Killzone devs say they'll shut up the critics

by Nick Doerr { Jun 8th 2007 at 2:00PM }

Ever since that over-ambitious trailer from E3 2005, the fellows in charge of Killzone have had to dodge tomatoes from everyone in the universe, it seems. Surely, no game could look that good, could it? Guerrila Games has issued a pretty telling statement regarding their showing of Killzone 2 at this year's E3: "hopefully it will all go brilliantly and we'll shut up even some of the most ardent critics." Well, that and their inner voice telling them "OH MY GOD WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!" So says Sebastian Downie.

We can't even imagine what they'll have to say at E3. It's going to be very difficult to satisfy fans and critics alike because they can't get over the fact that the graphics in the game can't possibly match that shown in the 2005 video, which served more as a tech demo than a hint at a game, like Final Fantasy VII. At least, not gameplay. What we were told to expect, however, was the announcement of online capabilities and some kind of public beta coming later this year. We'll see these guys at E3!

Tags: Guerrila Games, GuerrilaGames, Killzone, PlayStation 3, Playstation3, PS3, Sony

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

TheSh0wstopper @ Jun 8th 2007 2:11PM

Well I hope the game is good. Unfortunately thanks to the 360 I have overdosed on FPS, but if its good then hey whats one more. On a lighter note Thank God its friday. Cant wait to get off work so I can go home, get stoned and eat white castles and play video games allllll night.

TheSh0wstopper

upz @ Jun 8th 2007 2:24PM

@Luke
Either that, or you are going to look like an idiot. I'll wait to reserve judgment, but I'm glad they finally came out of their cave and said something. Even better that it's confident, self-assured smack talk.

What would impress me is if they recreated the E3 trailer using the game engine. Now that would be something.

shase @ Jun 8th 2007 2:53PM

Are they crazy? They are trying to invite more fanboys and sites (most likely joystiq :p) bashing killzone when it becomes anything but that trailer; or be compared to gears of war and bioshock, and crysis etc.. Plus.... Halo3 is going to beat it (or most halo/ms fanboys will say).

Luke @ Jun 8th 2007 3:48PM

@Upz, I won't look like an idiot that trailer is 2 years old, it will look nothing like that.

It will probably look good I'm sure, I just hope the game is good as Killzone 1 fell short on many areas, plus it felt unpolished.

TK00 @ Jun 8th 2007 3:13PM

Hopefully? That doesn't exactly exude confidence.

mccomber @ Jun 8th 2007 3:19PM

I think that much like Motorstorm, it will end up not looking as flat-out perfect as the trailer, but still be impressive in it's own right, and will capture the same "feel" as the trailer does. I don't think anyone can really argue that the scenario and style from Motorstorm's trailer didn't make it into the final game. However, setting the bar for visuals where they did, it was just constant complaints and bitching from then on out. I think that's what Killzone's developers have setup for themselves.

What I'd love to see though?
What would seem to be the exact same video and everything from the trailer, looking just as good overall, going right into gameplay with some random dude up on the stage playing. Basically, that video being controlled and shown as in-game, or at least something close enough that it would take nit-picking to notice the differences. If Sony could pull that off, it would be the bitchslap heard round the world.

Matt B @ Jun 8th 2007 3:21PM

Sounds like a good plan Sh0wstopper.

For the amount of time spent on this game. There should be no reason why it can't look that good.

xion @ Jun 8th 2007 3:37PM

"For the amount of time spent on this game. There should be no reason why it can't look that good."

scenario yes, graphical detail no

OrganicShadow @ Jun 8th 2007 3:45PM

The problem with using prerendered trailers, is the audience not know what the PURPOSE of showing the trailer was. They think that because they see moving stuff on a big screen at E3, that the developer is claiming the game will look just like that....

They show a prerendered trailer because the game isn't even that far in development, and they want the audience to see what kind of game they should expect- not how the game will look. These guys wanted you to know that you're going to be making WWII type beach landings, dealing with attacks from all sides, commanding your squad, and taking out vehicles. They wanted to convey that the game is going to be fast paced action with chaos all around.

