• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

So it's confirmed... Killzone is pre-rendered?

Gek54 said:
Killzone graphics and animation was actually pretty damn good, everything else, AI, framerate sucked since it was rushed out to market.

The problem is that, if the Killzone PS3 trailer was realtime, it would look way, way better than any of the other PS3 stuff. For example, the Insomniac shooter looked to be actual gameplay and it doesn't look anywhere near the Killzone video. Considering that Insomniac is a very talented company when it comes to graphics, I doubt that Guerilla completely leap frogged them in terms of technical prowess.

If they had to rush Killzone to market despite its seemingly long development time, then Guerilla is probably not a super efficient developer. That makes the possibility of Killzone PS3 being done in real time even less likely since they would have to build a graphics engine from scratch, have it run smoothly, and model and texture everything for the video all within the time between Ivan's visit and E3.
 
Killzone's character models(the heads, mostly) are actually pretty impressive for a PS2 FPS game. Some enviornments look *really* nice too. Too bad the game was rushed.
 
BigBoss said:
Ign says its pre-rendered, Gamespot says its realtime. Who to believe?

Considering Ivan is the reason IGN says its realtime, and he is just guessing. Gamespot
 
Sathsquatch said:
If they had to rush Killzone to market despite its seemingly long development time, then Guerilla is probably not a super efficient developer.

Or that they were overly ambitious with the limiting hardware.
 
"Killzone's character models(the heads, mostly) are actually pretty impressive for a PS2 FPS game. Some enviornments look *really* nice too. Too bad the game was rushed."

as far as i'm aware the game was in development for in excess of two years. The rushed part came from Sonys stipulation that there had to be online modes which is what took the extra dev time at the end.
 
Ign says its pre-rendered, Gamespot says its realtime. Who to believe?

20041127052757iwantobelieve.jpg
 
Gek54 said:
Or that they were overly ambitious with the limiting hardware.

That still wouldn't be a good sign.

I doubt that there is a developer anywhere in the world that could so utterly surpass the graphics of every other devolper in the world in a mere nine months (the time between Ivan's visit to Guerilla and E3).
 
Gek54 said:
Here is what they pulled out of the PS2 since most of you seem to have forgoton:
Killzone%20-%20level%202.jpg

GSMemDump_0237.jpg

GSMemDump_0024.jpg

GSMemDump_0560.jpg


It's too bad that this game was crushed by Halo 2 hype. I really enjoyed it and still hop online from time to time. The graphics are really good. Too bad about that framerate though. :(
 
DCharlie said:
this is an interesting point actually.... the intro of MGS2 uses the PS2 real time and it looks amazing - but tell me, how close is the game graphics to that real time intro?

i dont found a lot of diferences in the in game mgs2 compared to the realtime intros
 
Why is there even a question about this? It's lovely, lovely pre rendered CGI. It looks like it's using perfect versions of their real game assets, so that's good news, since some of the weapons and vehicles looked cool, but it was PRE-RENDERED.

Jesus.




PS., even though it's CGI, it still owned every other trailer at the show.
 
Zer0 said:
more a xbox fanboy triying to do some damage control

Very OT= No is more like you have some true or false random statements and you need to connect them via logical operators to find a true statement (conclusion)

IF PS3 can do UE3.0(t) THEN it can do Killzone 2(t)

the X360 is capable of UE3.0(t) so in conclusion it can do Killzone 2 too (conclusion)

or something like that :P because I learned it in my 1st language.

BTW that Killzone 2 video remebers me the Silent Cartographer level from H:CE
 
If you can't tell that was pre-rendered you mustn't have been gamers for longer than 2 months.
It was clearly pre-rendered, all of it.
 
from everything ive been reading on the message boards, actually it seems Killzone was a scripted, edited, carefully put together trailer using realtime graphics from GeForce 6800 Ultras SLI or pre-final RSX / Reality Synthesizer.

it was neither pre-rendered nor actual gameplay.

parts of it were realtime, with some composited pre-renderd CGI elements added.

to say it was completely pre-rendered CGI is wrong.

to say it was completely realtime is also wrong.
 
Razoric said:
It's too bad that this game was crushed by Halo 2 hype. I really enjoyed it and still hop online from time to time. The graphics are really good. Too bad about that framerate though. :(


It deserved to be crushed by the Halo hype. The game was horrible... It was nowhere near the same league as Halo 2, MP2 or Half-Life 2..
 
It was pre-rendered, anyone who knows anything about cg knows this. Once you see a high quality version of the video it is plainly obvious. Just look at the difference between the ff7 tech demo and the killzone video, there is a difference. The rendering quality is different. The tech demo just looks like real time.
 
