3 Killzone 2 gameplay videos

I found 3 gameplay videos from Killzone 2 on GameTrailers

Hasn' t been posted so I thought I would share


Gameplay video nr. 1

Gameplay video nr. 2

Gameplay video nr. 3

Looks cool... unfortunatly no HD version

And I just found 6 new screenshots

You just beat me to it!

Check out the gun in the last 30 seconds of the third video. This is what I was expecting from Call of Duty 4 and 5.

I love the reloading and recoil

The game looks very pretty. The lighting is great from what we can see in the vids. I think we' ve seen better explosions, and the helghast seem a little slow to react to getting shot sometimes. The shooting feels a little sluggish and weak to me. Anyone else feel that way?

I' m just glad that the game doesn' t do what other games usually do = All the enemies shoots after me when I' ve got five AI partners standing up and looking stupid.

Except for the awesome lightning, i' m not impressed, i don' t know what' s impressive in that third video( the only video i saw), the art design is not great, it' s dull and lucks colors, the explosions are not great , even GTA 4 explosions are better. i don' t know what you guys are seeing.

COD 4, now that was freaking impressive at the time and still now. i wish developers take note of that lightning it will be sweet as a standard. much like HDR.

Listen to the wise

The way them ships? move arcoss the air is sick.. Almost like they are controlled by seperate single processor, just Fluid with no constraints.

Currently playing:
Korg DS 10 (ds) /  Metal Slug 7 (ds)
Rhythm Heaven (ds) /  Fire Emblem (ds)
Super Stardust HD (psn) /  Virtua Fighter 5 (360)
FSX (P

The graphics are good, it' s the best looking PS3 game from what I can tell.
However, the gameplay looks duller than the color pallet.

It is hard to judge from low resolution videos, but the lighting doesn' t look all that great. There are some nice effects there, but the shadows don' t look that great.

Also, the field of view is like 30 degrees.

This game doesn' t impress me much at all. The graphics are nice looking for a PS3 game, but they aren' t as good as in COD4 or Gears of War.

Maybe the multiplayer will be good, but I doubt it after seeing how bland the single player is.

"If you knew how good I am you would think I'm modest."

loco

Characters react far better to their environments in this than CoD4.

Except for the awesome lightning, i' m not impressed, i don' t know what' s impressive in that third video( the only video i saw), the art design is not great, it' s dull and lucks colors, the explosions are not great , even GTA 4 explosions are better. i don' t know what you guys are seeing.

Go watch the first video, and tell me what you think. You got the worst vid of the bunch. I was just pointing out that there was an M1 Garand like rifle in the end, which is why I eluded to it being what I was expecting from CoD4.

Killzone 2 fuc.ks Gears and CoD4 in the ass visually.

Killzone 2 fuc.ks Gears and CoD4 in the ass visually.

WTF? Only noticed people was trying to compare COD4 to this?? Visually? i don' t get that atall. KZ2 is by far the best looking FPS on console.

Currently playing:
Korg DS 10 (ds) /  Metal Slug 7 (ds)
Rhythm Heaven (ds) /  Fire Emblem (ds)
Super Stardust HD (psn) /  Virtua Fighter 5 (360)
FSX (P

WTF? Only noticed people was trying to compare COD4 to this?? Visually? i don' t get that at all. KZ2 is by far the best looking FPS on console.

Loco is the same guy who thinks UT3/Gears is comparable to Crysis graphically.

Visually nothing can touch KZ2 now .. But i am not too sure how this game will turn out though . I got burnt by KZ , they better get this one right ...

ORIGINAL: Agent Ghost

WTF? Only noticed people was trying to compare COD4 to this?? Visually? i don' t get that at all. KZ2 is by far the best looking FPS on console.

Loco is the same guy who thinks UT3/Gears is comparable to Crysis graphically.

I' ve never said that. I said UE3 steamrolls Crysis in terms of detail for performance. And it does.

KZ2 is nothing to be excited about.

"If you knew how good I am you would think I'm modest."

I' ve never said that. I said UE3 steamrolls Crysis in terms of detail for performance. And it does.

I know what you said. Kind of a pointless thing to say when:

a) Crysis is still vastly superior to U3 engine, U3 can' t reach the level that CryEngine2 plays on. So it' s a moot point. It would be like saying that I have a higher strength per weight ratio than Mike Tyson. If I asked Mike on his opinion of strenth to weight ratio, he' d break my neck.

b) Crysis is coded badly, much of the performance problems come from poor usage of the CPU. Not all of it is graphic related. The proof of this is that when you run a Crysis benchmark using a benchmarking tool you can get high frames, but in game with a lot of enemies the frames drop dramatically.