Now, the AUDIENCE thought that it was showing what the game would look like. Then, on top of that, the developers mentioned that in-game assets(ie: textures, models, sounds, etc.) were used in some areas of the trailer- even further convincing the gamers out there that these guys want us to believe that this is what the game will look like, when in fact it was only a representation of what they were aiming to recreate as far as concept and playbility is concerned: not the visuals.

And no, not even a disclaimer at the beginning would have nipped this whole situation at the bud. It seems like every trailer out there has those disclaimers but everyone wants to keep ignoring them.

@7: I agree with you. Will probably be VERY impressive and VERY cool, but not EXACTLY like the trailer. Fine with me. As long as I get that big deagle-like pistol to blow heads off with again then I could care less.

Nang @ Jun 8th 2007 3:48PM

if it does look as good as the trailer i will laugh so much :D

But i doubt it - it probably will look amazing but....that trailer was amazing :o

Thomas @ Jun 8th 2007 4:10PM

Seems to me like most people want Killzone 2 to fall short of its goal. I know that the devs have got this game up to par, if they're coming out and making bold statements. Sony is going to come out of E3 looking real good.

Stellarpimp @ Jun 8th 2007 4:22PM

@10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRVAVdF8HLc

The above link is how all this started.

The1 @ Jun 8th 2007 4:22PM

Gears of War looked as good as the trailer so I have a little issue with the facts being stated. I think all gamers are intelligent enough to know CGI from in game footage. The issue is when KEN K stated that KZ would look like the trailer at E3. I just hope the game is FUN. I was a Beta tester for the original KZ on the PS2 and it was not a great playing game. My hope is that this Game will be fun regardless of what people will think the game is going to look. If the game looks as good as GOW I am ok. IMO the developer is signing check his azzzzzzz cannot cash.

Strike Man @ Jun 8th 2007 4:54PM

"Seems to me like most people want Killzone 2 to fall short of its goal."
I think only the most ardent anti-Sony fanboy would WANT Killzone 2 to fall far short of the goal set by the CG trailer.

However, the simple reality is that the game will NOT look that good. Good? Yes. As good as a short CG sequence that took months to create? No.

mccomber hit the nail on the head. Motorstorm is one of the best looking games on the market, and some of the mud effects are fantastic. But run the game side-by-side with the original CG video, and there's a very large gap in visual quality.

Likewise, Killzone 2 could easily be one of the best-looking shooters ever made, but it will not be indistinguishable from the infamous E3 video. It wasn't the Microsoft fanboys who created that expectation, it was Sony's own claims, such as the "it is real gameplay" mentioned in the video above. THAT is why Killzone has become such a hot topic.

Tim @ Jun 8th 2007 5:01PM

Believe the hype 1 hr of gameplay FTW!!!

massive_98 @ Jun 8th 2007 5:14PM

Having not played many FPS (used to play mostly sports games) I am really looking foreward to this game. Although Killzone 1 had some good graphics and good online it lacked in AI department. This time around I bet the AI will be top notch along with the rest of the game!

When will video games hit a plateau...I mean games are looking better and better but when will they just stay the same?

Cheers. I am so getting hammered tonite. Cya

massive_98 @ Jun 8th 2007 5:20PM

"THAT is why Killzone has become such a hot topic"

It gets people talking and possibly sold some people who didn't want the best console out there(N64)

www.playb3yond.com

lenny0487 @ Jun 8th 2007 5:54PM

Crysis is living up to expectations, being a DX 10 game and all, I would understand why people dont think KZ2 cant live up to its expectation being that what we saw 2 years ago was CGI, I believe anything can be possible, BTW dont you guys think that even though Sony lied about that trailer, dont you think its actually possible that they thought they can run that game just like the trailer do to the early specs of the system? (ex. the Cell being the CPU and GPU)

OrganicShadow @ Jun 11th 2007 10:27AM

@16: I actually haven't seen that video, which by the way is pretty fucked up of him to just blatantly say that. All of the misconceptions and misinformation flying around that I have witnessed was related SPECIFICALLY to the developers saying that it used in-game assets.

