I feel like kz2&3 were better than halo 4,5,6.
Had a lot of fun with 2&3. Loved the environments in 3 and the bold lighting in 2.
If they were on xbox, they may have rivalled halo
Killzone 1 would have been a much better game had it been on xbox because the OG xbox was much more powerful than PS2. It was like the reverse of 360/ps3 back then.
... What? The 360 had the more powerful GPU, marginally. The ps3 supposedly had a potentially more powerful CPU but utilising it proved too much for developers. The xbox is not comparable to the PS2 graphically as the xbox used advanced programmable shaders like PC.
If killzone 2/3 were on the xbox we may have gotten better performance and player population
KZ 2/3 would look nowhere near as good. 360 didn't have any games that could match KZ visually. No the performance wouldn't have been better at all. The 360 also did not use blu ray discs. The only reason 3rd party games were often worse on PS3 was because the console was harder for them to develop on. Any developer who knew what they were doing though could easily make graphically superior games on PS3, that is what KZ2 was hyped on the whole time.
You are living in your own console wars headcanon. Gpu performance is not affected by optical drives lmfao
How are you this uneducated on the internet? All the information is a quick google away.
Killzone 2 would not have been anywhere close to what it was on 360 you are out of your fricking mind. The performance on 360 would have been so bad it wouldn't have even been made.
The entire look of Killzone 2 is based on having about a 60 degree FOV, super heavy vignetting, and tons of close DOF and motion blur. The game was basically doing everything possible to hide the fact that the asset quality is on the low side because of GPU and memory constraints.
I think it'd be a fair comparison to stack Killzone 2 up to Gears of War 2 or 3. Both games were using very similar technologies like a deferred renderer, pretty cutting edge dynamic lighting and shadowing, lots of post-processing, and the kind of dynamic small-scale environment destruction and deformation physics that were popular at the time, which I remember Sony liked to pretend was enabled by the Cell exclusively. To my eye anyway, Gears had the edge in detail.
>The 360 had the more powerful GPU, marginally. The ps3 supposedly had a potentially more powerful CPU but utilising it proved too much for developers.
Not him but here's the thing. The 360 did have a slightly better gpu than the PS3, however, the PS3 had the option to offload GPU tasks into the cell CPU using the SPUs, if used properly the PS3 could deliver much better graphics than the 360. Killzone 2 is actually one of the poster childs for how good a game can look when a developer knows how to use the SPUs. It's safe to say Killzone 2 would never run on the 360 looking and performing as good as it did on the PS3, they'd probably have to cut back on some of the post process like they did with Killzone 3 to improve performance and reduce input lag.
360 had a better GPU and it had a better memory architecture. The heavy post-processing requires GPU cycles and more VRAM. It almost certainly would've run better on 360. Off-loading GPU tasks onto the SPUs was the compromise (or as we'd say today, cope), which isn't a good thing - it's slower.
I feel like there was another pretty cutting edge multiplatform shooter that had a similar look to Killzone 2 where the screen was just bathed in post-processing, and the game looked better on 360. It might've been that terrible Syndicate reboot that nobody remembers?
>small-scale environment destruction and deformation physics that were popular at the time, which I remember Sony liked to pretend was enabled by the Cell exclusively.
I'm always amazed at Sony's ability to lie about technicalities that are easily disproved by any educated person. It's as if they don't give a damn that anyone can point out their lies.
>The 360 had the more powerful GPU, marginally. The ps3 supposedly had a potentially more powerful CPU but utilising it proved too much for developers.
Not him but here's the thing. The 360 did have a slightly better gpu than the PS3, however, the PS3 had the option to offload GPU tasks into the cell CPU using the SPUs, if used properly the PS3 could deliver much better graphics than the 360. Killzone 2 is actually one of the poster childs for how good a game can look when a developer knows how to use the SPUs. It's safe to say Killzone 2 would never run on the 360 looking and performing as good as it did on the PS3, they'd probably have to cut back on some of the post process like they did with Killzone 3 to improve performance and reduce input lag.
I guarantee you killzone 2 would run on 360 hardware if its software would allow it. The SPU offloads relate to physics & backend, not visuals in the overwhelming majority of cases. We see the difference between what was THOUGHT to be possible on Cell (trailer) and what WAS possible (release). Look at the difference.
