Killzone 2 HD Trailer

[TecHNooB]

Looks fantastic! Except the fire is too orange -_-;

Killzone 2

The blood effects look really good too. The environment gets chipped apart slowly. It feels like you can actually hit something and impact them as opposed to games like gears of war which has that doom 3 "everything is solid plastic" feel.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Nothing about Gears reminds me of Doom3

KZ2 looks good, but the only thing I saw chipping was the support post. You can see multiple times, where gun fire is just glowing paintball like round patches, just like Gears. I hope the weapons type&selection is better than that clip too. I'm still looking forward to playing it though.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

That does indeed look really impressive. It looks like the most graphically advanced PS3 title by far. Hopefully it has coding for rumble so that can be enabled once Sony starts making rumble-equipped controllers.

 

[TecHNooB]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Nothing about Gears reminds me of Doom3

KZ2 looks good, but the only thing I saw chipping was the support post. You can see multiple times, where gun fire is just glowing paintball like round patches, just like Gears. I hope the weapons type&selection is better than that clip too. I'm still looking forward to playing it though.

Yea, I retract my comment about gears. Just saw the PC trailer for gears and it looks nice. I actually played through the entire game and felt the impact was lacking but it's especially lacking in the Doom engine.

 

[hans030390]

IGN wrote an article with impressions and seemed to be amazed by the whole demo that was shown.

Also, Blu-Ray is finally becoming useful, as they said one level was 2GB, due to all of the detail put into the world.

I'm really excited...I have yet to watch the videos, but I saw some pictures.

I just saw this on the Q&A:

What does the PS3 allow you to do with development of Killzone 2 that you have not been able to do before?

For us, we need a great deal of processing power. The PS3 really allows us to build Killzone 2 on a grand scale with a level of detail that is truly eye-catching. To give you an example, our character models on screen use the same amount of polygons as an entire level of Killzone on PS2.

That's pretty crazy, I think.

 

[Dacalo]

I don't like FPS on consoles but I may pick this up if it lives up to the hype.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: hans030390
IGN wrote an article with impressions and seemed to be amazed by the whole demo that was shown.

Also, Blu-Ray is finally becoming useful, as they said one level was 2GB, due to all of the detail put into the world.

I'm really excited...I have yet to watch the videos, but I saw some pictures.

I just saw this on the Q&A:

What does the PS3 allow you to do with development of Killzone 2 that you have not been able to do before?

For us, we need a great deal of processing power. The PS3 really allows us to build Killzone 2 on a grand scale with a level of detail that is truly eye-catching. To give you an example, our character models on screen use the same amount of polygons as an entire level of Killzone on PS2.

That's pretty crazy, I think.

Not really. PGR3 used the same number of polygons for a car that they used for an entire city for PGR2. That's just part of the jump from last-gen to this-gen.

 

[tuteja1986]

People saying that demo wasn't able to do it 360 are crazy... sony seriously spent craploads of cash on killzone. The developers are B grade and were not able to achieve that quality without sony sending a whole a SAS programmer division to make the game look good , sound good and play right. Gears of War $14millions ... Killzone 25 million not including all the sony elite programmers that sent to help the developer.

 

[hans030390]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: hans030390
IGN wrote an article with impressions and seemed to be amazed by the whole demo that was shown.

Also, Blu-Ray is finally becoming useful, as they said one level was 2GB, due to all of the detail put into the world.

I'm really excited...I have yet to watch the videos, but I saw some pictures.

I just saw this on the Q&A:

What does the PS3 allow you to do with development of Killzone 2 that you have not been able to do before?

For us, we need a great deal of processing power. The PS3 really allows us to build Killzone 2 on a grand scale with a level of detail that is truly eye-catching. To give you an example, our character models on screen use the same amount of polygons as an entire level of Killzone on PS2.

That's pretty crazy, I think.

Not really. PGR3 used the same number of polygons for a car that they used for an entire city for PGR2. That's just part of the jump from last-gen to this-gen.

Hm, I guess that's true. Still crazy to think about, though.

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
People saying that demo wasn't able to do it 360 are crazy... sony seriously spent craploads of cash on killzone. The developers are B grade and were not able to achieve that quality without sony sending a whole a SAS programmer division to make the game look good , sound good and play right. Gears of War $14millions ... Killzone 25 million not including all the sony elite programmers that sent to help the developer.

