Killzone 4 Launching on Playstation 4 Releasing 2013!!!

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]

[QUOTE="killzowned24"] killzowned24

[QUOTE="killzowned24"][QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]If it was dynamic like Red Faction Guerilla (One of a kind) Then the whole pillar (Or whatever that is) Would have collapsed just like in real life. The destruction has physics,its nothing like BF where its the same every time.
Also, If it had any physics then everything surrounding it would have took effect but it seems to doesn't. 

faizan_faizan

[QUOTE="killzowned24"] The destruction has physics,its nothing like BF where its the same every time.faizan_faizan

Could you imagine if every game had the Red Faction Guerilla's physics system?

That would multiply replay value of ANY game by 1000x.

I wish Volition would license it out.

OMG a new KillZone?! WEEEEEEE. 

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]

[QUOTE="killzowned24"] The pillars are made out of steel with concrete covering the front.killzowned24

This could be their big announcement for the 20th.

Can't wait to see KZ4, loved the previous 2

[QUOTE="Ly_the_Fairy"]

Lamezone.

Can we get a new shooter with a different playstyle? I don't much care for the gameplay of spunkgargleweewee

brofists

:lol:

Have you played halo 4's campaign.

Who who else wishes there was a vote feature to vote down all the pathetic lemmings trolling playstation threads 24/7?brofists

[QUOTE="brofists"]Who who else wishes there was a vote feature to vote down all the pathetic lemmings trolling playstation threads 24/7?razgriz_101

Can't wait for that.

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]

[QUOTE="killzowned24"] The pillars are made out of steel with concrete covering the front.killzowned24

another edition of the halo killer? LOL fLOPZONE

another edition of the halo killer? LOL fLOPZONE

[QUOTE="killzowned24"]

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]
And why didn't the surrounding took effect? 

mitu123

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="HaloinventedFPS"]

Pictures are not fair for this comparrison, the flawless animations in the CG trailer were what really impressed people, the actual game looked no where near as good in motion

faizan_faizan

[QUOTE="killzowned24"]

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]
And why didn't the surrounding took effect? 

mitu123

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] WTF? The game looked better than that trailer. It has more SFX and more is happening on screen. People who say the trailer looks better have to be blind.kuraimen

Who who else wishes there was a vote feature to vote down all the pathetic lemmings trolling playstation threads 24/7?brofists

The best gunplay ever returns!  Dem graphics/animation/art/space nazi's/Rico **** up sh!t on PS4

I said i'd get Ps4 at launch if this happened, looks like that's what i'm gonna do.

Man, it's sickening how bad a rep Killzone gets.  I know why it does, because no one thinks, but it's still annoying.  The single player is ****'ing brilliant. 

The first Killzone at the time had unmatched gunplay (it still holds up on the trilogy) and so does Killzone 3.  These games are single player focused, they have perfect pacing, they push the graphics envelope, it doesn't take itself seriously (writing and characters are over the top, done so it's so bad it's good) - let's get one thing straight, that's what shooting games should do.  You don't want to be told the origin of the universe when you're blasting everything sky high - they are NOT Multiplayer focused, they just shoveled that in for you CoD nuts out there.  Halo and Gears were the only good variety in MP this generation anyways.

Also, it seems like most people only played Killzone 2, if they played any.  Killzone 2 actually does suck, as a game, but it was mostly there as the Ps3's graphical showcase anyways.  And a foundation for Guerrilla.

I can't wait for Killzone 4, I just hope my head doesn't explode from the showcase.

Can't wait to see what GG does with Killzone 4.I love me some Killzone,even the multiplayer and I don't usually bother with it that much in games.Best gunfire feedback in any game I've played.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="killzowned24"] The back wall does take some effect.maybe the pillars were made weaker cuz it looks cool I dunno :P in this you can see it being chipped piece by piece and those parts do have physics.

kuraimen

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="killzowned24"] The back wall does take some effect.maybe the pillars were made weaker cuz it looks cool I dunno :P in this you can see it being chipped piece by piece and those parts do have physics.

