For all the people who didnt see the killzone 2 trailer.

http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=5833&type=mov

Ignore the first ad.

Just watch it and post comments.

Nice...but AI still looks rather stupid.

Yeah lah, but no one else has watched it...... Oh well, give it a few hours to die.

Not quite yet!
Is it for the PS3? It looks quite secksy... Too bad I'm aiming for a Revolution. If I have enbough monies, hopefully I can afford two Next-Gen consoles.

It has been confirmed that the Killzone 2 trailer is all pre-rendered and none of it is from the PS3. The PS3 guy even said behind closed doors that he is doubtful that the PS3 can even handle graphics like that, they just wanted to look better than Xbox.

Sony lies once again.

that's very lame. cool trailor tho

Was killzone 1 even that fun?

Kinda...

no, it wasnt people just thought it looked cool.

*dusts off goldeneye*
what's this about fun games?

i played the killzone demo on a demo disc, it was pretty fun, althought somehwhat easy

quote:Originally posted by Fangus Deef*dusts off goldeneye*
what's this about fun games?


Damn you people with your N64's!

At least I had Laura Croft when she came around...

Ah yes, but spartan 3 + me are killzone addicts. Dont ask why. Itas just a fun game, to pass time. But killzone 2, it just look cool. Who knows, maybe its hype. But im still going to buy a ps3 and get killzone 2, for the heck of it.

^^indeed

and i'm gonna get ps3 before him cos im moving to england lolzorz!! haha pwned u 117

Wow. You're gonna get it 3.12 hours before he does (Worldwide release).

what does the helghast flag symbolize? its just 3 arrows pointing in different directions.

I thought that official sony press conference claimed that the entire demo was built to system-spces/in-game realtime engine footage. Could you (Keyes) privied a link for the artivle/source where you found that?

My info is based off of G4TTV, and I have a few friends that went to E3 that can go places most fans can't go. None if it came off of a website or anything though.

That's pretty lame if it's not really going to look like that.

DUde. no one knows if it was pre rendered. Just assume it isnt, cos the next gen tech should be able to handle this sort of graphical uberness. Otherwise we would still be playing pixelated mario games. forever.

and thats why psps dont explode

quote:Originally posted by 117DUde. no one knows if it was pre rendered. Just assume it isnt, cos the next gen tech should be able to handle this sort of graphical uberness. Otherwise we would still be playing pixelated mario games. forever.

and thats why psps dont explode




Dont count on it, I'm pretty sure it was rendered. We have been able to do this kinda stuff for awhile now, the game companies are just to lazy, they want the game out fast and dont take their time. If this was actual ingame I would buy this game, it looked so good (the graphics) But chances are its gunna look almost exactly like killzone1. The only game that seems to be getting close to photo realism is call of duty 2.

Don't forget RE4! My Dad walked in when I was playing it and said, "Watching one of your horror movies, eh?"
Anyway, the console now can just about deliver photorealism. I liked it better when 30% of a console's resources didn't got to shadows and lighting effects :(

quote:Originally posted by KeyesBlobIt has been confirmed that the Killzone 2 trailer is all pre-rendered and none of it is from the PS3. The PS3 guy even said behind closed doors that he is doubtful that the PS3 can even handle graphics like that, they just wanted to look better than Xbox.

Sony lies once again.


Just... just don't talk. Ever.

Agree with Shavo cuz keyes is overexagerating, but at least some parts of that trailer were pre-rendered, whether PS3 can handle that or not is yet to come.

Omfg that looks awesome....it makes me think of joining the army in a few years lmfao

The PS3 does have SPECS that can handle those graphics, but the fact of the matter is that its internal architecture is HORRIBLE. It has alot of raw power but the PS3 has a hardware layout that is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to code for. Game Dev teams will take half of thier time making a game just trying to make it run on the PS3. So PS3 has the capability to HANDLE graphics like that, but I highly doubt that they can make GAMEPLAY that good looking with the PS3.

Guys, its pre-rendered. I am not saying the game will look bad, but it won't look like the demo. Sorry to bust your bubble.

A little message for the PS3 fanboys...

XB360 does not have quite as much raw processing power as the PS3, but the XB360 is so easy to make games for that smaller game developers have a chance to not worry about making a game work and worry about making the game fun. THAT is why the XB360 will be more FUN to play. Doom 3 looks amazing but lacks greatly to Halo 1s fun value. Killzone 2 might look good, but like the first one, the gameplay will not be nearly as fun as it could be on the 360.


Nuff said.

