I think about some of the great games I've played in the past, from my days with the ZX Spectrum, then Commodore Amiga, through to the PC, then all of those platforms have had games that have had me totally hooked and immersed for hours, even days, at an end.

Those that were disappointing were such because maybe they just weren't implemented very well, maybe the computer AI was rubbish, maybe the game didn't have much depth... but I can't remember any that didn't grab me because their graphics weren't good enough.

I just think now the games industry is really struggling for new ideas in games, hence the endless sequels, and are therefore looking at any gimmick they can just to sell more of the same.

I don't think games these days are any better or worse than old games, it's just then there was less money involved in making them and game creators were prepared to take more of a risk with an innovative new idea for a game, so consequently there was a greater variety to choose from.

But ultimately 3D is just a gimmick to present an old idea in a prettier way...

Re:3D, eh?

[sammyF70]

Well, as with every really new and fantastically revolutionary technology, there will be a time of trial, until the marketing monkeys find their bearings and the right thing to say in their advertisements. Back in the days, when WE had 3D through, for example, nVidia Shutter Glasses (but of course it was by far not as good, or technically evolved or fucking exciting as THIS really new stupenduous technology), System Shock 2 and Thief 1 and 2 were a blast in 3D. The slow movements ensured that motion nausea didn't occur, and you had actually time to realize that what you were seeing up close (pipes, guards, ...) had depth. Additionally it actually helped the gameplay.
Fast moving FPS's were another matter. First of all, most of the 3D depth you need is already provided by the motion itself, without any need for specialized hardware. Additionally, 3D works nicely when you have a limited visibility range but in an open world, any real 3D depth is lost after a not so great distance, as both eyes basically see the same thing. So it doesn't really help much at all, and at worst (someone just puts 3D Depth in, no matter how incongruous it is), it will probably create nausea and will just look stupid (as if you're playing with model sized stuff instead of real objects). 3rd person games were a hit and miss thing. some worked great ("Evolva" for example) and others worked less great. It really depends a lot on whether hte gameplay lends itself to being seen as "playing with small toys" or not.
Strategy and tactic games (be it RTS or turn based) will look great ... exactly as if you were a god playing with toys, which should please fans of that genre (I'm not a fan, but I can understand the attraction)

Of course, that's really just me thinking aloud as if I had actually played in 3D in the late 90s/start of the 21st century using custom DirectX drivers provided with nVidia Shutter glasses I bought for 99.89 Deutschmark It's not like I've been there, done that

Kids today ... !

Re:3D, eh?

[TrancePhreak]

As a grumpy old gamer myself, I recall that several if not the majority of the games that pride themselves on just their graphics were quite terrible to play.

I just think now the games industry is really struggling for new ideas in games, hence the endless sequels, and are therefore looking at any gimmick they can just to sell more of the same.

Pretty much how I feel too.

Re:3D, eh?

[orthicviper]

you are the ONLY one. the rest of us want to be able to judge distances better and enhance our gameplay techniques and state of immersion with 3d.

Re:3D, eh?

[PopeRatzo]

I just think now the games industry is really struggling for new ideas in games

I don't think game designers and developers are any less creative than they were years ago, but certainly game publishers are showing a severe lack of foresight and innovation.

It seems the only thing they can think of is how they can stop someone from playing the game who didn't buy it, at the cost of working on ideas for making people want to buy it. Instead of using a little imagination, all they can come up with is more and more bothersome methods of DRM.

Did Batman: Arkham Asylum make money? Did Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare 2 make money? Did Bioshock 1 and 2 make money? Did Battlefield Bad Company 2 make money? Did Dragon Age Origins make money?

All of those games were cracked and pirated.

These companies seem to have decided that putting out successful games and getting rich is not enough. They're not happy as long as anyone can play a pirated copy. And for that reason, they are going to punish all the people who buy the games legally.

Re:3D, eh?

[Smauler]

I'm a grumpy old gamer myself, and I think that new games are massively better than they used to be. I'm not a kid any more though, and though I still enjoy games I don't get nearly as much from them as I used to. If the old games were better, they'd be making games like the old games now. Besides, there's masses of innovation - I'm just not that interested in it. Scribblenauts, Mirror's Edge, Echochrome, are recent ones, not to mention the Wii itself - that revolutionised the console market, and not through flashy graphics. An entire genre of hugely popular games was spawned by Dance Dance Revolution. I'm too old and stuck in my ways, so I hate all these, and continue playing my JRPGs, driving sims and 4X strategy games :P.

Re:3D, eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

No he isn't the only one, 3D in games and movies while cool only offers a limited amount of real depth perception and comes with the horrible side effect of having to wear uncomfortable glasses that induce motion sickness,

Re:3D, eh?

[mwvdlee]

I just think now the games industry is really struggling for new ideas in games, hence the endless sequels, and are therefore looking at any gimmick they can just to sell more of the same.

They're not strugling for new ideas.
It's just that new ideas are a big risk, and they simply don't take that risk.

Re:3D, eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ultimately colour-television was just a gimmick to present an old idea in a prettier way.
Same as HD television, and Wolfenstein3D was actually a gimmick to present the 2D "Into the eagle's nest" in a prettier way.