Eddie-Vedder

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="mitu123"] Killzone 2's destruction is pointless since it didn't add much to the game and is mostly cosmetic, rarely did it feel needed, like in the 1st mission where you blow up that bridge and the walls that tower down on enemies, that's destruction done right even if scripted, but what does shooting a wall and pillar prove? Then again it looks cool I guess.

mitu123

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] So graphics, textures, etc in games are pointless? I swear people come up with the most moronic reasons to bash ps3 games. :roll:kuraimen

Graphics add to the game because you are looking at it and shows what the PS3 is capable of. Scripted destruction that's cosmetic doesn't even matter if it has no effect on the game anyways, it's just nice looking, that's all. If it was dynamic then it would had been far more immersive because it shows the power of the PS3 and the fact it's actually rendered with real physics in mind which is far more impressive than pre-determined scripted physics anyways and then maybe it would matter for not only immersion but gameplay as well.

has no affect on... immersion or anything else.mitu123

[QUOTE="mitu123"]has no affect on... immersion or anything else.kuraimen

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="mitu123"]has no affect on... immersion or anything else.mitu123

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

 Killzone 2's destruction is pointless since it didn't add much to the game and is mostly cosmetic, rarely did it feel needed, like in the 1st mission where you blow up that bridge and the walls that tower down on enemies, that's destruction done right even if scripted, but what does shooting a wall and pillar prove? Then again it looks cool I guess.

kuraimen

The reading is strong with this one. :roll:

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="mitu123"]

 Killzone 2's destruction is pointless since it didn't add much to the game and is mostly cosmetic, rarely did it feel needed, like in the 1st mission where you blow up that bridge and the walls that tower down on enemies, that's destruction done right even if scripted, but what does shooting a wall and pillar prove? Then again it looks cool I guess.

StrongDeadlift

The reading is strong with this one. :roll:

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="mitu123"]

 Killzone 2's destruction is pointless since it didn't add much to the game and is mostly cosmetic, rarely did it feel needed, like in the 1st mission where you blow up that bridge and the walls that tower down on enemies, that's destruction done right even if scripted, but what does shooting a wall and pillar prove? Then again it looks cool I guess.

StrongDeadlift

The reading is strong with this one. :roll:

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="mitu123"]has no affect on... immersion or anything else.mitu123

First of all, most Physics in games are scripted.  You **** moron.  It has the same impact if it wasn't, something is getting destroyed, and something is changing either way, real time or not.  You may as well call all older games that do things as having no immersion while you're at it.  Yep, every game ever made. 

What you're really saying is "Lol Ps3, look at what mah PC *could* do, or I think it could do. lol did I mention I paid for my PC and built it myself lol you wish you could do that, why don't you get a PC come on man get dat Mouse and Keyboard lol gaming trash"  Since you mentioned battlefield and red faction, i'll point out that those are both scripted games.  Second, here's a scenario from Killzone 3.

Near the start of the game, you can grab a minigun.  Going into a two story building, there are a lot of windows and glass plates serperating the room, and you have like 10 enemies in there.  They're all shooting, throwing grenades as you take cover, shooting - all while this is going on, the glass is shattering, you see all the smoke trails from rockets and grenades, pillars are crumbling, the water on the floor is swishing - the point is, what if none of this happened and the environment was static?  Wouldn't that make you less immersed?

Man, it's sickening how bad a rep Killzone gets.  I know why it does, because no one thinks, but it's still annoying.  The single player is ****'ing brilliant. 

The first Killzone at the time had unmatched gunplay (it still holds up on the trilogy) and so does Killzone 3.  These games are single player focused, they have perfect pacing, they push the graphics envelope, it doesn't take itself seriously (writing and characters are over the top, done so it's so bad it's good) - let's get one thing straight, that's what shooting games should do.  You don't want to be told the origin of the universe when you're blasting everything sky high - they are NOT Multiplayer focused, they just shoveled that in for you CoD nuts out there.  Halo and Gears were the only good variety in MP this generation anyways.

Also, it seems like most people only played Killzone 2, if they played any.  Killzone 2 actually does suck, as a game, but it was mostly there as the Ps3's graphical showcase anyways.  And a foundation for Guerrilla.

I can't wait for Killzone 4, I just hope my head doesn't explode from the showcase.

Chozofication

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Prove this. I agree cosmetic destruction has no effect on gameplay (although it adds as a distraction like any good warzone is plagued with) but for immersion? Any person with a pair of eyes gets more immersed in a battle environment if things actually get destroyed when you shoot at them. Again your argument is pretty lousy.kuraimen

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Prove this. I agree cosmetic destruction has no effect on gameplay (although it adds as a distraction like any good warzone is plagued with) but for immersion? Any person with a pair of eyes gets more immersed in a battle environment if things actually get destroyed when you shoot at them. Again your argument is pretty lousy.Chozofication

First of all, most Physics in games are scripted.  You **** moron.  It has the same impact if it wasn't, something is getting destroyed, and something is changing either way, real time or not.  You may as well call all older games that do things as having no immersion while you're at it.  Yep, every game ever made. 