Worth remembering the game ran in the mid-low 20s. The ps3 could not handle the game properly, primarily due to GPU deficiencies as the ps3's gpu was a last minute rush job by nvidia.
Once again all this info is out there. Digital foundry has several videos on the topic including a commentary of the ps3 reveal.
>they'd probably have to cut back on some of the post process like they did with Killzone 3 to improve performance and reduce input lag.
This why KZ2 somehow looked better? KZ3 did more with the colors it seemed to me in order to trick people into thinking it was visually better. It also had a bit more diversity in environments.
Or fun aliens to fight. They also forced us with every game to face the better faction. They should have been the heroes the whole time not the villains.
Killzone 2 is the laggiest shooter I've ever played. I still remember all of the reviewers excusing it for being "heavy" and "weighty" when looking back at it, it's obviously just technical issues and misplaced priorities because it had framepracing issues out the ass and horrific input lag.
They fixed the deadzones, the input lag remained the same as it's caused by the deferred rendering. Only Killzone 3 reduced input lag by dialing down on the post processing compared to 2.
>What feels like hitscan guns on the enemies. >Maps are some of the worst I've ever seen in an FPS. >Fog everywhere. >Helghast are littered in every map while you have barely any cover. >The only good characters to play as are Rico and the first guy whose name I forgot because the Helghan guy had a gun that didn't really work as intended and I don't remember the girl even being good. >Borderline nonexistent story.
2 was a massive step up but the ending completely ruined it because Rico is one of the worst characters I've ever seen and then 3 tries redeeming the moron when he was 100% in the wrong and even the ISA MC from 2 knew it.
Honestly, the biggest problem is them not understanding why people like the Helghast and why people vehemently hate the ISA and even when they show the Helghast systematically murdering people in cold blood you still root for them because the ISA are unbelievably awful people who are basically at war with these people and pretending they're not then getting pissed when they get attacked.
I loved both Killzone and Resistance. Two separate game genres, in my opinion, despite both being FPS. Killzone is more military sci fi, Resistance is more horror sci fi.
>sluggish combat >unresponsive aim mechanics >blandest art style in history >brain dead enemy AI >objectively moronic story that the devs kept backpedaling on from game to game
This series was like a very expensive parody of post-Halo shooters that completely missed the point of what made Halo and CoD so much fun. It's like what Doom/Quakegays pretended Halo and CoD were like
It was nice of them to include bot modes though
Listen here my dude I played through all of these games because of some moronic PS-only friends who were convinced that it was some high tier kino
If your game controls sluggishly then you'd better have slow methodical systems designed around it, like Siege
If your game is quickly paced with lots of forward momentum then you'd better have snappy controls, like Halo/CoD/Doom
Killzone controlled sluggishly but also tried to have forward momentum. It's a thoroughly frustrating game to play. I'd actually say it's easily my least favorite FPS game experience of all time lmao
Killzone was about crowd control. If you tried to play like an individual you were gunned down in seconds. If you melded with your bros and lobbed grenades into clustered rooms while doapming boosting chirps of glory lit up your screen, you were playing correctly.
Plenty of people were able to play KZ well though without issue so why couldn't you? KZ2 is a very well received game with critics and fans. It sold enough that they made a few more games in the series. It couldn't possibly be that shit if this is a series of several games here. It did something right.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Nonsense argument. Success doesn't make a game good (nor vice versa)
Bioshock Infinite was very well received with critics and fans but you'll see vehement criticism for it all around the internet now
Liberation was PSP, you can emulate that right now if you want.
Mercenary was pretty great but I'm sure a Vita emulator will happen eventually. At least you're not a Resistance fan who played Burning Skies. I was so unbelievably disappointed.
Nothing. Killzone 1 was great and Killzone 2 is a classic. It's Killzone 3, where they caved to all the CoD c**ts and pussies who complained about 2's aesthetic, that the series made a wrong turn. Honorable mention to Liberation and Mercenary, which were also both very good.
It got worse as it went on for me and the fact that you always need the alternating rifle thing meaning only one alternate weapons kind of sucked. The derelict ship mission was 10/10 though, especially with the sun bit. They really should make a horror game set in space at some point.
