AusGamers Goes Hands-On With Killzone 2

AusGamers has an extensive hands-on preview up for Killzone 2.

From the preview:
Sequel to the poorly received but ambitious Killzone for PlayStation 2, Killzone 2 sets out to do everything right on the PlayStation 3 delivering a fast-paced and action-packed first-person shooter experience with stunning visuals and an equally robust and strong multiplayer offering. But can it live upto its own hype?

[Winter47th]

since this guy's opinion is quite the opposite of what every other preview out there stated about the "sluggish controls' and the game being "standard".

[Silogon]

"we've been here before"

Really? Same thing I feel about Halo... 1, 2 and 3. Imagine that. All FPS are the same!!!! You play as a gun and that's it. You are a gun and you run around and shoot things and they have no freedom. None of them.

A FPS is a FPS. You get what you pay for.

[Tarasque]

No wonder you only have 3 bubbles. Seriously you are absurd if you think all FPS are the same. Doom, Quake2, Tribes, UT, to current gen games such as Bioshock, COD4, Halo3, Bad Company all these title's do have one thing in common is that you shoot stuff, but other than that they are nothing alike. That would be like saying all 3rd person games are the same cause there is either platforming or shooting. Now if you want to say all sport games are alike then i would agree cause you know exactly what to expect without even playing the game.

[dogseye_deadhorse]

i disagree. what really is the difference really between games like killzone 2, halo 3 , COD4, resistance?

Its what it looks like and what ur shooting and thats pretty much it. No fps really inovates, some just do the fps job better than others.

give a fps a great story, good graphics, good gameplay mechanics and interesting environments and u have a 9 or 10.

[MikeGdaGod]

i agree all FPS are mostly the same but some are much better than others. i'm not a fan of FPS but games like CoD4 and Resistance did alot to spark my interest and i can't wait for Resistance 2 and KZ2. KZ2 cover system is something i feel is way overdue and i'm excited to see how well it works.

[PoSTedUP]

a standard shooter with amazing graphics, new very cool cover system, crazy awesome rag doll physics and from what im hearing the MP is sounding off the chain.

im loving the weapons so far.

lovin the game play (from what ive seen)

no 1 knows what the story is like so lets wait and see.

a fps is a fps but what fps does it like this fps???? <----XD

[jay3]

When all the initial footage of this was shown I was very highly skeptical, but the more I see of this I'm getting pretty excited to get my hands on it.

I mean yeah, it's supposedly just a standard FPS, but most FPS's are fun anyway. Just the graphics and awesome animations are what make me want this game, there's nothing else I care about.

Basically

FPS = Funtime

FPS + Great graphics + animations = Funtime x 3

I know, it's not exactly a philosophy shared by everyone/anyone, but it's my opinion so NEUGH.

[SmokingMonkey]

32 players with FPS blind fire cover system SICK

TPS cover system is cheap, you don't have to stick out your head. Real gamers know what i'm talking about.

KILLZONE2 will be amazing from what i've seen as long as it handles well then the online will be great for a long time
PLUS
HOME/TROPHIES/PSN UPDATES

[PS3rd the Turd]

hahhahahahhaahhahahhahahhahaha h

We already know the truth PS3rd last palce droids. hahhahahahahhaha

[ThatCanadianGuy]

?

..Oh thats right you cant talk back!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahaha!

[Mc Fadge]

+Bubbles CanadianGuy, that was great :'D

[theKiller]

yeah he got only one bubble, finally he has one, we can say all the bullsh*t we want and he cant reply looser!!

watch he switch to his other accounts! but no worry they will all be reduced to 1 bubble!

take that bot!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

[Sir_Ken_Kutaragi]

He must be talking about 'Halo 3' or 'Gears of Blur 2'!!! ;-D
It looks 1 Million times better than any CR*P on xBox 360!!!
The gameplay looks cool;)
+I'm playing Uncharted now and that Looks better than any CR*P on the xBox 360 to!!!(+i'm playing it on a SD:TV!!!Bet it looks even better on a HD:TV!!!) ;-P

'4D' will be back...Maybe his New name will be - 'N00B-in-TURD-in-7D'!!! ;-D

+This is the sort of SH*T we have to read on this M$-LOVING site for the next few months PS3 Fans...Oh well...