What you're really saying is "Lol Ps3, look at what mah PC *could* do, or I think it could do. lol did I mention I paid for my PC and built it myself lol you wish you could do that, why don't you get a PC come on man get dat Mouse and Keyboard lol gaming trash"  Since you mentioned battlefield and red faction, i'll point out that those are both scripted games.  Second, here's a scenario from Killzone 3.

Near the start of the game, you can grab a minigun.  Going into a two story building, there are a lot of windows and glass plates serperating the room, and you have like 10 enemies in there.  They're all shooting, throwing grenades as you take cover, shooting - all while this is going on, the glass is shattering, you see all the smoke trails from rockets and grenades, pillars are crumbling, the water on the floor is swishing - the point is, what if none of this happened and the environment was static?  Wouldn't that make you less immersed?

And why are you bringing PC into this? What does PC have to do with anything? Are you calling me a hermit? If so, the joke is on you as I'm not even one and can never be one anyways. Both BF and RF at least have destruction that actually matters and make the gameplay better unlike Killzone. I don't care if they're scripted as long as they do it right and help the gameplay to go with it, in which they excel at. 

Lol I don't mind if all that stuff is happening even if it was scripted, but it would be more impressive if it's real time and that's my problem with Killzone: Rarely any destruction is real time. For the average joe this doesn't matter because they're too busy looking at that broken window or pillar, but to show what the system is capable of, some of it doesn't help because it's a shortcut to not use real time physics to know if the PS3 can actually do it. I don't have a problem with scripted destruction, I just find it less impressive than real time physics which is the point I'm making. Crysis 1 is extremely impressive due to the physics and makes the game far more immersive than Killzone to me, but I don't mind Killzone because that's an immersive game too, just not against Crysis 1 or certain other games for physics.

[QUOTE="Chozofication"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"]:lol:Why does it even matter? Are you immersed by things that don't happen in real time, they're not even real time physics or else that would mess up the PS3, they don't move randomly as it's always the same spot. So people are impressed by scripted destruction and barebones kind for that matter? Wow. "I destroyed a pillar, whoa, it's like I'm in a warzone, even though it doesn't matter it looks so cool!" Call me when Killzone gets better destruction and non scripted ones too, then I'll be impressed for once.

mitu123

First of all, most Physics in games are scripted.  You **** moron.  It has the same impact if it wasn't, something is getting destroyed, and something is changing either way, real time or not.  You may as well call all older games that do things as having no immersion while you're at it.  Yep, every game ever made. 

What you're really saying is "Lol Ps3, look at what mah PC *could* do, or I think it could do. lol did I mention I paid for my PC and built it myself lol you wish you could do that, why don't you get a PC come on man get dat Mouse and Keyboard lol gaming trash"  Since you mentioned battlefield and red faction, i'll point out that those are both scripted games.  Second, here's a scenario from Killzone 3.

Near the start of the game, you can grab a minigun.  Going into a two story building, there are a lot of windows and glass plates serperating the room, and you have like 10 enemies in there.  They're all shooting, throwing grenades as you take cover, shooting - all while this is going on, the glass is shattering, you see all the smoke trails from rockets and grenades, pillars are crumbling, the water on the floor is swishing - the point is, what if none of this happened and the environment was static?  Wouldn't that make you less immersed?

And why are you bringing PC into this? What does PC have to do with anything? Are you calling me a hermit? If so, the joke is on you as I'm not even one and can never be one anyways. Both BF and RF at least have destruction that actually matters and make the gameplay better unlike Killzone. I don't care if they're scripted as long as they do it right and help the gameplay to go with it, in which they excel at. 

Lol I don't mind if all that stuff is happening even if it was scripted, but it would be more impressive if it's real time and that's my problem with Killzone: Rarely any destruction is real time. For the average joe this doesn't matter because they're too busy looking at that broken window or pillar, but to show what the system is capable of, some of it doesn't help because it's a shortcut to not use real time physics to know if the PS3 can actually do it. I don't have a problem with scripted destruction, I just find it less impressive than real time physics which is the point I'm making. Crysis 1 is extremely impressive due to the physics and makes the game far more immersive than Killzone to me, but I don't mind Killzone because that's an immersive game too, just not against Crysis 1 or certain other games for physics.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="Chozofication"]

First of all, most Physics in games are scripted.  You **** moron.  It has the same impact if it wasn't, something is getting destroyed, and something is changing either way, real time or not.  You may as well call all older games that do things as having no immersion while you're at it.  Yep, every game ever made. 