Even putting this aside I would still argue that Crysis has a higher sexiness to frames ratio than UT3. UT3 gets what 5 times the frames as Crysis with everything maxed out? Crysis is at least 10 times sexier than UT3. UT3 is not that impressive, it' s kind of fugly actually. It looks nothing like early previews. Especially in 1920x1200, everything is muddier than diarrhea.

Killzone 2 fuc.ks Gears and CoD4 in the ass visually.

Too bad it looks just as much fun as Resistance.

It looks charmless and dull, just like Haze, an empty pretty shell.

unless the gameplay videos suddenly make the game loók fun, this is a meh title.

It doesnt look intense at all.

The Sony are handicapped in the first person shooter genre apparently.

A) It' s pre-alpha

B) It' s the opening level and acts as a tutorial

C) 9 times out of 10 - at events like the one the latest videos are from enemy agression, damage levels etc are toned down... or god mode is enabled. An example would be the early Gears demonstrations where Cliffy was using god mode so he wouldn' t die and have to start over.

D) AI is generally one of the last aspects of the main framework to be fully incorporated into the game. The reason is that adding AI routines freezes the design process in that even minor game structure or level design changes can ruin or make null and void any pre-embedded AI algorithms. You complete the design as much as possible before incorporating your AI, then you playtest, adjust, tweak, playtest, adjust, tweak etc... then you find and fix the bugs through extensive QA.


It seems to me that this game is getting treated unfairly purely because of what it stands for. It' s Sony' s take on Halo and since the visuals can' t be picked on, you guys are taking whatever you think you have a fighting chance of arguing. Save it. Reserve your judgement until everything is in place. If it still looks too easy... then you can slate it all you wish.

It seems to me that this game is getting treated unfairly purely because of what it stands for. It' s Sony' s take on Halo and since the visuals can' t be picked on, you guys are taking whatever you think you have a fighting chance of arguing. Save it. Reserve your judgement until everything is in place. If it still looks too easy... then you can slate it all you wish.

I dont care if its better than Halo or not. id love a great game for the PS3, why wouldnt I?

If i was making a blockbuster game, id release some intense good looking clips, instead of boring good looking clips.

ORIGINAL: Vx Chemical

If i was making a blockbuster game, id release some intense good looking clips, instead of boring good looking clips.

Yeah?

In that case, HERE is what was " officially released" . The rest of the footage you' ve seen was taken by the gaming media and reflects where the game is in the development timeline.

Do you know what we' d seen of Call of Duty 4 at this point with the timelines aligned? Nothing. The CoD4 " reveal" came almost exactly 6 months before it hit shelves. Since Killzone is due in Feb, that makes August 08 the same point (not counting Feb itself). On top of that we didn' t see any actual CoD4 gameplay for nearly 2 months after the first trailer. So between seeing the first gameplay and the game hitting stores there were just over 4 months.

Developers risk criticism by showing their games early, but if Sony hadn' t decided to show it then in the face of the bullshit E32005 CG trailer people would have claimed that they were hiding something.

Definetly, but what makes this look better than Haze, except for the obvious graphics.

It could change ofcourse, but its not getting my panties up in a bunch, not untill its proved good.

I was skeptical of Crysis as well, i was proven wrong, i hope i will be again.

I think it looks excellent visually. I can' t really tell about the gameplay. Its sorta boring to watch, but it seems like something I would have to experience as the person holding the controller to judge. My biggest complaint(other than the fact that I don' t like the PS3 controller for FPS) is definitely the voice acting. They' re trying so hard that its comical.

Yeah it' s going to be painful to play this game with the SIXAXIS. They really fucked up the R/L 2 buttons. I hope we can customize the controls so I can use R1 button for fire (which still sucks).

I' m holding the controller now and fuck it pisses me off... Curse the Japanese and their tiny hands. Fuckers can' t design anything right.

i am i one of the only people who actually doesnt mind the sixaxis/dualshock for FPS? and i dont have little chinese hands.

Not sure if this has been posted on here before but here is mix of vids in HD from gamersyde

http://www.gamersyde.com/news_6441_en.aspx

Looks fantastic and they have still got a far while to go before release. Its got so much potential i hope they dnt cock it up

ORIGINAL: Agent Ghost

I' ve never said that. I said UE3 steamrolls Crysis in terms of detail for performance. And it does.

