To be honest I really liked the demo. But this is not the thread to discuss Blue Dragon.
Killzone 2 kicks ass and we all know it. If you don' t know it kicks ass it' s because you don' t yet know that you know that it kicks ass.

Well, the Graphics Certainly Do.. Im still Very skeptical on it' s Controls.. (hoping it has Mouse and Keyboard Support also.)

What is it about killzone threads??

I find it really amazing (in a sad pathetic way) that killzzone threads, everywhere, have this tendency to fall into mindless debates about which console is the best, or has the best games etc etc...

Why can people just not discuss this game for what it is? How about the atmosphere this game appears to have the cinematic quality, and the achievement of such a high standard of image quality.

It always has to be - it looks just like the cg, it looks nothing like the cg, oh it will play crap, oh its better/worse than <enter game title here>.

There is nothing to show the 360 couldn' t do this, until the end of te systems life style i refuse to believe that all games out now or in the coming year would be impossible on another system <Wii in not included here>.

Gears is a very nice game, and the 360 has some great games coming, as does the ps3. Why do people always fight over the better system when we are all supposed ot be gamers. PS3, X360 they are a means to an end. The only reason to choose one over the other is the types of games releasing which you want (and you can' t afford both)

They should be in a rule on no comparrisons to other games in kikizo...

RE: First Killzone PS3 screen...

Being a Forum of Hardend Games fans, It' l be impossible for it not to be compared with another game, this is how we judge every game.

Most of Us admit it looks the shit Lets talk about what Made the Original average and what KZ2 could do to improve upon it??

The Frist things that would get me more interested are:

RumbleAxis Support

Online Co-op

Most of Us admit it looks the shit Lets talk about what Made the Original average

Its hard to explain because,the weapons was " okay" but the whole killing gast thing got tiredsome after awhile it was like playing FEAR without a smart and aggresive A.I.

They just stood there,the same kind of enemy behind cover,doing nothing.
The weapons were not that special at all,so it was like kind of boring to play after awhile with avg weapons against enemies that just stood still and didn' t deliver any real challenge.

The enviorment and graphic was good for a ps2,but it suffered horrible framerates problems.
The missions weren' t that special either it was just go from A-B now many FPS are that,but since the story and enviroment wasn' t special in anyway nor did you care about anything in it so it was never something you got engaged in.

ORIGINAL: uumai

What is it about killzone threads??

I find it really amazing (in a sad pathetic way) that killzzone threads, everywhere, have this tendency to fall into mindless debates about which console is the best, or has the best games etc etc...

Why can people just not discuss this game for what it is? How about the atmosphere this game appears to have the cinematic quality, and the achievement of such a high standard of image quality.

It always has to be - it looks just like the cg, it looks nothing like the cg, oh it will play crap, oh its better/worse than <enter game title here>.

There is nothing to show the 360 couldn' t do this, until the end of te systems life style i refuse to believe that all games out now or in the coming year would be impossible on another system <Wii in not included here>.

Gears is a very nice game, and the 360 has some great games coming, as does the ps3. Why do people always fight over the better system when we are all supposed ot be gamers. PS3, X360 they are a means to an end. The only reason to choose one over the other is the types of games releasing which you want (and you can' t afford both)

They should be in a rule on no comparrisons to other games in kikizo...

I think you' ll find Uumai that 90% of this world is comprised of idiots.

People on here in favour of X-box are performing damage control because the
Killzone 2 trailer looks so good.

People here in favour of PS3 are laughing because they have a renewed faith in
Sony because they managed to make the trailer look amazing. What people need
to start realising is that they aren' t on ANY of the companies payrolls, and
there is no morsel of beneficiary fruits to be had from creating propaganda for said company.

It' s all fair and stuff having a discussion, but it should at least be civilised.

In this thread there are certain antagonists that aren' t quite clear on how to
construct a pro-active post, and come off as bias.