See where I'm going with this ? :)

Whatzone?

[0xdeadbeef]

Is this some kind of Halo clone?

Re:Whatzone?

[Yosho-sama]

Halo? Is this some kind of Doom clone?

Re:Whatzone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Always has been.

Re:Whatzone?

[sammyF70]

Doom? Is this some kind of Castle Wolfenstein clone?

Re:Whatzone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Halo? Is this some kind of Doom clone?

I don't know; I'm too busy playing Pong to look into other titles.

Re:Whatzone?

[DeadboltX]

Castle Wolfenstein? Is this some kind of Battlezone clone?

Re:Whatzone?

[sammyF70]

Battlezone? Is this some kind of ... aeh .. damn.. you win

Re:Whatzone?

[Bugamn]

Try Space Invaders!

Re:Whatzone?

[Hurricane78]

Is that some kind of Asteroids clone?

Re:Whatzone?

[ImNotAtWork]

Is this some kind of Rogue clone?

Re:Whatzone?

[Debello]

Is this some kind of Halo clone?

No, it's not. Although I haven't played Killzone 1, Killzone 2 is more akin to the Call of Duty franchise than it is to the Halo franchise, but with the important difference of it not being dumbed down or gimmicky.

For one thing, the weapons are actually balanced. It's not like the Call of Duty games where there are scores of guns but everyone ends up using only one or two from each weapon type. In KZ2, they fix this problem by having one or two of each weapon type, and each distinct enough from the other so there's no overlap. The amount of balance between weaponry is incredible - there is no one yelling "you noob grenade launcher user!" over the mic like people do in Counter Strike with the AWP. Not only that, but shooting the weapons feels right. You're not a floating gun like in Halo 3 or CoD - there's weight to your movement, and your guns have real kickback. But in addition to real kickback, they also have real power - a handful of shots from any gun will kill an enemy.

Even more, the animation and graphics are incredible. Even without them it'd be a good game on account of the meticulously balanced and exciting shooting gameplay, but with it you've got excitement and awesome eye candy. The ragdoll physics makes the enemy die in a way that reacts to where you shot them, and even beyond that the character movement is believable and great. Very few games have character walking over environment and shooting their gun and straining against the recoil and knifing another enemy so realistically. Whereas Halo 3 has Master Chief stiffly hold his gun and his upper body looks up and down while his lower body can just jump and run.

And not to mention the AI! KZ2 has AI that is leagues beyond its competitors. Try playing the game on the harder difficulties and you'll find that the enemy Helghast will flush you out of cover with grenades (but not spam them, like in Call of Duty), they'll give their advancing allies covering fire while they try to flank you, if two are chasing you they'll both split up and try to catch you on both sides, etc.

Not that Killzone 2 doesn't have its weak points - short, and although visually great singleplayer, had a disappointing and boring story to go with it. Lack of splitscreen support also has a lot to do with how this game wasn't a major hit up there with Halo 3 and MW2 - even though on every level it is a better game, graphically, gameplay, and engine-wise.

But at the same time it's one of the most critically acclaimed games ever made. And for good reason.

So personally? Even though KZ2 is not my favorite game by far, I can appreciate it for being the best recently released shooter. I can forgive it for its lack of splitscreen. And I am certainly looking forward to KZ3 with great anticipation.

Re:Whatzone?

[sammyF70]

But at the same time it's one of the most critically acclaimed games ever made.

hmm .. metacritic ranks it at 21, three places below Peggle and nine below Braid. So it's not ranked badly, but ... is it worth killing a duck over it?

Re:Whatzone?

[Anonymous Coward]

No it's way better than that tired old franchise.

Halo is for Americans who ask the television what console and games to buy, rather than using their eyes and common sense.

Killzone 3!

[Dyinobal]

Killzone 3 more killzones than killzone 2 and three times the killzones of killzone one.

Killwhat?

[pushing-robot]

Is this PS3 game incredibly popular among Slashdotters, or related to nerd culture or current events in any way? Other than the quick aside about 3D (which isn't new in games) I can't figure out why this is on Slashdot at all.

Re:Killwhat?

[Yosho-sama]

KZ2's style and graphics kept people going for a while before release. When it came out, it was well received, but didn't light up the world like MW2 did. The setting of the game is absolutely bad-ass though.

Re:Killwhat?

[Anthelme]

apparently they mean the new "3d" you know the James Cameron one, not the old 3d which is the John Carmack / Todd Sweeney one which has been around for years and years in gaming but isn't actually relevant to this which is apparently a 3d x 3d = 3d^2 or something, wait... wouldn't that be 9d... DO WANT!

I can see /b/ now,

Yo Dawg we heard you like 3d so we put 3d in your 3d so you can 3d while you 3d....

Re:Killwhat?

[adona1]

You do know there's a Games section on Slashdot, right? Apart from that, KZ2 has been one of the flagship games for the PS3 (at least until late 2009/early 2010) so presumably is as relevant as the dozen or so MW2 stories posted on here over the last 6 months.

Re:Killwhat?

[severn2j]

Killzone is to PS3, what Halo is to 360.. i.e. the flagship platform-specific FPS.