+Next years Reviews -
+This is the score from 'Edge' Mag for KillZone 2(PS3 Only game) 7/10
But if it was on the xBox 360 it would get 10/10!!! :-/

[juuken]

Says the fanbrat with one bubble.

[silverchode]

i think ps3 the turd is goty alternate account.

[TheDeadMetalhead]

you spelled place wrong XD

[Maddens Raiders]

of course there are always those that say (insert game) sux and there's no real reason to pay attention to it for whatever reason. I hardly doubt that this is the case with KILLZONE II.

I'm guessing they blew their chances to be invited to the beta 8D.

[clintos59]

I hate the fact that some of these game sites bring this up when it comes to resistance 2 or killzone 2, but when a game like halo 3 comes around they never bring anything up about it. Its always lets give it a good review since the franchise does sell very well. Ummm what happen to whats new?? I mean u can bring up the playback thing for halo 3 but that has nothing to do with the gameplay. There is nothing new and it feels like halo 2 with some added features and enemies and a lil bit better graphics but thats about it. Whats new in that? Yes u dont bring it up because u are either fanboys of the series or u getting paid or getting gifts from ms to talk good on the game. Everything ive seen so far from Killzone 2 surpasses anything ive seen on halo 3 thus far but yet some game sites always bring up this stupid question of whats new or same oh shooter. Give it up, when Killzone 2 comes out its going to blow our minds. Hate all u want but this will be another huge title for the ps3 owners no matter what these silly game sites say.

[TeaDouble_E]

Your right about that cant disagree

[MazzingerZ]

...and be ready because reviewers will review Killzone2 from a diff. standpoint...it will be reviewed as a game that should revolution the FPS genre so it will get scores as low as 8 due to being "just another FPS after all"

While any Halo game is reviewed as Halo game that should surpass what the previous title offered...

while COD4 was reviewed as a COD game that should surpass what COD2-3 offered...

while Gears 2 wil be reviews as the game that should surpass what the first Gears offered

Killzone2 will be reviewed as the game that should change the FPS genre...

...that criteria is of course only applied on gorgeus PS3 games....little unfair if you ask me...but since I love amazing games and give a crap about reviewers I'm getting Killzone2 of course, Multiplayer will be a blast.

[Kleptic]

^totally agree with you...

its funny to think about what kind of previews KZ2 would have it looked the same and was a 360 exclusive, or even multiplatform...no question that it would be getting nothing but praise and be at the top of every upcoming games list...

but at the same time, this was kind of expected and is mostly Sony's fault...Tretton is the one that slipped about the original trailer being in game...and had that not happened, Killzone 2 wouldn't be getting such close attention to detail...

but what I feel is wrong is that all that trailer did was showed amazing visuals for a shooter...nothing in it 'revolutionized' anything...it just looked really good...the final game obviously looks really good too...not quite as good, but not far, but more than anything...different (than the original trailer)...and that was really all sony promised...

whatever...I have played every great shooter ever made more or less...and I can already tell that this will rank up there with any one of them...the first killzone had plenty of different environments, no question that this will too...and the fact that it is set to be the most impressive looking game of this gen so far is more than enough for me to play through it...

[billythepunk]

Have you read the preview? It's not hating on the game, and in fact says a few times that what they played was only one level and that there were some cool elements, just that so far it's not redefining the genre and that the controls feel a bit clunky. It also finishes with the statement: "we really do just have to wait and see."

Stop getting so heated about any negative thing said about Sony, there are great games on all systems and bad games on all systems, the industry at large is not out to attack Sony only

[clintos59]

Look around u man with news on Halo 3 winning awards over games that bring way more to the table. U really going to sit there and tell me that Halo 3, was a better game then GTA4, MGS4, COD4, Mario Galaxy?