I really don't think this game is possible on the 360. Graphically? Yes. But with all the other usage of the cell, probably not. I don't know the technical aspects of the game...it's just a guess.

Not to mention that one level was 2gb of data. With the full game (all the menus, sounds, videos, levels, MP stuff, extras, etc), there's no way it would fit onto a DVD...and I doubt multiple DVDs are practical.

I think, based on what I've seen/read, that this would be a much marder game to port to 360 than MGS4. Not that they ever will, but if for some magical reason they tried to port it.

Anyways, you make me laugh . I sense a bit of anger over the postive impressions and such a high quality video. You sound rather close to the 360? I'm just guessing...perhaps you aren't, but there's no need to get/seem upset over this...why bash something that was pretty darn good?

Perhaps they aren't the best developers in the world (they are rather new), but if the game is great, the game is great (I'm not saying it instantly is, but if it's like the trailer...).

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: hans030390

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: hans030390
IGN wrote an article with impressions and seemed to be amazed by the whole demo that was shown.

Also, Blu-Ray is finally becoming useful, as they said one level was 2GB, due to all of the detail put into the world.

I'm really excited...I have yet to watch the videos, but I saw some pictures.

I just saw this on the Q&A:

What does the PS3 allow you to do with development of Killzone 2 that you have not been able to do before?

For us, we need a great deal of processing power. The PS3 really allows us to build Killzone 2 on a grand scale with a level of detail that is truly eye-catching. To give you an example, our character models on screen use the same amount of polygons as an entire level of Killzone on PS2.

That's pretty crazy, I think.

Not really. PGR3 used the same number of polygons for a car that they used for an entire city for PGR2. That's just part of the jump from last-gen to this-gen.

Hm, I guess that's true. Still crazy to think about, though.

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
People saying that demo wasn't able to do it 360 are crazy... sony seriously spent craploads of cash on killzone. The developers are B grade and were not able to achieve that quality without sony sending a whole a SAS programmer division to make the game look good , sound good and play right. Gears of War $14millions ... Killzone 25 million not including all the sony elite programmers that sent to help the developer.

I really don't think this game is possible on the 360. Graphically? Yes. But with all the other usage of the cell, probably not. I don't know the technical aspects of the game...it's just a guess.

Not to mention that one level was 2gb of data. With the full game (all the menus, sounds, videos, levels, MP stuff, extras, etc), there's no way it would fit onto a DVD...and I doubt multiple DVDs are practical.

I think, based on what I've seen/read, that this would be a much marder game to port to 360 than MGS4. Not that they ever will, but if for some magical reason they tried to port it.

Anyways, you make me laugh . I sense a bit of anger over the postive impressions and such a high quality video. You sound rather close to the 360? I'm just guessing...perhaps you aren't, but there's no need to get/seem upset over this...why bash something that was pretty darn good?

Perhaps they aren't the best developers in the world (they are rather new), but if the game is great, the game is great (I'm not saying it instantly is, but if it's like the trailer...).

to correct ya a little bit about the size.. the entire demo level they showed at E3 was just a little over 2gb. That includes character models, sounds, animations, and other game data. But motherh has stated that a level will still be a large file, just not quite 2gb. Some of the data used in the demo at E3 will be accessible by all levels, so you wouldn't have to use that amount of space for every level. Regardless, they are large file sizes for demos, and then when you include multiplayer, it will likely be close to filling up an entire BD, easily.

 

[hans030390]

That is true...I just read that recently as well. I'd still imagine that (aside from things that can be used multiple times) a "level" could be well over 1gb.

Now that I think about it, that was only a short 15 minute level...A "real" level could be much larger.

 

[PricklyPete]

Originally posted by: hans030390

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: hans030390
IGN wrote an article with impressions and seemed to be amazed by the whole demo that was shown.

Also, Blu-Ray is finally becoming useful, as they said one level was 2GB, due to all of the detail put into the world.

I'm really excited...I have yet to watch the videos, but I saw some pictures.

I just saw this on the Q&A:

What does the PS3 allow you to do with development of Killzone 2 that you have not been able to do before?

