Killzone 2 is weak

Skykid · Post by **Skykid** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 2:53 pm

Anyone played this?

The multiplayer brings the game to life, but the campaign mode is so boring and plagued with problems.

Looks incredible though.

jonny5 · Post by **jonny5** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 3:04 pm

very pretty game...mutha fucka this mutha fucka that:lol:

outside my scope of gaming

worstplayer · Post by **worstplayer** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 4:29 pm

Are you surprised? This is another tech demo/game, just like Crysis.

kengou · Post by **kengou** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 5:37 pm

worstplayer wrote:Are you surprised? This is another tech demo/game, just like Crysis.

At least Crysis has unique and fun gameplay with the open tactical possibilities in addition to being the prettiest game ever created. Killzone 2 is yet another boring grey console FPS from all I've seen of it.

Also can anyone explain why PS3 FPSes don't generally support keyboard+mouse in singleplayer? I can understand that it would make multiplayer unbalanced, but I can't think of any reason other than laziness (maybe cost) not to include the option for the singleplayer portion.

kernow · Post by **kernow** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 5:45 pm

Do 360 games include that? nope. Those people should be on a PC gaming, why bother adding that feature for the 5% of people that will use it, when the standard control device is the dual shock 3?

Udderdude · Post by **Udderdude** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 5:52 pm

Crysis was dumb as fuck and definitely fell in the 'tech demo' category.

worstplayer · Post by **worstplayer** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 6:11 pm

kengou wrote:
worstplayer wrote:Are you surprised? This is another tech demo/game, just like Crysis.
At least Crysis has unique and fun gameplay with the open tactical possibilities in addition to being the prettiest game ever created. Killzone 2 is yet another boring grey console FPS from all I've seen of it.

Also can anyone explain why PS3 FPSes don't generally support keyboard+mouse in singleplayer? I can understand that it would make multiplayer unbalanced, but I can't think of any reason other than laziness (maybe cost) not to include the option for the singleplayer portion.

Singleplayer in Crysis was really fun until the zero gravity part, then it quickly degraded into pretty but pointless tech demo. Using any tactics on aliens is just pointless. Multiplayer is outright boring (where's the goddamn co-op?).

And no kb+mouse support on PS3? My theory is that they wait for Sony to make some "official" PS3 variant of kb+m (maybe something like Saitek Cyborg Command).

kernow · Post by **kernow** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 6:18 pm

Considering any usb keyboard and usb mouse can be used on every other feature on the PS3, including text entry in games, and other features, it'd be pretty silly to think they'd release a proprietary keyboard and mouse addon for games. Especially when they have open standards for all other peripherals, sticks, pads and even other USB cameras working from the get go.

its pad for FPS. simple really.

neorichieb1971 · Post by **neorichieb1971** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 6:29 pm

If FPS had stayed on PC like it should have, console gaming would be 100X better off for it. The pads are always 2nd rate to keyboard and mouse for that type of game. I absolutely hate what sports and FPS game have done for console gaming over the past 10 years, its absolutely disgraceful.

It may even force the Japanese market to abandon expensive RPG's.

Tell me in 50 words how the next FPS game is going to differ from the current batch? Game creators these days are just tech nerds copying whatever went before and adding 20% more polygons or whatever.

Konami have gone west, Capcom are seriously in danger of going west. Soon enough grey ugly FPS shooters and colourful sports game that play like shit will be all that is left on consoles.

mr_m0nks · Post by **mr_m0nks** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 7:18 pm

Personally I don't think there is anything wrong with FPS's on a console. True the controls are not as good as a mouse/keyboard combo but it doesn't mean that the games are second rate.

I think PC gamers also seem to forget that a decent spec gaming PC is a very expensive purchase compared to a console.