It got worse as it went on for me and the fact that you always need the alternating rifle thing meaning only one alternate weapons kind of sucked. The derelict ship mission was 10/10 though, especially with the sun bit. They really should make a horror game set in space at some point.
I enjoyed the little drone companion. Multiplayer was a hidden gem, too.
I'll never forget how excited I was from that E3 reveal trailer. The best part was actually being satisfied when I finally got to play it and not feeling let down
I think they never really knew what to do with the series actually. KZ1 was directly meant to compete against Halo this cannot be disputed. Sony definitely wanted this to be a Halo killer which it wasn't even close to doing. They made it a sci-fi FPS for this reason as well. After the failure of KZ1 they decided to dial the Halo killer thing back just a bit instead to put more hype into telling people how much better graphically PS3 would be to 360. They of course still wanted KZ2 to dethrone Halo how could they not right? But it was clear that this time they were selling KZ2 more on graphics and technical ability above all else. This ultimately is KZ2's legacy. Notice how none of this is about the actual quality of the games. They were built from the ground up only with the purpose of competing against something much bigger success wise. This is why the series failed. So after this Guerilla makes KZ3 but takes a lot of inspirations from COD because that is what everybody was doing at the time.
I think the key thing here to note is that KZ as a franchise was never really allowed to be its own thing because of the aggressive shilling and marketing it had. This probably is why the games today can't really stand up much on their own footing. Most people know they were pushed more to just challenge more popular games or to show off technology of the day. Being a great game with good gameplay and story always came after the fact when it should have been the most important thing.
I feel like kz2&3 were better than halo 4,5,6.
Had a lot of fun with 2&3. Loved the environments in 3 and the bold lighting in 2.
If they were on xbox, they may have rivalled halo
>If they were on xbox,
Killzone 1 would have been a much better game had it been on xbox because the OG xbox was much more powerful than PS2. It was like the reverse of 360/ps3 back then.
... What? The 360 had the more powerful GPU, marginally. The ps3 supposedly had a potentially more powerful CPU but utilising it proved too much for developers. The xbox is not comparable to the PS2 graphically as the xbox used advanced programmable shaders like PC.
If killzone 2/3 were on the xbox we may have gotten better performance and player population
KZ 2/3 would look nowhere near as good. 360 didn't have any games that could match KZ visually. No the performance wouldn't have been better at all. The 360 also did not use blu ray discs. The only reason 3rd party games were often worse on PS3 was because the console was harder for them to develop on. Any developer who knew what they were doing though could easily make graphically superior games on PS3, that is what KZ2 was hyped on the whole time.
You are living in your own console wars headcanon. Gpu performance is not affected by optical drives lmfao
How are you this uneducated on the internet? All the information is a quick google away.
Killzone 2 would not have been anywhere close to what it was on 360 you are out of your fricking mind. The performance on 360 would have been so bad it wouldn't have even been made.
The entire look of Killzone 2 is based on having about a 60 degree FOV, super heavy vignetting, and tons of close DOF and motion blur. The game was basically doing everything possible to hide the fact that the asset quality is on the low side because of GPU and memory constraints.
I think it'd be a fair comparison to stack Killzone 2 up to Gears of War 2 or 3. Both games were using very similar technologies like a deferred renderer, pretty cutting edge dynamic lighting and shadowing, lots of post-processing, and the kind of dynamic small-scale environment destruction and deformation physics that were popular at the time, which I remember Sony liked to pretend was enabled by the Cell exclusively. To my eye anyway, Gears had the edge in detail.
360 had a better GPU and it had a better memory architecture. The heavy post-processing requires GPU cycles and more VRAM. It almost certainly would've run better on 360. Off-loading GPU tasks onto the SPUs was the compromise (or as we'd say today, cope), which isn't a good thing - it's slower.
I feel like there was another pretty cutting edge multiplatform shooter that had a similar look to Killzone 2 where the screen was just bathed in post-processing, and the game looked better on 360. It might've been that terrible Syndicate reboot that nobody remembers?
>small-scale environment destruction and deformation physics that were popular at the time, which I remember Sony liked to pretend was enabled by the Cell exclusively.
