Actual Killzone 2 better than trailer?
by Justin Murray 
{ Nov 14th 2006 at 9:55AM }
When Sony showed off the first trailer of Killzone 2 off forever ago (E3 2005), they billed it as actual in-game footage. Later down the line, it turned out those "in-game" shots were just CGI mock-ups; target renders they're called. Now Sony is telling us those CGI mock-ups are inferior compared to the REAL Killzone 2. O RLY?
Phil Harrison, Sony CEO and game commenter extraordinaire, made some bold claims in the most recent issue of OPM (reprinted at Sony's semi-official blog, ThreeSpeech); supposedly, KZ2 has "some elements [that] already exceed the trailer." Excuse us, Mr. Harrison, but we'll wait until we see a working game this time.
Given just how good Gears of War looks, pumping something out that looks like the Killzone 2 E3 trailer is possible. However, given Sony's history on this particular title, we're less inclined to believe 'em until we (or someone else we can all trust) actually plays the real thing.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
GlitchCog @ Nov 14th 2006 10:37AM
Exaggeration served Sony well with the PS2, but I think people are catching on this round. The PS3 will be nice, but not if you're actually expecting what Sony's been selling you.
Player1 @ Nov 14th 2006 10:03AM
Gears of War ROCKS!
Paul @ Nov 14th 2006 10:05AM
very possible it does - doubtful but very possible. HUGE PR issue if it isnt... saying things like that is NOT smart.
LunarDuality @ Nov 14th 2006 10:05AM
Of course those "elements" may not be graphical at all... I can see it now: KillZone 2, now with more giant enemy crabs than our CGI trailer!!!
Pedro Van Faulk @ Nov 14th 2006 10:10AM
I refer you all to the incident where good old Phil told us that there were 100 BD movies available...and there were in fact less than 25.
Yeah, he's a real credible source.
Mal F4cti0n @ Nov 14th 2006 10:07AM
"Some elements already exceed the trailer"
[READ: Prettier explosions]
Or, it plays like Dragon's Lair. You click the directional pad towards the area of the screen that is blinking in order to guide your character thru the pre-scripted, pre-rendered story.
Oooooo, sounds good.
SHOW US GAMEPLAY!
Circ @ Nov 14th 2006 10:07AM
Sorry Sorny, you guys need to put up or shut up.
Dogle @ Nov 14th 2006 10:11AM
Please tell me you didn't just use a stupid catchphrase from three years ago.
LunarDuality @ Nov 14th 2006 10:14AM
On a more serious note:
I imagine that many things could be improved upon from the CGI trailer. However, here are the things that most likely *won't* be better than (or even as good as) the trailer:
1. Fluid, seemless animation of human characters outside a cut-scene. (Trailer: the guy running and then being shot down and then being dragged away.)
2. Highly nuanced facial animations during gameplay. (Again, it's certainly possible but not likely IMO.)
Hopefully, they will prove me wrong. Particle effects, volumetric clouds, cinematic moments, AI, those things could easily be brought in at the CGI level if the devs do great work. We shall see...
Chris @ Nov 14th 2006 10:14AM
the white engine for final fantasy will use 4 of the 6 availbe SPE's for development. their claims are photo-realistic CGI to be rendered in real-time with cinematic cut-scene transition. if the white engine claims are true, it's expected that killzone would be one step above that. theoretically, killzone and future ps3 games would be closely compared to cgi.
juicebytim @ Nov 14th 2006 10:16AM
The E3 trailer didn't have a HUD... so maybe that's what he means by some "elements [that] already exceed the trailer."
Lou @ Nov 14th 2006 10:18AM
Oh, I'm sorry, he misspoke. He actually meant PS4 will look better than the CGI trailer, the PS3 version has been downrezzed to 480i, but we have filled the game with 5 hours of CGI and 13 minutes of gameplay. However, the good news is that you can use your Sixaxis to control your character!
Really sorry about that.
whosmav @ Nov 14th 2006 10:18AM
like how the psp would exceed the ps2 right
ahtheirony @ Nov 14th 2006 10:19AM
Before an Xbox fanboys says it, I'll say it:
"OMG GEARS OF WAR LOOKS BETTER THAN KILLZONE 2 TRAILER ALREADY ROFLZ!!!111"
Seriously, if anyone thinks that Gears of War looks remotely close to the Killzone trailer, you must be blind, or a fanboy. Oh wait, they're the same.
Anyhow, Phil, stop talking and show us the game. Something tells me we're in for disappointment, as usual, but if his claims are true, then they better get the game ready for 2007 holidays to compete with Halo 3.
Nill @ Nov 14th 2006 10:24AM
Gears of War was showing "elements" that looked better than the Killzone 2 trailer over a year ago. And those were all in the engine realtime.
