[ « Previous Page | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next Page » ]
The point though, is that you do get used to Killzone 2's unique controls. Eventually your brain starts to catch up with the game, and you find yourself compensating for the delay in movement and accurate targeting. You come to know that Sev takes a while to turn corners when you're clicking in the right thumb stick to sprint. After a while, perhaps by the second or third mission, it all starts to come together.
Perhaps Guerrilla Games' greatest achievement is that the Amsterdam development studio has somehow managed to make a game that, at times, not only reaches the graphical fidelity of that E3 2005 trailer, but even surpasses it. A debate has raged in the VideoGamer.com office in the last month: are Killzone 2's graphics better than Crysis'? In many ways, it's an unfair comparison, since Crysis is open world, but it's fun to argue about that sort of thing.
Killzone 2 has been called many things: Sony's Halo killer, better than Gears of War 2, that sort of nonsense. Why Halo? Because it's a first-party FPS, a system seller, a reason to fork out £299 on a PS3. Why Gears of War 2? Because it's grey. Comparisons with Halo are silly, so different are the experiences. Comparisons with Gears of War 2 are equally pointless. Killzone 2 has this perception of being grey, like, some people reckon, Gears of War. Yes, it's dank and gritty and war torn and depressing, but that's only telling half the story. After mission five Killzone 2 moves from the urban street battles of the Helghan capital city to more expansive, colourful environments that not only add variety to the scenery, but add much needed changes in pace and gameplay. There are ridiculously fun turret-centred levels, tanks to play with and, get this, even a mech level.
Really, Killzone 2 is more like Sony's answer to Call of Duty 4: Modern Combat, without the invisible enemy spawn-ending barriers. The single-player campaign has that same visceral, in your face, fast-paced feel to it. Each fire fight pits a set number of Helghast against you that need to be killed before the saving symbol flashes in the top-left corner of the screen and relief washes over you. Defend an area against waves of enemies; attack a heavily defended position until there's no-one left, that sort of thing. Then auto-save, move forward and repeat.
There's a moment towards the end of the game when this gameplay technique reaches its fun-filled peak. Sev and the rest of the ISA invasion force are storming a heavily guarded structure. At the start you think, there's absolutely no way I'm going to do this - there's just too many of them, and they're too dug into cover. But you inch forward, suppressing, flanking, taking out Helghast one at a time. As bullets whiz by your head and cover gets torn apart by mini-guns, as grenade explosions rock the earth, as the whole world seems to be coming down around you, you slowly but surely gain ground until suddenly there's no-one left to kill and the game saves. Sit back, inhale, exhale, notice your heart racing, a ringing in your ears, your palms sweating, your fingers shaking. This is what you bought your PS3 for.
The graphics, then, are what make Killzone 2. They're what make it the triple-A title it is. They're what made forum goers across the internet salivate over animated gifs torn from snippets of gameplay footage. And they're what make the game great despite its obvious failings.
You retry after every frustrating death because every single Helghast kill feels as if it's too good to be true. You soldier through the repetitive mission objectives because what you're looking at feels as if it's being beamed in from a console from the future. You ignore the linear design because the levels slap you in the face and refuse to let you think about anything else. The graphics, the sheer technical monstrosity that is Killzone 2, unequivocally make up for its failings.
[ « Previous Page | 1 | 2 | 3 | Next Page » ]






» Go to 's original post
» Go to 's original post
» Go to 's original post
» Go to 's original post
» Go to pblive's original post
Even I'm tempted and my regular excuse of 'not enough decent exclusives' just got a lot thinner as a valid reason not to buy. Overall I'm delighted that Sony now have the console-seller that the original Killzone should have been. Can't wait to see what Microsoft try and do to counter this.
Edit: P.S. I just wanted to add that I really appreciated the style that the review was written in. There's none of the usual "I thought..." or "We felt..." stuff, it's pretty much descriptive throughout and still manages to retain the writer's opinion. Refreshing.Last edited on Mon 2 February 2009 by FantasyMeister
» Go to 's original post
» Go to 's original post
Now a days it's hard to be too creative with a FPS. For one you can't see the body to make too many changes to a good formula. They took the core game play of many FPS out there and put them into one (except for Co-Op). That is the only reason why this site (and many others) will not give this game a perfect 10.
» Go to 's original post
Helgast seem to have a hidden secrect, from the sounds of things its nothing but point, shoot and take cover. At the last minute you finally relize what is the whole point of Killzone 2.
Going to be a quailty game! Can't wait now.
» Go to 's original post
» Go to 's original post
» Go to 's original post
Got myself KZ2 on pre-order and it will hopefully live up to expectations.
» Go to 's original post
For me, the technical differences between the two aren't that huge in the first place, and they're bridged by Epic's superior art style and more varied locales.
I'd also say that the two have more in common than being 'grey', too; the cover system; the four-man squad; the constantly having a partner (who, as you rightly point out, feels like he should be co-op controllable); heck, even the name 'Alpha Squad' (as opposed to Gears' 'Delta Squad') all feel quite derivative. All of which makes the comparison more viable. With that in mind, it's worth pointing out that there really isn't a set piece here to touch the high points of Gears 2.