For us, we need a great deal of processing power. The PS3 really allows us to build Killzone 2 on a grand scale with a level of detail that is truly eye-catching. To give you an example, our character models on screen use the same amount of polygons as an entire level of Killzone on PS2.

That's pretty crazy, I think.

Not really. PGR3 used the same number of polygons for a car that they used for an entire city for PGR2. That's just part of the jump from last-gen to this-gen.

Hm, I guess that's true. Still crazy to think about, though.

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
People saying that demo wasn't able to do it 360 are crazy... sony seriously spent craploads of cash on killzone. The developers are B grade and were not able to achieve that quality without sony sending a whole a SAS programmer division to make the game look good , sound good and play right. Gears of War $14millions ... Killzone 25 million not including all the sony elite programmers that sent to help the developer.

I really don't think this game is possible on the 360. Graphically? Yes. But with all the other usage of the cell, probably not. I don't know the technical aspects of the game...it's just a guess.

Not to mention that one level was 2gb of data. With the full game (all the menus, sounds, videos, levels, MP stuff, extras, etc), there's no way it would fit onto a DVD...and I doubt multiple DVDs are practical.

I think, based on what I've seen/read, that this would be a much marder game to port to 360 than MGS4. Not that they ever will, but if for some magical reason they tried to port it.

Anyways, you make me laugh . I sense a bit of anger over the postive impressions and such a high quality video. You sound rather close to the 360? I'm just guessing...perhaps you aren't, but there's no need to get/seem upset over this...why bash something that was pretty darn good?

Perhaps they aren't the best developers in the world (they are rather new), but if the game is great, the game is great (I'm not saying it instantly is, but if it's like the trailer...).

I don't see how anyone who hasn't programmed for the Cell processor or the Xbox 360 processor immediately assumes that something written for the Cell couldn't possibly run ont eh 360 chip. On raw processing power the Cell has an edge...but in usable processing power...that edge quickly diminishes. Almost any third party developer will attest to this. then look at games like Call of Duty 4 and realize that such a high quality game is being developed for both platforms.

The difference between the 360 and PS3 is virtually non-existent hardware wise...really just games and services matter. Right now the 360 has the games and services (Xbox Live). When the PS3 starts coming out with some quality games...I'll reconsider it.

 

[hans030390]

I've heard more developers saying the cell has much more potential (not just "raw" power) than the 360 cpus, and the specs themselves pretty much show that. Has any PS3 game really used the cell that much? No. Any games coming out soon? Probably not. I'm just saying, and I'm going by what developers say, that the cell has the most potential IF USED by the developer. I think KZ2 could be that game.

Any game is portable to another system, but it could take a lot of work or compromises (or a whole new game).

I thought it was common knowledge that the cell has the most power (when actually used, and used properly and fully), yet the 360 has the better GPU...that's all I'm going by, and that's what I've heard from many sources (even the big gaming sites).

Still, if the cell isn't the reason it couldn't be ported, it's the massive space the game takes up...

 

[purbeast0]

Wow the graphics in that game are pretty nice. Sometimes it looks very average in some scenes, but others it looks really good.

However I still don't see why Sony is putting so much emphasis and hype on a game that's a sequel to a B grade game in the first place.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: purbeast0
Wow the graphics in that game are pretty nice. Sometimes it looks very average in some scenes, but others it looks really good.

However I still don't see why Sony is putting so much emphasis and hype on a game that's a sequel to a B grade game in the first place.

Any port in a storm. At this moment Killzone looks like their premiere franchise. I think you're right that this is a questionable tactic, but they have to do what they can.

It's funny how these things work out sometimes. The Halo franchise has sold a gazillion consoles for MS, and IMO that may be undeserved - the first game is quite good but not amazing IMO, and the second one is relatively lame, yet the franchise continues to be hyped and highly successful. I guess it's all down to personal taste.

 

[BD2003]

I will admit that the trailer does look a lot closer to the E305 trailer than I thought it would. Not quite there, but I think its the first thing I've seen that surpasses what the 360 has shown to be capable of.

 

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: purbeast0
Wow the graphics in that game are pretty nice. Sometimes it looks very average in some scenes, but others it looks really good.

However I still don't see why Sony is putting so much emphasis and hype on a game that's a sequel to a B grade game in the first place.

