Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
First Person Shooters (Games) Entertainment Games

An Early Look at Killzone 2's Multiplayer 47

Posted by Soulskill from the apparently-you-shoot-things dept.
Giant Bomb takes us through the multiplayer mode of upcoming first-person shooter Killzone 2 from Guerrilla Games. They explain how you gradually unlock more ranks, weapons, and classes as you find success. They also say you should expect different modes of play to be thrown at you after every victory: "The big thing to 'get' about Killzone 2's multiplayer is that the game isn't really broken down by game types, like team deathmatch or capture the flag. Those styles of gameplay are instead integrated at a higher level. Each map and each match is capable of serving up five different objectives. And the game serves these objectives to you on the fly. So you might join a game and get thrown into a Body Count mission, which is the game's take on team deathmatch. If one side hits the kill count or if time expires with one side ahead of the other, the leading side wins that mission and earns one point. After a brief respite from mission-based activity, the game launches into the next thing."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

An Early Look at Killzone 2's Multiplayer More

An Early Look at Killzone 2's Multiplayer

Comments Filter:

  • With multiple objectives given, the easiest one (or the most profitable one) will be the only one to be accomplished. When it's easier to slaughter the enemy to win, capture-the-flag will not happen. Likewise, if it's faster to capture and hold all objectives because kills don't matter too much, capture the flag will be the only (real) game mode with killing taking a backseat.

    While I'm ranting, in what way is this different from the standard play style of the Battlefield series?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Derekloffin ( 741455 )
      As far as I'm aware, there is no choice of objectives given. You are always on just 1 objective, but as each one is completed, or times out, another is given out at random. So, there never is the potential for a team to ignore objective X in favor of the easier objective Y.

    • Well, just from the summery, it doesn't seem as though the player necessarily has a choice. It's like a randomised mission that gets assigned rather than chosen.

    • You might think so, but this isn't always how it works out, at least on the public servers. I've been staggered by the degree to which "average" players in objective-based team games can suffer from tunnel vision and consistently miss obvious ways to win.

      This was often noticable in old online fpses like Counter-Strike and Team Fortress classic, but if you really want to see it in action, you can't get a better demonstration that World of Warcraft's battlegrounds (which I used to play quite heavily, but have

  • No splitscreen? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by godfra ( 839112 )
    Why are there no games on the PS3 that have an offline split-screen option? I merrily bought 4 controllers hoping that Haze etc would offer offline bot-enabled deathmatch action but so far have been severely disappointed.

    Am now considering picking up a 360, as when mates come round we can't blast eachother in the old N64 style :/

    Can any 360 owners provide examples of games for their system which are good for this?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Xest ( 935314 )

      I think Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 1 & 2 offer coop/competitive multiplayer 4 way split screen as does Rainbow Six Vegas and I think all the Call of Duty series offer competitive 4 way split screen. I don't think Blazing Angels 2 should be dismissed either, it's quite a good fun arcade style shooter, it's certainly funny flying round in Spitfires, Zeros and P51s etc. trying to shoot each other down ;) In terms of non-shooter retail games, then Thrillville is good for a laugh and provides lots of di

      • Warhawk also allows up to 4 player split screen, on-line or off-line.

        Neat part also is that one game-disk can be used to start multiple consoles for a LAN game.

        One game disk, one TVs, two consoles, up to four players.
        One game disk, two TVs, two consoles, up to eight players.
        One game disk, three TVs, three consoles, up to twelve players. ...
        (keep going till you hit 32 players)

        I always figured a two rooms, with one TV/Console per wall, and four players around each console could make for a killer LAN party.

        Spl

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tepples ( 727027 )

      Why are there no games on the PS3 that have an offline split-screen option?

      I guess they're rare on the PS3 for the same reason they're rare on the PC: game publishers want to sell four copies of the same game.

      • Actually, the reason they're rare on the PC is because it's very rare that you have more than one control device plugged into your PC.

