[ « Previous Page | 1 | 2 | 3 ]
Which are, in no particular order, story, dialogue, personality and the complete non-event that is the promise of skewed morality. First, the story. The premise is that the ISA has invaded the Helghast home planet in a desperate, last-ditch attempt to capture Scolar Visari, the Hitler-esque dictator who's got his trigger-finger on the nuclear warheads he nabbed at the end of the PSP game, Killzone: Liberation. The plot might have been interesting, but really it's not. You don't care that the Helghast has some kind of secret weapon up its sleeve. You don't care about any of the human characters, whether they're from the four-man Alpha Squad or the ISA at large. Indeed the game almost admits that the plot isn't the point right from the off - there's little effort at explaining what's gone before, what's going on as you're playing or what effect the anti-climactic ending has on the story as a whole. The point, rather, is to point, shoot, kill, and be impressed.
The dialogue is another bone of contention. Testosterone-fuelled, profanity-filled one-liners have grated for a couple of years now, due in no small part to the popularity of the Gears of War franchise. Although not as ridiculously meaty as Delta Squad, Alpha Squad's members are just as stereotypical - muscle-bound US marines with personalities so devoid of complexity that they make WWE wrestlers look like Oscar-winning actors.
That's to be expected, perhaps. A necessary gaming evil, maybe. What's more disappointing is how Killzone 2 completely ignores the promise of moral ambiguity Guerrilla made in the run up to the game's release. This won't be a clear cut, black and white, good guy versus bad guy yarn, we were told. Are the Helghast simply misunderstood? Should we be surprised they've got issues when their home planet is ravaged by relentless gales and terrifying electrical storms? Is Scolar Visari just doing right by his people? None of these questions are even given a cursory glance until the game's last moment, an event that feels more like a primary school right and wrong lesson than philosophical beard scratcher. No, forget tear-jerking drama or shocking twists, Killzone 2 is all about blowing stuff up and looking great doing it. It's no more complex a conundrum than that. Anyone expecting any more from the game will be disappointed. Anyone expecting any more from the game is missing the point.
The multiplayer is absolutely class. It's called Warzone, a mode that pits up to 32 players in an ISA versus Helghast kill-em-up broken up by dynamically switching five-minute objectives. At the end of a Warzone match, which can last up to half an hour, whichever faction has won the most missions wins the round, and experience points are dished out accordingly. Killzone 2's got an in-depth progression system as well as seven playable classes to sink your teeth into. Think Team Fortress 2 spliced with Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and you're halfway there. It's all a bit confusing, but about as good as anyone could have hoped for. Much of the appeal won't be known for a few months, of course, but Warzone could be the best online experience on the PS3.
Why isn't Killzone 2 a perfect 10? The lack of a co-op mode is the biggest reason. It seems an odd choice, not just because co-op is modern day shooter de rigueur, but because it feels as if the game was built for it and then, right at the last minute, the feature was cut. For about 90 per cent of the game you're playing alongside at least one other member of Delta Squad. More often than not it's two of you versus the world, or a boss. There are times when you'll play Killzone 2 and think, wow, that would have rocked with a mate, and then feel a little sad because you're not. Even if the game's too demanding to allow two players to take on the Helghast on one console, why not facilitate the feature across PSN?
Killzone 2's been hyped waaaay too much, of course. And, no, it doesn't live up to the hype, because if it did it would be the greatest FPS of all time, which it isn't. But it is the best PS3-exclusive to date. Better even than LittleBigPlanet and Metal Gear Solid 4. Two years into the console's life cycle, the undoubted graphical potential of the machine has been realised - Killzone 2 unleashes the power of the PS3 - nothing on any console comes close. The sheer OMG!-ness of the experience makes Killzone 2 worth buying a PS3 for. And, given how much they cost, that's one hell of a compliment.
[ « Previous Page | 1 | 2 | 3 ]






» 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.