Aimless Posted August 14, 2009 Posted August 14, 2009 I don't get it. Killzone 2 practically is a Call of Duty game. The core gameplay is almost exactly the same.
Daft Posted August 14, 2009 Posted August 14, 2009 You don't have to get it, no one has to get it; Choze gets it enough for all of us.
The fish Posted August 14, 2009 Posted August 14, 2009 I don't get it. Killzone 2 practically is a Call of Duty game. The core gameplay is almost exactly the same. Indeed, the main difference I found was the generic Sci-Fi setting, the poor framerate, and the god-awful controls (that may be the PS3's controller's fault, though). Oh, and the graphics may be true HD, but, to be honest, if all you do is make it look both overly-shiny and overly-dull at the same time, what's the point? Regardless, if the framerate isn't up to scratch, then texture resolution and pixel count is an irrelevance, in my book. Oh, and a fairer comparison as to popularity would not be sales, but how much people go back to it - as COD4's greatest achievement is it's dominance of the online FPS world, then a more accurate celluloid-based comparison would be Star Wars or Monty Python - something people keep going back to. Hence generic and boring to many people. It also feels out of date. Compared ot newer fps its almost like a last gen game. Typical of Activison standards. Apart from get massively frustrated by the controls and framerate, there is no real difference in the gameplay. They're both what I call Semi-Realistic FPS's, they both involving shooting people, and CoD4 just happens to be more enjoyable to more people. I don't care in the slightest if you prefer KZ2 over CoD4. What I care about is being told something I like is bad and outdated without giving a reason, and when all the evidence, both from a technical and personal standpoint, is against the accuser, regardless of who asks.
Daft Posted August 15, 2009 Posted August 15, 2009 (edited) I never had a problem with framerate. Actually I've never had a problem with framerate in any game as lock as it is locked. That must be me though since other people have brought it up. Also, the controls are exactly the same as CoD, bar the cover button which you don't need to use. They even patched the game a couple weeks later to speed the controls up because everyone was whining. Personally I find it amazing we have people who can race F1 cars around corners at over 100 mph in varying conditions and then other people who complain because they can't adjust to a slightly different control system. As for the look, I think KZ is fantastically stylised. The little highlights of colour everywhere look great. More variation in environment is definitely needed though. It failed completely in that respect. Still, I think CoD was more varied and the online was more fun. Edit: Having said all that, I also really liked the ending. I know a lot of people didn't really give a seconds thought to the little bits of story here and there but some of it was quite good. Like I said, the ending was good. No? Edited August 15, 2009 by Daft
Dyson Posted August 15, 2009 Author Posted August 15, 2009 Yeah, the ending was great. You did feel like you bonded with the rest of the team and to see them taken down in that way worked really well. And being the one to put the bullet in whassisfaces brain after the squad is wiped out is made all the more satisfying by it.
dwarf Posted August 15, 2009 Posted August 15, 2009 I find both KZ2 and MW campaigns boring. For me the FPS campaigns just get old, the online hasn't because each game feels different in that respect. Controls/frame rate/resolution etc are pathetic arguments. Judge how you enjoy it. I think it's accepted that techinically KZ looks better, but whether you prefer the art style of it or not is another pointless debate. Both are bland compared to other games out there. And the whole matter of Choze putting his foot in it is just deja vu, it will keep on happening, you can't stop it. Neither can you stop the same one-upmanship, fanboy insults (and denial of it - Zechs, that's you, you fucking dickwad) the various throw away gags, a touch of brown-nosing and thanks-giving, and the everlasting fact/fiction mist that comes with it.
Zechs Merquise Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 Controls/frame rate/resolution etc are pathetic arguments. Judge how you enjoy it. I think it's accepted that techinically KZ looks better. Er... no. Controls and framerate make or break an FPS. Any game that needs its core control mechanic patching in the first few weeks after release is a joke. As for the framerate vs resolution debate. Framerate wins hands down when you're playing the game, resolution wins hands down when you're looking at screen shots. I prefer for my games to play well and run smoothly, but if some people prefer to be able to say they have the game which looks best in stills on the internet - good for you!