        • Actually, the reason they're rare on the PC is because it's very rare that you have more than one control device plugged into your PC.

          But why is it so rare to have one gamepad in each of the two front panel USB ports, or more if you use a multitap [wikipedia.org]? If the answer has something to do with crowding around a 17" monitor, every TV over $300 at Walmart* has a 15-pin VGA port.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Hokie06 ( 986634 )
            Its probably because most people don't want to haul their computer out into the living room to hook it up to the tv.

            Or that typical interface for almost every PC game is keyboard and mouse. Yes you can use a controller, but most PC gamers don't. Not to mention a keyboard and mouse isn't the best interface while sitting on a couch.

            Of course PC gaming has always been a one person to a box thing unlike consoles, with a few exceptions I can't think of.

            • Its probably because most people don't want to haul their computer out into the living room to hook it up to the tv.

              Blogs report that laptops outsold desktops in 2007 [treehugger.com] and in 2008 [blogspot.com]. Several companies sell slim desktop PCs that would work well as a second set-top PC for the TV room; I believe this setup is called home theater PC [wikipedia.org]. Why haven't PC game publishers taken advantage of these?

              Or that typical interface for almost every PC game is keyboard and mouse.

              Why is this the case, and why must it continue to be?

              Of course PC gaming has always been a one person to a box thing unlike consoles

              This brings me to another question: Say a company wants to develop a fighting game, a party game, or something else where putting all players' characters in one view is desirable. But the co

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Toonol ( 1057698 )
                It's not that spendy to get into WiiWare development; I think it's only a few thousand. You do need to get Nintendo's buyoff, however. Microsoft has something similar with it's XNA development, that might even be free, but I don't know much about it.

                If you're willing, you could whip something out in Flash, and make a browser game for a Wii. Flash recognizes all four Wii controllers. That's easy, but it's harder to make money from.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by quantumplacet ( 1195335 )

      just cuz the random game you bought didn't offer that feature doesnt mean the system doesnt have any games that offer it. in the future i would read a review first or, you know, look at the back of the box before you buy the game. both resistance games and COD5 offer offline split screen. im sure there are more, but those come immediately to mind.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Sell the ps3, buy a wii. You'll have hundreds of shovelware titles where you can sit around and play N64 level games.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by godfra ( 839112 )
        I considered buying a Wii but the the games still seem to be going for the cutesy angle. I'm after something a bit more hardcore, but with good 4 player split screen offline with bots.

        So far the consoles just seem to be trying to replicate PC online gaming. As I already have a decent PC for CS:S, L4D etc, that's not really what I was after :/

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Toonol ( 1057698 )
        Good advice, bro, except for the part about N64 level games.
    • I have a little theory about that and it will most likely get modded troll but here it goes.

      The current generation of consoles are underpowered.

      HD TVs are now standard. SD TVs run at 480i (640x480@30) HD is at least 720p (1280x720@60).
      Most console games this generation run around 720p and rely on upscaling to get the frame to 1080p. I say around because one upscales horizontally and the other vertically, so each console actually uses some funky resolution and uses its scaler to get to the appropriat

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by flitty ( 981864 )
        It has nothing to do with "underpowered". You want to make your game "teh shiney" as possible (see Killzone 2 render videos), so you push the hardware as far as your development team can get it to go. Now, pushing any hardware as hard as possible, trying to do that 4x will always tax your console beyond it's limits, because you were pushing the limits in the first place.

        So, do you dumb down your graphics so that multiplayer looks exactly like single player, or make single player as good looking as possi

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Toonol ( 1057698 )
          I totally agree. Since, regardless of the power of the console, you're going to use it all (more or less efficiently) on the single player game, splitscreen multiplayer will always be too taxing. Stuff will have to get cut. If pretty/shiny is the primary focus of the game (and that is the primary focus of most FPS), the developer might not want to allow the option.

