Sony Worldwide Studios boss Phil Harrison has said that some elements of Killzone on the PS3 already exceed the trailer shown at E3 2005.
Speaking to the Official PlayStation Magazine, excerpts of which have been posted on Three Speech, Harrison said that they won't be showing the game until "it's going to exceed people's expectations."
"It will be next year before we show it again, but it's coming along very well. The team are working very hard, they know exactly what they have to do and there's no doubt they will achieve it, but there's nothing to be served by something that doesn't satisfy my goals for the project, said Harrison.
AdvertisementKillzone wowed onlookers at Sony's pre-E3 2005 press conference, many believing that this was the dawn of a new era of in-game visuals. The demonstration was later revealed to be pre-rendered, and the game has gone into hiding ever since. However, Harrison believes that the final game won't disappoint and told the magazine that "some elements [of Killzone] already exceed the trailer."
Certainly a bold claim, and one that could come back to kick him in the butt should the game be released looking anything less than spectacular.
[ 1 | 2 | Next Page » ]
Mephistopheles wrote at 14:50 on 14 November 2006
PS3 Hellz yea
Hellz yea PS3
raine204 wrote at 15:16 on 14 November 2006
Killzone 2 has got to look as good or BETTER than Gears of War or people who originally saw that E3 trailer are going to first laugh themselves silly, then never believe a Sony PS3 game trailer again.
I expect it to look no less as good as that trailer.
Get it right Sony!
Ken K. wrote at 17:08 on 14 November 2006
Better GOW
Its a GOW-Killer, halo is boring anyway, "I'm Master cheif blah blah I shoot thing blah blah". This is soo much realistic graphics, I think its about 2x more pixels than GOW, and has better engine than Unreal, with better physics. And AI is most realistic in the video game world. Yeah!
JayJay wrote at 18:29 on 14 November 2006
GOW FTW
Playstation3 SUCKS, always will, Xbox 360 FTW, Gears of War is 10x better than any game the PS3 will ever have.
Steve Jobs wrote at 18:39 on 14 November 2006
Xbox FTW
When you buy xbox enjoy over heating, if you go to south pole it will still over heat. Xbox break randomly, 40% of the consoles were bricked thats what kinda people Microsoft are. Look at windows, and their one windows per computer and their horrible customer support. Gears of war sucks, its not innovative or unique its same junk you played on xbox 1. Xbox 360 has no good developers on board, no final fantasy no metal gear solids no kingdom hearts. All top games of current gen is on PS3 and it will always come on top.
Anonymous wrote at 20:09 on 14 November 2006
Wow this game is gona rock! Killzone on the PS2 was awesome.
I wouldn't even piss on a burning xbox.
Jack Feedmont wrote at 04:15 on 15 November 2006
more Sony lies
HAHAHAHAAHAHA thats all I can say they keep lying out their asses and people keep believing it.
PS3 cannot handle the graphics of the 360 period. half of its memory is is not fully accessable to developers, it has half the disk read speed, the graphics card simply is not as good, there is virtually no multi purpose processing, the shader capabilities simply don't stack up.
The 360 is a better gaming machine; the ps3 is a blue ray player with a cheap controller.
wait and compair the multi platform titles when they come out, see how the 'power' of the play station holds up.... it won't
Gen.Baal wrote at 04:42 on 15 November 2006
Start looking at facts xbot fans
Alright 360 fans have to get this in their head, it has already been reported that the PS3 is 4X more powerful then the 360 why you ask? it has an 8 core processor opposed to the 360's quad processor. Now can you xbot fans shut up and take a look at the facts just because your pissed that sony is still at the top dosen't give you any right to try and critisize the specs of the PS3 when you really have no clue what your talking about. Overall if Sony can keep making the PS3 and there are not to many 1st gen. problems i hope the wii will take 2nd place this time around. As always sony will take first look at history and i always wonder how do xbox fans back microsft?
Fooie! wrote at 06:10 on 15 November 2006
Wow! thats a bold claim Jay Jay
Considering that every one know's that Gears of War isn't 10x times better then any PS3 game you total retard! knowing how much of a total !dumbass! you are please Lair looks much better then Gears of War and Resisntance Fall of Man looks even way better then that crapy! ass! game
and plus again everybody here know's that Gears of War is using Epics Unreal Engine 3 and not the actual hardware from the Xbox 360
Say Wha?.... wrote at 06:18 on 15 November 2006
Yeah right Jack Freedmont
Can you prove that considering that your the one that is truly lieing and not actually giving the facts right tell us all of the lie's that Sony said in the past while Sony fans tell the truth about Microsof that they lie as well knowing that what you said
are not even remotely close to true and yes the 256MB can access 512MB you total jackass! on the PS3 and further more the total floating point show's the proof of the matter that the PS3 has 218GFLPS while the Xbox 360 only has a total floating point 1.8GFLPS so what you say is so wrong in so many way's!.