Thanks for showing me that though, it helped reassure me that there was something about Tretton I didn't like.....

There are some things about the trailer that I want to be in the game, and there are some things that I feel the opposite about. A lot of it is really negligible, and the graphics have a little to do with that too.

As said before, if it comes out looking fantastic, but only 85% of what that trailer had, then fine. If it comes out looking the same or better? Then well, hopefully the gameplay doesn't suck. The first Killzone was fun, but could use some pointers from other FPS games as far as gameplay was concerned.

Andir3.0 @ Jun 8th 2007 7:16PM

lenny0487, saying that a game is better or meeting expectations simply because it's DX10 is completely and utterly wrong. I don't mean to berate you for saying that, but anyone that believes DX10 is somehow magically better than anything else in the world is wrong. Games have been able to do everything DX10 offers for years now. (except those coded in DirectX~9) OpenGL and other not so well known CG languages have had the technology but lacked the raw hardware power that this console and video card generation is bringing (multi-core, fast memory pipelines, etc.) It's just that the horsepower is catching up and Microsoft is telling everyone that it's their "secret sauce" that's letting it all happen. DX version only affects developers short sighted enough to only code in DirectX. If you study the process dumps of a game running last year, you'll see that one of the biggest bottlenecks comes in the form of memory buss speed and caching capability. It's not texture memory size, DX instructions or any of that other fun stuff. Sure, they allow for bigger textures and different effects, but it mostly boils down to how much the processor can cache and re-use.

Vince UK @ Jun 8th 2007 7:21PM

This game will be in the physics, fanboys will be oblivious, but whatever the graphics are like, the physics will be where it's at.

PS3 = physics monster.

Killzone = physics giant.

and AI of course.

Extinction @ Jun 8th 2007 9:34PM

"Motorstorm is one of the best looking games on the market, and some of the mud effects are fantastic. But run the game side-by-side with the original CG video, and there's a very large gap in visual quality."

Actually it's very small. Many reviewers agree. IGNs video interview claimed they got it exactly

"it was Sony's own claims, such as the "it is real gameplay""

That man later admitted he got the game confused with Resistance:Fall of Man.

Way to stay up to date, that was years ago

Killer @ Jun 8th 2007 9:52PM

Anyone here happen to know the success rate of a crappy videogame having an awesome sequal? I'm pretty sure it's a rare occurrence. Like Ben Affleck being a good actor in a movie. The chances are slim. I'll applaud them if it is a success, though.

upz @ Jun 8th 2007 10:49PM

Wow, listen to that Gamer X rant. Almost like some sort of Microsoft propaganda spewing, Xbox loving robot - an "X-bot," if you will.

Matt B @ Jun 8th 2007 10:49PM

Could anyone fathom the fact that it was actually rendered on a PS3?
If anyone knows anything about business, it is that the PS3 was multiple prototypes. They just selected the best build.

Tom @ Jun 8th 2007 11:00PM

The trailer was too cinematic to be in-game. How the hell are you gonna aim and fire a gun when people are all up in your face talking to you while you're looking down at your weapon to reload it? The game might be able to look like that, but I doubt the characters and animations will feel so "alive". Games will always have a rigid feel to them because that's required for solid controls. If Uncharted: Drake's Fortune is any indicator of the PS3's graphical powers, however, Killzone will probably end up looking pretty damn good!

Strike Man @ Jun 8th 2007 11:36PM

I'm not trying to stray off-topic and go back into some sort of flamewar from 2005, but...I do have some questions for you Extinction. And yes, I do realize that this is the "PS3 fanboy" section of Joystiq, not an all-purpose gaming discussion blog.