I'm always amazed at Sony's ability to lie about technicalities that are easily disproved by any educated person. It's as if they don't give a damn that anyone can point out their lies.
>The 360 had the more powerful GPU, marginally. The ps3 supposedly had a potentially more powerful CPU but utilising it proved too much for developers.
Not him but here's the thing. The 360 did have a slightly better gpu than the PS3, however, the PS3 had the option to offload GPU tasks into the cell CPU using the SPUs, if used properly the PS3 could deliver much better graphics than the 360. Killzone 2 is actually one of the poster childs for how good a game can look when a developer knows how to use the SPUs. It's safe to say Killzone 2 would never run on the 360 looking and performing as good as it did on the PS3, they'd probably have to cut back on some of the post process like they did with Killzone 3 to improve performance and reduce input lag.
I guarantee you killzone 2 would run on 360 hardware if its software would allow it. The SPU offloads relate to physics & backend, not visuals in the overwhelming majority of cases. We see the difference between what was THOUGHT to be possible on Cell (trailer) and what WAS possible (release). Look at the difference.
Worth remembering the game ran in the mid-low 20s. The ps3 could not handle the game properly, primarily due to GPU deficiencies as the ps3's gpu was a last minute rush job by nvidia.
Once again all this info is out there. Digital foundry has several videos on the topic including a commentary of the ps3 reveal.
>they'd probably have to cut back on some of the post process like they did with Killzone 3 to improve performance and reduce input lag.
This why KZ2 somehow looked better? KZ3 did more with the colors it seemed to me in order to trick people into thinking it was visually better. It also had a bit more diversity in environments.
how is going to kill halo without buggies and airbikes ?
Or fun aliens to fight. They also forced us with every game to face the better faction. They should have been the heroes the whole time not the villains.
only patricians enjoy killzone.
Black folk please go back to your everyday call of duty or battlefield
I dunno.
Adding bots to multiplayer was pretty cool for the time.
Definitely kept me entertained for a while when I was younger.
They forgot to make good gameplay.
>implying Halo's gameplay is anything exceptional
The gameplay was solidly basic, with cool weapons, maps, and vehicles. These thing all elevated a good game, to great
Brute Force was the original Halo killer actually.
It was too kino for it's own good.
Remaster never ever sadly.
That's not Killzone 1
Killzone 2 is the laggiest shooter I've ever played. I still remember all of the reviewers excusing it for being "heavy" and "weighty" when looking back at it, it's obviously just technical issues and misplaced priorities because it had framepracing issues out the ass and horrific input lag.
They fixed it with patches and then KZ3 further reduced this. I like both games but KZ2 was definitely better.
They fixed the deadzones, the input lag remained the same as it's caused by the deferred rendering. Only Killzone 3 reduced input lag by dialing down on the post processing compared to 2.
>What feels like hitscan guns on the enemies.
>Maps are some of the worst I've ever seen in an FPS.
>Fog everywhere.
>Helghast are littered in every map while you have barely any cover.
>The only good characters to play as are Rico and the first guy whose name I forgot because the Helghan guy had a gun that didn't really work as intended and I don't remember the girl even being good.
>Borderline nonexistent story.
2 was a massive step up but the ending completely ruined it because Rico is one of the worst characters I've ever seen and then 3 tries redeeming the moron when he was 100% in the wrong and even the ISA MC from 2 knew it.
Honestly, the biggest problem is them not understanding why people like the Helghast and why people vehemently hate the ISA and even when they show the Helghast systematically murdering people in cold blood you still root for them because the ISA are unbelievably awful people who are basically at war with these people and pretending they're not then getting pissed when they get attacked.
>Join match
>I'm not playing as Helghast
>leave
I was always more of a Resistance guy
I loved both Killzone and Resistance. Two separate game genres, in my opinion, despite both being FPS. Killzone is more military sci fi, Resistance is more horror sci fi.
