[ 1 | 2 | 3 | Next Page » ]
Bringing a building to its knees with a turret; nailing a gas canister and watching it spiral out of control; pinning a Helghast to a wall with the bolt gun and watching him writhe in agony; letting rip with the superb flamethrower; watching hundreds of bullets whiz and ping, sending chunks of concrete flying off of pillars and exposing electrical cabling underneath; marvelling at the most stunning, eye-catching war torn backgrounds and skylines your gaming eyes ever did see, makes Killzone 2 the best looking game ever made - a jaw dropping graphical showcase from start to finish.
Then there are the animations. Oh, the glorious animations. In many ways, the Helghast, or "cockney Nazis", steal the show from Killzone 2's disappointingly generic Alpha Squad. For one, you see them more often than you see yourself, the personality-starved Sergeant Sev. Two, when you do see them, you're almost always shooting them, which results in more satisfying limb jolting and spine spazzing than in a Rambo flick. The weapon reload animations are a work of art, often distracting the eye when you should be paying attention to what's fixed squarely in your targeting reticule instead. Some take what feels like ages - the grenade launcher, the flamethrower - but they're all worth it. In fact, when new weapons are introduced into the game, it's just as much fun finding out what they look like to reload as it is to discover how destructive they are.
Perhaps most impressive of all, though, is the AI. The Helghast are smart, to the point where they're actually genuinely hard to kill. Your typical fire fight in Killzone 2 plays out like this: move forward into a new area of war-torn Helghan, the Helghast home planet, get assaulted by numerous Helghast, find cover, fight for your life. The Helghast, with their creepy red eyes and gas mask-filtered voices, aren't dumb. They use cover at least as well as you do. They flank at least as well as you do. They fire at least as accurately as you do. They use grenades at least as appropriately as you do. They retreat, they regroup, they assault, they suppress, all at least as well as you do. In short, they're bastards who don't pop their heads out of cover just so you can whack-a-mole them on the head. If you try run and gun in Killzone 2 you're going to get your ass handed to you. You need to think. This is not mindless violence, just... war.
Killzone 2's stupendous graphical effects combine to provide an incredibly realistic experience, despite the fantastical sci-fi premise. Realistic and relentless. For some, working through the game's somewhat brief 10 mission campaign will feel like a slog. That's not a slight, but a deliberate move on Guerrilla's part. The game's levels are designed to play out like a series of intense fire fights that need to be battled through in order to progress, with few set pieces or breaks in pace. From the moment you're spat out onto the battlefield from one of those now infamous flying soldier carriers to the game's last, adrenaline-pumping battle, Killzone 2 is a roller coaster ride of endless death.
That Killzone 2's campaign feels like the opening 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan is in part due to the incredible graphics, but there's also a more subtle technique at play. Killzone 2's perspective is set slightly lower compared with other FPS games, to the point where you sometimes feel like a midget when you're fighting alongside other members of Alpha Squad. The view seems significantly narrower than in other games as well, almost as if someone's pressed the zoom function on your TV remote and not told you. As a result, Killzone 2 feel more claustrophobic, more intense, more heart-thumping. When the HUD drains of colour and blood covers half the screen, you feel very, very alone, but very, very involved.
Then there are the controls, which will perhaps prove to be more of a deal-breaking factor than any other for some gamers. At first, the controls feel terrible. There's an almost sluggish feel; a tiny but noticeable delay between pressing a direction with the Sixaxis thumb sticks and the shifting of the targeting reticule. Sev's not fast, and he's no super soldier. He can't jump 20 feet in the air, like Master Chief, or roadie run as if a speeding bullet, like Marcus Fenix. Guerrilla's gone for a more considered, realistic approach, grounded in a semblance of reality.
Having to snap to cover with the L2 button, (the default control set-up), forces your left hand to do things it really wasn't built for. The sniper rifle highlights this perfectly. As you'd expect, you zoom by clicking in the right thumb stick. However, to get the maximum zoom you then need to press up on the d-pad, which, when you're pressing L2 to stay in cover, can be more mind-melting than an episode of the Krypton Factor.
[ 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.