"Actually it's very small. Many reviewers agree. IGNs video interview claimed they got it exactly."
Very small? You honestly believe that?

http://download.gametrailers.com/gt_vault/t_motorstorm_targetrendercomp_gt.wmv

I'm not using the video above to base my opinion on this, but with the time I've spent playing the game. Again, the game's graphics are quite impressive, but I never saw a single moment that visually looked like it was from the E3 2005 video. Did you?

As far as the claims that Jack was referring to the wrong game, one of two comments pop into my head right away. Either:
A) The man, at the biggest annual industry-wide showcase of goods, where companies spend massive amounts of money and tons effort to produce, doesn't even know enough about his products to accurately speak to the press about it. Or...

B) The PR team simply was on damage control, and used that excuse to explain the gaffe.

And where do the explanations that the game was running on an actual dev kit (@5fps and sped up to be "realtime") fit in with that excuse? Or when gaming news outlets like Gamespot asked Sony PR to clarify Tretton's comments, and were again told that "Yes, it is real time."? Were they also thinking of Resistance?

Trust me, my giant "BS" flag was raised just as high when Peter Moore was spouting crap about "lucid dreams" and such when the 360 was announced. I would just prefer that game companies, both on the hardware and software side, would stop making unrealistic "target" videos that inflate people's expectations of what the finished product is going to look like (such as EA's "next gen" Madden video). I'm sure that Killzone 2 WILL be a great-looking game, just like Motorstorm is, but I believe it's foolhardy to think that it will look "exactly" like the 2005 renders.

upz @ Jun 9th 2007 1:04AM

Strike Man, I agree wholeheartedly with both of your points. I LOVE Motorstorm, but even I can see that it doesn't come close to the visual quality of the E3 trailer. Seeing the HD in-engine MGS4 trailers, however, have me believing it is actually possible to achieve Killzone E3 graphics on the PS3.

As for your second point, I've thought the same thing since the start. Either Trenton doesn't know a damn thing about his own products, or Karraker is doing his damnedest to make up a believable excuse.

LOLOLOL @ Jun 9th 2007 6:21AM

There are too many damn Xbots posting here claiming Killzone 2 will have shit gameplay. Lol.

Killzone 1 and Killzone 2 are completely different games - Why? Different consoles, allows them to do things much better. The game has been in development for over two years now. Surely the gameplay is refined enough? There won't be any lag either since the PS2 version had some sort of lag when playing since the hardware wasn't strong enough. There was a very un-natural feel to Killzone 1. But that won't be the case with Killzone 2 I'm sure. They also have far more developers working too. Killzone 1 was a rushed game. This game won't be.

I'm just hoping Killzone 2 will surprise EVERYONE including those Xbots.

p.s. Sony themselves did not hype up Killzone as the Halo Killer. Anyway, Halo 1 was an average shooter. The single player campaign was crap. I have played Halo 2 on Vista and that isn't at all amazing either. I've played far more enjoyable shooters on consoles/PC, such as Chronicles of Riddick. Resistance was also a better game than Halo.

Iother @ Jun 9th 2007 9:24AM

I don't think the developers should suffer for what Sony did.
As we all know the amount of PS3's out there is quite small. So if the developers want money out of their franchise they will have to consider that Gears or Wars already sold over 4 million copies. So whatever happens it will be as good as impossible to match that.
So it will probably end up on the XBox 360 anyway, and if not this one, the next one.

I guess that if Sony can double it sales by the end of the year, or like they say: 10.000.000 witch would only require to sell better then the DS, i don't see this game coming out this year but by the end of 08 of the PS3 and XBox.

So don't whine yet about the graphics, it will be out on both the XBox and PS3 and they will look alike.(like always, but this time not like the CGI version)

LOLOLOL @ Jun 9th 2007 1:19PM

Iother, what the fuck are you babbling about? Guerilla Games is a FIRST PARTY developer for Sony. They're owned by Sony. If Killzone ends up on the 360 then Halo will end up on the PS3.

morlock @ Jun 9th 2007 1:28PM

About the Jack Tretton interview;

GT deceived ut into thinking that Jack was talking about Killzone when he is actually talking about Resistance and Ted Price of Insomniac.