What people need to do is get off their high horses and stop pretending that they
know the hardware inside out. It' s an opinion that you think a console can do this
better than a console can do that... Until any one of you work within a nose space
of the hardware, anything said regarding it is purely opinion.

You cant real argue with this..

Of course once the game is in your hand, it becomes a different story.

Anyway... Enough rambling...

My verdict on Killzone 2 is that it looks amazing. Very cinematic and an
extraordinary good use of the motion blur tool. It looks polished and even though
there was barely anyone on screen during gun-fight encounters, it was very epic
to see the Hellghast fiddling about in glorious animation at the oncoming protagonist (who is?).

Whilst it is probably the most amazing example of how next-gen should be done,
there are a few things I' m done hard by:

- Another FPS... For crying out loud! Why must another FPS take the " most
anticipated" crown?

- The overall darkness of the trailer leaves a lot to the imagination, fair enough
Killzone 2 is a gritty and dark game, I think it was way too dark, almost as if some
TV gremlin had tampered with the contrast to begin with.

- I hope that as the game progresses, the visual quality/ art direction isn' t lost, a bit like Halo 2 where the beginning levels were a blast to play through, but towards the end it became a game of puss-filled F.L.O.O.D corridors.

I personally feel that the overall feel of the Killzone 2 demo lacks inspiration, and
the only thing setting it apart from other shooters is the graphical quality of it, in
which it has become the new bar for first person shooters on a console.

A lot of people are saying that this can' t be done on the 360.... Well, I only have to
look at CoD4 to see that, that statement is down to opinion.

Meh... Maro.

Meh... Maro.

Hehe.

Call me xbox fanboy or whatever you guys wants,I liked killzone my brother did it too,sure it was the avg shooter,but shooting hellgast was fun for a couple of hours.

But then you had enough of it.
Because you realise its the same kind of enemy the whole game and its just standing there.

Now you can all say oh QUEZ IS PRO XBOX.
well look at the ratings Killzone got,read the reviews and you will find out that the graphic wasn' t the reason it failed.

ps! that we compare CoD4 with Killzone2 is a really good sign though for killzone2.

No the graphic was one of the better things with killzone and still it got 75%.
I find it hilarious and sad that a game can be one of the most wanted titles just because of a CGI.

Yes a CGI you had nothing before that CGI or afterwdards for 2 years,so dont say anything else.
Now that the game is out it looks like CoD4 but with a blurred gun to make it look smoother.
That is the only diffrence,oh and that CoD4 runs in 60 framerate which Killzone2 doesnt to be in.

Yeah killzone looks really sweet, and its one my want list for when i get a PS3.

I hope they get soem dynamic AI going!

Call of Duty 4 - 60fps

Killzone 2 - 30fps






Go figure...

Well I believe that FPS issue can be sorted out, considering that the game won' t be released anytime soon.

On topic:

The game looks fantastic. Even though there are worlds between E3 2005 and 2007 the game still manages to look awesome. Of course, some of the textures are awful but the game makes up for that with fantastic light effects. Looks somewhat better than Gears and when it' s released I am quite sure it' ll look better than CoD4, too. Crysis still owns it, though.

The only thing I am wondering right now is: What makes this game special? Unfortunely the trailer didn' t show anything that somehow stands out. Watching that trailer I just see a shooter with a pretty dense atmosphere and nothing else so far. I hope they can elaborate that and add some cool hooks because, as I wasn' t too big of a fan of the first one (bugs really pissed me off sometimes. I didn' t beat it because of a bug where I couldn' t pass through a door) I am not much interested in the story and well, I won' t be buying it for graphics alone. That' s for sure.

So, Evilkiller. What' s with the sudden come-back? Not that I have anything against you, but it sure is surprising when long lost members suddenly reappear.

Somebody mentioned Adam on the UK:Persistance forums (which are somehow connected to UK:Resistance) and how he should have been mentioned in this Something Awful article. And well I decided to pay this site a visit because I was curious if anything has changed over here. And, as I am on holiday anyway, decided to lurk a bit on the forums here.

