Killzone 2

[tsn]

Destro, are you trying to say that you only think the graphics are going to be good in killzone 2 or am I misunderstanding you?  If so then I would have to say that I would hate killzone 2.  Games cannot live off graphics alone, as far as I am concerned.  I could care less about graphics.  I still play N64 games because they are more fun than some of the crap that comes out today that supposedly has "great" graphics.

And as for saying that the multiplayer may be the only thing that keeps people playing killzone 2, isn't that almost exactly like cod4.  I'm the kind of person that loves playing the single player campaigns in games and I've only played cod4's campaign about twice.  To me the killzone 2 single player looks like it will surpass cod4's anyways.  So far the success of the game looks like it will come down to simple gameplay issues that bring people in or turn them off.  Nothing that shouldn't be able to be corrected in DL content. 

As for the weapons, it's not that I think they are dumbing them down, more that they are changing the style towards the worst.  I wouldn't want them to dumb down weapons either it's just that in the year 2360 I don't think they will be using rudimentary iron sights on missile launchers.  For gods sake the missile launcher in killzone 2 looks like its from WWII.  As far as I am concerned, sequels should never remove weapons, only add them.

The only problem with the first games weapons was the ISA under barrel grenade launcher.  Way stronger than any other GL and the damn ISA started with the thing!!!

[DestroManiak]

Got to say Destro, I completely disagree with you and whats more, you're wrong.

Of course Killzone 2 will look nice, it is being developed by a Sony studio, all of their games look nice because it is their console; they understand the architecture and how to develop for it better than anyone.

But what on earth gives you the impression that the gameplay won't rock? Surely not the trailers? Surely not the original game, which had technical bugs yes, but it's gameplay surpassed any shooter ever created prior to it's release. I mean... where are you grounding this?
To me it sounds like you are saying "This game has nice graphics therefore it won't play well". That logic is flawed.

I don't understand why people try and critique such things as gameplay before they have even played it, nay, before it is even released.

tsn, I agree with you, weaponry was something they got very right in Killzone and I hope they don't dumb it down for the sake of simplicity and casual shooter fans....

I dont mean that, thats PC EXCLUSIVE (yay at last we have a "thing" which is pc exclusive which is not cool cause its not a great thing btw )

I was more likely talking about SINGLE player there.

This game can be awesome -which I also hope- but I just said that it ALSO depents on other things than graphics.
Not ever multiplayer not singleplayer games were awesome
They were lacking "something" that makes a game fun
The logic shouldnt be "you spawn for a time and kill people with weapons that are given to you"
I meant that killzone 2 should create some new IDEAS that will make people enjoy the game more than others
For example:
IW could make cod4 multiplayer doesnt have perk system at all
It still would be a multiplayer game but the fun of the game would be reduced in my opinion
Dont get me wrong that I think every game should have such features
I just want killzone to have a few small BUT nice ideas that will improve the gameplay/joy we get from the game

And if you ask me why have I thaught that they might not
Its because killzone was much likely to be a technology demo (LIKE crysis, which was created, un-optimized to make people buy great hardware) that will show the ps3-players/people-who-maight-buy that PS3 can be easily a platform for such great graphics and over time even better will come
But as killzone release date postponed over and over ps3 players already baught.
So I hope that as killzone isnt going to be on a date near ps3's launch they had great chance to get some more ideas and use them to make game better(LIKE crysis, which was created, un-optimized to make people buy great hardware)

[MrCynical]

I still don't quite understand what you are trying to say Destro.

If you're questioning whether the Single Player will be good, I don't think there will be any reason to worry. All we've really talked about so far is Single Player, it is the one thing in the game that is certain to be a hit.

Awesome story line + nice graphics + Great Devs + Sony themselves funding it's development and publication + experience with prior and current hardware + Original Killzone Campaign brilliant = A sure hit.

If you're questioning the multi-player, well that's a fair point. Killzone's MP wasn't great and suffered a great deal from FPS problems and it is notoriously hard to make a truly good multiplayer experience with replay value. But I think it'll be alright, I mean the multiplayer gameplay trailers are stunning.

It's not like this game is a shot in the dark, you know. And I can't stress enough that it is a Sony studio making this game, it's nothing like Crysis, for example, which as you say wasn't optimized and was of course made by third-party developers. I seriously doubt there will be any technical issues whatsoever.

[DestroManiak]

I still don't quite understand what you are trying to say Destro.

If you're questioning whether the Single Player will be good, I don't think there will be any reason to worry. All we've really talked about so far is Single Player, it is the one thing in the game that is certain to be a hit.

Awesome story line + nice graphics + Great Devs + Sony themselves funding it's development and publication + experience with prior and current hardware + Original Killzone Campaign brilliant = A sure hit.

If you're questioning the multi-player, well that's a fair point. Killzone's MP wasn't great and suffered a great deal from FPS problems and it is notoriously hard to make a truly good multiplayer experience with replay value. But I think it'll be alright, I mean the multiplayer gameplay trailers are stunning.