If you listen to what Jack Tretton is actually talking about in that GT-video, he is not claiming that Killzone is realtime, but Resistance. (I-8) The interview with Jeff is longer than the Youtube-video and they are talking about Ted Price (CEO Insomniac) and Resistance before this question, and as the question was asked of what was realtime Jack is still talking about Resistance (And Ted Price) when Jeff/Gametrailers has shifted to Killzone with the overlayed Killzone-video.

austin @ Jun 9th 2007 2:23PM

Why cant Killzone look as good as the trailer? Gears of War looks even better than that, and supposedly, the PS3 is more powerful than the 360, so why cant they make it look that good? Heck, Unreal Tournament 3 looks even better than Gears, and with all this hoopla about the graphics in Killzone, there will be a game out with better graphics, and a game released in 2006 with better graphics. I say, focus on the gameplay as much as possible and make the game good first, because what theyre aiming for is a Halo-killer, which will never happen. The first Killzone sucked, and theres no way these arrogant jackasses who make KZ can possibly make a better game than Halo, with better graphics than Gears.

bootsielon @ Jun 9th 2007 6:58PM

"Why cant Killzone look as good as the trailer? Gears of War looks even better than that..."

Lol, fanboys. NEXT.

Carnie @ Jun 10th 2007 2:05PM

#3 I own and love my 360 but I have this to say. FUCK HALO AND THE HALO NUT SUCKERS.....honestly why do they see in that damn game....

Ya ya i know different strokes for different folks, but I mean I hate that game with a passion because most of the people that get online and play it are retarded degenerates....I mean how many people do you know are going to mod their consols and get banned no less just to try and get a sneak peak at what "might" be in the upcomming game....

I'm tired of it...I just wish that Killzone, and MGS4 would come over to the 360 because I really don't want to shell out +600.00 for the ps3....

And truth be told thats whats keeping me from getting it...

Carnie @ Jun 10th 2007 2:11PM

#34 ...I should take one of the many miniture figurines off of your your wall and shove it up your ass...Killzone rock and no it wasn't a "Halo Killer" as most claimed it would be, but the online was a hellva lot better then Halo.

You give X360FB's a bad name by coming over here and starting shit because mom didn't give you the money to go see PofC 3.....

If I had my choice I would have both the PS3 and the 360 but given the cost of the PS3 I only have the latter which I love...both platforms are great...you just need to realize that the gaming world doesn't revolve around M$...

ryan @ Jun 11th 2007 12:07AM

i'm just hoping they bring back that sexy water cooler shatter effect!

the game can go to shit as long as they bring me that mmm mmm mmm water cooler goodness!

Frankenstein Black @ Jun 12th 2007 2:09PM

I don't know that anyone is debating whether the PS3 has the Tech prowest to pull it off. So I must agree with (#6 MattB). With all the time spent there is no reason that they cant pull it off graphically. Don't let this turn into the next Gen version of, wait for it .......... Duke Nukem for Never!!

mickel @ Jul 18th 2007 5:41PM

Killzone still need to improve (in graphic department): Facial Animation for character; Fire and Explosion Effect from Gun, Machine Gun, Rocket Launcher; Smoke Effect turn it into Volumetric Smoke Effect to make it more real; Flame Effect from Flame Launcher Gun, Someone / object that are getting fire, make the color and the effect of Fire and Explosion more "Hollywood Style Movie" - more spectacular ... from what I saw in the trailer, Killzone 2 really need to improve in that area: Facial Animation for character, Fire, Smoke, and Explosion Effect.

Don't forget also about the gameplay, try to watch the other good FPS game that offer a good gameplay, what the puzzle, or the mission, or maybe the landscape, etc that those games bring ... a good FPS usually in the PC's Games: Just for example ... Unreal Single Player Mode, Doom, Quake, Fear, etc ... or maybe from Halo Series, and from Gear ... what they offer that you can see, improve, and applied it into Killzone 2.