I'm just happy it's already getting good reviews. I've been looking for a solid game to buy for the PS3. (Yes, I still trust G4. One odd game of the year award doesn't mean they're idiots.)
Sessler from G4 bashes Killzone 2 fanboys
- Thread starter CyberAkuma
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yes I saw the review, and there were only two that complained the review wasn't positive enough. There were also alot that were about people who think Killzone 2 can't be good because it is for the PS3.
The first rule of internet celebrity: Never, under any circumstances, listen to your fans.
Yahtzee made this mistake once before [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/37-Mailbag-Showdown], and regretted it. Inclusively, other people who caved into their fans tended to Jump the Shark [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JumpingTheShark].
EDIT:
Yahtzee made this mistake once before [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/37-Mailbag-Showdown], and regretted it. Inclusively, other people who caved into their fans tended to Jump the Shark [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JumpingTheShark].
EDIT:
And I wouldn't have him any other way.Bowstring said:
Pfft, IGN also gave GTA4 a 10. So what? The fact of the matter is that they play completely different, look completely different (Killzone 2 looks way better) and overall... are completely different.Richard Groovy Pants said:
There's actual AI in K2, for example. I love COD4, but judging from the Killzone 2 demo I'll love that just as much for very different reasons. Because they're different games, and do different things.
Different.
Anyone who's been here for a while starts to get to know the different faces of the community and how to treat each of their respective posts.Lord Krunk said:
NewClassic tends to dominate threads with is inhuman logic and clever writing.
Khell_Sennet uses his life experience in much the same way.
Anything by Taxi_Driver or Ivory_Agent must be taken with a very large grain of salt, for they are the resident...well...umm...angry people.
Eggo and Richard_Groovy_Pants carry a lot of knowledge with them, but tend to be rather...over-zealous, at times.
I know there's a few people I missed, but that would take a thread, and we have one of those.
Play it, and then tell me that. The structure of the entire match has changed, putting it much closer to Resistance 2 than anything else; far more team based, far more objective based, not rewarding run and gunners at all. It's closer to Team Fortress than COD4, especially due to the class based system. The guns have far more weight, and recoil is up by a long way. Grenades aren't anywhere near as powerful. And using a #sight doesn't have the same function at all, since it only becomes really useful when you're completely still.Richard Groovy Pants said:
Atmosphere's a big part of the game, and considering that COD3 is way worse than COD4 when it comes to visual panache, comparing the two games just because they're in the same series doesn't make sense. Unless you're saying that graphics are unimportant to how players approach and interact with each other and their enviroments in multiplayer, which I don't think you agree with. Plus, the difference is much larger between COD4 and Killzone 2 anyway.
But why are they different?[/quote]They're as different as any linear shooters can be, which isn't as much as with some other genres I'll grant you. But huge amounts of polish and everything I listed above gives Killzone 2 it's own identity as a shooter, and to call it just another COD4 isn't doing the game justice.
Just think of Killzone to being the Crysis of the PS3.........? Only thing Crysis really "innovated" on was Hardware specs and graphics. But when you compare Deatharea to Sobalert, Killzone 2 is much more atmospheric and uses the visuals to it's advantage while Crysis just put in a bunch of pretty flowers because every other FPS was garb and gray so they could say "We're different!".Richard Groovy Pants said:
Innovation is all well and good but innovation alone is nothing but a shiny bauble in the same way that graphgics are just the wrapping paper. Yes, these things may get the game into your hands and these superficial strengths alone might even get you to play the game for awhile but without solid, core gameplay all of those shiny or new bits are for nothing.Richard Groovy Pants said:
Gameplay, and indeed design in general OUGHT to be king.
But, from the PC Biased position I can see where some of the trouble comes from. Yes, consoles do tend to suffer from the "Halo Effect" more often than the PC, but this seems to be simply because there are far more console games these days. The PC as a platform is hardly immune to the process.
Look at the quake series - other than balancing weapons and perhaps adding a new way to kill people from time to time what exacly was innovative about Quake 1 - 3? Quake 1 was presented in 3D, that much is true and THAT was at least somewhat innovative. Quake 2 allowed you to play online (as did quake 1 but Quakeworld was not developed by id) but other than adding a few new weapons and upping player counts the game remained more or less the same essential thing. Quake 3 removed single player altogether. Do any of these innovations truly count in the grand scheme of things? Not really - the concept and execution remained the same, and unless you call changes in how the BFG responds innovative then the Quake line is really nothing more than innovative.
