starcraft said: Hus said: Leo-j why even make this thread. Evey killzone thread is full of this lacks innovation BS and doom and gloom form wii owners. Very well hus, enlighten us, where is this game innovating?

 ohh lets see.

deffered rendering/the lighting
the animation/hit responce (blending motion captured aimation with physics impulses.) = no kill is the same
7.1 surround sound 

Hus said: starcraft said: Hus said: Leo-j why even make this thread. Evey killzone thread is full of this lacks innovation BS and doom and gloom form wii owners. Very well hus, enlighten us, where is this game innovating?   ohh lets see. deffered rendering/the lighting the animation/hit responce (blending motion captured aimation with physics impulses.) = no kill is the same 7.1 surround sound

 What they said is that there will be more ways to die, not that no kill is the same. And you've only highlighted technical things, aesthetics like sound and graphics, is there any reason whatsoever to think that this title will feature innovative gameplay? No there isn't, which is quite poor given the budget, and the fact that all those technical achievments will be overcome by Crysis 3 months earlier

leo-j said: starcraft said: I think where K2 needs to be a success and to have legs is the gameplay, but then Sony have never said that this game will be enjoyable, they said it will look good. It will move huge numbers on the first and second weeks because of graphics and because it'll be the only exclusive fps on the console of any real quality, but if they dont fix the gameplay and actually give the game quality, it will die very quickly So, your saying the gameplay currently sucks?Well, when you see "gameplay" videos do they look bad? I mean compared to haze(latest videos) kz2 is a god. Also I forgot to mention that gameinformer was playing in normal mode, the AI was fantastic.

 Actually, the gameplay vids I've seen look like standard FPS fare. One actually had horendous AI where the guy just stood there while being shot, not even attempting to take cover or fight back. 

HUS; 

7.1 isn't innovative, its been done

Deffered rendering is technically innovative, but not gameplay innovative (99% of people will never know)

Animation/hit is just like Deffered.

sieanr said: leo-j said: starcraft said: I think where K2 needs to be a success and to have legs is the gameplay, but then Sony have never said that this game will be enjoyable, they said it will look good. It will move huge numbers on the first and second weeks because of graphics and because it'll be the only exclusive fps on the console of any real quality, but if they dont fix the gameplay and actually give the game quality, it will die very quickly So, your saying the gameplay currently sucks?Well, when you see "gameplay" videos do they look bad? I mean compared to haze(latest videos) kz2 is a god. Also I forgot to mention that gameinformer was playing in normal mode, the AI was fantastic. Actually, the gameplay vids I've seen look like standard FPS fare. One actually had horendous AI where the guy just stood there while being shot, not even attempting to take cover or fight back. HUS; 7.1 isn't innovative, its been done Deffered rendering is technically innovative, but not gameplay innovative (99% of people will never know) Animation/hit is just like Deffered.

 ok sorry its not waggel its not innovaitve ?

What is innovative then ?

Hus said: sieanr said: leo-j said: starcraft said: I think where K2 needs to be a success and to have legs is the gameplay, but then Sony have never said that this game will be enjoyable, they said it will look good. It will move huge numbers on the first and second weeks because of graphics and because it'll be the only exclusive fps on the console of any real quality, but if they dont fix the gameplay and actually give the game quality, it will die very quickly So, your saying the gameplay currently sucks?Well, when you see "gameplay" videos do they look bad? I mean compared to haze(latest videos) kz2 is a god. Also I forgot to mention that gameinformer was playing in normal mode, the AI was fantastic. Actually, the gameplay vids I've seen look like standard FPS fare. One actually had horendous AI where the guy just stood there while being shot, not even attempting to take cover or fight back. HUS; 7.1 isn't innovative, its been done Deffered rendering is technically innovative, but not gameplay innovative (99% of people will never know) Animation/hit is just like Deffered.  ok sorry its not waggel its not innovaitve ? What is innovative then ?