Im pointing out the obvious when game sites bring up the same bs remarks, "What is so innovative" or "What is so new about Killzone 2" or "Another Shooter" I mean wtf man, they say this not only about Killzone 2 but also Resistance 2 and Gears 2 is another good example showing how much they forget about Resistance 2 bringing much more to its sequal compared to Gears 2. But did that stop them from praising the hell out of it? No and Gears 2 aint even a huge leap from the first which Resistance 2 triumps the first resistance in every way and yet it didnt even get an award? I mean seriously wtf is up with that? Im not hating on Halo 3 or Gears 2, but it just seems like game sites bring up the most bs things when comparing these games in there previews. Its not fair at all.

[MazzingerZ]

That demo and level is the same that was released a year ago, it's rather old...that "pre-alpha" text has been there forever...to put together a demo is not that easy, takes time.

The actual game will play better and what is more insane...will look better than what we have seen so far.

Kind of surprised that reviewers don't mention this fact in most of the ocasions and talks as if they played the final product....I guess if they don't get a freebie from the developers during their visit they kind of don't put any effort in being objective

[waznotwaz]

Yeah,we read the preview.The only problem I had with the article was that he based the preview around the assumption that Killzone 2 should in some way have to redefine the genre.

[BigBaehr]

"There are weapons strewn about the game also, and in equal keeping with trends set by Call of Duty 4, specific events (such as destroying tanks) will usually reveal a grenade launcher or bazooka lying around nearby." As I recall Killzone had these too.

[Fishy Fingers]

Well as you can only carry 2 weapons at one time that's what you call good level design.

[billythepunk]

I'm pretty sure the preview doesn't suggest being able to carry only two weapons as a negative - it's just pointing out the fact that you can carry two weapons, and also that, if the need arises to use a specific weapon at a specific time, the game conveniently has the weapon lying around somewhere, like many, many, many other games of this nature across a wide variety of systems (not just PS3)

[VMAN_01]

Im from Australia and know this site, they were orignally doing Xbox and PC reviews and then started to do PS3, Wii etc. So go figure why they don't like the game.

[vlazed]

I liked Killzone on PS2 but I guess, according to this article, I suffer from a rare disease that allows me to formulate my own opinions. I should probably reevaluate all my previous likes and dislikes. Thank you sir for enlightening me to my own stupidity.

Now I will do a review of this article. This article seems to be similar to those that came before it. There has been many better articles and this one seems to stagnate the genre. It's dull and lifeless and has no color but considering he is only using words we will cut it some slack. It seems to be based on the tried and true formula of making large assumptions out of small pieces of information and the A.I. is broken. The font could use some work but hopefully by the time the full version is released they will iron it all out. All and all it is a forgettable read and I will give it a 6.75 out of 10.

Compliments of INTERNET INFORMER, patent pending of course.

[n4gzz]

Rare disease LOL !! could not say any better.
On the subject

KZ2 is just another standard shooter !! Hmmm, I would have believed you ausgamer but I have seen trailer and game footage !! Sorry, nice try though.

[Ozzyb]

I think you hit it right on with that. I don't believe in fanboyism but c'mon. Halo is the perfect example.. Halo is by no means a groundbreaking game. The first one, maybe.. the second one, if you wanna use your imagination, sure.. but the third one, no freakin' way. If you want to be that objective, then you should do so for all, not just with the game that "threatens" your ill-chosen favorite. That article was about as biased as you can get without saying it outright.

[beavis4play]

i must suffer from the same disease. and NG2 got similar scores this year for 360.....i guess it was poorly received as well?

bubbles for your review of the article.

[Mc Fadge]

He seems to set out trying to prove that it isn't innovative from the very beginning and without even giving it a chance. Warning, wall of text to follow, but there's a summary at the end :3

1. He starts by saying that he can't deny the graphics look impressive, seemingly implying his attitude towards the game. He also mentions that it's not innovative several times, and also implies it by referencing other games needlessly (even if some of the comments would fit with the original Killzone). And I for one would like to know how many FPS titles are out there that allow for "vast open areas replete with all the detail you can muster ala Assassin’s Creed". I'm guessing there's FAR (pun ;D) and few.