Great games
>sluggish combat
>unresponsive aim mechanics
>blandest art style in history
>brain dead enemy AI
>objectively moronic story that the devs kept backpedaling on from game to game
This series was like a very expensive parody of post-Halo shooters that completely missed the point of what made Halo and CoD so much fun. It's like what Doom/Quakegays pretended Halo and CoD were like
It was nice of them to include bot modes though
good b8, i can't wait to see who bites and tries to argue seriously
Listen here my dude I played through all of these games because of some moronic PS-only friends who were convinced that it was some high tier kino
If your game controls sluggishly then you'd better have slow methodical systems designed around it, like Siege
If your game is quickly paced with lots of forward momentum then you'd better have snappy controls, like Halo/CoD/Doom
Killzone controlled sluggishly but also tried to have forward momentum. It's a thoroughly frustrating game to play. I'd actually say it's easily my least favorite FPS game experience of all time lmao
Killzone was about crowd control. If you tried to play like an individual you were gunned down in seconds. If you melded with your bros and lobbed grenades into clustered rooms while doapming boosting chirps of glory lit up your screen, you were playing correctly.
I bet I killed you hundreds of time, scum.
Nothing you posted refutes anything I said
Plenty of people were able to play KZ well though without issue so why couldn't you? KZ2 is a very well received game with critics and fans. It sold enough that they made a few more games in the series. It couldn't possibly be that shit if this is a series of several games here. It did something right.
Nonsense argument. Success doesn't make a game good (nor vice versa)
Bioshock Infinite was very well received with critics and fans but you'll see vehement criticism for it all around the internet now
OP here he is actually pretty spot on. Have you played the first Killzone? Its not the same as what came after it.
1st Killzone had so much trench warfare with the beginning. Lots of WW1 vibes
They made the space nazis the good guys and you can't have in the current year.
Killzone is dead, enjoy your infinite Horizon sequels.
>killzone liberation/mercenary forever lost on vita
You missed nothing, it sucks.
Liberation was PSP, you can emulate that right now if you want.
Mercenary was pretty great but I'm sure a Vita emulator will happen eventually. At least you're not a Resistance fan who played Burning Skies. I was so unbelievably disappointed.
Frick I miss Resistance even moreso than Killzone
At least they made up for 2's singleplayer with 3. I miss 2's co-op the most, nothing I've found fills that niche it had.
>we live in a world that will never have a horror survival Resistance reboot in Nazi Germany
Nothing. Killzone 1 was great and Killzone 2 is a classic. It's Killzone 3, where they caved to all the CoD c**ts and pussies who complained about 2's aesthetic, that the series made a wrong turn. Honorable mention to Liberation and Mercenary, which were also both very good.
Shadowfall was pretty fun
It got worse as it went on for me and the fact that you always need the alternating rifle thing meaning only one alternate weapons kind of sucked. The derelict ship mission was 10/10 though, especially with the sun bit. They really should make a horror game set in space at some point.
I enjoyed the little drone companion. Multiplayer was a hidden gem, too.
I'll never forget how excited I was from that E3 reveal trailer. The best part was actually being satisfied when I finally got to play it and not feeling let down
It always seemed to me that they purposefully self sabotage themselves into making shit games after 2.
ironic since killzone 2 was what started making the series super mainstream. Normies from other platforms were even getting into it
I think they never really knew what to do with the series actually. KZ1 was directly meant to compete against Halo this cannot be disputed. Sony definitely wanted this to be a Halo killer which it wasn't even close to doing. They made it a sci-fi FPS for this reason as well. After the failure of KZ1 they decided to dial the Halo killer thing back just a bit instead to put more hype into telling people how much better graphically PS3 would be to 360. They of course still wanted KZ2 to dethrone Halo how could they not right? But it was clear that this time they were selling KZ2 more on graphics and technical ability above all else. This ultimately is KZ2's legacy. Notice how none of this is about the actual quality of the games. They were built from the ground up only with the purpose of competing against something much bigger success wise. This is why the series failed. So after this Guerilla makes KZ3 but takes a lot of inspirations from COD because that is what everybody was doing at the time.
I think the key thing here to note is that KZ as a franchise was never really allowed to be its own thing because of the aggressive shilling and marketing it had. This probably is why the games today can't really stand up much on their own footing. Most people know they were pushed more to just challenge more popular games or to show off technology of the day. Being a great game with good gameplay and story always came after the fact when it should have been the most important thing.