The KZ2 developers have mentioned that weather would play an important role, and I talked about this a few post up. So, heres a hypothetical on how controlling the weather could change the game;

ssj12 said: Lost tears of Kain said: RAcCoOnErOuS said: Killzone 2 looks WAY better than Halo 3 Only game on the ps3 that i want to play... You know it may look better, but is it as fun, now thats where you cant know is it? I hope it doesnts flop like the first one  the first one didnt really flop, it was an average game, just average, it made a profit I believe.  It wont flop because its a sequal but not a direct sequal, its set in the same universe but you dont need to know the story of the first to know whats going on in the second.

It sort of was a flop because it was supposed to be the "halo killer" and be "sonys halo", other other words, had alot of hype and ending up being average, so its sort of a flop, but because it was a decent success, not really a total flop

bugmenot said: Obviously being an innovative success on a gameplay level isn't required to be certain a game is AAA anymore. All our worries are over, because innovation (which is a precious and limited resource) is no longer needed to make great games, thanks to the advent of detail and grit. Never again will our gameplaying be bounded by the hungry demands of our imaginations: Physics will take care of that. Soon all games will achieve this technical zenith, and there will be no need for anything new ever again. We will all have reached a state of computational Nirvana, where the demon that is creativity has finally been slain.

 Sorry dude, but this is one of the worst posts I've read this week. Why does everyone suddenly have to break everything into a graphics/gameplay dichotomy, assuming that if a game has one it forfeits the other?

And why must so many people now assume that every single game has to completely change the way we play. Everything I hear about Killzone 2 makes it sound like it's a great game to play. It doesn't have to reinvent the wheel to be a great game. Plenty of awesome games just tighten the spokes a bit. And Killzone 2 seems to have some mighty tight spokes!

Also, instead of Halo, I'm comparing it to Gears.

stof said: bugmenot said: Obviously being an innovative success on a gameplay level isn't required to be certain a game is AAA anymore. All our worries are over, because innovation (which is a precious and limited resource) is no longer needed to make great games, thanks to the advent of detail and grit. Never again will our gameplaying be bounded by the hungry demands of our imaginations: Physics will take care of that. Soon all games will achieve this technical zenith, and there will be no need for anything new ever again. We will all have reached a state of computational Nirvana, where the demon that is creativity has finally been slain. Sorry dude, but this is one of the worst posts I've read this week. Why does everyone suddenly have to break everything into a graphics/gameplay dichotomy, assuming that if a game has one it forfeits the other? And why must so many people now assume that every single game has to completely change the way we play. Everything I hear about Killzone 2 makes it sound like it's a great game to play. It doesn't have to reinvent the wheel to be a great game. Plenty of awesome games just tighten the spokes a bit. And Killzone 2 seems to have some mighty tight spokes! Also, instead of Halo, I'm comparing it to Gears.

QFT. This game isn't at the top of my list but it does seem to be shaping up extremely nicely. I wonder if it's just turning into a lightning rod for PS3 hate because the original was a disappointment.

Not every game. And incremental improvements are just fine most of the time. But a $50m endeavour should be set to a little bit higher standard, I expect.

Also, I wouldn't go as far as saying it should "completely change the way we play". But are purely technical merits (like 1080p, 7.1surround, new rendering techniques and "candy" physics - choose those that apply), really worthy of $50m? I'd sure find a bigger focus on things that actually impact gameplay (like AI, the physics engine, the game environments, etc) far more interesting.

Now, I'm not saying this specifically about Killzone, but about big budget games in general. On Killzone, Sieanr already brought up the weather, and I imagine this can be a great feature for a game such as this. It may also (and probably does) evolve on AI, physics; have nicely designed and interesting enviroments; great controls. But, unfortunately, the things being hyped for this game seem to be mostly the technicalities (which as a CS major I actually do find somewhat interesting, though as a gamer not so much) - see Hus's post for a bit of that.

All that new experimental stuff sure as hell don't make a game great. Gimmi some of that good old stuff that works not new stuff that does not. First it was oh it can't be done money wont equal the trailer, sony came through silenced the while industry so i guess the new thing to whine about "it lacks innovation" tell me wheres the innovation in Mario Galaxy or Halo3 ?

killzone2 is NOT about reinventing the fps, its about making the best shooter on the PS3. Try to remember this.