2. Does a game need to reinvent the whole genre for it to be worth playing? If a game improves visuals, action and gameplay of a genre, should it need to add platforming segments in which you simultaneously solve puzzles? I think not. The FPS genre is one focused on shooting things as the core gameplay, improving on that should be the goal.

3. His only remarks that hold any kind of weight are the ones of controls, simply because we haven't played it.

4. He complains about not being able to save his friend getting killed. I would draw parallels of this to an ingame cutscene, and getting angry that you can't stop the Covenant ship from exploding by kicking the bomb into out of space. It's just silly really :/

I could go on about more stuff, but I feel a blog post would be better than the comments section :P

TL;DR The game is looking to on its predecessor and other FPS games, not improve the genre by adding the most innovative thing since Pong, and based on these standards it looks great.

[vlazed]

Well said. Remember how R&C:TOD tried to do "too much" and got criticized for it. Hypocrisy seems to run rampant in game journalism.

[mrnjl]

Yes..Yes I am. Except MGS4 because I havent played it. Besides that I liked all the other games alot but Halo3 is the one I always come back to. Great SP(esp when you unlock all the good skulls)and the MP never gets old. I hope KZ2 is good it may make me buy a PS3 but Halo 3 is a game that never gets old in MY OPINION. But MY OPINION isnt fact and neither is yours.

[rockleex]

COD4 is a lot better than Halo 3.

COD4 is not a run and gun game. You have to be smart and use tactics in order to flush out other players. In Halo3, all you really have to do is just throw some grenades, shoot them while moving towards them, melee if they aren't dead yet, then pick up their ammo and grenades.

COD4's controls are a lot better also. The aiming just feels so smooth and precise. While Halo 3's aiming is rigid. Just try sniping in both games and you have a LOT more precise control in the aim with COD4.

COD4 multiplayer has custom classes which adds another level to the game. While in Halo 3, everyone's the same as you. With COD4's custom classes, you always start out with your favorite weapons and perks(except in Old School). This allows you to play in your own style and be the best at your style.

What game have I played countless hours every month ever since its release? COD4. Sure, I pop in Halo3 sometimes but not a lot. Halo 1&2 used to be the game everybody played at get-togethers, but now its COD4.

Anyways, this is just my opinion. But this is also why a lot more people play COD4 than Halo3 monthly.

[billythepunk]

I think the overall point of the preview is that Killzone, regardless of what it sets out to do, has invariably become a series that has a lot riding on what it delivers because of the hype surrounding the first game. To this end, the statements at the start relate to the hyperbole and eventual disappointment that came with the first game, and that as a result of this, and some bantering that occurred when Killzone 2 first reared its head, Killzone 2 has shifted back away from the hype light to allow itself time to hopefully become a solid game.

I also see no mention of Halo 2 or 3, just Halo, as an entity - if you have a look through AusGamers reviews, you'll see they actually didn't like Halo 3 and thought it did very little to improve the series or hold its own as the greatest game ever, as Microsoft would have had us believe when it was released.

As for the friend dying bit, I think he was just trying to point out the scripted event, not suggest there was anything wrong with it (it's more there to back up the statement about the game being very scripted, and in my opinion that's cool, because CoD4 was heavily scripted but still awesome).

What I got from the preview (and why I posted it) was that it was one of the previews out there not afraid to say the game looked uninspired visually, even if it is a stunning looking game. You can have a stunning tree branch that's still just a tree, but if you were on an alien planet, you would hope said tree branch was full of creative vision and wonder.

Finally, the preview holds hope for the title, admits that it was only one level and realises, no amount of time with any demo is going to allow for a definitive opinion, and that we just need to "wait and see".

[Kleptic]

great post...and I agree for the most part...however...this visually uninspired stuff is something I guess i will never understand...this post is not really focused at you, but more at the author...your comments on the art direction though are what brought it up...