dwarf Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 (edited) Erm yes, look anywhere and you will see that technically Killzone is the bar setter in terms of actual graphics. I'm trying hard in not making it appear like I bum-rape the game like Choze does but the below is an unbiased comment. When I played Killzone I did not realise it wasn't as smooth a framerate as Cod. Now for some it's important, and for some it's not. The fact that multiplayer is KZ is really smooth makes me think that the frame rate doesn't matter so much, but it's just my opinion. Likewise yours. By controls, that is also just opinion, and I wasn't talking specifically about KZ but more about pad preference. The controls were pretty shit in KZ to begin with, although for me it wasn't a game-breaker. Was a bit shit they didn't sort them out in the beginning but oh well, in the end the controls aren't an issue in the end. You have no authority to talk about the game anyway. By controls I meant the pad. Tbf I don't think the ps3/xbox pad debate is necessary, it's just how you feel about holding them. As for myself I think they're bang on even, (may be because I have small hands I don't find a problem with PS3 controller comfort) each has their little niggles etc but they wouldn't factor in a decision over what system to get a multiplatform game for. That's why I'm saying these are needless arguments. Edited August 17, 2009 by dwarf
Dante Posted August 19, 2009 Posted August 19, 2009 New images! Gamespot - The level we got to see was called Breach & Clear. In this scenario--played single-player by an Activision rep--the player had to use a bomb to breach the wall of a Soviet gulag and shoot through dozens of Russian militia before dropping through a hole at the other end of a large, destroyed shower room. He planted the bomb on the wall, which exploded to provide a new entrance into the room and triggered a brief but dramatic slow-motion sequence that let the player get a jump on the stunned enemies inside. Once inside, it was that familiar brand of fast-paced Call of Duty shooting through and through. Enemies flooded into the area from the front and up on balconies on the side, keeping the action quick and exciting in much the same way fans of the series have come to expect. The game looked fantastic, running very smoothly even at the peak of the firefight. Some new visual flourishes were on display like the re-done blood splattering that covers the screen as you take damage, but the one thing that really caught our eye during the quick demo was the inclusion of riot shields. Certain enemies storm into the area equipped with these transparent, bullet-proof shields and when they die you can run over and pick up their shields. The result is you holding the shield in front of your face in the traditional-first person view when your gun isn’t drawn, but putting it away when you need to start shooting again. After leaving an impressive wake of death and destruction, the Activision rep made his way to the end of the level and jumped through a hole in the ground to trigger the ending. Altogether, he made it through the scenario in about two and a half minutes. A screen at the end showed his finishing time and total number of kills, but he could have pulled up a timer during the actual game by hitting up on the directional pad. Otherwise, the screen remains free of clutter to let you focus on the job at hand. It’s worth noting that Special Ops won’t support perks or customized loadouts that are the hallmark of Modern Warfare’s competitive multiplayer. There was no customization screen prior to the game and no XP totals appearing above the heads of enemies as you shoot them. It was more straightforward action like you’d find in the single-player campaign. It seems like a good decision on the part of Infinity Ward, as the Special Ops mode seems geared more toward working to improve your finishing time under identical situations rather than unlocking new and better weapons to better your odds. IGN - One of the biggest games of this holiday season, Infinity Ward's follow-up to Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, was shown off in a behind-closed-doors session at Gamescom 2009 this year, with a focus on the co-op special ops mode. From the main menu of the game you get single player, multiplayer, and special ops, which for Infinity Ward indicates special ops is just as important a mode as the other two. It's a completely separate mode, meaning it doesn't link with the others for unlocks or anything like that, and in it you've got the option to play split screen locally, solo, or online with a friend. The mode is broken into different groups of missions, and for the demo in the Charlie group called Breach and Clear which is meant to be a high-intensity but brief segment of gameplay in the vein of something like the mile high club in Call of Duty 4. Regular, hardened, and veteran difficulties are available, and you earn stars by completing the mission on each difficulty setting, with veteran earning you three. These stars are then used to unlock more special ops missions. The Charlie group is the third group of missions, so they're more difficult, so the Infinity Ward player set it to regular. The objective in breach and clear is simply to survive and make it to the end point of the level. There's a section in the beginning you can choose from a few different weapons strewn about on the ground, reminiscent of Left 4 Dead. After a red dot scope assault rifle was chosen, a charge was placed on a wall and the action kicked into gear. An explosion busted apart the wall and a slow motion effect took over to give the player a better look at the initial guards. Firing grenades from the launcher mounted under the gun, the slow motion effect wore off as enemies poured into what seemed to be a shower room that looked almost identical to the one from The Rock. Enemies took cover on the ground behind walls and fired from a balcony above, with laser sights making their line of sight more obvious. Also in the stage was a riot shield, which could be picked up and used as mobile cover to enter into crowded rooms. It could also be used as a melee weapon, bumping into enemies to stun them, and slamming into them again to knock them out for good. Stun grenade detonations and melee knife kills rounded out the fight. Then the demo player dropped down a hole in the floor and the stage was over. A stat screen showed the total run time had been two minutes, 20 kills were made, and the demo was over. While Infinity Ward isn't yet saying how many missions are being included in the game, it seems like there'll be quite a few. Unfortunately no details were made available concerning the rest of the single-player campaign or multiplayer, so we'll have to wait for more.