It's not like this game is a shot in the dark, you know. And I can't stress enough that it is a Sony studio making this game, it's nothing like Crysis, for example, which as you say wasn't optimized and was of course made by third-party developers. I seriously doubt there will be any technical issues whatsoever.

you got that part wrong
I didnt ment sony isnt going to optime the game "to make console players upgrade the components of their console"
I ment it more likely to be:
Crysis was a game that was pointing out what SUPER EXPENSIVE graphic cards could do

-on the very beginning-
killzone 2 was also a game that was produced to introduce the actual capasity of ps3

SO:
*this is what I actually mean"
I beleive that killzone was going to be a game that was mainly produced for pointing out the MIGHTYNESS of ps3 so that people will choose ps3 instead xbox360 because xbox 360 is an older console
So at first the game was rushing to the launch of ps3
But as they missed it they might be trying to get the game actually a game that actually will be great
Hope they achive it.
Because me too would like a good GAME with great graphics

I am NOW prety much thinking that this game will be GOOD at least
I was just talking about THE GREAT

[MrCynical]

Ok, I see what you are saying now, your typing can be very hard to follow.

Killzone is and always has been a game to push the PS3's hardware, but that was never it's primary intention, just a side-product. Don't get the two mixed up.

And the part you have highlighted, why exactly am I wrong in saying that?

[DestroManiak]

Ok, I see what you are saying now, your typing can be very hard to follow.

Killzone is and always has been a game to push the PS3's hardware, but that was never it's primary intention, just a side-product. Don't get the two mixed up.

And the part you have highlighted, why exactly am I wrong in saying that?

you meant that I meant:
"sony studios made killzone a game that would be far over ps3 hardware"
I just corrected that in my first paragraph because I actually wasnt pointing out the fact "crysis wasnt working good on %99 of pc's"

I was pointing out

"crysis was such a hardware beast to point out how great graphics that the high-end graphic cards can show you"

the relation between ^^ and vv is

"killzone will be such a game that will point out how great graphic can a high end console -PS3- can show you"

[MrCynical]

Ok, we are in agreement. I think. But that still doesn't explain why I was wrong in any way saying this:

And I can't stress enough that it is a Sony studio making this game, it's nothing like Crysis, for example, which as you say wasn't optimized and was of course made by third-party developers. I seriously doubt there will be any technical issues whatsoever.

[DestroManiak]

Ok, we are in agreement. I think. But that still doesn't explain why I was wrong in any way saying this:

And I can't stress enough that it is a Sony studio making this game, it's nothing like Crysis, for example, which as you say wasn't optimized and was of course made by third-party developers. I seriously doubt there will be any technical issues whatsoever.

you got it wrong way
as I said above

You took the crysis example on the way of "crysis wasnt able to be played on many computer swiftly"
INSTEAD
"crysis was made to make pc players what high end graphic cards could do"

[MrCynical]

Yeah I'm fully aware of that, but what I'm saying (and what you have said) is that Crytek could have optimized it so that it wouldn't eat up so much power, but they didn't, they wanted to 'show off what high end Gcards can do'.

Killzone 2 is different, the fact it has brilliant graphics and will probably use more of the untapped potential the PS3 has than any other game is just a byproduct of many of the things I have mentioned over and over again in this thread. I can't make that any clearer.

[tsn]

Destro, I agree with you on the thought that the game should bring new ideas to fps games and I think that it is.  Just read the IGN reviews on the games multiplayer and single player. 

[MrCynical]

The editor of Playstation World magazine posted this up on gamesradar.

Our latest chance to play Killzone 2 had us starting with the third mission in the game, coming just after the training sections. It’s the first mission proper against the Helghast and sees Sev and his Alpha team attacking the coastal town of Corinth to secure its resources. The opening is a rush of tracer fire, explosions and shrieking that mimics the classic opener from Medal of Honor: Frontlines. The objective is to overrun the entrenched Helghast positions and secure the beach for the main force to land as they zoom in on flying sleds.

Controls feel very similar to Call of Duty 4 – you can zip to a down-the-scope view for improved accuracy, and fire from the hip and throw grenades at the touch of a button. Running is assigned to L3 CoD-style, and you can hug cover using L1. From cover you can blind-fire or poke your head out to take potshots, and unlike Rainbow Six Vegas 2 this all remains firmly in first-person. As we began popping Helghast in the head, legs and arms, watching them react as every bullet found its target was massively satisfying. The animation is superb and ensures that every shot you fire feels solid. This encouraged us to experiment with each pull of the trigger. Best of all, this play through puts to bed many of the concerns we had over Killzone 2. The original PS2 game wasn’t great; shooting accuracy and balance of weapons being a major fault, but this sequel has been polished to within an inch of its alien-bashing life.

We moved off the beach and through a warehouse full of Helghast (reinforcements crashed through the roof in startling fashion) and eventually made it to the Sixaxis-controlled switch. Holding L1 and R1, you ‘grab’ the wheel and turn it by going through the motions of turning a wheel – neat. This is the moment where everything got turned up to eleven. Once past the checkpoint where our previous playtest ended, everything was new. Ahead was an open space littered with handy cover – rubble, concrete slabs and broken masonry. Almost as soon we set foot onto the field, all hell broke loose and a lone gun post on top of a bombed-out tower block peppered our squad.