Any port in a storm. At this moment Killzone looks like their premiere franchise. I think you're right that this is a questionable tactic, but they have to do what they can.

It's funny how these things work out sometimes. The Halo franchise has sold a gazillion consoles for MS, and IMO that may be undeserved - the first game is quite good but not amazing IMO, and the second one is relatively lame, yet the franchise continues to be hyped and highly successful. I guess it's all down to personal taste.

Halo:CE was successful for it's very simple yet very balanced gameplay and it could be taken very seriously and competitively. It could also be played online and had a huge crowd to play with. The co-op single player also was very good in it, and the story was very epic. The control on it was virtually flawless for an FPS on a console. All of those were things that hadn't yet really been accomplished by an FPS on a console, which is why it became so popular. And it was defintiely a game that didn't expect to be as popular as it was, and bungie even recognizes that.

Halo 2, while it was completely noobified, was so popular soley for it's multiplayer. It was just so simple to get into a game with your friends and play. While the gameplay was not as balanced as the first one was, since it had the hype of the first one to sell it, it had a lot more new people come along to it. The single player was lacking according to most people

Halo 3 seems to take what was great with Halo:CE and what was great with Halo 2 and kind of mix it together, all while adding some new stuff in.

Console wise, I still don't think there is a came that can touch Halo 2 in terms of FPS multiplayer on Xbox live. Closest one IMO is COD2.

 

[Queasy]

It looks on par with COD4, GoW, Halo3, UT3, and Mass Effect. Meaning, it looks good. However, what was with all the gray? It seems like everything was a different shade of gray.

 

[hans030390]

Originally posted by: Queasy
It looks on par with COD4, GoW, Halo3, UT3, and Mass Effect. Meaning, it looks good. However, what was with all the gray? It seems like everything was a different shade of gray.

I'd say it looks better than those games...well, in some cases. I think Crysis is the most realistic looking game (you didn't mention it), and I think UE3 games are technically more impressive in some cases, but I think KZ2 in its own way looked better. That's what I've seen and read, so far.

I think the gray is just to set the atmosphere and such, plus it was pretty dark anyways...hard to tell. I bet there will be levels that aren't so dreary...but the planet of Helghan isn't supposed to be nice...

Originally posted by: purbeast0
Wow the graphics in that game are pretty nice. Sometimes it looks very average in some scenes, but others it looks really good.

However I still don't see why Sony is putting so much emphasis and hype on a game that's a sequel to a B grade game in the first place.

Sony "needed" the FPS game to combat Halo, and so they went to KZ. KZ really pushed the PS2 (enough to drop the framerate...bleh), so I imagine Sony wanted the same for the PS3.

It really does seem like a random decision to be so close to what has so far been a B grade game (KZ: Liberation was a step in the right direction), but I guess they're really thinking KZ2 will be great. And from the trailer, it seems like it could be.

If you think about it though, Bungie, the developer of the "almighty" Halo, worked on Oni, an average B grade game...Just because a previous game was B grade doesn't mean they can't create something great.

There was a "new" trailer shown at the end of the Sony conference (more gameplay), and it impressed me a lot more than the current trailer (even though it was in crappy streaming quality and it was still bits of gameplay).

 

[blurredvision]

Originally posted by: hans030390

Originally posted by: Queasy
It looks on par with COD4, GoW, Halo3, UT3, and Mass Effect. Meaning, it looks good. However, what was with all the gray? It seems like everything was a different shade of gray.

I'd say it looks better than those games...well, in some cases. I think Crysis is the most realistic looking game (you didn't mention it), and I think UE3 games are technically more impressive in some cases, but I think KZ2 in its own way looked better. That's what I've seen and read, so far.

Well, this is a console forum, after all. Crysis doesn't really fit into the mold of the console games we're discussing (atleast not until they announce it for a console and show screens of it).

My impressions of the Killzone 2 trailer was decent. I mean, I don't really think it's heads above anything else right now. It looks good, but it doesn't really strike a chord with me. With that said, there were quite a few things that definitely looked unfinished graphics-wise, so I'll reserve judgement until I see a gameplay video closer to it's release, whenever that will be.