Sony really needs good press right now and, although unsubstantiated rumors work for some people, if they actually had something to show they would be showing it.
Wake me up when Killzone 2 is a GAME and not just a CG movie.
maximus @ Nov 14th 2006 10:28AM
Well he's lining himself up for a fall if he's wrong especially given the high profile status of the game after E3. I'd say he's seen something pretty damn impressive to be making that statement. I just hope Killzone has a decent game behind the graphics, Gears of War looks fantastic but i completed it in about 7 hours and haven't touched it since.
One thing is for certain, both 360 and PS3 owners have some fantastic games ahead.. Lost Planet looks great and i can't wait to see what Square can do with the PS3.
Brock @ Nov 14th 2006 10:31AM
Well I would say it IS POSSIBLE, because frankly gears of war looks just as good with only the post processing film effects. But it is highly doubtful that it is up to par with that cg. Actually, there is no was POSSIBLE that it looks THAT good. But they did a good job with motorstorm playing like the trailer so give em another year and a half and i could be optimistic.
> @ Nov 14th 2006 10:32AM
Less than a week later, all the HYPE around Gears have all but faded.. tells you a lot about that game's appeal... time to hype Gears2.
People will be paying money to play Super Mario again, will they do that for Gears? Nope.
Jadnice @ Nov 14th 2006 10:35AM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Come on Sony you can fool us once with the emotion engine graphics bull crap once ...now the PS3 gameplay can do better than the CGI that was shown and Sony tried to pass it off as in gameplay. I think not.
Rob @ Nov 14th 2006 10:33AM
He probably just means that the lighting model is a little improved or the texture resolution has been upped a bit, or something minor like that. It sounds like a bold claim, but if you take it literally, he's really not saying much of anything.
christopher @ Nov 14th 2006 5:40PM
I'll believe it when I'm actually playing Killzone on the PS3... otherwise, all of this is just a bunch of hyped-up nonsense...
Celestkixy @ Nov 14th 2006 10:37AM
I want this to be true. The animation in the trailer was amazing, the AI and seamless interaction between the two sides, the atmosphere, the smoke and explosions, the physics and the way the environment deformed.
Ohgod. I'd buy a PS3 for that and Motorstorm ALONE.
MGS4 doesn't hurt.
Pete C @ Nov 14th 2006 10:35AM
Of course Killzone 2's trailer looks better than GOW...it was done entirely in CG! Why are people excited about Killzone now? That series is proven to be crap. That would be like being excited for a sequel to Daikatana.
Negativecool @ Nov 14th 2006 10:36AM
3 Words...
IMP-OSS-IBLE!
The TiaMaster @ Nov 14th 2006 10:39AM
Um, sorry but all you have to do is some reading up on current hardware and you'll realize that gameplay graphics equaling CGI isn't happening this generation.
And no, I'm not talking about making a great looking game and using it as in game cinematics. I'm talking about all-out, pre-rendered goodness usually reserved for Final Fantasy titles and movies (like Advent Children).
Dux @ Nov 14th 2006 10:38AM
After seeing Gears of War, I think the graphics being on par with the trailer or exceeding it, is within the realm of possibility.
azesino @ Nov 14th 2006 10:39AM
13. Before an Xbox fanboys says it, I'll say it:
Gear of War do show things that would blow away that killzone trailer to bits, and iam talking about the textures, Hight level of detail and lighting. I would give it to the trailer on the animation, because the face animation and the hair is like something that no game has touch yet, and the characters moved life like also there where a million things going on and there where no framedrop (that will be the real challenge for sony)
ahtheirony @ Nov 14th 2006 10:42AM
"Gears of War was showing "elements" that looked better than the Killzone 2 trailer over a year ago. And those were all in the engine realtime."
Such as...
Man that's hilarious. Don't kid yourself, Gears of War may look great, but it doesn't look "Killzone 2 great". Yes, I know it was CGI, THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING IT. I mean, I love Xbox 360 fans and their double standards: "Killzone 2 is impossible to make, but Gears of War looks better". Unbelievable. LOL
Jeremy @ Nov 14th 2006 10:50AM
Gears of War looks great (cept it's kinda black & white), but nowhere close to the KZ2 trailer.
I don't expect to see anything that good this gen.
ahtheirony @ Nov 14th 2006 12:33PM
Assassin:
Is there an actual comparisson you can make to say that "lighting", "level of detail", not to mention "textures" look better than "the killzone trailer"? I mean, you are comparing a game you have played (for the sake of your argument), against a movie. How can you make an apples to apples comparison if you haven't played "the movie"? It's evident that KZ2 blows everything away, no wonder it's a movie.
dotmadhack @ Nov 14th 2006 10:54AM
I'd play Killzone over Gears of War because I like Killzone's story better. I'm interested in how the series will continue.