Using cover, we scurried to an abandoned gun turret and fired back. An oil barrel below the entrenched enemy caught our eye and a couple of shots later the thing exploded, bringing down the entire building. Sure, it’s massively scripted and shows Killzone 2 isn’t that original, but it does put on one hell of a show. This was more evident the further into the level we played. After demolishing the tower block with a well-placed shot to that clichéd barrel, we came across the real battle. Ahead of us were a dozen Helghast; behind us were our squad and armoured support.

As the firefight took hold, we used cover positions to progress and fend off the Helghast troops while enjoying the sight of enemies’ hats pinging off with well-aimed headshots. Then we got a shock as a huge tank burst onto the scene. The tank was ours, luckily. But as it arrived, so did a small army of Helghast, too many for us to deal with – so we retreated to a trench and watched the tank deal with the problem. While our tank was mopping up, we soon came under attack from one of the game’s mini-bosses, an armour-clad minigun carrying Helghan with a handy weak spot on his back in the shape of an explosive canister. The trick here is to use the accurate shooting mechanic to hit the boss in the leg, forcing him to spin and stumble around, exposing his back. Once again, just experimenting with the guns and body specific targeting proves fun and valuable.

All too quickly our armor was blown off and the little guy sitting in the tank turret bit the dust. Spying another scripted event, we jumped onto the tank, taking control of the armoured beast. As you would expect, controls follow the Battlefield template, the left stick moves the tank, the right stick controls the camera, and R1 and R2 fire missiles and machine-guns respectively. The arcing tracer fire from the machine-gun looks incredibly realistic and like the guns in general, feels accurate when strafing; groups of Helghast in overhead gantry positions flailed satisfyingly as we sprayed hot orange bullets in their direction.

As an enemy tank drew up onto the battlefield, surrounded by even more Helghast troops, sparks flew as shells and bullets landed on masonry and steel, and we woke up to Killzone 2’s pull. This isn’t an original game; it’s CoD4 with Space Marines, but no other game has the ability to grab you by the throat and shake you so much. The experience equates to that first time you stormed the beach at the beginning of Medal of Honor: Frontline, or that moment following a battle in Bad Company as you glance back at your handy work to see smoke, fire and hole-filled buildings. You did that. You are a war machine.

Visible in the distance, Helghast reinforcements begin arriving in large numbers. In our immediate vicinity, our squad was going to work on the current Helghast ranks – the AI looking like it can take care of itself – and somewhere in the middle of all the smoke the Helghast tank was still going strong. Atmosphere seems to be Killzone 2’s biggest success. It has it in abundance. The game’s controls, missions and pacing all feel very familiar, but it’s all done with such panache that you can’t help get sucked into developer Guerrilla’s compelling vision of future war.

There are question marks over the level of scripted events. Guerrilla are masters of setting up the blockbuster set-piece battle, but is that enough? Can Killzone 2 better CoD4 online? The Badge system that enables you to customise character set-ups, creating hybrids of familiar classes such as Scouts, Engineers, Medics, etc. could prove revolutionary. And then there’s the four-player co-op campaign to look forward to. Now that really could be something special.

Apart from the usual excitement I get whenever I hear anything about this game, a few things came to mind.

The fact that he hints that Killzone is copying CoD4 tells me he is somewhat misinformed because Killzone 2 has actually been in development since before CoD4 was and the original game years and years ago. It is just that now mainstream games are catching up to where the Killzone brand has been since it's beginning. Modern/future realistic shooters. It's actually a bit of an insult when you think about it, they were the pioneers of this type of FPS.

An efficient cover/aiming/hit detection system. Good, that is relieving. And he's praising the guns too, I guess that puts worries to bed.

And... 4 player co-op. That's the first I've heard that, I do hope it's true.

[tsn]

Overall I think the game sounds good.  I don't see what his complaint about scripted events was for when it didn't really sound like they were scripted.  YOU shot the barrel under the building, what did you expect it to do?  And scripted events aren't always bad, they can help you realize an objective or a goal, advance the plot, and keep the player on track. 

I don't see what he means by unbalanced weapons in the first game.  Some weapons are stronger than others but they weren't better in every aspect.  The only weapon I think was somewhat unbalanced was the ISA rifle because the gl seemed to be the strongest of any.

 And yes, his comparison of killzone and cod4 was insulting considering that's just about all fps's.  You can't make a realistic fps with magic or something, so I don't know what he's talking about saying that it's unoriginal.  It seems to have a lot of things that cod4 didn't have, a cover system and vehicles so far, which "could" have been influenced by any other game.  It is one of my pet peeves when someone states that one person's idea is just a copy of another's because they themselves haven't seen anything different. 

And if they have a four player coop like they were going to have in the first one then I will definitely be getting this game.