PROMETHEUS · Post by **PROMETHEUS** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 7:20 pm

kengou wrote:Also can anyone explain why PS3 FPSes don't generally support keyboard+mouse in singleplayer? I can understand that it would make multiplayer unbalanced, but I can't think of any reason other than laziness (maybe cost) not to include the option for the singleplayer portion.

I guess balance. The hardest modes would be easy with a keyboard and mouse.

PROMETHEUS · Post by **PROMETHEUS** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 7:23 pm

worstplayer wrote:Singleplayer in Crysis was really fun until the zero gravity part, then it quickly degraded into pretty but pointless tech demo. Using any tactics on aliens is just pointless.

I think the opposite of that. The first half of the game mostly features excessively simple gameplay where you just hide and score some headshots, whereas the second part has interesting events and environments and very varied gameplay, it's a lot more original and fun in my opinion.

neorichieb1971 · Post by **neorichieb1971** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 7:33 pm

What I want to know is how you fit 18 buttons on a mouse/keyboard set up that actually works. I've never played a PC FPS before but all the console versions I've played have many buttons to press in the config screen. As far I am aware there are only 2 mouse buttons.

Why can't FPS games on console be just up/down/left/right and fire and perhaps a button or two for other functions? I played Gears once, damn there were so many buttons I couldn't control it at all.

The wii obviously has a great advantage for this type of game, but alas, there are hardly any decent FPS games on it.

As for KZ2, its a just a dull grey game. How anyone can find more gameplay out of it compared to the FPS games that went before just baffles me. FPS mongers just want new games that play exactly the same as every FPS that went before, and the cash cow produces yet another mundane (sometimes uncontrollable for me) game anyway.

I'm seriously underwhelmed with gaming at the moment, I've RE5 sitting here and i'm not even playing it. I just find the whole gaming universe a little repetitious at the moment.

kernow · Post by **kernow** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:18 pm

Console games are supposed to be accesible to anyone, people forget how long it took them to play well with a keyboard and mouse, some people just aren't interested.

People can ran't on about keyboard and mouse being better for FPS, and it is, anyone can play using that method if they wish, its just some .. just don't care.

iatneH · Post by **iatneH** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:20 pm

I don't really play FPS, and in fact I recently tried to learn WSAD+mouse controls until I realized that FPS cause motion sickness for me, but as far as FPS controls on consoles go, Mad Catz made a joystick for the Dreamcast which I thought worked very well. The left hand controlled an analog joystick with a crap load of buttons all over it, and the right hand controlled a trackball with some more buttons accessible. Fast aiming, analog control of translational movement, and with buttons more accessible than those on a keyboard (while moving). Does such a controller exist for PC?

worstplayer · Post by **worstplayer** » Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:38 pm

neorichieb1971 wrote:What I want to know is how you fit 18 buttons on a mouse/keyboard set up that actually works. I've never played a PC FPS before but all the console versions I've played have many buttons to press in the config screen. As far I am aware there are only 2 mouse buttons.

Why can't FPS games on console be just up/down/left/right and fire and perhaps a button or two for other functions? I played Gears once, damn there were so many buttons I couldn't control it at all.

The wii obviously has a great advantage for this type of game, but alas, there are hardly any decent FPS games on it.

As for KZ2, its a just a dull grey game. How anyone can find more gameplay out of it compared to the FPS games that went before just baffles me. FPS mongers just want new games that play exactly the same as every FPS that went before, and the cash cow produces yet another mundane (sometimes uncontrollable for me) game anyway.

I'm seriously underwhelmed with gaming at the moment, I've RE5 sitting here and i'm not even playing it. I just find the whole gaming universe a little repetitious at the moment.

Some FPS control schemes are fucking retarded. Why have dedicated buttons for jump, crouch, prone and stand? What's wrong with simple up and down? Melee button? Why can't i punch enemies by simply walking into them and pressing fire? Switch fire mode? Fuck switch fire mode! It was useless in every single game it appeared in. Zoom on separate button? Couldn't you just use secondary attack on sniper rifle for that?
Just because keyboard has 100+ buttons doesn't mean you have to use them all. And it's even worse with gamepad, i think it's just a matter of time before someone decides to use left trigger as shift.