MSaccarello @ Nov 14th 2006 10:53AM
@17.
I am one of the biggest Nintendo fans out there, but you must be quasi-retarded if you think Gears of War did not live up to the hype. That game is incredibly fun, and probably the best X360 game released since the system's birth. People will definately be getting GOW:2.
Flit @ Nov 14th 2006 10:57AM
To make a game that is running realtime, and the characters are interacting as they did in the kz2 trailer, and not to have it a game on rails where you have to follow every scripted event... will take millions of dollars to make and a couple more years. There was more individual animation in that trailer than an army of modelers could do in a real-time game. Maybe if the animations shown in that trailer were the only animations, and they just kept repeating.
Every animation has to be hand created in a game to look that good. AI created animations like used in the new Indiana Jones game will be unique, but won't look as good as those shown in the CGI trailer. Textures have to be created. I'm not saying that it can't look as good as they keep claiming, just expect to pay $100 a game. Unless sony just keeps throwing money down the drain to support their last leg.
Characters will be able to look like CGI characters a la spirits within on the PS3, I don't doubt that. But so what. Characters look that good on X360. Just good luck getting such a dynamic world in an entire game.
And may I say what a piss poor IP to invest all this money into. Honestly, who thought Killzone 1 was such a great game anyway?
steve @ Nov 14th 2006 10:57AM
"the white engine for final fantasy will use 4 of the 6 availbe SPE's for development. their claims are photo-realistic CGI to be rendered in real-time with cinematic cut-scene transition. if the white engine claims are true, it's expected that killzone would be one step above that. theoretically, killzone and future ps3 games would be closely compared to cgi"
A lot of CPU power is one thing (and the Cell is a great CPU), but where this all falls apart is the amount of RAM required to store enough high-resolution textures to truly make something look like current CGI. No consoles currently have enough texture and/or system RAM to pull it off, and that GPU will run out of gas if it's trying to do 1080p.
A high-end PC with 1GB of video RAM can come closer, but you're talking about a lot more processor and GPU power.
Negativecool @ Nov 14th 2006 10:59AM
Only way we are going to see Killzone 2 trailer games on Sony's console, is if in the PS4 they have intel's 80 core processor. http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-6119618.html Games like that using an 80 core chip are more than possible 5-10 yrs down the line...
But they are IMPOSSIBLE now.
Kayzai @ Nov 14th 2006 11:02AM
It's my opinion that one thing Sony has learnt from PSOne and PS2 is:
1. LIES AND MISINFORMATION sells consoles.(Especially to gullible fanboys)
2. HYPE is more important than substance. (pass Trailers, renders as ingame assets)
The only thing stopping Sony from winning this round of console wars will be the price.
Sony lied about the power of PS1, PS2. It's natural that this will be the case with PS3.
Mr BoomStick XL @ Nov 14th 2006 11:14AM
This is a silly atempt to sway the Gridding Monster that IS Gears of War. I'll wait and see how KZ2 turns out. Could Sony suprise us?? Nah!!!
Pete C @ Nov 14th 2006 11:17AM
Yeah, the GOW hype has really faded...it's only the #1 most popular game on GameSpot's website right now.
Mark @ Nov 14th 2006 11:31AM
http://www.itvidya.com/playstation_3_vs_xbox_360
Mark @ Nov 14th 2006 11:35AM
^ for thsoe interested in a PS3 vs Xbox360 comparison.
maximus @ Nov 14th 2006 11:47AM
Are you going to post that link into every thread? Tit.
The 2 machines are very close in power but developers have stated that over time the PS3 has more potential.
Guy @ Nov 14th 2006 11:56AM
@41
Are you reading the link at all, man??? Or are you so blinded by your apparent Fanboyishness that you just can't see past the facts in front of you.
Potential does not equal actual performance. Potential means that you HAVE the ability to do something, but that you're not doing it currently. Potential is completely and utterly irrelavent in the console argument, ACTUAL PERFORMANCE is what counts.
Also: why do the Sony robots continue to ignore the past lies of Sony? The Emotion Engine delivering "Toy Story-like graphics". I didn't see any of that on the PS2 at all. Doesn't mean it was a crappy system, it just means they lied.
I want the PS3 to be everything that Sony does, I really, really do. But given their previous track record, it doesn't appear that it's going to come anywhere close. And that bums me out.
SuicideNinja @ Nov 14th 2006 11:54AM
I don't see why anyone would care.
I purchased the original Killzone a couple of weeks ago. What a waste of time, effort, and money. It was one of the worst, if not THE worst first person shooter I've ever played. There's 5 repetitive voice samples, about 3 totally different enemies, and the levels are drab as hell. The bad animation, stupid AI, and horrible controls (sensitivity all the way down...still too sensitive).