Keves, ur right about developers, but it's even better for developers to make their games for revolution because it's nearly half the cost, so they could make 2 revolution games for the price of 1 360 or PS3 game. Not to mention Revolution will probably be the easiest of the 3 systems to develope games for, judging from the developer-friendly Nintendo's history.

I ain't talking about prices. I am talking about quality of the games.

The revolution is super suckass in specs compared to the 360 or PS3. It is meant to play all the old Nintendo games. Nintendo will always be on par with quality, but they will fade away if they keep going this way. They keep trying to be unique, when people just want better playing and looking games. People don't wanna pay 250 bucks just to play oldies.

360 is still easier to program for, or as my friend caught on tape while talking to a game developer at E3 "Its easier to make 360 games than it is to make N64 games."

But the Rev will be a great system, every next gen system will be great, but Sony is trying to go too far, and Nintendo is trying to stay at home. I think that no matter what games are coming out, the 360 will probally have more sales and a bigger community.

Battlefield 2 is closest i've seen to photo realism, but Source engine still has some life in it. Realistically speaking though, Unreal engine 3.0 is prven to kick ass. Check out "gears of war" and the Unreal tournament 2007 tech demos. (gamespot.com)

quote:Originally posted by KeyesBlobI ain't talking about prices. I am talking about quality of the games.

The revolution is super suckass in specs compared to the 360 or PS3. It is meant to play all the old Nintendo games. Nintendo will always be on par with quality, but they will fade away if they keep going this way. They keep trying to be unique, when people just want better playing and looking games. People don't wanna pay 250 bucks just to play oldies.

360 is still easier to program for, or as my friend caught on tape while talking to a game developer at E3 "Its easier to make 360 games than it is to make N64 games."

But the Rev will be a great system, every next gen system will be great, but Sony is trying to go too far, and Nintendo is trying to stay at home. I think that no matter what games are coming out, the 360 will probally have more sales and a bigger community.




I thought people played the games for fun, not how many shadows and blades of grass you can count.
Nintendo also announced that they're aiming to go in a different direction in their games.

quote:Originally posted by KeyesBlobI ain't talking about prices. I am talking about quality of the games.

The revolution is super suckass in specs compared to the 360 or PS3. It is meant to play all the old Nintendo games. Nintendo will always be on par with quality, but they will fade away if they keep going this way. They keep trying to be unique, when people just want better playing and looking games. People don't wanna pay 250 bucks just to play oldies.

360 is still easier to program for, or as my friend caught on tape while talking to a game developer at E3 "Its easier to make 360 games than it is to make N64 games."

But the Rev will be a great system, every next gen system will be great, but Sony is trying to go too far, and Nintendo is trying to stay at home. I think that no matter what games are coming out, the 360 will probally have more sales and a bigger community.




Fanboy.

But graphics are essential as in they help immerse the player in the game. I am NOT focusing on graphics here guys, I am focusing on ease of programming and quality of gameplay.

Nintendo is making a very daring move by "going in a different direction". If it proves unsuccesful (remember it didn't work the first time with the GC) Nintendo will eventually probally go into the software buisness and stay out of the hardware buisness.

Nintendo has rarely ever been innovative with hardware, they might just stop making hardware and focus on software, like Sega has.

Put it this way.

If you were playing a game, fully immersed into it and not paying any attention to the outside world, and then spotted a "jaggy", or a wierd polygon in a model, it would kick you out of the experience. A game must project realism, then sustain the projection.

THAT is why hardware specs are so important. Whether a game immerses you or not is the selling factor of it.

Whatever the hell. i'm just getting it.

@117: did u see they redesinged the ISA rifle? no more thumbhole (Please refrain from swearing).

quote:Originally posted by KeyesBlobBut graphics are essential as in they help immerse the player in the game. I am NOT focusing on graphics here guys, I am focusing on ease of programming and quality of gameplay.

Nintendo is making a very daring move by "going in a different direction". If it proves unsuccesful (remember it didn't work the first time with the GC) Nintendo will eventually probally go into the software buisness and stay out of the hardware buisness.

Nintendo has rarely ever been innovative with hardware, they might just stop making hardware and focus on software, like Sega has.

Put it this way.

If you were playing a game, fully immersed into it and not paying any attention to the outside world, and then spotted a "jaggy", or a wierd polygon in a model, it would kick you out of the experience. A game must project realism, then sustain the projection.

THAT is why hardware specs are so important. Whether a game immerses you or not is the selling factor of it.



