Killzone Trailer Realtime !?


When I was a kid there was a draw at the local mall, Fairview Mall. The prize was an Intellivision. Ooooh. An Intellivision. A casual friend of mine had one, and I’d played it, and I knew it was good. And I wanted it. Oh boy did I want it. SO BAD. But really wanting the ticket to come out of the barrel with my name on it didn’t make it happen. Nope. Did not. I did not win that Intellivision. (Later we got an Atari 800XL which was better anyway.) I learned that wishing really hard did not make something true.

At E3 this year Sony showed a trailer for a PS3 game, Killzone, that looks just… awesome. There’s no other way to describe it. If actual gameplay was like this demo showed, then Sony had no problems. There would be no PS3 vs 360 war. PS3 would use the 360 to clean its boots. Even the screenshots are gorgeous. But in motion it’s just so much more. You have to see it. So then the debate raged: was this trailer a pre-rendered movie, or actual in-game footage? In an interview with IGN, Jan-Bart Van Beek claims that it is represtative of what final gameplay would be like. So while he didn’t say it wasn’t realtime, he implied that it didn’t matter. (Am I reading too much into it?)

Well, to be frank, I don’t believe it. The trailer just looks too good. But as it turns out:

Killzone was running on alpha dev kits at 5FPS and post production sped them up to 60FPS. The devs seems to be relying on the PS3’s final hardware to bring their dreams to a solid 60FPS, but I wouldn’t hold my breath on it; 30FPS is much more likely.

So it was running in realtime, just at 5 FPS (frames per second). The devs used an alpha PS3 dev kit, but I find it hard to believe that they can go from 5 FPS to 30 FPS, much less 60 FPS, in the final product. I’m a realist by nature, and the realist in me screams that this is not possible, no matter how much I want it to be true. So I’ll believe it when I see it. And man, I hope I get to see it. I really really want to see it.

Link: psinextKillzone is officially confirmed to be real-time.


Written by: Blackstaffer - News Contributor


  1. #1 by Justin Nolan on June 27th, 2005

    I ask why would they go through all that trouble? Just so they can say its “real-time”? Or rather, it WAS real-time. And lets not forget it probably wasn’t doing any AI work or any of that other good stuff. Dont get me wrong, I hope for all our sakes it turns out to be a killer game… I just feel Sony is being very misleading.

  2. #2 by Henning on June 27th, 2005 [ 0 Points ]

    Unfortunately I have to agree with you. It’s a lot of effort to go through to claim “realtime” status, and is very misleading. On the other hand, this is a game due on a system not due for another year, so I can give them a little leeway.

  3. #3 by Glen on June 27th, 2005

    Killzone 1 was all talk.

    the PS3 SDK kit is 75% of what the PS3 will do.. they only have 25% more power to play with.

    M$ SDK was only at 33%

    A system would have to be a 50 times better to be next gen after the XBOX 360.. the PS3 will not look next gen after the XBOX 360 it will take 15 more years to get prfect graphics.

  4. #4 by Henning on June 27th, 2005 [ 0 Points ]

    I’m not sure about that latest comment about next gen. While it doesn’t look like the PS3 will be so much better than the 360 like E3 suggested, it will at least keep pace. In the end, I don’t think there will be much power/graphics wise to choose between them. It’ll all come down to the games.

  5. #5 by Glen on June 27th, 2005

    games systems could be 200,000 times better than what we have now in 15 years.. but games wont look 200,000 times better.

    To make a game look 2 times better than the xbox it would have to be 20 times better… the better the systems get the more x better you will need to make a game look better.


You must be logged in to post a comment.

Like trophies? Like giveaways? Want to speak your mind? Register here!