Did I mention the PS2 controller is the worst for FPS games? I'd be a mouse/keyboard elitist too if I had to compare it to the annoying-thumb-bumping analog setup of Playstation controllers.
Even prettier graphics wouldn't convince me that this franchise would be worthwhile. Sony's publishing involvement amplifies the "crap level" tenfold as well.
Chris @ Nov 14th 2006 6:17PM
The killzone trailer is a joke over at CGsociety.org. There is not a single real CG professional that believes those visuals are possible in real time. There was dynamic reactive hair, massive draw distance, no suggestion of polys on edges where normal maps would not hide them, soft shadowing, SSS, and massive, massive use of normal and volumetric motion blurred self shadowing particles, and 3d based motion blur for the whole frame.
These are features of something like Renderman, not a real time engine.
There is no way that system would be handling that and surround sound, AI, and controller input.
Blur studio, a studio that makes many game cinematics, was approached to do the trailer for Killzone but turned it down due to being busy. Nothing about that was real time, nor was it "rendered" on a PS3 and assembled later into a movie.
I think Killzone will be pretty (the last game was gorgeous on PS2), but Sony is blowing smoke up everyones ass.
MosquitoControl @ Nov 14th 2006 12:22PM
The original Killzone was awful, as I've mentioned on this site before. I was so excited for it, as it looked amazing in stills, but ran like crap, had terrible level design, just terrible design all around.
So I still don't get why it's being pushed as such a wonderful franchise.
To the guy making fun of the GoW comment, the poster just said it had "elements" better than the trailer. He was mocking Sony. It did, in fact, have elements better than the trailer... as mentioned it had a much more visible HUD... haha.
I've no faith in the Killzone developer after the shoddiness of the first. We're all better off playing Gears of War and Resistance.
DeShaun @ Nov 14th 2006 1:58PM
This is laughable.
We hear nothing about KZ for the longest and they pull...this?
Point blank, real-time graphics that surpass top-notch CGI will not happen with that GPU. Forget it. The Cell may be a powerhouse, but that GPU will not stand the test of time the same way the Cell can.
Why GoW is even in this article is beyond me. Who cares? Yes, I've played (and enjoyed) GoW. What's that got to do with the price of tea in China? GoW is a good game for its own reasons. Yes, it's got very sophisticated graphics. Is it CG good? Close, but no cigar. That doesn't mean it's not amazing in its own right, but whatever, that's not the point.
To me, CG quality means totally seamless. Character models may be just as good, but it's when they interact with environments, other characters, etc, that its true quality will show.
In my opinion, the real time footage of MGS4 is on par with CG. It doesn't surpass it, by any means, but I do know that I personally could not tell the difference between the trailers and the dev mode video.
I just think it's silly to say something can look better than pre-rendered video. That's like saying a video camera can take images that look "better than real life". Sorry, doesn't fly.
RolexDPracer @ Nov 14th 2006 12:27PM
Even if Sony manages to pull it off, how will the game actually PLAY? As good as GoW looks, it's even more fun to PLAY. The orginal Killzone was forgetable to say the least.
thegreengrunt @ Nov 14th 2006 12:28PM
Does anyone honestly believe anything the sony ass hats say anymore? seriously.
Mark @ Nov 14th 2006 12:34PM
I've actually never posted that link before; so I apologize if you've seen it already. I hope others read it as well though. It's informative, and for the most part unbiased (the straight up facts part for the comparison, that is). In regard to your statement about "developers" stating that the PS3 has more potential: I have heard this as well. I've also heard from other "developers" that the xbox360 is really more powerful for gaming. In my opinion that doesn't equate to a consistent general consensus across the board. I'll wait for the games to prove either of them correct, whichever side it may. And I'm also inclined to agree with many, including "Guy" above who mentions Sony's previous track-record of overpromising and unfortunately underdelivering; a sentiment that echos in this Joystiq article. So the point of me posting that link is for people to actually get some facts on the actual hardware numbers and make some judgements for themselves; rather than just blindly state "system x has more power!" So, with that in mind, as much as I love the Sony products I own and as much as I've enjoyed the previous playstations, don't hold it against me if I'm a bit skeptical about Sony's extravagant and sensational claims with the PS3. something just seems, and has seemed for a while, off with this console.
Jeremy Gray @ Nov 14th 2006 12:40PM
I get a real kick out of all the posts that basically amount to "The Killzone 2 trailer looks way better than Gears of War (gameplay)". A trailer that looks better than gameplay? Holy shit! That's amazing!
Next up on the 11 o'clock news, water is wet!