What you're really saying is "Lol Ps3, look at what mah PC *could* do, or I think it could do. lol did I mention I paid for my PC and built it myself lol you wish you could do that, why don't you get a PC come on man get dat Mouse and Keyboard lol gaming trash"  Since you mentioned battlefield and red faction, i'll point out that those are both scripted games.  Second, here's a scenario from Killzone 3.

Near the start of the game, you can grab a minigun.  Going into a two story building, there are a lot of windows and glass plates serperating the room, and you have like 10 enemies in there.  They're all shooting, throwing grenades as you take cover, shooting - all while this is going on, the glass is shattering, you see all the smoke trails from rockets and grenades, pillars are crumbling, the water on the floor is swishing - the point is, what if none of this happened and the environment was static?  Wouldn't that make you less immersed?

kuraimen

And why are you bringing PC into this? What does PC have to do with anything? Are you calling me a hermit? If so, the joke is on you as I'm not even one and can never be one anyways. Both BF and RF at least have destruction that actually matters and make the gameplay better unlike Killzone. I don't care if they're scripted as long as they do it right and help the gameplay to go with it, in which they excel at. 

Lol I don't mind if all that stuff is happening even if it was scripted, but it would be more impressive if it's real time and that's my problem with Killzone: Rarely any destruction is real time. For the average joe this doesn't matter because they're too busy looking at that broken window or pillar, but to show what the system is capable of, some of it doesn't help because it's a shortcut to not use real time physics to know if the PS3 can actually do it. I don't have a problem with scripted destruction, I just find it less impressive than real time physics which is the point I'm making. Crysis 1 is extremely impressive due to the physics and makes the game far more immersive than Killzone to me, but I don't mind Killzone because that's an immersive game too, just not against Crysis 1 or certain other games for physics.

[QUOTE="Chozofication"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"]:lol:Why does it even matter? Are you immersed by things that don't happen in real time, they're not even real time physics or else that would mess up the PS3, they don't move randomly as it's always the same spot. So people are impressed by scripted destruction and barebones kind for that matter? Wow. "I destroyed a pillar, whoa, it's like I'm in a warzone, even though it doesn't matter it looks so cool!" Call me when Killzone gets better destruction and non scripted ones too, then I'll be impressed for once.

mitu123

First of all, most Physics in games are scripted.  You **** moron.  It has the same impact if it wasn't, something is getting destroyed, and something is changing either way, real time or not.  You may as well call all older games that do things as having no immersion while you're at it.  Yep, every game ever made. 

What you're really saying is "Lol Ps3, look at what mah PC *could* do, or I think it could do. lol did I mention I paid for my PC and built it myself lol you wish you could do that, why don't you get a PC come on man get dat Mouse and Keyboard lol gaming trash"  Since you mentioned battlefield and red faction, i'll point out that those are both scripted games.  Second, here's a scenario from Killzone 3.

Near the start of the game, you can grab a minigun.  Going into a two story building, there are a lot of windows and glass plates serperating the room, and you have like 10 enemies in there.  They're all shooting, throwing grenades as you take cover, shooting - all while this is going on, the glass is shattering, you see all the smoke trails from rockets and grenades, pillars are crumbling, the water on the floor is swishing - the point is, what if none of this happened and the environment was static?  Wouldn't that make you less immersed?

And why are you bringing PC into this? What does PC have to do with anything? Are you calling me a hermit? If so, the joke is on you as I'm not even one and can never be one anyways. Both BF and RF at least have destruction that actually matters and make the gameplay better unlike Killzone. I don't care if they're scripted as long as they do it right and help the gameplay to go with it, in which they excel at. 

Lol I don't mind if all that stuff is happening even if it was scripted, but it would be more impressive if it's real time and that's my problem with Killzone: Rarely any destruction is real time. For the average joe this doesn't matter because they're too busy looking at that broken window or pillar, but to show what the system is capable of, some of it doesn't help because it's a shortcut to not use real time physics to know if the PS3 can actually do it. I don't have a problem with scripted destruction, I just find it less impressive than real time physics which is the point I'm making. Crysis 1 is extremely impressive due to the physics and makes the game far more immersive than Killzone to me, but I don't mind Killzone because that's an immersive game too, just not against Crysis 1 or certain other games for physics.

Well this post was a lot better, I could only assume what you were and were thinking based on the other posts which didn't explain anything and didn't have much thought.  Killzone has some real time physics as well - every game is a mix of scripted and real time, including Crysis (which the Crysis games are simply tech demo's for Crytek's middle ware), Battlefield and Red Faction as you've mentioned.  Which, when a building collapses in Battlefield, it's completely scripted.  Everything that would effect BF, and most games, including Killzone, in gameplay, is scripted. 