          Same thing applies for the argument about better consoles allowing better AI. I think that's a crock, since once the AI is brought to mere

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tepples ( 727027 )

          Now, pushing any hardware as hard as possible, trying to do that 4x will always tax your console beyond it's limits, because you were pushing the limits in the first place.

          If your game has any sort of level of detail management, it's already using simpler meshes and smaller textures for far-away objects.

          With how prevalent online play is, any 3d shooter should be online only.

          Would you count Zaxxon, Space Harrier, Star Fox, and Ikaruga as "3D shooters" under this definition?

          this isn't 2002 anymore and we don't need to lug 4 xbox's over to someones house to play halo.

          So if people are already visiting for other reasons, how should I go about adding video games to the party? Parents and sitters like to save money. This means buying one console, not two or three identical ones, and games that either split the screen or put all characters in one

    • Regardless of software and platform, supporting split screen is often trickier than network play. You are literally loading the system to perform twice as much work for half of the output. Two views with full scene transformations need to be calculated. Two rendering pipelines plus shader processing must be supported. And so on... It isn't that it is impossible but it is often more trouble than it is worth especially given the demands of gamers on modern graphics engines. They could spend a lot of tim

    • Why are there no games on the PS3 that have an offline split-screen option

      Simply put, free online Play.

      Notwithstanding party games, most multiplayer titles are more suited to net play than local co-op. FPS games and indeed most other 3D games suffer from the unenviable problem of split screen, which is a serious technical and ergonomic problem. It is much easier for a developer to forgo local split screen in favor of online play nowadays. So they will offer the online mode in preference.

      Except.... you have

    • Re: (Score:1, Redundant)

      by TrancePhreak ( 576593 )
      Gears 2 has really good local multiplayer options, but it's only 2 player splitscreen I think. Halo 3 has 4 player splitscreen, but no bots. DOOM on XBLA has 4 player local co-op.

    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      How about Resistance 2, Little Big Planet, MotorStorm: Pacific Rift, MLB:08 The Show, GT5P, Wipeout HD.

  • I've always hated this idea.

    Some people either spend more time or are more naturally gifted, thus are more capable in the game. The game rewards these people by....making them more deadly?

    It seems to me that you're locking people out of the game that way. The best players become nearly unkillable with all the bonuses, special weapons, insane classes, and such they get for being the best players, and the new players become nearly impossible to level, because they're competing against the aforementioned best

    • The best players become nearly unkillable with all the bonuses, special weapons, insane classes, and such they get for being the best players, and the new players become nearly impossible to level, because they're competing against the aforementioned best players.

      Enter handicaps. 20v30 man matches. Speed/damage/health bonuses for outmatched noobs. Etc, etc. Not that I think that Killzone or indeed any FPS game will EVER implement such a system.

      FPS games tend to degenerate into being _all_ about the frags. F

    • While I think the idea of getting stuff over time is fun, I agree about the balance issue here. For instance, my PS3 is out being fixed, unlikely to be back by the time this game is released. After I get my PS3, I will be only a couple weeks behind, but because of the unlocks I will likely not be able to climb my way up.
  • This really isn't so different then what we have now in every other FPS. Its like a standard server that cycles gamemodes (which are already not very popular) except that you don't even get to change maps now between modes.
    So, you're stuck with one map thats been bastardized to handle all of these different play styles? Yuck.
    Speaking from personal experience developing a shooter: It is very, very, hard to make a map layout that plays well in both say, capture the flag and counterstrike style "die and

  • I'm replying to a couple of threads here...

    1. On the multiple-objectives idea, America's Army got that dead right. The most popular map (Pipeline) had three possible end-games: Capture three minor points, one main point, or kill the opposition. Plenty of games (and even maps within AA) don't achieve this balance, but it is possible.

    2. On leveling up good/persistent players to the detriment of noobs, AA's honor system is almost perfect: More play and success give you more honor. Honor can be filtered on each

Slashdot Top Deals

A committee takes root and grows, it flowers, wilts and dies, scattering the seed from which other committees will bloom. -- Parkinson

Close