There is no doubt that Killzone 2 looks awesome graphically. But when is this game released?

Ok, so it won' t be released this year on the PS3 but rather first or second quarter next year. Good can' t wait. Now how about let us all wait until the game comes out, and then compare it with another game that will come out at the same time. Pick whatever graphically beautiful game on the 360 that will come out around the same time, and then compare. Until then, comparisons are worthless.

I was on other forums where everyone was trying to compare Killzone 2 to Gears. I stated that Killzone 2 better as hell look a lot better than Gears, as it will be coming out almost 2 years after Gears did. Do you all see my point? I just didn' t see the point of comparing a game that will be released in 2008 to a game that came out in 2006.

Furthurmore, I stand by with what I said before in the fact that IMHO I believe that games like Mass Effect and COD4 do look a lot better in a lot of areas than Killzone 2 does. Now maybe I am blind, I doubt it, but that is IMHO.

IMHO I believe that games like Mass Effect and COD4 do look a lot better in a lot of areas than Killzone 2 does. Now maybe I am blind, I doubt it, but that is IMHO.

Well, I think that' s just a matter of different art direction, different styles. The Killzone 2 trailer looks really good overall, but something about the characters' mouths looked off. I don' t know, I think it' s just so close to realistic that there' s always gonna be a few things here and there that stand out.

I was on other forums where everyone was trying to compare Killzone 2 to Gears. I stated that Killzone 2 better as hell look a lot better than Gears, as it will be coming out almost 2 years after Gears did. Do you all see my point? I just didn' t see the point of comparing a game that will be released in 2008 to a game that came out in 2006.

Maybe gears 2 will come out around the same time, then they can compare those two

Maybe gears 2 will come out around the same time, then they can compare those two

The bad news for MS is that they couldnt really announce something to counter Killzone (if they have something)

But im sure we will see some new stuff before the end of the year!

Im looking forward to see more of Killzone, especially AI.

Anyone who played Killzone knows that the enemy just stands still shooting at you.
Atleast in FEAR they jumped and pushed over furniture threw themself to cover,threw greandes covered each other and flanked etc, thus they could use that superior A.I through the whole game.

But in Killzone its like fighting Grunts in halo the whole game.

:S

Maybe gears 2 will come out around the same time, then they can compare those two

Exactly my point. And furthermore, if everyone wants to compare Gears to Killzone 2, if you actually think about that, it makes the 360 seem all the better since some people want to compare it to that game that came out in 2006 (Gears).

Hey, if you think I' m an idiot for saying that, then that is your opinion. But this is my opinion and I will stick to it. I' m just getting a little tired of the comparisons of which console is graphically superior to the next that is all.

Btw. why are you all acting like there is such a big difference between Gears and Killzone 2?

When I compared them Gears actually had FAR better textures. And Marcus' character model also looked better than all the KZ2 ones (sadly, the models of the other characters are inferior to KZ2). The only thing where KZ2 clearly kicks Gears' ass all over the place are the weapon models. (Though you have to consider that Gears is a 3rd-Person-Shooter and therefore it obviously emphasizes the player character more than his weapon) It also got better light effects as well as nicer details (bullet rounds don' t have any edges in KZ2 for example). Even if you cnsider that KZ2 will end up looking a bit better than the E3 demo, unless it runs at 60fps the difference - graphics wise at least - is not that breath taking.

The bad news for MS is that they couldnt really announce something to counter Killzone (if they have something)

I really dont think that was an issue. Do you need to counter a game like that? No. Killzone 1 didnt exactly sell in astronomical numbers, and the PS3 installed base is too small for it to outsell Halo 3, even if every PS3 owner bought it.

Of course Killzone 2 looks good, but Im with Canada Gamer on this one. " It looks better than Gears!" ? Really? I would hope so, as Gears was 06. All these comparisons about graphics are pointless. Anyone remember how much hype Far Cry on PC was getting for its graphics before it released? We all know how that turned out....