By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - The Official Killzone 2 Thread

windbane on 19 January 2009
IllegalPaladin said:
forcwindbane said:
IllegalPaladin said:
I'm hoping that the multiplayer has been tweaked and polished. The beta was pretty fun and it's been kind of difficult to go to other multiplayer games now.

However, issues like team balancing, frame rate, and lag made the beta frustrating at times.

If these things have been fixed, I might just have to scrap some money together and grab it as soon as possible.

 

Team balancing could be turned on in the beta, it was one of the options. Most people like to be able to choose their team, though.

I never had any problems with lag and rarely any freamrate issues.

I know, but it wasn't a requirement. I would say team balancing should be forced on if you're going to have a ranked server. Of course, balanding the map design can help too (like the Helghast spawn exits in Radec Academy and Blood Gracht). I'd rather not have the beta repeat itself where there would be 10 Helghast vs 22 ISA.

Lag problems probably stemmed from people from a certain region playing in a different region. Especially throughout the second phase of the beta, it would take at least a second before any of my shots actually connected to a target. Too many times there would be dual kill (I take out somebody and they take out me at about the same time). There was also numerous times where I'd hit somebody a lot of times, they'd turn around and kill me, and then they'd die from my shots a second or two later (rarely it could take up to 10 seconds later).

As for the frame rate..... 32 players in Blood Gracht and the Radec Academy level could make the frame rate sluggish.

----

Also, if you remember the Helghast eyes vs the ISA blue lights, it looks like the ISA's lights have been made a lot brighter and it shows a new map (the desert?).

http://www.gamekings.tv/index/videos/minidocu-killzone-2-special-part-3/

(look around the 12:30 mark)

 

Weren't all servers ranked servers?  The top players will just be the ones that play the most because it's totals instead of percentages.  I was in the top 5 in the beta but I wouldn't claim to be the 5th best or better.  Anyway, I liked being able to choose sides and didn't find a problem most of the time.  Perhaps if you are going to play Warzone, but I ended up playing more Bodycount where it's actually easier to win if you are outnumbered (or, at least more fun to me, but usually easier, too).

I dunno, I stayed up all night many times in the beta so I played in European servers a lot and still didn't have much lag.  I played with Marielli a lot (another top 5 guy), and I know for a fact he was italian because I tried to talk to him.  I never had lag problems with him.  I do know that they planned for the game to have same-time kills, and you can shoot a tiny bit after you die.  Perhaps that is part of it.

Again, I played a lot of servers that were full and had very little framerate problems, even when boosting and with explosions going off.

The biggest problems were all the crashes and that half a week where the scores weren't being updated.  I hope they have resolved those issues.

GG already confirmed that the ISA would have blue lights similar to the Helghast's red to make it fair.  Oddly, a lot of the top players always played Helghast to prove it didn't matter 99% of the time.

 



Around the Network
makingmusic476 on 19 January 2009

The only person I ever had serious lag problems playing with was Squilliam, that bloody Kiwi.

By the way, I found this interesting post on neogaf (posted by ni95):

This game is in such a peculiar position. There's mountains of hype and pessimism for it. Some have and do rag on it at every given opportunity, whereas others are incredibly optimistic. Difference here is that this game has had more time, money, talent and media invested in it than most. Not to mention it looks insanely good graphically. Just look at this thread as an example of the amount of attention it's been getting, both positive and negative (or should I say scepticism).

It's because of these reasons that I am subconsciously finding that I am being extra cautious and careful with how I approach and judge the game. But is that fair? I wonder how many will play the game more cautiously than other games. By that I mean trying to ensure they aren't getting over exited in fear of over hyping or over selling.

My way of measuring the accuracy of my opinions of the game (or it's quality) was to play the shit out of it. Not a hard task, since I've loved every minute of it and wanted to keep playing it. I've since beaten the game twice, and am partially through a third play through. I've also since completed Resistance 2 (after beating KZ2) and started Gears 2 again (almost finished). I wanted to refresh my memory and compare it with some of the best out there (what I consider the best in regards to typical shooter SP campaigns). KZ2 did not disappoint. In-fact, you can probably guess which games SP campaign I most enjoyed. I won't say anything beyond that till the embargo's are lifted. Not everyone will share my sentiments (naturally), though I am positive many will.



I actually did something rather naughty. To quell something that was playing on my mind about the game. The main thing that imo will likely divide people on the game are the controls, or more specifically the aiming. It's totally different from other shooters in this regard. There's this sense of realism, weight, motion and immersion (add a lack of auto-aim) about them that sets them apart. My fear was that some less hardcore/casual gamers might be turned off by them, and those who are more used to other shooters might not get on. So I actually let a few people I know matching the above criteria play very brief segments of the game (only parts already seen dozens of times in video's of the very first level, and in a very controlled environment). Just to see how they'd get on with the controls.
Not only did they adjust fairly quickly, but they were incredibly impressed with the game, and wanted to play more. Thankfully, they all thought they were playing an early "demo" (the one that you will all likely be playing very soon). I have to admit, I was relieved to find that the controls didn't deter them from enjoying the experience, rather the opposite (which slightly surprised me, as I thought the lack of auto aim might frustrate them).