GashPrex said:
uhmm...Ivan from IGN is confirming it was









sooo deal with fact its not real


ya this is the same guy who said the Unreal 3.0 engine was up and running on Xbox 360 @ 60 FPS with full effects and in the same statement he bashed PS3. oh and you remember that Halo 2 cover story on the PS2 channel? Yup written by the same guy.

Ivan knows nothing, he's a dumbass.
 
Guerrilla interview

Guerrilla's stunning PLAYSTATION 3 trailer, showing the future of the Killzone series, is the talk of the town here in LA (as well as the Internet at large). We did some digging...

Jan-Bart Van Beek is the Game Director of the PS3 Killzone at Guerrilla Games, and has spent the last few months working on the trailer that really blew the crowd away at Monday's PLAYSTATION 3 unveiling. After a second showing of the trailer at today's SCEE conference received another rapturous round of applause, we caught up with Jan to find out more.

How do you feel about the reaction to the trailer that was shown yesterday?

Jan-Bart: It's been an amazing reception, the rush you get from seeing your own stuff on the big screen like that, and then the reaction to it, it's a big rush, I'm really happy about it.

How long ago did work start on the sequence?

Jan-Bart: We started working on it in late November, and only finished it three days before the show, at the very, very last moment!

It seemed like Killzone, only more so! Is that what we can expect from the finished game?

Jan-Bart: We want to avoid having just Killzone with more beautiful graphics. We want to add a lot more to it than that. So we're adding a lot more character interaction, with the ways they respond to you and how you can react to them. There's a lot more interactions between characters like you see in the trailer, people dragging each other off out of combat and helping each other, giving each other their weapons - a lot more real human interaction, basically.

[Ben Duncan, the game's Producer] It's like with the Alfred Molina demo, the quality of facial animation we can get with the characters means you'll really feel that emotional sense of being part of a unit and fighting together. Characters working together, comrades pulling each other back from the field of battle; that kind of thing is really going to move the genre forward.

There's a great moment where you see an ISA ally take out a Helghan with his rifle butt to save your bacon... is that representative of the kind of sophisticated behaviour we'll start seeing in artificial intelligence when PS3 arrives?

Jan-Bart: Yes, totally, it's just the start. Characters will be very aware, very alert to how they might be able to help you. That moment [with the rifle butt] is a good example of how it can add a little visual 'wow' to it all.

Is the Killzone sequence a fair example of what people can expect from realtime gameplay on PLAYSTATION 3?

Jan-Bart: Yeah, it's basically a representation of the look and feel of the game we're trying to make.

Have you found PS3 easy to work with?

JB: Yes, we're really impressed with it. The Cell is amazingly powerful, and the graphics CPU [the RSX, co-developed with Nvidia] in there... it's actually hard to mimic it on our development PCs, we have to see it on the PS3 hardware itself. It's really nice to be working with such powerful hardware.

As yet, high definition TV isn't that widespread, especially in Europe - are you concerned that some players won't get to see your game in as much detail as is intended?

JB: No, I think in two, three years' time, HDTV will be a lot more accepted, in Europe too. We'll start out with 720p and then [onto 1080p] as there's now this product [PS3] that people will want to buy a new TV for.

Thanks, and congratulations on the work.
 
This was posted by DeanoC on B3D, he works on the Heavenly Sword game (very impressive!) on PS3. I hope its not old, but knowing this place it probably is. ;)

The trailer was made by selecting a bunch of in-game moves/cool things, Then those frames making up those bits were output at 1080p from the engine. These are then all stuck together in a editing and post-processing package to look like a movie trailer.

But fundementally the 'renderer' itself was in-game, so you can see the shadow issues in certain frame where the in-game shadow map resolution optimiser doesn't do its job.

So in all fairness its not quite as black and white as either real-time or CGI...

I donÂ’t think it is too far fetched to believe this is what they also did with KZ, using the ingame engine and so on. If you look at the screenshots you can see stuff that could have looked much better.

I say do NOT underestimate Guerilla Games. Killzone was one of the most impressive looking PS2 games.
 
Doom_Bringer said:
ya this is the same guy who said the Unreal 3.0 engine was up and running on Xbox 360 @ 60 FPS with full effects and in the same statement he bashed PS3. oh and you remember that Halo 2 cover story on the PS2 channel? Yup written by the same guy.

Ivan knows nothing, he's a dumbass.


How about Extreme-Tech...are they respectable??

The conference closed with a reel of "coming games," that looked extremely impressive, but was all just film footage. Nothing was running in real time, and I'm almost positive that only one or two of the demos in the reel were actually running in any kind of game engine, using in-game assets. It reeked of those "prerendered videos of what we think the games will look like," and I've never spoken to a single developer who's far along enough in PlayStation 3 development to have visuals and audio of the quality on display. As I spoke to journalists through the night, this seemed to be a point of contention. My question is this: If that stuff was running in the engine, why couldn't Sony show it to us live? Why only in a video reel?