 

[hans030390]

Originally posted by: blurredvision

Originally posted by: hans030390

Originally posted by: Queasy
It looks on par with COD4, GoW, Halo3, UT3, and Mass Effect. Meaning, it looks good. However, what was with all the gray? It seems like everything was a different shade of gray.

I'd say it looks better than those games...well, in some cases. I think Crysis is the most realistic looking game (you didn't mention it), and I think UE3 games are technically more impressive in some cases, but I think KZ2 in its own way looked better. That's what I've seen and read, so far.

Well, this is a console forum, after all. Crysis doesn't really fit into the mold of the console games we're discussing (atleast not until they announce it for a console and show screens of it).

My impressions of the Killzone 2 trailer was decent. I mean, I don't really think it's heads above anything else right now. It looks good, but it doesn't really strike a chord with me. With that said, there were quite a few things that definitely looked unfinished graphics-wise, so I'll reserve judgement until I see a gameplay video closer to it's release, whenever that will be.

Did you look at any extended trailers with more gameplay (gamevideos has one)? I think a lot of it looks REALLY impressive (character models, some lighting, overall detail of the world), but some still looks decent to above average. Still, it really looks like an awesome game from the trailer.

Oh, on the extended trailer, I noticed a glitch...A guy died (helghast), and he fell weird...but the really weird part was that his gut floated in the air for a second before slowly falling...

 

[hans030390]

Comparison photos and video of the E305 and E307 trailers:

Photo(s) comparison

HD Video comparison

Some of the photos show of some of the highlights of the trailer (though some can be found in 720p elsewhere), especially the blood and overall detail.

The video...I didn't like how they did it...but it's OK.

I'd say it's probably closer than most say (or think), and it's certainly closer than I ever thought it would get to it.

 

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: hans030390

Originally posted by: Queasy
It looks on par with COD4, GoW, Halo3, UT3, and Mass Effect. Meaning, it looks good. However, what was with all the gray? It seems like everything was a different shade of gray.

I'd say it looks better than those games...well, in some cases. I think Crysis is the most realistic looking game (you didn't mention it), and I think UE3 games are technically more impressive in some cases, but I think KZ2 in its own way looked better. That's what I've seen and read, so far.

I think the gray is just to set the atmosphere and such, plus it was pretty dark anyways...hard to tell. I bet there will be levels that aren't so dreary...but the planet of Helghan isn't supposed to be nice...

Originally posted by: purbeast0
Wow the graphics in that game are pretty nice. Sometimes it looks very average in some scenes, but others it looks really good.

However I still don't see why Sony is putting so much emphasis and hype on a game that's a sequel to a B grade game in the first place.

If you think about it though, Bungie, the developer of the "almighty" Halo, worked on Oni, an average B grade game...Just because a previous game was B grade doesn't mean they can't create something great.

Yah but Halo wasn't a sequel to Oni.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: hans030390

Originally posted by: Queasy
It looks on par with COD4, GoW, Halo3, UT3, and Mass Effect. Meaning, it looks good. However, what was with all the gray? It seems like everything was a different shade of gray.

I'd say it looks better than those games...well, in some cases. I think Crysis is the most realistic looking game (you didn't mention it), and I think UE3 games are technically more impressive in some cases, but I think KZ2 in its own way looked better. That's what I've seen and read, so far.

I think the gray is just to set the atmosphere and such, plus it was pretty dark anyways...hard to tell. I bet there will be levels that aren't so dreary...but the planet of Helghan isn't supposed to be nice...

Originally posted by: purbeast0
Wow the graphics in that game are pretty nice. Sometimes it looks very average in some scenes, but others it looks really good.

However I still don't see why Sony is putting so much emphasis and hype on a game that's a sequel to a B grade game in the first place.

If you think about it though, Bungie, the developer of the "almighty" Halo, worked on Oni, an average B grade game...Just because a previous game was B grade doesn't mean they can't create something great.

Yah but Halo wasn't a sequel to Oni.

does that matter?
the Killzone universe is actually a very well-told one, and a game of high caliber can easily take advantage of that.
being a sequel far from prevents it from being a great game. The maturity of the developer, their ability to do it, and the help they get from Sony is what can determine a game's greatness.

who knows. Halo might not have been what everyone loves it for, if Microsoft had never intervened in its development. Remember: it was destined for the PC/Mac originally, and was not an FPS.