Blur-Ray wrote at 07:18 on 15 November 2006
Blur-Ray
"it has an 8 core processor opposed to the 360's quad processor. "
Very few units ship with 8 that work. Sony accepts 7 that work, at least to start out.
mattamunga wrote at 13:09 on 15 November 2006
8 Processors
Seven processors are used by the machine on a regular basis with the eigth being used as a backup should any others fail - but hey guys, stop bitch slapping each other with pointless technobabble and accept the fact that not everyone is going to want to play the PS3, or the XBOX 360. It's a matter of choice...you remember choice don't you...you know, what the basic fabric of democracy is based on...y'know...free choice? No?
auzdafluff wrote at 13:28 on 15 November 2006
Smacks head against table...
Oh. My. God. The stupidity, not to mention the childishness displayed by some if not all the poeple who have commented in this thread shows how immature the majority of videogame fans are. Thats both Playstation AND Xbox 360 fans.
Seriously grow up. For one, the both the Playstation 3 and Xbox 30 are more powerful than each other in different areas. The Playstation 3 has a more powerful processor while the Xbox 360's graphics card is the more powerful out of the two.
Now, both of those figures mean jackshit unless the console and developers can actual use the power. When it comes to that the RAM is the important factor and while both PS3 and Xbox 360 have equal amounts of the stuff, they use it in fundementally different ways.
For example, with the Playstation 3 developers are forced into how much RAM can be used at any time. It has been set at 50% processor and 50% graphics. That means each part is bound to use only 256MB of RAM.
Whereas the Xbox 360 has RAM that is entirely up to the developers to assign. That means unlike the PS3 which has its RAM limits enforced by the hardware's architecture, developers can with the Xbox 360 manipulate the amounts for the different sections of hardware at any given point of the game.
To help you guys understand (because obviously from the quality of some of them arguements, you probably can't understand how 1+1 equals 2) I've come up with an example.
Imagine a 6 lane bridge. The Playstation 3 version of the bridge means 3 lanes are for northbound traffic (processor information) while the other 3 lanes are for southbound traffic (graphics information). You can't change that and so when one lane is particularly busy, traffic jams form because too much information is trying to cross a gap which is too narrow for it.
The Xbox 360 version however means that the same 6 lanes can have their usage changed depending upon the traffic situation, so if there is more northbound traffic (processor information) at any one time than southbound traffic (graphics information) then developers can shift some of that northbound traffic (processor information) into lanes that would otherwise be empty because the southbound traffic (graphics information) doesn't need that much space (RAM) and vice versa. Because of that more information gets through faster, and developers are able to be sure that more information can get through when they want to make real use of the consoles power. While over on the Playstation 3 bridge the developers can do **** all about the traffic and so have to deecrease the amount of information trying to get through which means that less of that so called power is used.
Now obviously we don't know how much power can be used before that bottleneck in the Ps3 is reached. It could be 2 SPE's, it could be all 7 but one thing is for sure. Which ever console is more powerful, if the Xbox 360 bottlenecks at a certain amount of processing power, then the PS3 will sure as hell a long time before that.
The conclusion? The PS3 might be more powerful but the Xbox 360 will probably be the home of the better looking and playing versions. Just look at the recent release of Tony Hawks Project 8 for proof. There's far more slowdown on it than the Xbox 360 version which does nothing but prove the above example correct.
Ben Gates wrote at 14:08 on 15 November 2006
Lies, lies and lies fan boys
Ps3 has 8 spe, 7 used in gaming one for the OS. The Xbox has 3 core with 2 hyperthreading meaning its roughly about 9 simutanious calculations at one, opposed to 7 al;l at 3.2 ghz. The xbox has unified pixel shader giving a slight edge in graphics but ps3 has higher clock rate, its so minor you wont be able to tell unless you're bill gates or pathetic like jack. Blu-ray means you get games more stream line than compression meaning harder for developers to make. Xbox has better ram than ps3 but ps3 leads in better calculation since its more custom rather stolen technlogy from bill gates. Plus xbox games suck like windows vista and xbox live and they're boring same ol' games.
Vin wrote at 18:13 on 21 November 2006
Lol
The Xbox 360 is tacky. Simple as that.
PS3 = Quality.
Rezident Zero wrote at 14:20 on 22 November 2006
Well just look at the reviews folks! Even though PS3 just came out, the reviews aren't looking good for the multi-platform games. Especially for a system that is supposedly two times as powerful as the 360. The way I see it is that Sony made a hell of machine but failed to make it easy for developers to design games for it, so in return you get choppy frame-rate and lesser graphics.
Pooh Poddinton wrote at 17:36 on 22 November 2006
P$3 sucks
The Xbox 360 can handle better graphics, i wish all the stupid chav Sony fanboys would realise this!
Vallentin wrote at 17:47 on 22 November 2006
Both are very powerful systems, each having its own positives and negatives. It'll be up to the developers to take advantage of that. But back on topic: The Killzone team really did put a lot of unnecessary pressure on themselves for releasing that E3 trailer. People's expectations are extremely high, and if they don't deliver ten-fold, expect an enormous amount of backlash - though I doubt it would be enough to have an impact on the game's sales.
[ 1 | 2 | Next Page » ]