Can't wait to read/hear other people's opinions of the game and see how it reviews.



makingmusic476 on 19 January 2009

Another post from nib95:

On my first play through, I actually upped the sensitivity (just to get it on par with what I was already used to in other fps). But I eventually set it back to default, when it clicked, and I realised why GG had set it at what they did. Which was for fine tuned aiming precision (headshots and smoother more delicate aiming).

To specifically answer your question, no, I did not adjust the controls in any way from the default. The only difference from a completely default set up was that my DS3's have Real Triggers attached to them.


My guess is people will take a short while to adjust to the aiming. The payment for learning them being more rewarding and skill driven kills.


I agree with this man 100%. In the beta, at first things felt quite off, but GG set the controls like they did for a reason! Once you get used to it, everything is great.

Don't immediately try to make the controls like CoD4 when you first start to play. Give yourself an hour or so to adjust to the default settings and you'll be better off for it. Trust me.



Gilgamesh on 19 January 2009

How much does Killzone 2 need to sell in order to break even, I heard that it cost more then 50 million to make, anyone know the exact number?



Squilliam on 19 January 2009

No offline split screen, I should probably go and hang myself with my wired PS3 controller.



Tease.

Around the Network
makingmusic476 on 19 January 2009
Gilgamesh said:

How much does Killzone 2 need to sell in order to break even, I heard that it cost more then 50 million to make, anyone know the exact number?

 

Best I can tell, it probably cost a bit less than MGS4.

 

The only specifics we have on the actual budget is that it is the costliest media project in Dutch history, the second costliest being the film Black Book, which cost 40 million Euros ($21 million USD at the time).

One thing working in Killzone 2's favor is that folks in Amsterdam are generally paid half of what they are in the US (including programmers and the like). 

If we also take into consideration that Geurrilla Games only consisted of around 40-50 employees up until they were purchased by Sony in December 2005, and slowly increased to ~150 developers after that, thus making them a smaller develompent studio overall than Kojima Productions during the development of Killzone 2, plus, they were working heavily on Killzone: Liberation until its release at the end of 2006, resulting in Killzone 2 being in full production for around three years (part of 2006, 2007, 2008), then it's safe to say that Killzone 2 cost far less than MGS4 to develop, as MGS4 was already in a playable state at TGS05, and was released three years later, giving it a ~4 year dev time.

Sources pegged MGS4 as having a $50-70 million, so it's likely Killzone 2 cost $40-50 million, possibly less (depends on marketing expenses).

I'm sure a million and a half in sales would make the game break even.  Possibly less.



makingmusic476 on 19 January 2009
Squilliam said:
No offline split screen, I should probably go and hang myself with my wired PS3 controller.

 

Lies!  They don't exist!



Squilliam on 19 January 2009
makingmusic476 said:
Squilliam said:
No offline split screen, I should probably go and hang myself with my wired PS3 controller.

 

Lies!  They don't exist!

Sony did a smart thing then, maybe even saved a few miserable souls' lives.

 



Tease.

Gilgamesh on 19 January 2009
makingmusic476 said:
Gilgamesh said:

How much does Killzone 2 need to sell in order to break even, I heard that it cost more then 50 million to make, anyone know the exact number?

 

Best I can tell, it probably cost a bit less than MGS4.

 

The only specifics we have on the actual budget is that it is the costliest media project in Dutch history, the second costliest being the film Black Book, which cost 40 million Euros ($21 million USD at the time).

One thing working in Killzone 2's favor is that folks in Amsterdam are generally paid half of what they are in the US (including programmers and the like). 

If we also take into consideration that Geurrilla Games only consisted of around 40-50 employees up until they were purchased by Sony in December 2005, and slowly increased to ~150 developers after that, thus making them a smaller develompent studio overall than Kojima Productions during the development of Killzone 2, plus, they were working heavily on Killzone: Liberation until its release at the end of 2006, resulting in Killzone 2 being in full production for around three years (part of 2006, 2007, 2008), then it's safe to say that Killzone 2 cost far less than MGS4 to develop, as MGS4 was already in a playable state at TGS05, and was released three years later, giving it a ~4 year dev time.

Sources pegged MGS4 as having a $50-70 million, so it's likely Killzone 2 cost $40-50 million, possibly less (depends on marketing expenses).

I'm sure a milion and a half in sales would make the game break even.  Possibly less.

Excellent then Sony should easily break even with this game, even if it flops (flops the huge hype this game has)

 



makingmusic476 on 19 January 2009
Squilliam said:
makingmusic476 said:
Squilliam said:
No offline split screen, I should probably go and hang myself with my wired PS3 controller.

 

Lies!  They don't exist!

Sony did a smart thing then, maybe even saved a few miserable souls' lives.

 

 

Smart?  Thanks to them you're still here!