1. Well I hope the game is good. Unfortunately thanks to the 360 I have overdosed on FPS, but if its good then hey whats one more. On a lighter note Thank God its friday. Cant wait to get off work so I can go home, get stoned and eat white castles and play video games allllll night.

TheSh0wstopper

Posted at 2:11PM on Jun 8th 2007 by TheSh0wstopper

2. @Luke
Either that, or you are going to look like an idiot. I'll wait to reserve judgment, but I'm glad they finally came out of their cave and said something. Even better that it's confident, self-assured smack talk.

What would impress me is if they recreated the E3 trailer using the game engine. Now that would be something.

Posted at 2:24PM on Jun 8th 2007 by upz

3. Are they crazy? They are trying to invite more fanboys and sites (most likely joystiq :p) bashing killzone when it becomes anything but that trailer; or be compared to gears of war and bioshock, and crysis etc.. Plus.... Halo3 is going to beat it (or most halo/ms fanboys will say).

Posted at 2:53PM on Jun 8th 2007 by shase

4. Hopefully? That doesn't exactly exude confidence.

Posted at 3:13PM on Jun 8th 2007 by TK00

5. I think that much like Motorstorm, it will end up not looking as flat-out perfect as the trailer, but still be impressive in it's own right, and will capture the same "feel" as the trailer does. I don't think anyone can really argue that the scenario and style from Motorstorm's trailer didn't make it into the final game. However, setting the bar for visuals where they did, it was just constant complaints and bitching from then on out. I think that's what Killzone's developers have setup for themselves.

What I'd love to see though?
What would seem to be the exact same video and everything from the trailer, looking just as good overall, going right into gameplay with some random dude up on the stage playing. Basically, that video being controlled and shown as in-game, or at least something close enough that it would take nit-picking to notice the differences. If Sony could pull that off, it would be the bitchslap heard round the world.

Posted at 3:19PM on Jun 8th 2007 by mccomber

6. Sounds like a good plan Sh0wstopper.

For the amount of time spent on this game. There should be no reason why it can't look that good.

Posted at 3:21PM on Jun 8th 2007 by Matt B

7. "For the amount of time spent on this game. There should be no reason why it can't look that good."

scenario yes, graphical detail no

Posted at 3:37PM on Jun 8th 2007 by xion

8. The problem with using prerendered trailers, is the audience not know what the PURPOSE of showing the trailer was. They think that because they see moving stuff on a big screen at E3, that the developer is claiming the game will look just like that....

They show a prerendered trailer because the game isn't even that far in development, and they want the audience to see what kind of game they should expect- not how the game will look. These guys wanted you to know that you're going to be making WWII type beach landings, dealing with attacks from all sides, commanding your squad, and taking out vehicles. They wanted to convey that the game is going to be fast paced action with chaos all around.

Now, the AUDIENCE thought that it was showing what the game would look like. Then, on top of that, the developers mentioned that in-game assets(ie: textures, models, sounds, etc.) were used in some areas of the trailer- even further convincing the gamers out there that these guys want us to believe that this is what the game will look like, when in fact it was only a representation of what they were aiming to recreate as far as concept and playbility is concerned: not the visuals.

And no, not even a disclaimer at the beginning would have nipped this whole situation at the bud. It seems like every trailer out there has those disclaimers but everyone wants to keep ignoring them.

@7: I agree with you. Will probably be VERY impressive and VERY cool, but not EXACTLY like the trailer. Fine with me. As long as I get that big deagle-like pistol to blow heads off with again then I could care less.

Posted at 3:45PM on Jun 8th 2007 by OrganicShadow

9. if it does look as good as the trailer i will laugh so much :D

But i doubt it - it probably will look amazing but....that trailer was amazing :o

Posted at 3:48PM on Jun 8th 2007 by Nang

10. @Upz, I won't look like an idiot that trailer is 2 years old, it will look nothing like that.

It will probably look good I'm sure, I just hope the game is good as Killzone 1 fell short on many areas, plus it felt unpolished.

Posted at 3:48PM on Jun 8th 2007 by Luke

11. Seems to me like most people want Killzone 2 to fall short of its goal. I know that the devs have got this game up to par, if they're coming out and making bold statements. Sony is going to come out of E3 looking real good.