And as for all new FPS being the same, yes. Looks like Valve is the only company that still bothers with original ideas.

Skykid · Post by **Skykid** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 2:49 am

Just dragging it on topic a little, I did mention I had fifteen minutes with Killzone 2 last year at the Eurogamer expo in London and I had my doubts then.

Did anybody play the original?

It's incredible how many of the flaws in that game have made it into this one. It's almost like Guerilla didn't pay any attention to criticism. I think the scripting might even be worse.

Faults found so far:

-Zero variety

-Repetitious gameplay that consists of a series of indistinguishable gun battles from one location to the next.

-Rubbish aiming crosshair (no amount of tweaking can get it into a comfortable state either!)

-Midget marine - why the heck my guy is half the size of everyone else I don't know. You have to actually look up to see your teammates faces if you're standing in front of them.

-Annoying enemy AI - the buggers just won't stand still.

-Static gameplay - everything at a distance, everything sloooow.

-Rico: officially the worst NPC in an FPS ever. I keep shooting the ugly thug but he won't die.

-Zero in the way of memorable characters, including your character (he's crap.)

-One of the worst, expletive ridden scripts ever. Sounds like it was written in a playground.

-Bloody glitches! Got stuck on West Saluman Bridge level for ages and didn't know what the hell was going on. Googled to find out it's a common glitch and requires a restart. Painful.

So why the hell do I go onto metacritic and see all of these 100%, 10/10 scores? Are EDGE actually the only magazine who reviewed this properly?

I'm ashamed of games journalism over shit like this.

The multiplayer is a bit of fun though, but campaign seriously sucks.

adversity1 · Post by **adversity1** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:02 am

Skykid wrote:
-Annoying enemy AI - the buggers just won't stand still.

-Rico: officially the worst NPC in an FPS ever. I keep shooting the ugly thug but he won't die.

-Zero in the way of memorable characters, including your character (he's crap.)

-One of the worst, expletive ridden scripts ever. Sounds like it was written in a playground.

The multiplayer is a bit of fun though, but campaign seriously sucks.

Wow, I cannot understand your hate for this game at all. I'm 77% on Trophies now, only have an Elite playthrough to comp out. I've really loved the game. Anyone playing FPS' for the single player campaign is like someone playing SFIV for the arcade mode. Incomprehensible.

Complaining about intelligent enemy AI? This is what makes the campaign so much fun, the fact that you're actually duking it out with a tough and smart enemy.

I will however definitely second what you're saying about the script. Absolutely awful. If I were one of the thousand or so people who worked on this game I would be pissed as hell at the script writer, who makes all their hard work look pretty cheesy at points.

Multiplayer is where it's at, although there are problems with the Tactician and Assault class which need correction.

Personally I think KZ2 is definitively better than COD4, and I loved that game.

kengou · Post by **kengou** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:38 am

adversity1 wrote: Anyone playing FPS' for the single player campaign is like someone playing SFIV for the arcade mode. Incomprehensible

What the heck are you talking about? Go play Half-Life 2 or Deus Ex or even Bioshock and then say that. A well-crafted single-player game is like a work of art, it's unfortunate that you apparently haven't experienced that.

disclaimer: Obviously some people prefer multiplayer gaming to single-player gaming and I have no problem with that at all, but don't just completely dismiss some amazingly designed single-player experiences. There is virtually no one who would play a fighter for the single-player mode, but that is in no way true for FPSes.

adversity1 · Post by **adversity1** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 6:51 am

Ah very true, I take that back. Actually haven't played Bioshock or HL2, so I can't really comment there.

PROMETHEUS · Post by **PROMETHEUS** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 10:14 am

adversity1 wrote:Anyone playing FPS' for the single player campaign is like someone playing SFIV for the arcade mode. Incomprehensible.

