IGN reviews Killzone

I will look more into this game, if theres a keyboard chat , ill be more than happy to play it.After having experience Battlefront Star Wars annoying screams of 13 year olds, its time for a peaceful keyboard chat.


Btw i knew and predicted they will screw the scores.They have screwed Way Of The Samurai 2 ratings and many other great games but overhyped the obvious boring ones to ridiculous high scores.

Advise to gamers, read READER REVIEWS instead.

KillZone sucks as much as HALO2 does. 30 fps is plain unacceptable - regardless if smooth or not. There\'s nothing that justifies this. Period. :rpissed:

Originally posted by seven
There\'s nothing that justifies this. Period. :rpissed:

Yes there is, 4 year old hardware trying to run a modern game.

Originally posted by THX
Yes there is, 4 year old hardware trying to run a modern game.

If you ask me, next generation can\'t come soon enough.  Killzone had alot of potential, I hope Guerilla is making the sequel on PS3 and pulls off what they want to.

KZs final framerate is very stable, only a hint of slowdown here and there.. Overall I am pretty impressed.

BUT, everyone - every FPS developer that is - should check out Free Radicals work, 60fps makes a big difference.

Originally posted by THX
Yes there is, 4 year old hardware trying to run a modern game.

Was that the excuse Bungie used when they brought out Halo1 on Xbox? What about all the other games that run at 30 fps?

MGS2,3, Jak i, ii, iii, ZOE1,2 and many other top quality PS2 games run at 60 fps today - there is absolutely no justification other than the fact that todays developers care more about how good the screenshots look rather than how fluid it plays.

I played Halo 2, it\'s bloody pathetic with the framerate and KillZone is no different, no better in this regard.

oh, you\'re such a hardass:p

Come to think of it some Xbox games ran at 60 fps too, Panzer Dragoon Orta and Ninja Gaiden and both of those games, along with the games seven mentioned, look phenomenal.  

I wonder what the deal is...

Not to mention just about all Xbox games are progressive so it\'s more of a hit on the processor.  It just depends on if the deleopers wanted this effect there, or that texture there.  I guess they opted for the pretty screenshots as you say.

Timesplitters on the other hand was a 1st gen PS2 title and it ran 60fps (someone correct me if I\'m wrong).  The tradeoff of course was that the graphics looked childish.

TimeSplitters 2 is 60 fps too.... the difference is night and day. Seriously, the age of the hardware shouldn\'t matter. Developers should pursue different and more efficiant ways of achieving better graphics and gameplay innovations without substituting framerate.

There\'s simply should be no excuse. You might as well ask yourself if you\'d be happier playing GT4 at 30 fps with better graphics or as it is at 60 (of course, take into account that at 30 fps, you\'d no where have the same simulation feeling and accuracy).

[Evi]

Well...um...Halo was originally a PC game meant to run on the PC (before Microsoft and their big wallets changed this). It\'s just like Doom 3 being made for the Xbox...it\'s going to suck @ss in comparison to the PC version. I don\'t even know why they did this, as they had to completely make the game suck graphically to make it compatible with the Xbox. At least I think this is the same case with Halo. 30 FPS is fine if it\'s steady, as the eye can only detect this many frames. What is more advantageous about higher frame rates, is that, even when there\'s slowdown, the human eye can\'t detect it if the frame rate stays above 30. But once it dips below that, it becomes VERY noticeable.

True, the FPS will always be the PC\'s genre.  It\'s sad we have to limit ourselves just so these great games can serve he mainstream.

And just fyi Halo was originally meant for Mac before Bungie tanked.  I\'m betting those guys were Apple whores and as fate wouuld have it MS had to bail them out.

30 FPS is fine if it\'s steady, as the eye can only detect this many frames. What is more advantageous about higher frame rates, is that, even when there\'s slowdown, the human eye can\'t detect it if the frame rate stays above 30. But once it dips below that, it becomes VERY noticeable.

This is incorrect. 2 minutes of Google:

http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_3.html

It\'s the difference in nature of the real world vs. computer world.

The Incredibles playing in movie theaters is only 24fps but they use motion blur to fill in the shots between the frames.  Computer games don\'t do that, so what we see are perfectly rendered still images that appear choppy, which our brain interprets as fake.

As an example a hand moving in front of your face really fast is blurry in the real world, in the gaming world the same thing moving less than 60fps is choppy.

It all differs per game. Say, racing game A at 30 f/ps plays very well, while racing game B plays crap at 30 f/ps. I think more factors than given framerate of the engine, determine how well a game plays.

Feeling of controls, quality of the animation or mo-cap data,
v-sync or not, some pop up or none, visual reference points etc.

Some example which i find to play very smoothly at 30 f/ps :

- PGR2
- Splinter Cell 1
- Ico
- Silent Hill 2

On the other hand EA\'s F1 games play like total cr@p. I don\'t care if EA says it\'s 30 or 60 ; their F1 games are imo just cranked up choppy slideshows. Sure, the screenshots look pretty nice....but that\'s all these games have going for it.

MGS3 is rumoured to run 30 as well, but going by the ingame footage i\'ve seen it looks incredibly smooth at 30 f/ps. Now..the Killzone demo I played was OK concerning framerate, not superduper smooth but far from horrendous.

:thepimp:

[Evi]

^^^^^^

I think you\'re just making things up...