Re:Killwhat?

[KDR_11k]

I recall there being 3D glasses for PCs when 3Dfx was still around. As a journalist put it back then, it's an idea that comes around every few years, you dig out the old shutter glasses from your closet, play for thirty minutes and get the headache that reminds you while you put the glasses into the closet the last time.

Beta tested the First Killzone.

[Dishevel]

The one thing I just could not handle about that game. No way to step over a log. Seriously! A two foot log stops me completely? I have to go around? So I kinda said fuck this game really fast.

Re:Beta tested the First Killzone.

[Yosho-sama]

You beta'd the first game, so your opinion of every final product after that is destroyed? Has anyone informed you of your messed-up standards of quality?

Re:Beta tested the First Killzone.

[Debello]

The one thing I just could not handle about that game. No way to step over a log. Seriously! A two foot log stops me completely? I have to go around? So I kinda said fuck this game really fast.

A comment on the beta test for the first game which is not even close to the second game in scope or technical achievement is hardly relevant to the announcement of a game that in its alpha is already more technically powerful than virtually any game ever made.

Re:Beta tested the First Killzone.

[Dishevel]

Can you jump?

Re:Beta tested the First Killzone.

[Yosho-sama]

Yes.

Re:Beta tested the First Killzone.

[Dishevel]

when did they give players the ability to jump?

Yes!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Another shooter sequel? FUCKING AWESOME!!!! The can not be too many FPS shooter sequels, and my brown, black and gray parts of my monitor's gamut can not overrused!

Re:Yes!!

[game kid]

Fact: WASD keys and left mouse buttons never wear out. They just become sentient and resist you in the heat of battle.

Re:Yes!!

[Anonymous Coward]

But it was OK when Microsoft was flooding the market with them right? Now Sony are making the great ones, and Microsoft have been turning out the sold old crap for years, then genre suddenly sucks...

grow up.

Re:Yes!!

[KDR_11k]

What does Microsoft have to do with that? The only FPSes they do are for the XBoxes and nobody here gives a crap about Halo. This is Slashdot where people still argue whether Unreal Tournament '99 or 2004 was better while the rest sits in the corner and is annoyed by the lack of new Tribes games.

3d mode frame rate?

[orthicviper]

did someone figure out a way to get free 3d processing with an SPU, or is this going to drop the frame rate by half as the Geforce 3d Vision does?

Re:3d mode frame rate?

[Anonymous Coward]

did someone figure out a way to get free 3d processing with an SPU, or is this going to drop the frame rate by half as the Geforce 3d Vision does?

Would 3d require twice the processing since the two view are not completely unrelated, is there some processing which is used for both left and right. I don't know, I am just curious from a technical point of view.

Re:3d mode frame rate?

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't even approach doubling the processing, but there is an increase.

Also, many effects are shut down on advanced games, saving a lot of overhead. You no longer need effects that convey distance or motion, since the gamer gets that naturally. In games like Wipeout, this actually has made 3D much less processor costly (although you do lose some resolution and/or framerate).

All in all, it works. I've plays a PS3 demo of 3d gaming and it works really well and is far from a gimmick as some are claiming. It's just ridiculously expensive.

Re:3d mode frame rate?

[wintermute000]

when you say expensive are you referring to the TV?
How much of a premium are they demanding anyway... seems like a hard sell in this economy, with HD LCDs so darned cheap as well

Re:3d mode frame rate?

[KDR_11k]

I've plays a PS3 demo of 3d gaming and it works really well and is far from a gimmick as some are claiming.

People see it as a gimmick because it doesn't really make games better and is only used to sell you new hardware, not because it doesn't work. Of course it works but it's not worth buying.

Re:3d mode frame rate?

[orthicviper]

well i wonder why the geforce 3d vision causes about a 50% frame rate drop...maybe nvidia can come out with newer cards that are more optimized and work as well as you say the ps3 3d mode works.

Asterwhat?

[Flere Imsaho]

Is that some kind of Pong clone?

Re:Asterwhat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, it's a Tennis For Two clone.

I read the title as Kiltzone.

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounded far more interesting to play a game about KILTs.

I'm curious.

[EnsilZah]

I'm looking forward to see the new advances made in prerendered gameplay since the last one.

Re:I'm curious.

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't the fact that the game looked as good as the prerender end this argument?

Granted, it's stupid to promote with fake prerendered footage. But they backed up their faked footage extremely well. They were not being dishonest.

Re:I'm curious.

[Anonymous Coward]

It actually looked BETTER than the pre-render. Ever wonder why the press went all quiet over it..

Because they ended up looking like buffoons are usual.

Duke Nukem Forever?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this duke nukem forever, we've been waiting for forever?

Or did they just steal the jetpack?

Killzone: Liberation 2?

[billmarrs]

I loved Killzone: Liberation for the PSP.

It's a top-down isometric view game, kinda a retro, but lots of fun.

I wish they'd make a Killzone: Liberation 2!

Awesome. Can't wait.

[SphericalCrusher]

I never touched the first one, but I loved the second one -- both single player and multiplayer. I'm looking forward to this, especially in 3D.