I know what you said. Kind of a pointless thing to say when:

a) Crysis is still vastly superior to U3 engine, U3 can' t reach the level that CryEngine2 plays on. So it' s a moot point. It would be like saying that I have a higher strength per weight ratio than Mike Tyson. If I asked Mike on his opinion of strenth to weight ratio, he' d break my neck.

b) Crysis is coded badly, much of the performance problems come from poor usage of the CPU. Not all of it is graphic related. The proof of this is that when you run a Crysis benchmark using a benchmarking tool you can get high frames, but in game with a lot of enemies the frames drop dramatically.

Even putting this aside I would still argue that Crysis has a higher sexiness to frames ratio than UT3. UT3 gets what 5 times the frames as Crysis with everything maxed out? Crysis is at least 10 times sexier than UT3. UT3 is not that impressive, it' s kind of fugly actually. It looks nothing like early previews. Especially in 1920x1200, everything is muddier than diarrhea.

/sigh

I get over 60 fps running UT3 and Gears maxed out at 1680x1050 on my computer. It looks way better than Crysis on medium which gets me less fps.

It matters a lot.

Trying to explain this to you is like teaching a pig math. It' s beyond your comprehension. I don' t know why I even try.

"If you knew how good I am you would think I'm modest."

Yeah it' s going to be painful to play this game with the SIXAXIS. They really ***ed up the R/L 2 buttons. I hope we can customize the controls so I can use R1 button for fire (which still sucks).

To me it kind of feels like its crippling my hands.

ORIGINAL: locopuyo

I get over 60 fps running UT3 and Gears maxed out at 1680x1050 on my computer. It looks way better than Crysis on medium which gets me less fps.

It matters a lot.

Trying to explain this to you is like teaching a pig math. It' s beyond your comprehension. I don' t know why I even try.

So what happens when the 9900 range arrives and you can get >60fps in Crysis?

Actually, what card do you currently own?

I get over 60 fps running UT3 and Gears maxed out at 1680x1050 on my computer. It looks way better than Crysis on medium which gets me less fps.

You' re still basing your argument on the idea that Gears looks better than Crysis. Having Crysis on medium is not fair. As I said the game is starved for more CPU proccessing power. Crysis does not scale well by lowering the settings for this reason.

Crysis just has more going on. Crysis has more adanced AI, physics, environmental effects, animations... Graphics are not the only thing that taxes a PC. The game also has a far greater draw distance than either Gears or UT3.

Technologically speaking Crysis is almost a generation ahead of UT3 or Gears.

I understand what you' re saying. UT3 does do a good job of being graphically efficient. I' m saying that it' s not a fair comparison. I could say that Mario Galaxy is more GPU efficient than Halo 3, would that impress you?

The more complex a game is, the less efficient it becomes. That' s basic.

So what happens when the 9900 range arrives and you can get >60fps in Crysis?

I doubt it. The GTX 280 (9900GTX) will be like a 9800GX2 in terms of raw performance. An GTX 280 sli might be powerful enough but Crysis doesn' t like multiple cards. Besides like I was saying Crysis needs a stronger CPU. Maybe with Intels next gen chips Crysis might have a chance. Crysis is so bottlenecked by the CPU that we might even see a decrease in performance, as the CPU chokes even more to feed the GPU.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce--9800-gtx-sli-review-bfg/7

Do you see how the 9800gtx sli and 9800GX2 perform the same accross all the resolutions? That' s because there' s a CPU bottleneck. You can expect the GTX280 to perform the same for Crysis. Any other game will be able to take advantage of the extra power though. The performance of a GTX 280 should be very similar to a 9800GX2 in most games.

I have an 8800 GTS 640mb.
The efficency matters because barely anyone has a PC that runs Crysis smooth on High settings. They can run UT3 and Gears at playable framerates that look better than what they can run Crysis at.
I can run crysis on high and it looks great, but I really don' t like playing FPS or any games on PC at less than 60 fps. I' ll probably build a new PC within a year or so. I don' t know if I' ll even want to play crysis by that time though since I don' t really replay single player games. I' ll probably fool around in it a bit but by that time I probably won' t even care about the game and there may be something better looking out.