That is a TERRIBLE comparison, many FPSs are developped with a strong focus on single player and deliver an excellent experience, such as Half Life 2, Doom 3, Painkiller, F.E.A.R., Prey... to name a few. Multiplayer-focused FPS like Quake 3 or Unreal Tournament are fewer, albeit absolutely great as well.

edit : oops didn't see someone said that already :p

Skykid · Post by **Skykid** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:42 am

I don't hate Killzone 2, I'm just really surprised that there are so many flaws. I would have thought Guerilla would have paid a lot more attention to the criticisms last time round. I have a feeling the development team who actually design the 'game' part of Killzone are simply not very good - especially when you find out that the Multiplayer was handled by a completely separate team.

I'm glad someone got some enjoyment out of it. All in all, I think it's worthy of the seven that Edge gave it, so I'm not calling it a total travesty - but the campaign (which is very important indeed) is a bit of an empty shell dressed up in beautiful graphics. For all the hard work on visual design, there's absolutely no imagination in the gameplay at all.

And dude, COD4 absolutely destroys this game.

D · Post by D » Mon Mar 16, 2009 2:04 pm

Hey, the Killzone series are made in Holland!

I still LOATHE fps's. Why do people like this sooooooooooooo much?

And yes they have fucked up console and arcade gaming, because these games are irresistable to so many

kernow · Post by **kernow** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 2:13 pm

D wrote:
And yes they have fucked up console and arcade gaming, because these games are irresistable to so many

NEWSFLASH: people play the games they enjoy.

jonny5 · Post by **jonny5** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 2:47 pm

PROMETHEUS wrote:
adversity1 wrote:Anyone playing FPS' for the single player campaign is like someone playing SFIV for the arcade mode. Incomprehensible.
That is a TERRIBLE comparison, many FPSs are developped with a strong focus on single player and deliver an excellent experience, such as Half Life 2, Doom 3, Painkiller, F.E.A.R., Prey... to name a few. Multiplayer-focused FPS like Quake 3 or Unreal Tournament are fewer, albeit absolutely great as well.

edit : oops didn't see someone said that already :p

these are actually the ONLY FPS's i will play....actually just finished bioshock and now im working through fear so i can play fear 2 next......

i play them for the story....

i suck so online doesnt hold much interest for me.....die, respawn, die, respawn...gets old fast

Ed Oscuro · Post by **Ed Oscuro** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:22 pm

D wrote:Hey, the Killzone series are made in Holland!

Official PS Mag Australia had the following splashed across a page:

"In a perfect world, all games would be made by Guerrilla!"

...so does that mean in a perfect world all games are made in Holland?

in any case, go kill urselfz, guerrilla

Strider77 · Post by **Strider77** » Mon Mar 16, 2009 8:44 pm

I didn't think it was that bad, it's story was nothing special and it did nothing innovative but other than that it was pretty good. I won't make haters of FPS change their mind.

Skykid · Post by **Skykid** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 12:15 am

Strider77 wrote:I didn't think it was that bad, it's story was nothing special and it did nothing innovative but other than that it was pretty good. I won't make haters of FPS change their mind.

I would agree - I like FPS's too btw. It just irks me more that it's being hailed as the best FPS ever (some tard actually put that in their review.)

But didn't you find it a little static and uninspired compared to some of the better FPS's. It looks the part sure, but it gets so repetitive after a while. It doesn't have anywhere near the variety or set pieces you get in the recent COD games, or the atmosphere and design of something like Bioshock.

kernow · Post by **kernow** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 12:46 am

I only played the demo of bioshock, but I thought it was shit.

Skykid · Post by **Skykid** » Tue Mar 17, 2009 12:48 am

kernow wrote:I only played the demo of bioshock, but I thought it was shit.

Playing the demo isn't quite enough to judge the game Kern, you'll have to trust me on that. It's ace.