Killzone

What went wrong with the original Halo killer? It seemed promising but they clearly didn't deliver on their promise.

Attached: killzone-sq-1644425277963.jpg (800x800, 172.32K)

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

how is going to kill halo without buggies and airbikes ?

They forgot to make good gameplay.

>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.

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.

... 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

Brute Force was the original Halo killer actually.

It was too kino for it's own good.

Attached: 1645260913483.webm (750x424, 2.86M)

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.

Attached: 1645261045426.webm (800x480, 2.89M)

Attached: 1645261732422.webm (750x416, 2.86M)

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.

Remaster never ever sadly.

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.

They fixed it with patches and then KZ3 further reduced this. I like both games but KZ2 was definitely better.

Killzone 2 would not have been anywhere close to what it was on 360 you are out of your fucking mind. The performance on 360 would have been so bad it wouldn't have even been made.

>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 retard 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.

>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.

>Join match
>I'm not playing as Helghast
>leave

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.

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.

That's not Killzone 1

I was always more of a Resistance guy

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?