If anything was disappointing about the PlayStation 3 press conference, it was the lack of real substance. There wasn't a single real playable game visible. Epic Games came on stage to show Unreal Engine 3 running on the hardware, with a cool new in-engine movie. It looked fantastic, but honestly, not a step beyond what the same company is doing with Gears of War on the Xbox 360. It wasn't interactive, either: You could move the camera, but it was just a movie. The same thing happened when Electronic Arts got onstage to show off the new version of Fight Night. It was an extremely impressive demo, but just a non-interactive movie where you could move the camera around.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1816966,00.asp

BTW, this is the last time I'm gonna bother with this nonsense. All the evidence is there for those to see in this very thread. It's so stupid that people want to believe the hype for the sake of these arguements...I'm out.
 
It is kind of hard to believe it was all 100% real time. But with so many in the industry in attendence who know way more shit about this than any of us, how come nobody has been able to specifically say something either way? They all seem to have the same uncertainty as everyone else. If it was so blatantly fake, why can't anybody of importance go on record and state it? No, instead all we get is "my source says he knows a guy who knows a guy who supposedly got coffee for one of the dudes who rendered a character over in Sweden."

The comments from the guy from Epic about the Unreal demo were certainly more positive about the future anyway, especially because we know his demo was real. Combine that with the demos of random landscape generation and explosion physics that were done only with the cell itself and then the promise becomes even greater. But, we still have almost a year before any real answers are revealed so really, it's pretty much a useless debate.
 
pcostabel said:
Guerrilla interview

Is the Killzone sequence a fair example of what people can expect from realtime gameplay on PLAYSTATION 3?

Jan-Bart: Yeah, it's basically a representation of the look and feel of the game we're trying to make.

I hope that puts it all to rest. It was pre-rendered, but they're aiming for that level on the PS3. Simple as that.
 
I dunno, that interview provides more questions than answers if you ask me. You should have also bolded this part:

Have you found PS3 easy to work with?

JB: Yes, we're really impressed with it. The Cell is amazingly powerful, and the graphics CPU [the RSX, co-developed with Nvidia] in there... it's actually hard to mimic it on our development PCs, we have to see it on the PS3 hardware itself. It's really nice to be working with such powerful hardware.

Why didn't they flat out ask if it was really done on their PS3 dev PCs, or if it was farmed out to some fx house?
 
Spectral Glider said:
It is kind of hard to believe it was all 100% real time. But with so many in the industry in attendence who know way more shit about this than any of us, how come nobody has been able to specifically say something either way? They all seem to have the same uncertainty as everyone else. If it was so blatantly fake, why can't anybody of importance go on record and state it? No, instead all we get is "my source says he knows a guy who knows a guy who supposedly got coffee for one of the dudes who rendered a character over in Sweden."

The comments from the guy from Epic about the Unreal demo were certainly more positive about the future anyway, especially because we know his demo was real. Combine that with the demos of random landscape generation and explosion physics that were done only with the cell itself and then the promise becomes even greater. But, we still have almost a year before any real answers are revealed so really, it's pretty much a useless debate.
Because the developer is intentionally being cagey about whether its real-time or not, but now they ahve confirmed that this is what they want the game to look like, translation: "Are you guys idiot? No way we could make a realtime demo like that in 9 months.".
 
Spectral Glider said:
Why didn't they flat out ask if it was really done on their PS3 dev PCs, or if it was farmed out to some fx house?

According a post on B3D yesterday, yes it was.
 
Forsete said:
This was posted by DeanoC on B3D, he works on the Heavenly Sword game (very impressive!) on PS3. I hope its not old, but knowing this place it probably is. ;)

That would seem to make the most sense, that it's more like a combination of the two. Some real, some not, and lots of polish and flash.
 
I remember when PS2 was announced and they announced some crazy insane number of polygons (that was the stat of the moment).

Dreamcast was already out in Japan and still had a chance (somewhat), and then Sony comes along and uhm 'blows it out of the water' with something like 1000 times more poly's.

And they ran some black and white (I think) demo of a racer, might've been GT3 (maybe someone has it) and it was totally crazy, it didn't even look like a game. It had some wild dramatic camera angles as the car was hurtling through some mountain track, and here I was playing Sega Rally 2 at 30/60fps ( :D ) and loving it but it looked like a game.

All I could think was 'Holy shit it's all over'. Good times.
 