Comparing Sega and Nintendo has nothing to do with it. You're forgetting Nintendo's GameBoy franchise which has been their main income since it was created.
Also you're also forgetting that Nintendo's 'going in a different direction' is the reason that htere are video game consoles today.
A brief history:
In the seventies/eighties, before the NES, the Atari 2600, soon after the release of ET, put into development an ET Atari game for the Christmas sales. The problem? Christmas was six weeks away.
They developed the game just in time, but unsurprisingly, the game looked and played like (Please refrain from swearing).
The game was so horrible, hardly anyone bought it and shops sold it at less than a quarter of the prize, just to get rid of it.
But Atari made 2.5 million copies of the game with no one to buy them, collecting dust in a warehouse, so they smothered them with concrete and buried them in the desert.

Atari's actions caused the 1980's video game collapse, by shopkeepers refusing to buy anymore home console merchandise, thus ending Atari's console works. Besides, arcade machines had better graphics, etc.

To cut a long story short, Nintendo developed the NES, and single handedly bought back home console gaming.

Like I said, there has been a few times that Nintendo has been the innovative one with hardware. But the 80s are WAY different from today. You cannot longer base a companies reliability on something that was made many years ago. The hardware is getting more advanced, more demanding. Simply said, the Revolution will not (if it stays how it is) be able to compete. Graphics make people start playing the game, and quality keeps them going.
People are much more likely to see Gears of War (not knowing what it is) and still are more likely to buy over some Revolution game just because it looks prettier.

Its about 50 50.
Initial sales are based off of graphics.
Following sales are mainly based off of gameplay.

Also, you said that them "going in a different direction" saved console gaming. What different direction did they take? They made better hardware that was higher quality. And since it was the only next gen console of the time, it was percieved as saving the console gaming genre.

How is making improved hardware and software "going in a different direction".


I always base my "fanboyism" off the facts. If Sony PROVED all the crap they said, then I would favor them. But so far the 360 has proven everything with ingame footage and previews, and actually showing all the new features on a screen. Nintendo just said "We have new system. I call it Revolution. It play many games. Hee-ha-ho." So the big N has no proof of anything.

I guess now I am going to show you the actual numbers to prove stuff to you...
Sigh...

THE ANALYSIS

CPU: Cell (1 PPC + 7 functional units + 1 redundant unit) vs X360 Cpu (three PPC cores)

X360 advantages and disadvantages
- much easier to program for 3 symmetric processors than an asymmetric processor
- strong single thread performance, but can only run limited number of threads
- multithreading is difficult to program for but NO WAY near as hard as for the cell- Best described as a jack of all trades approach

Cell Advantages and disadvantages
- The cell is a massively parallel vector processor. The cell is an amazing processor when it comes to raw floating point operations -- it is untouchable [but there is catch].
- excellent for running multiple floating point tasks such as (game engine, encoding and decoding video)
- Difficult to program for -- ALL software has to be optimized- Poor single thread performance- NO hardware Branch prediction, Extremely poor at running complicated branched code (like A.I. code)- Highly specialized approach, the cell is first and foremost an MULTIMEDIA processor that is best suited for HDTVs and a gaming consoles processor second. It offers extremes -- very good at running game engine, very poor at A.I. code.


GPU:

Today\'s top of the line 6800ultra has 16 pixel pipelines and 6 shader pipelines and is made up of 222 Million Transistors

X360 advantages and disadvantages
- ATI\'s next gen GPU (the R500) has a as unique architecture -- UNIFIED vertex/shader and pixel pipelines. It has 48 of these units that are automatically assigned a function
- Easier to program for but has a less higher theoretical peek than independet pipelines
- 10MB framebuffer that allows for \"Free\" anti-aliasing but limited resolution to 720P. For higher resolutions you \"upsample\"
- Unknown number of transistors (look for this number in the future)

PS3 GPU:
- officially stated to have 300 Million transistors with fixed pixel and vertex pipelines. Numbers not disclosed. If 6600GT is about 160 Million transistors, the 6800ultra 222 Million -- it is very likely that the PS3 GPU has 24 pixel pipelines and about 10-12 shader pipelines. I find it very easy to believe that the this GPU will be about twice as powerful as a 6800Ultra
- independent pipelines are faster BUT are harder to program for


Memory:

X360
512Mb of unified DDR3 memory with is shared by BOTH the GPU and CPU. Flexiablity is the obvious advantage. Disadvantage is that they have to be shared. Game developers can split the memory any way they like 50:50, 30:70 etc

PS3
256MB XRD for the cell
256MB DDR3 for the GPU

advantage is that the each has its own faster memory but each is limited to 256mb. While the CPU in the X360 can have a max of 512mb, the cell is stuck with 256mb. Note the GPU can access the memory from the CPU like Nvidia\'s Turbocache or ATI\'s hypermemory but it comes at a latency cost and increase bus traffic - which negates the whole point of having discrete CPU and CPU memory.