So the level we have been shown is grey...ok...but how does grey immediately point to uninspired?...

think about what the level is about...its a river port that has a series of industrial factories located along the side of it...the enemy has seemingly forced the ISA to land there for whatever reason, and engage them from their concrete cover...

Now if I was a designer for a game...and was told that I had to tailor a level based on a hostile planet, of which has an extremely horrific atmosphere forcing its inhabitants to mutate and wear breathing systems to filter out all the...whatever'ness...how would I make it look?...the factories are made out of concrete, a material more than up to the task of surviving the elements...the coloring in the sky looks to have that orange smog look of it a polluted city...the dirt is muted, with a heavy looking coating of soot and pollution from the cloudy river right next to...there is rusty barbed wire lining all entry ways to factories...you say 'you can have a stunning tree branch, but on an alien planet it shouldn't be just that'...that is where I disagree...what would be more realistic...building huge bunkers out of concrete, and having them just unpainted concrete? (the helghast are human after all)...or taking the time to paint the concrete for no reason other than to have it look differrent than it does on earth/Vekta?

that is where I am lost...the architecture of everything shown so far looks flawless...it looks like its a city built to survive an environment that we're are not used to...What exactly would make it inspired to some?...more color?...personally I find the grey layout of concrete and a polluted river perfectly offset by orange dusk of the sky and the glorious crimson squirting out of your comrades getting riddled with bullets...I find it offset by the ridiculously awesome hue of the helghast goggles peering at you down a dark corridor in one of the indoor sections...and the neon blue glow lights used by the ISA dangling from their back...giving you a clear 'shoot at red, protect blue' mentality throughout the opening level... or the huge Nazi like red and black banners hanging from the factory high grounds...or what about the 6 or 7 on screen reddish orange explosions going off from helghan artillary right in your face at any given moment...

this is a dark and scary shooter...at least that is what they are trying to get...Its not happy...its not inviting...personally I find the overall art direction nearly perfect...at least for a level early in the game...you land on this place and you are supposed to figure out very quickly that...basically...it sucks...this guy complains about 'how am I supposed to care about these people and this area if it is so ugly'...what?...not every war was Vietnam...and had gorgeous tropical environments...you think troops in Iraq are over there saying 'yeah, this place is awesome looking...lets liberate it'...

I find that one of the best looking things of the game so far...it holds to the fact that you are a soldier fighitng an enemy that you probably don't want ot be fighting...on a planet that you simply don't want to be on either...there is no better way to pass off a war vibe than that imo...

now if you are saying some of the gameplay structuring is being slightly uninspired from what we have been shown...then I would agree...these random barrels and crates everywhere don't exactly scream originality...but everything else art wise, I find very very welcome...

please reply...you had a very unignorant opinion on this matter, and I would love to read where your opinion differs...its just for me, this is a planet that GG is making up on their own...its a work of fiction...and its retarded to judge them on something they created...sadly though it seems that almost every journalist gives himself the right to do exactly that...

I find this game ridiculously good looking...not just in the state of the art lighting and particle effects/animation...but in the little touches that make it so life-like...it adds touches, of which many I mentioned earlier in this post, that give it an artsy style to a theatre of war that the developers came up with on their own...this isn't a cut and dry 'realistic' shooter that takes place on earth, of which would be open to crticism on art direction...its a gritty sci-fi action shooter that is trying to immerse the player in an uncomfortable environment against an uncomfortable enemy...

[THC CELL]

this game will top a lot of games on M-player

[titntin]

Hey - its a valid enough opinion, even it it is unnecessarily negative.

No one has ever claimed that KZ2 set out to revolutionize the genre. Its simply trying to be a great FPS shooter. You don't need to reinvent a genre to be a brilliant example of it. You don't hear people moaning about Forza 2 saying 'we've all raced cars round circuits before'.

Whilst I applaud innovation and new gaming concepts, I don't have to have them for a game to succeed for me, and this game seems to be shaping up to deliver the only thing it ever promised: solid satisfying FPS action in brilliant environments.

Given the amount of prose written about this game, I believe people will be more critical of it than other titles, but thats just human nature.
I fully expect this to me a hugely enjoyable romp that I won't want to miss - lets hope it delivers that.