MATtheHAT Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 Throat Communicator looks interesting......But apart from that, it all just looks like cheap tat to me. Although Madcatz did good with the TE fightsticks.
h4rri3r Posted September 16, 2009 Posted September 16, 2009 Microsoft/Infinity Ward are doing a conference to reveal some new information about Modern Warfare 2's multiplayer. At this time, we have: - Microsoft will be releasing a special MW2 version of the Xbox 360, which will be black, include MW2 styling and two wireless controllers. - And now we're into the game. Multiplayer. It's announced that there are new rewards for killing streaks in the game. 3 kills gets you a UAV. 4 gets you a care package with a random drop. - New feature called "Callsign", which lets you customise your online account with custom tags, clan emblems, etc. Thi also lets you create a custom class with a custom weapons loadout. - Moving onto perks. Creating a custom class also lets you load custom perks, including one called "Scavenger", which lets you get a full resupply from a dead enemy. - And...now it's off to play the game, try out some of this new stuff! Impressions to come. More is being revealed and covered on Kotaku. (I can't post the link because I don't have 15 posts.) gogogogo
spirited away Posted September 16, 2009 Posted September 16, 2009 http://kotaku.com/5360481/modern-warfare-2-multiplayer-hands+on-impressions-no-buzzkills?skyline=true&s=x Multiplayer Impression. Sounds freaking awesome.
h4rri3r Posted September 16, 2009 Posted September 16, 2009 And GameTrailers has new videos of the multiplayer modes. This game looks really fantastic.
Babooo Posted September 16, 2009 Posted September 16, 2009 i cannot wait for this game. i really cannot. 10th November sounds so far away...
Caris Posted September 16, 2009 Posted September 16, 2009 Er... no. Controls and framerate make or break an FPS. Any game that needs its core control mechanic patching in the first few weeks after release is a joke. As for the framerate vs resolution debate. Framerate wins hands down when you're playing the game, resolution wins hands down when you're looking at screen shots. I prefer for my games to play well and run smoothly, but if some people prefer to be able to say they have the game which looks best in stills on the internet - good for you! The game runs at 30fps all the time, never dips no matter what happens. Same as Halo 3, same as Unreal Tournament III and many others. You don't need 60fps on a console FPS, it makes zero difference.
Dan_Dare Posted September 19, 2009 Posted September 19, 2009 I only notice FPS on something like Burnout. You need a high FPS rate to keep up with the pace, I think.
spirited away Posted September 19, 2009 Posted September 19, 2009 http://forums.infinityward.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=96948
Cube Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 I was hoping to get this game from Tesco Direct with my next pay cheque. Unfortunately, the offer is now over do I doubt I'll be getting it at launch unless I find it at a similar price.
Daft Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 Is anyone not buying this because of the RRP?
MATtheHAT Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 The price is a total non-issue for me. For the amount of playtime I know I will get from this, it will probably work out the cheapest game in terms of Cost/Playtime. Shopto are doing the Hardened Edition for £64.99. Which includes a download code for the original Call of Duty amongst other things. Seems a fair price to me.
Cube Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 Shopto are doing the Hardened Edition for £64.99. Which includes a download code for the original Call of Duty amongst other things. Seems a fair price to me. £10 for the original game and £10 for the case?
MATtheHAT Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 £10 for the original game and £10 for the case? erm.... yeah! Although I would imagine the original game would be more like £15. So an extra fiver for some artwork and a nice steel case would be worth it for a fan of the series.
Recommended Posts