Bandwidth:

X360
? 22.4 GB/s memory interface bus bandwidth
? 256 GB/s memory bandwidth to EDRAM
? 21.6 GB/s front-side bus

256GB/s from the 10mb frame buffer gives the X360 GPU a major advantage; it means the R500 isn?t limited by bandwidth and allows for free Antialiasing and a host of other effects. But the cost is that internal resolution is realistically limited to 720P. They may find a way around it. The original PS2 had on-die 4mb cache. The game cube had off-die 2mb frame buffer.

PS3
Main RAM 25.6GB/s
VRAM 22.4GB/s
RSX 20GB/s (write) + 15GB/s (read)
SB<2>

Pretty standard.


Video Output:

X360
Single DVI-output support sall HD resolutions (including 1080P and 1080i). Note that most games will probably be rendered at 720P but upsampled to 1080P like GT4 did with the PS2.

PS3
Dual HDMI (copy-protected DVI that combines audio) so that you can hook up two HDTVs. HDMI is a new format.
BUT for those of you who tried doing this on your computer, if a game runs @ 1080P single TV, you have to drop the resolution down on each TV to 720P so that you can have both.

True. Quality is a must in games, but FFS, look at Super Monkey Ball. Personally I hate the graphics. Too bright. But then look at the gameplay: fun original and also with great replay value.
Scorpion King: Rise of the Akkadian:
Awesome graphics, the Rocks voice, range of weapons, etc. (Please refrain from swearing)tiest game I've ever played. Nothing besides beating up goons with and without a time limit to open doors so you can beat up twelve more goons.
I chose those two games as they're both on all consoles.

But anyway, after the new consoles come in, in a few years computers will have enough (expensive) technology and so and so it beat all of the consoles down.





































... Fanboy.

Sales are not based off graphics. System Shock 2 had horrible graphics and I love the game. You sir, believe your opinion to be the only one out there, and I suggest that before this becomes a fanboy arguement that we all take a step back and just agree to disagree.

I will, just as I always have, purchase the next Nintendo console and be more than satisfied with it. You can use whatever system(s) you want.

Anyway, back to Killzone, what made the first one good?

A very through report there, keys. You seem right in much ways. However we'll have to wait for both of them to come out. After all, no matter which console is better, the games that come with it make all the difference. Although it looks like programming for the x360 might be easier. Again, we'll have to watch and see.

As I think about it now, why is this topic fading to what console is better? Personally, I'd have a computer :P

One thing that bugged me about Killzone was that you could leap over certain distances, but you couldn't hop a curb (invisible walls).
Sniping was... the most horrendous thing ever.
AI was non-existant.
Weapons were "generic" and not very original.

Things that bugged me about H2 (just to be fair)
Auto-aim ruined the MP experience.
Buggy cutscenes.
Flip-flops with graphics, sometimes good, sometimes bad.
Invisible walls.

I haven't heard of/ played any big FPS games for the GC so I can't judge really.

Halo 3 is coming out the day PS3 comes out, and its probally not going to be made from Bungie (storyline and such will be Bungie, gameplay mechanics won't) so I am really looking forward to it.

And Ben, you said in a few years that computer technology will be better?

The previous gen consoles (PS2, Xbox, GC) can't even be compared to computers. Computers are way more powerful than all three systems combined.

But the next gen consoles...

The 360 has three 3.2Ghz processors in it. So it has a total capability of 9.6Ghz. So far, there is no computer out there that can even come close to matching that. The 360 is basically a computer though, so that flattens the discussion.
Consoles will probally from now on be more powerful than PCs because they are specialized towards one thing. Computers must be able to do something for everyone, consoles are made for gamers (obviously).



Side note:
When I say "good graphics" I don't mean photo-realism. I mean graphics that work and are immersive to the theme. Mario sunshine has "good graphics" for example. Sorry for the misunderstanding...

did you guys know that they just released Another PS2?
why would they do that?

You mean the new skinny PS2?



They did that to make more sales, obviously.

They're too small. My friend bought one took it out of the box and his little brother came in later and snapped it in half!

starwars battlefront 2 will be better then all of those games put together.......SPACE COMBAT!!!!1
practically the only reason why i like star wars is because of battlefront :D kill zone isnt that bad but they have to add bots to halo 3 or else.......

the slim ps2 it so sexy.

did you see THAT part with the flamethrower jeep where the ISAs were yelling "SHOOT THE TANK, SON OF A (Please refrain from swearing)!!"