For Red faction, that is a game that is completely designed around physics - the whole point is to interact with your environment - to shape it.  That is a game that couldn't exist without real time physics.  Not so with Killzone, or battlefield.

It's just a case of a game having less or more real time physics.  Even then, real time physics could negatively effect some games if you want something to happen just right every time.  Also, real time destruction would negatively effect Killzone if they want something to fall down in a certain way, as part of a set piece.  Those will always be scripted in every game.

Ironically, real time physics would mostly be eye candy for most games, and not add to the gameplay.  Like you were talking about in Killzone, shooting a pillar, if it was real time it would make no difference in design. 

Keep an eye out for Killzone 4, that's sure to set a new graphical bar.

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"][QUOTE="mitu123"] Killzone 2's destruction is pointless since it didn't add much to the game and is mostly cosmetic, rarely did it feel needed, like in the 1st mission where you blow up that bridge and the walls that tower down on enemies, that's destruction done right even if scripted, but what does shooting a wall and pillar prove? Then again it looks cool I guess.

mitu123

 

Well this post was a lot better, I could only assume what you were and were thinking based on the other posts which didn't explain anything and didn't have much thought.  Killzone has some real time physics as well - every game is a mix of scripted and real time, including Crysis (which the Crysis games are simply tech demo's for Crytek's middle ware), Battlefield and Red Faction as you've mentioned.  Which, when a building collapses in Battlefield, it's completely scripted.  Everything that would effect BF, and most games, including Killzone, in gameplay, is scripted. 

For Red faction, that is a game that is completely designed around physics - the whole point is to interact with your environment - to shape it.  That is a game that couldn't exist without real time physics.  Not so with Killzone, or battlefield.

It's just a case of a game having less or more real time physics.  Even then, real time physics could negatively effect some games if you want something to happen just right every time.  Also, real time destruction would negatively effect Killzone if they want something to fall down in a certain way, as part of a set piece.  Those will always be scripted in every game.

Ironically, real time physics would mostly be eye candy for most games, and not add to the gameplay.  Like you were talking about in Killzone, shooting a pillar, if it was real time it would make no difference in design. 

Keep an eye out for Killzone 4, that's sure to set a new graphical bar.

Chozofication

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"] One word. Immersion. Killzone 2 was an amazing game. I have better memories of Killzone 2 then pretty much any other FPS this gen. Eddie-Vedder

I play pretty much ever big budget FPS that comes out. You name it chances are I've at least tried it for a few hours. I'm sorry but Killzone 2 was a classy game, it had some of the best map design this generation has seen, was graphics king, has some of the best gunplay and immersion this gen. It sold well, it scored amazingly, won a bunch of awards.. I don't see how any serious gamer can not see it's merits even if you didn't like it for whatever reason. SW even had a clan for it, it was awesome. Eddie-Vedder

[QUOTE="Chozofication"]

 

Well this post was a lot better, I could only assume what you were and were thinking based on the other posts which didn't explain anything and didn't have much thought.  Killzone has some real time physics as well - every game is a mix of scripted and real time, including Crysis (which the Crysis games are simply tech demo's for Crytek's middle ware), Battlefield and Red Faction as you've mentioned.  Which, when a building collapses in Battlefield, it's completely scripted.  Everything that would effect BF, and most games, including Killzone, in gameplay, is scripted. 

For Red faction, that is a game that is completely designed around physics - the whole point is to interact with your environment - to shape it.  That is a game that couldn't exist without real time physics.  Not so with Killzone, or battlefield.

It's just a case of a game having less or more real time physics.  Even then, real time physics could negatively effect some games if you want something to happen just right every time.  Also, real time destruction would negatively effect Killzone if they want something to fall down in a certain way, as part of a set piece.  Those will always be scripted in every game.

Ironically, real time physics would mostly be eye candy for most games, and not add to the gameplay.  Like you were talking about in Killzone, shooting a pillar, if it was real time it would make no difference in design. 

Keep an eye out for Killzone 4, that's sure to set a new graphical bar.

mitu123

The good thing is, next generation developers will have the power to make anything scripted or real time as they see fit.  So the things in games that they wanted to do real time can finally be, and the stuff that needs to stay scripted will.  And we'll see a lot more games that are designed around physics.

Next generation will be the first that games won't really have any design limitations, and everything can be highly detailed and smooth.  We're going to hit the point of diminishing returns after that anyways.

Killzone has some real time physics as wellChozofication

[QUOTE="Chozofication"]Killzone has some real time physics as wellfaizan_faizan

Hardly anything is, but some things are like smaller bodies of water and certain small object's / object debris.