Or, how about another line of PC FPS games - the Unreal Tournament series. The original UT was little changed over Unreal, the only difference is one could actually play UT online without terrible lag. As direct competitors, UT and Q3 were remarkably similar in theory and execution, but at least managed to achieve a somewhat different feel. UT has seen many incarnations but the game itself remains more or less the same. After the original, UT introduced a variety of vehicles, more or less hijacked the conquest game mode from another series and called it groovy. Vehicles and new game mode aside, the basice gameplay remained the same. Two sequals past UT 2003 and what do we have? The same gameplay with even shinier graphics.
Yet, at the end of the day these games DO have merit in spite of the simple fact they introduce no singificant innovation. Quality of execution was the key behind the success of both franchises, and both managed to carve out large and loyal fanbases (though UT's carries on, I don't know who actually playes quake 4 given it's just quake 3 on the Doom 3 engine). The difference in feel between the two lead to some of the biggest flame wars among fanboys I've ever witnessed as each side tried vainly to browbeat the idea that their chosen game was better because of pacing, weapon selection and level design.
The point is - innovation is not necessary to make a great game. Innovation certainly helps in the effort but only when the core gameplay is properly executed. Yes, innovations is necessary to keep a genre moving forward, but in the realm of FPS games innovation is difficult to come by. The core gameplay afterall is, run, jump and shoot. Variations on the theme dictate how closely each aspect adheres to reality. Innovations in shooters generally come in bite sized chunks. The ability to jump, the ability to look around, the shift in puzzle design from arbitrary (find a red key behind the yellow door so that you can go though the red door, navigate a maze and find at last the blue skull key) to at least based on a logic you can discern (the teeter totter puzzle from Half-Life 2), or even the introduction of a new kind of weapon - this is the innovation we expect to see
<3Jumplion said:
ge⋅ner⋅ic
?adjective Also, ge⋅ner⋅i⋅cal.
of, applicable to, or referring to all the members of a genus, class, group, or kind; general.
So Richard... your problem with Killzone 2 is that it's a linear first person shooter, and therefore generic? If you can link me to a post where someone here said it was the second coming of Jesus I apoloise profusely, but people saying it looks like a great shooter that also has innovation in some areas isn't exactly hyperbole.
To all the people who say that the other guys drop the F-bomb a billion times, let me enlighten you with my theory as to why this is;
Guerrilla Games is Dutch, correct? They have few English speaking workers, or at least fluent English speakers. My guess is that Guerrilla wanted to appeal to the American market and thus filled the dialog with profanity to fit in with the "cool" crowd.
I find that hilarious actually. The voice acting isn't really that great from what I've played, at least the voice acting in the cutscenes. When the Helghast scream in pain it really strikes you sensless that they're dieing a quick and horrible death. It's haunting to say the least. Same thing with the ISA soldiers, just not your teammates.
Guerrilla Games is Dutch, correct? They have few English speaking workers, or at least fluent English speakers. My guess is that Guerrilla wanted to appeal to the American market and thus filled the dialog with profanity to fit in with the "cool" crowd.
I find that hilarious actually. The voice acting isn't really that great from what I've played, at least the voice acting in the cutscenes. When the Helghast scream in pain it really strikes you sensless that they're dieing a quick and horrible death. It's haunting to say the least. Same thing with the ISA soldiers, just not your teammates.
Sessler should get a punch to the jaw. I'm talkin' straight shot, knockin' some teeth out kinda punch. I hate the man. I'm not even a fan of Killzone 2 I just dislike his behavior and the way he acts in general. Prick. Sorry mods, just had to get that off me chest.
EDIT: On topic, don't let fanboys get to you guys, they're just sexually frustrated adults and teenagers.
But I have to give Sessler that was fairly amusing, but I think what he said will only add more fuel to the fire.
EDIT: On topic, don't let fanboys get to you guys, they're just sexually frustrated adults and teenagers.
But I have to give Sessler that was fairly amusing, but I think what he said will only add more fuel to the fire.