Agent you don' t understand it at all. Just because it is more complex does not mean it is less efficient. Doing things using Shader 3, which is way more complex than your basic shaders gets you way more detail for the performance.
You also don' t understand that the vast majority of the detail in Crysis comes from simply having higher detailed shaders and more polygons. Anyone could just make higher detailed characters and a higher detailed level for UT3 matching Crysis on high settings and it would get a much better frame rate than Crysis.

"If you knew how good I am you would think I'm modest."

Agent you don' t understand it at all. Just because it is more complex does not mean it is less efficient. Doing things using Shader 3, which is way more complex than your basic shaders gets you way more detail for the performance.

I wasn' t only talking about the graphics when I said Crysis is more complex. And Crysis and UT3 both use shader model 3. So...

Anyone could just make higher detailed characters and a higher detailed level for UT3 matching Crysis on high settings and it would get a much better frame rate than Crysis.

You wouldn' t even be able to make Crysis using Unreal 3 engine.

Definetly, but what makes this look better than Haze, except for the obvious graphics.

-Fantastic art direction.
-A well developed plot.
-A unique sense of style. Look at the game, face value, and you have a futuristic shooter. Look at it a little deeper, and you can see homages and references a great number of the best FPS of the last ten years, in gameplay and in design.
-A huge budget, and a team that has proven itself, if not fantastic, to be competent (Look at Killzone: Liberation for competent).

Killzone 2 will finally force me to buy a PS3.

Most wanted games:

Mass Effect
Assasins Creed
Crysis
Little Big Planet
Drakes Fortune
UTIII
Kane and Lynch
Heavy Rain
Alan Wake

ORIGINAL: Agent Ghost

Agent you don' t understand it at all. Just because it is more complex does not mean it is less efficient. Doing things using Shader 3, which is way more complex than your basic shaders gets you way more detail for the performance.

I wasn' t only talking about the graphics when I said Crysis is more complex. And Crysis and UT3 both use shader model 3. So...

Anyone could just make higher detailed characters and a higher detailed level for UT3 matching Crysis on high settings and it would get a much better frame rate than Crysis.

You wouldn' t even be able to make Crysis using Unreal 3 engine.

I didn' t want to insult you... but you' re a either an idiot or an asshole.

I mentioned shader 3 as an example so maybe you could understand what I' m talking about, but you just didn' t grasp it. It is obviously way over your head. You have no idea how the engines work, not even the very basics. It isn' t worth discussing this with you because you just blatantly deny or ignore all of the facts I present to you. Then you go off and try to argue with something that is completely irrelevant. I don' t know if you' re just that stupid and actually think it is relevant or if you realize you' re wrong and just don' t want to accept it.

"If you knew how good I am you would think I'm modest."

ORIGINAL: Agent Ghost


Do you see how the 9800gtx sli and 9800GX2 perform the same accross all the resolutions? That' s because there' s a CPU bottleneck. You can expect the GTX280 to perform the same for Crysis. Any other game will be able to take advantage of the extra power though. The performance of a GTX 280 should be very similar to a 9800GX2 in most games.

G92 is limited by bandwidth actually. The bandwidth limitations become signficantly noticeable in high resolutions. At 1920x1200 and over with AA enabled, the GX2 is generally slower than a single G80 (GTX/Ultra). Crysis is probably very bandwidth hungry although CPU limitations probably do come into it somewhat.

I didn' t want to insult you... but you' re a either an idiot or an asshole.

Probably depends on who you ask.

No need to be so hostile loco. I understand what you' re saying I just disagree with you. You' re the one that has a hard time with this, I don' t care if you agree with me or not.

Saying the same thing over and over will not convince me, show me some sort of proof if you have such a vast understanding of things instead of irrelevant " examples" . You' re saying that UT3 is more graphically efficient (that may be true), I' m saying that Crysis is so bottlenecked by the CPU that it doesn' t matter. Crysis is more demanding on the CPU than UT3 which accounts for low frames even with uber graphic cards. Why are you ignoring this? You speak as if the fps depends solely on the graphics. Run a benchmark run of Crysis and then measure the frames while playing the game. You' ll see a HUGE difference.

More importantly UT3 doesn' t look that good, maybe you' re visually impared but it looks like shit compared to Crysis, especially at higher resolutions.

When the GTX 280 and HD 4870 rolls out and the frames are no better for Crysis comparing different resolutions, you' ll understand that Crysis is CPU bottlenecked.

