Killzone 3 Realism/animation FPS king!

What I dont get about Killzone is why the Helghast have to wear gas masks on their home planet, whilst the ISA invaders are perfectly fine.

whats so good about Killzone i mean from what i've seen it doesn't look that interesting, i'd rather play halo or battlefield any day over killzone

AND NO I'M NOT A 360 FAN BOY!!!!!!

[QUOTE="Brownesque"]Killzone 2 is a far cry from war simulators like Project Reality and Red Orchestra. ArmA 2 puts it to shame. It is not even in the same league as some PC FPS / PC mods. To say that it is "realism king" is not only to belabor a trying point (see the stickies for details), but it's to reveal a profound ignorance of what games there are on the FPS simulation front on the market. Does Killzone 2 have bullet penetration? Internal ballistics sims? How about realistic damage modelling? Does it model ballistics coefficients, the effect of gravity and wind on a projectile's trajectory? My understanding is they have a persistent wind sim for grenades, but what about bullets and other projectiles? Is that sim present in the online game? The games I mentioned have many of those things, which means Killzone is far, far behind on that front. Killzone doesn't even have prone or lean. It's not "realism king," sorry. It's not even realistic.Blaze-Agent

thats all good and dandy but your post does not mean much. unless you slow down time and hop into the game and see how the wind affect projectile trajectory then its all useless because you cannot see it. it would only mean much when sniping. Bullet penetration would be cool too. but many games have this. (even cod). not to say KZ is realistic but those games those games arent either

whats so good about Killzone i mean from what i've seen it doesn't look that interesting, i'd rather play halo or battlefield any day over killzone

AND NO I'M NOT A 360 FAN BOY!!!!!!

evan321456

Anyone wanna take back what they said, when they said reach will destroy kz3?dvalo9

I would say KZ3 easily takes the cake for best looking console game. Everything about it's graphics is simply stellar. It's just too bad that the game it's self seems extremely generic and boring.

Anyone wanna take back what they said, when they said reach will destroy kz3?dvalo9

From where the idea that Killzone 3 is realistic? It plays like CoD/Halo, thus is unrealistic. Play ARMA 2 if you want realism.

TC, you misspelled Red Orchestra 2: Heroes of Stalingrad. Please correct OP and thread title.

Realism? Find me a place on Earth that's as brown as Killzone. :PGuppy507

Do you think Stalingrad during WWII was a bright colorful place. I would bet is was probably a dreary mess of grey rubble. I'm not trying to claim realizm, I'm just saying that claiming Killzone 2/3 are flawed because they aren't bright and colorful misses the point of what Guerilla is trying to represent as an urban warzone.

From where the idea that Killzone 3 is realistic? It plays like CoD/Halo, thus is unrealistic. Play ARMA 2 if you want realism.

nameless12345

From where the idea that Killzone 3 is realistic? It plays like CoD/Halo, thus is unrealistic. Play ARMA 2 if you want realism.

nameless12345

Even at 200 meters, a range for average engagements with assault rifles, trajectory affects the motion of your projectile. Not dramatically, but it does. To the point where you'd miss a shot routinely if you didn't understand the mechanics of it. But the effect is minimal only when using fast rounds like a rifle round. Pistol rounds have horrible ballistics properties and thus their inadequacy would be more pronounced at even medium ranges. Because projectile drop is essentially exponential, it becomes a very serious issue at long ranges. It's an integral part to the simulation of any shooting game.... And frankly, in any realistic war setting, you're not going to have a bunch of dudes bungling around in hallways shooting at eachother at 10 meters. You're going to have engagements over long distances, and if you try and close those distances by sprinting forward like a madman in the open, you're going to get shot. Realistic war simulations call for open maps with broad ranges. In your typical arcade shooter maps like these are out of the question because they want to design the maps for run and gunning. This is not always an option. Most importantly, the travel time of the round affects anything outside of close quarters engagements. If someone is moving at 90 degrees to your position in full sprint, even at a distance of, say, ten meters, is going to dramatically affect how far ahead of the target you have to lead them in order to strike them. And internal ballistics is important because "torso shot" and "arm shot" don't really reflect how bullets function. If you're not striking something vital, a chest shot with a round that causes limited cavitation is going to be as good as a shot in the arm, whereas shooting someone in the heart, even with a pistol round, is immediate death. And penetration sims are important because without them you get stupid games where you shoot tanks with machine guns and ****, or games where you can't shoot down a helicopter with an LMG even through its paper-thin armor. Also, you don't have a valid sim of cover versus concealment, body armor penetration values, a realistic tank simulation, etcetera. And if you actually played any of those games that I mentioned, which I can tell from your sig you've probably never even heard of them before, you'd see that they are worlds apart from Killzone. They play completely differently, mostly because of the things that I mentioned, but also due to other things like realistic recoil, weapon sway or deviation cone simulations, and movement accuracy penalties. Bullets don't have laser trajectories and they don't travel at the speed of light. If you think that doesn't affect gameplay you've probably never played a game with a projectile sim.Brownesque