But... each to their own. :)
I can't help but feel that, for me, my PS3 is becoming slightly like my GameCube once did. I play multiformat games on the other system (back then my Ps2, nowadays my 360) because that's the superior version - in this case, because of the controller, and Xbox Live's superior integration of online play and in-game Achievements. Then, ever so often a big exclusive comes up that I can't ignore. With the GameCube it was Nintendo's in-house titles and the Resi games. With PS3 it's been MGS and now Killzone.
The thing about this approach is, I enjoy the exclusive, finish it, then go back to the other console for my regular staple. If anything, that's the biggest battle Sony are facing; to give PS3 that same sense of community. Without it, there's little longevity.
But perhaps I'll feel differently when I have a bash at Warzone later in the week.
» Go to 's original post
For me, the technical differences between the two aren't that huge in the first place, and they're bridged by Epic's superior art style and more varied locales.
I'd also say that the two have more in common than being 'grey', too; the cover system; the four-man squad; the constantly having a partner (who, as you rightly point out, feels like he should be co-op controllable); heck, even the name 'Alpha Squad' (as opposed to Gears' 'Delta Squad') all feel quite derivative. All of which makes the comparison more viable. With that in mind, it's worth pointing out that there really isn't a set piece here to touch the high points of Gears 2.
But... each to their own. :)
I can't help but feel that, for me, my PS3 is becoming slightly like my GameCube once did. I play multiformat games on the other system (back then my Ps2, nowadays my 360) because that's the superior version - in this case, because of the controller, and Xbox Live's superior integration of online play and in-game Achievements. Then, ever so often a big exclusive comes up that I can't ignore. With the GameCube it was Nintendo's in-house titles and the Resi games. With PS3 it's been MGS and now Killzone.
The thing about this approach is, I enjoy the exclusive, finish it, then go back to the other console for my regular staple. If anything, that's the biggest battle Sony are facing; to give PS3 that same sense of community. Without it, there's little longevity.
But perhaps I'll feel differently when I have a bash at Warzone later in the week.
» Go to Mark_S's original post
For me, the technical differences between the two aren't that huge in the first place, and they're bridged by Epic's superior art style and more varied locales.
I'd also say that the two have more in common than being 'grey', too; the cover system; the four-man squad; the constantly having a partner (who, as you rightly point out, feels like he should be co-op controllable); heck, even the name 'Alpha Squad' (as opposed to Gears' 'Delta Squad') all feel quite derivative. All of which makes the comparison more viable. With that in mind, it's worth pointing out that there really isn't a set piece here to touch the high points of Gears 2.
But... each to their own.
I can't help but feel that, for me, my PS3 is becoming slightly like my GameCube once did. I play multiformat games on the other system (back then my Ps2, nowadays my 360) because that's the superior version - in this case, because of the controller, and Xbox Live's superior integration of online play and in-game Achievements. Then, ever so often a big exclusive comes up that I can't ignore. With the GameCube it was Nintendo's in-house titles and the Resi games. With PS3 it's been MGS and now Killzone.
The thing about this approach is, I enjoy the exclusive, finish it, then go back to the other console for my regular staple. If anything, that's the biggest battle Sony are facing; to give PS3 that same sense of community. Without it, there's little longevity.
But perhaps I'll feel differently when I have a bash at Warzone later in the week.
You make interesting points. On the comparison with Gears - one's an FPS, the other a third person shooter - different genres really. The cover system in Gears is completely different to that in Killzone 2 - it's much more refined and fun. The four-man squad system is similar of course, as are the names - Delta and Alpha Squad.
The set-piece issue is an interesting one - in some ways I feel that set-pieces aren't really the point in Killzone 2, but then I do think all modern blockbuster games seem to need them in order to be considered great. I'm not even sure what defines a gaming set-piece these days anyway. I'd love to know what VideoGamers think on the subject.
Your thoughts on your PS3 are your own, of course, and I'm not going to go near them!
Warzone's great, though.
Even I'm tempted and my regular excuse of 'not enough decent exclusives' just got a lot thinner as a valid reason not to buy. Overall I'm delighted that Sony now have the console-seller that the original Killzone should have been. Can't wait to see what Microsoft try and do to counter this.
Edit: P.S. I just wanted to add that I really appreciated the style that the review was written in. There's none of the usual "I thought..." or "We felt..." stuff, it's pretty much descriptive throughout and still manages to retain the writer's opinion. Refreshing.
» Go to FantasyMeister's original post
In journalism skool, using "I" is considered a valid technique, indeed it's been poularised in national newspaper journalism and is a Sunday paper feature, column, cover interview, staple. Personally I like it when used in conjunction with reportage. Unfortunately reportage isn't something that seems to work well in web publishing.
In criticism, using the "I" is also valid. Not using it is also valid. There are merits to both.
Using "we" is an interesting one. As far as I can see, it's a popular consumer magazine trait. It's especially popular in video game magazines. I'm not sure why. I can see why it works, and why it doesn't.
For the record, I wrote this review after you posted your thoughts on the issue. Make of that what you will
Post Comment
Login or register to reply to this topic
Create a new account or login to take part in this topic discussion.