G92 is limited by bandwidth actually. The bandwidth limitations become signficantly noticeable in high resolutions. At 1920x1200 and over with AA enabled, the GX2 is generally slower than a single G80 (GTX/Ultra). Crysis is probably very bandwidth hungry although CPU limitations probably do come into it somewhat.

I know about bandwidth limitations but if this is the explanation for Crysis having very close fps at 1280x1024 vs. 1920x1200 using a 9800GX2 then why does this not happen with other games? Also why does SLI have no effect?

Crysis is just poorly coded.

ORIGINAL: Agent Ghost

G92 is limited by bandwidth actually. The bandwidth limitations become signficantly noticeable in high resolutions. At 1920x1200 and over with AA enabled, the GX2 is generally slower than a single G80 (GTX/Ultra). Crysis is probably very bandwidth hungry although CPU limitations probably do come into it somewhat.

I know about bandwidth limitations but if this is the explanation for Crysis having very close fps at 1280x1024 vs. 1920x1200 using a 9800GX2 then why does this not happen with other games? Also why does SLI have no effect?

IMO Crysis is just poorly coded for CPU usage. Maybe it' s even bottlenecked by system memory bandwidth. When Nehalem arrives, that will make a bigger difference than a GTX 280 or HD 4870. We' ll see.

The GX2 is reliant on how SLI performs in any given game. Crysis is known to have shithouse SLI support. SLI in general has attrocious scaling issues. It' s probably only running one GPU, or trying to run both poorly, resulting in worse performance. Other games may not have the same issues with SLI.

The GX2 is a horrible card anyway. It' s just a kneejerk reaction to ATI' s X2 in order to maintain their performance crown. Though in reality it' s a slapstick effort to bandaid the situation until their next cards come out.

Crysis certainly does stress the CPU, but I don' t think it' s the main bottleneck in most situations.

Crossfire doesn' t do much better as far as the 3870X2 is conserned either. It could be due to the memory bandwidth as you were saying. I realised this before your last post.

This would explain why an 8800 ULTRA performs favorably to a 9800GX2.

I doubt next gen will be a revolution for Crysis when an ULTRA has 104GBps bandwidth compared to about 128GBps of a GTX 280

ORIGINAL: Eddie_the_Hated

a team that has proven itself, if not fantastic, to be competent (Look at Killzone: Liberation for competent).

Except for Liberation they have done nothing .

The art direction and sound were great even in the original KZ .. These were the only things that kept me playing the game , everything else sucked ...

ORIGINAL: Agent Ghost

Crossfire doesn' t do much better as far as the 3870X2 is conserned either. It could be due to the memory bandwidth as you were saying. I realised this before your last post.

This would explain why an 8800 ULTRA performs favorably to a 9800GX2.

I doubt next gen will be a revolution for Crysis when an ULTRA has 104GBps bandwidth compared to about 128GBps of a GTX 280

Performance wise, the R600/RV670 gets destroyed by the G80/92. But Crossfire scales infinitely better than SLI. With SLI you' re going to get approximately a 30% increase in performance when you add a second card. 50% at best. With Crossfire, adding a second card generally gets you a 60-80% performance increase. I' ve seen cases where it' s closer to 100%.

In short, single card performance is better with Nvidia. Multiple cards is currently best for Crossfire.

In short, single card performance is better with Nvidia. Multiple cards is currently best for Crossfire.

I know, that' s why I fully expect HD 4870X2 quad Crossfire to beat GTX280 SLI in most cases, hell even a single HD 4870X2 should beat a single GTX280. It' s too bad the 4870X2 is only expected in September.

I' ll probably wait until the GTX280 goes 55nm before I replace my 8800GTX regardless of which camp I fall into.

I guess if I wanted the Crysis killer I would wait for a videocard with 4Ghz effective memory coupled with a 512bit bus...

-Fantastic art direction.
-A well developed plot.
-A unique sense of style. Look at the game, face value, and you have a futuristic shooter. Look at it a little deeper, and you can see homages and references a great number of the best FPS of the last ten years, in gameplay and in design.
-A huge budget, and a team that has proven itself, if not fantastic, to be competent (Look at Killzone: Liberation for competent).

I dont see all of this from looking at the trailers.

The art direction is pretty good, but the execution of it is amazing, the graphics are stunning, but its just another Grey/brown shooter, id like to see a shooter thats not modern, not grey and not in a jungle :P.

Farcry 2 yeeehaaww..