Nicely said. I had the same thoughts in front of me. But, I couldn't quite make them jel together like you did.:lol:

agreed. killzone3 is the animation/realism fps king! it will be more realistic where youre using the move, its like youll be in the kill zone, thats how realistic it will be. cant wait for killzone3 to kill every fps game

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

From where the idea that Killzone 3 is realistic? It plays like CoD/Halo, thus is unrealistic. Play ARMA 2 if you want realism.

soapandbubbles

From where the idea that Killzone 3 is realistic? It plays like CoD/Halo, thus is unrealistic. Play ARMA 2 if you want realism.

nameless12345

I agree that the gunplay feels different, and IMHO it feels better. I wouldn't say K2 (and likely K3) is more realistic, but I find it more immersive.

Im holding a controller...not a real gun. There will be nothing "real" about this game NOR any other shooter I have ever played. Ive played everything from Ghost Recon "original when it was a real game"....Halo,KZ2,COD2,CODmf,ect ect ect...None of them have ever felt "real" to me. If any did it would have been Ghost Recon. Long range shooting is more real, but not necessarily as much.

Killzone overhyped cow nonsense. What has this franchise done seriously nothing killzone 1 was bad killzone 2 was meh killzone 3 will not change anything.

Now give me Half-life 3 the real FPS KING.

From where the idea that Killzone 3 is realistic? It plays like CoD/Halo, thus is unrealistic. Play ARMA 2 if you want realism.

nameless12345

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

From where the idea that Killzone 3 is realistic? It plays like CoD/Halo, thus is unrealistic. Play ARMA 2 if you want realism.

Guppy507

[QUOTE="Guppy507"]Realism? Find me a place on Earth that's as brown as Killzone. :Pincuensuocha

Do you think Stalingrad during WWII was a bright colorful place. I would bet is was probably a dreary mess of grey rubble. I'm not trying to claim realizm, I'm just saying that claiming Killzone 2/3 are flawed because they aren't bright and colorful misses the point of what Guerilla is trying to represent as an urban warzone.

Stalingrad looks pretty colorful and bright :P

Killzone overhyped cow nonsense.

Recarnator

[QUOTE="Guppy507"]Realism? Find me a place on Earth that's as brown as Killzone. :Pincuensuocha

Do you think Stalingrad during WWII was a bright colorful place. I would bet is was probably a dreary mess of grey rubble. I'm not trying to claim realizm, I'm just saying that claiming Killzone 2/3 are flawed because they aren't bright and colorful misses the point of what Guerilla is trying to represent as an urban warzone.

All this king crap is pretty ridiculous.

[QUOTE="incuensuocha"]

[QUOTE="Guppy507"]Realism? Find me a place on Earth that's as brown as Killzone. :Pstrangeisland

Do you think Stalingrad during WWII was a bright colorful place. I would bet is was probably a dreary mess of grey rubble. I'm not trying to claim realizm, I'm just saying that claiming Killzone 2/3 are flawed because they aren't bright and colorful misses the point of what Guerilla is trying to represent as an urban warzone.

Stalingrad looks pretty colorful and bright :P

Let's see, other than the flags, I see nothing but dull shades of a dirty brown or green.