Posted at 4:10PM on Jun 8th 2007 by Thomas

12. @10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRVAVdF8HLc

The above link is how all this started.

Posted at 4:22PM on Jun 8th 2007 by Stellarpimp

13. Gears of War looked as good as the trailer so I have a little issue with the facts being stated. I think all gamers are intelligent enough to know CGI from in game footage. The issue is when KEN K stated that KZ would look like the trailer at E3. I just hope the game is FUN. I was a Beta tester for the original KZ on the PS2 and it was not a great playing game. My hope is that this Game will be fun regardless of what people will think the game is going to look. If the game looks as good as GOW I am ok. IMO the developer is signing check his azzzzzzz cannot cash.

Posted at 4:22PM on Jun 8th 2007 by The1

14. "Seems to me like most people want Killzone 2 to fall short of its goal."
I think only the most ardent anti-Sony fanboy would WANT Killzone 2 to fall far short of the goal set by the CG trailer.

However, the simple reality is that the game will NOT look that good. Good? Yes. As good as a short CG sequence that took months to create? No.

mccomber hit the nail on the head. Motorstorm is one of the best looking games on the market, and some of the mud effects are fantastic. But run the game side-by-side with the original CG video, and there's a very large gap in visual quality.

Likewise, Killzone 2 could easily be one of the best-looking shooters ever made, but it will not be indistinguishable from the infamous E3 video. It wasn't the Microsoft fanboys who created that expectation, it was Sony's own claims, such as the "it is real gameplay" mentioned in the video above. THAT is why Killzone has become such a hot topic.

Posted at 4:54PM on Jun 8th 2007 by Strike Man

15. Believe the hype 1 hr of gameplay FTW!!!

Posted at 5:01PM on Jun 8th 2007 by Tim

16. Having not played many FPS (used to play mostly sports games) I am really looking foreward to this game. Although Killzone 1 had some good graphics and good online it lacked in AI department. This time around I bet the AI will be top notch along with the rest of the game!

When will video games hit a plateau...I mean games are looking better and better but when will they just stay the same?

Cheers. I am so getting hammered tonite. Cya

Posted at 5:14PM on Jun 8th 2007 by massive_98

17. "THAT is why Killzone has become such a hot topic"

It gets people talking and possibly sold some people who didn't want the best console out there(N64)

www.playb3yond.com

Posted at 5:20PM on Jun 8th 2007 by massive_98

18. Crysis is living up to expectations, being a DX 10 game and all, I would understand why people dont think KZ2 cant live up to its expectation being that what we saw 2 years ago was CGI, I believe anything can be possible, BTW dont you guys think that even though Sony lied about that trailer, dont you think its actually possible that they thought they can run that game just like the trailer do to the early specs of the system? (ex. the Cell being the CPU and GPU)

Posted at 5:54PM on Jun 8th 2007 by lenny0487

19. lenny0487, saying that a game is better or meeting expectations simply because it's DX10 is completely and utterly wrong. I don't mean to berate you for saying that, but anyone that believes DX10 is somehow magically better than anything else in the world is wrong. Games have been able to do everything DX10 offers for years now. (except those coded in DirectX~9) OpenGL and other not so well known CG languages have had the technology but lacked the raw hardware power that this console and video card generation is bringing (multi-core, fast memory pipelines, etc.) It's just that the horsepower is catching up and Microsoft is telling everyone that it's their "secret sauce" that's letting it all happen. DX version only affects developers short sighted enough to only code in DirectX. If you study the process dumps of a game running last year, you'll see that one of the biggest bottlenecks comes in the form of memory buss speed and caching capability. It's not texture memory size, DX instructions or any of that other fun stuff. Sure, they allow for bigger textures and different effects, but it mostly boils down to how much the processor can cache and re-use.

Posted at 7:16PM on Jun 8th 2007 by Andir3.0

20. This game will be in the physics, fanboys will be oblivious, but whatever the graphics are like, the physics will be where it's at.

PS3 = physics monster.

Killzone = physics giant.

and AI of course.

Posted at 7:21PM on Jun 8th 2007 by Vince UK