Why is anyone going by 3rd hand accounts of what they saw? Why not just ask Guerrilla straight up? Seems to me the Guerrilla guy already mentioned having worked on the demo since November. Are they going to devote 6-7 months creating art for this demo (all the various models used) just to redo everything for the real game development? Of all the demos, it was the longest and arguably the best. I'd like to think they would have been more realistic, and used in-game assets so that when game development starts up, they have established artwork already. I see no point in spending that time and money to create CG that was honestly bested by stuff from the PS1 a decade ago. For rendered CG, it's not very impressive. For realtime stuff, I'd say it's what some of us are expecting from this gen (not the scripted action, but the level of detail). I'd like to think we're gonna see CG-level graphics this gen. It's not gonna be ILM or Toy Story level, but it should definitely be comparable to your average game FMV from years past. All IMO.

Someone needs to ask the direct question and get the direct answer. Then the speculation can end. That this is still being discussed is telling. It's not been proven one way or another, although I think it's pretty clear that with no actual RSX hardware, it wouldn't be running in realtime at 60fps or anything. But that doesn't preclude rendering offline using the basic elements of the game engine, and sprucing it up with a little motion blur.

BTW, Loo-Yah over at B3D elaborated on what his friend said, and he said they created the models and other art for the demo, but didn't exactly render it. So seems Guerilla was responsible for putting it all together into what we saw. PEACE.
 
CrimsonSkies said:
Can you imagine the reaction if Microsoft had been discovered to pull these tricks for Xbox 360 games at their conference? :lol
What? You mean like PGR3, GR3 (recent vid looks HOT), NBA2K6 and others? Nah... :lol Seriously, there's no GPU for either machine. WTF do people expect them to do, present a bunch of slideshows? Something's got to give, and whatever offline rendering method they chose was the smart thing IMO. Lest we forget the disaster that was PD0 and DOA4. PEACE.
 
Pimpwerx said:
Why is anyone going by 3rd hand accounts of what they saw? Why not just ask Guerrilla straight up? Seems to me the Guerrilla guy already mentioned having worked on the demo since November. Are they going to devote 6-7 months creating art for this demo (all the various models used) just to redo everything for the real game development? Of all the demos, it was the longest and arguably the best. I'd like to think they would have been more realistic, and used in-game assets so that when game development starts up, they have established artwork already. I see no point in spending that time and money to create CG that was honestly bested by stuff from the PS1 a decade ago. For rendered CG, it's not very impressive. For realtime stuff, I'd say it's what some of us are expecting from this gen (not the scripted action, but the level of detail). I'd like to think we're gonna see CG-level graphics this gen. It's not gonna be ILM or Toy Story level, but it should definitely be comparable to your average game FMV from years past. All IMO.

Someone needs to ask the direct question and get the direct answer. Then the speculation can end. That this is still being discussed is telling. It's not been proven one way or another, although I think it's pretty clear that with no actual RSX hardware, it wouldn't be running in realtime at 60fps or anything. But that doesn't preclude rendering offline using the basic elements of the game engine, and sprucing it up with a little motion blur.

BTW, Loo-Yah over at B3D elaborated on what his friend said, and he said they created the models and other art for the demo, but didn't exactly render it. So seems Guerilla was responsible for putting it all together into what we saw. PEACE.
Umm.
Is the Killzone sequence a fair example of what people can expect from realtime gameplay on PLAYSTATION 3?

Jan-Bart: Yeah, it's basically a representation of the look and feel of the game we're trying to make.
Its the same shit EA tried to pull with the whole "Madden Next Gen" expo.
 
Its Pre-rendered, if it wasn't the Guerilla guys would have made sure you knew in the interview. Sony pulled a fast one and good luck them there PR machine is in full working order look at the headlines in the papers.
 
Pimpwerx said:
Someone needs to ask the direct question and get the direct answer. Then the speculation can end.

hello:

Guerilla employee said:
Is the Killzone sequence a fair example of what people can expect from realtime gameplay on PLAYSTATION 3?

Jan-Bart: Yeah, it's basically a representation of the look and feel of the game we're trying to make.

It's every bit as realtime as the Madden footage. Get our head out of the sand people. We haven't seen anything impressive yet running in realtime on either machine. Stop the fanboy madness.
 
That was a well placed "Sony Pictures Presents" at the beginning of the movie. The only thing missing from that demo was the "Press the start to begin"
 
Is the Killzone sequence a fair example of what people can expect from realtime gameplay on PLAYSTATION 3?

Jan-Bart: Yeah, it's basically a representation of the look and feel of the game we're trying to make.

DamageControlBanner.jpg
 
demon said:

care to tell me then? I saw the physics demos for hte PS3 which were nice, but not mindblowing. I've seen lots of pretty trailers, but no actual games running on the hardware themselves. Point me to something that is confirmed realtime that is beyond what can be done on a very high-end PC today.
 
demon said:
Nerevar said:
We haven't seen anything impressive yet running in realtime on either machine.
umm no

Well, what have we seen that's impressive? Seriously. I haven't been following this stuff all that closely, but the only thing I've seen that I'm sure was real-time was the PD0 stuff, which plainly isn't impressive.
 
Top Bottom