[Kleptic]

totally agree...there is no one to blame for these unfair expectations on Killzone 2 than Sony themselves...they slipped on the original trailer...they said it was real...and when it was then confirmed to be pre-rendered, all eyes immediately closed about 50% when looking at it...

but I find previews like this as doing little more than grabbing in the dark for something to complain about...the overall opinion of a Killzone 2 preview can usually be determined in the first paragraph...of which they are either sour about the hollow promises of 2005...or they are somewhat eager to see more...this falls under the former I would say...

when he starts talking about 'what was promised'...its obvious he simply had way too high expectations for the game...the original trailer didn't promise anything aside from insane visuals anyway...of which the final game is more than set to deliver on...but what else did the original trailer really show?...some very scripted events of your character blowing shat up...so if anything, if you are saying that Killzone 2 is set to deliver a linear scripted experience...than its living up to what the original trailer portrayed...

I am a massive shooter fan...I mentioned that in an earlier post up above...and I have never seen this kind of digging towards a game to date...It at times is reminding me of Doom3...in which it promised insane visuals, but little was ever shown of the gameplay...however previews never really mentioned that, because all that was promised was the visuals...Killzone 2 it seems is getting the exact opposite kind of expectations...the visuals are up to snuff, but they barely get a mention because that is what the media expected...now its quibbling about little gameplay details (the gun doesn't have enough ammo, the reloads take too long, there are too many barrels, what about the AI?, the levels and art direction are unispired, the gameplay is 'fun' but it doesn't really surprise me, its a fun shooter but i expected more, why didn't this game blow me away?, etc...those are real quotes from different previews over the past few months...they may sound silly grouped together like that, but that really is the type of stuff people are whining about in this game...some do have a foundation to stand on (I agree with the random barrels thing being a little ridiculous)...but most are just complaints just for the sake of getting a complaint out...hundreds of other shooters, some that are upcoming as well, do the same thing...and will never get a complaint like that...

this game is at the very top of the shooter list for me...not one game seems to blend so many things so perfectly as this imo...I personally love the art style of it...I love the contrast between the helghast and the grey concrete...the tech involved, with lighting that makes every other game to date look like it was made on Quake III engine...and the story has always been above average...

I guess my overall point is that some say 'well this guy has the balls to not be afraid and preview the game for what it is'...implying that most sites are sucking up to Sony and Killzone 2...I would say its the opposite...the sites with balls are the sites dropping the dead horse that is the 2005 trailer and actually commenting on exactly what Killzone 2 is shaping up to be...a fantastic looking and playing shooter that is set to set some visual standards across the industry, and definitely wreak havok (not a typo)on the PSN this coming winter...

[mrnjl]

Well said Titntin & billythepunk. I hope it is a great game

[TheExecutive]

this game looks to push both graphics and immersion to its limit. The MP IS looking to innovate the genre by adding together many tride and true formulas into a cohesive package. I for one think I will enjoy this game and if people stopped expecting the world from it, they would find out they may enjoy it too.

[DeZimatoR]

...but I kinda doubt the guy who wrote this actually got any hands-on time with the game.

Anyways, its the first time I hear someone calling the gameplay 'sluggish'...

We all know its cool to hate Killzone though. I mean, it all started with the 'Halo-killer' label, created by the media (no one remembers that though)...that was one of the demises of KZ1, as it didn't live up to the insane level of hype created.

Then the infamous 2005 CGI trailer, which lead to even more hating, when it was said it was 'in-game'. At this point Killzone 2 was probably the most hated game ever, the haters were crossing their fingers hoping it wouldn't deliver on that trailer so they could bash the game into oblivion. But then, at e3 2007, something happened: Killzone showed its face, kicked them in the nuts and walked away.

It didn't quite match that CGI trailer, technically at least, because the level of intensity and the atmosphere were far better in the 2007 trailer.

So now ppl couldn't hate on the graphics anymore. Or could they?! 'Wahhh wahhh, the textures suck, its too grey!!!!'. Everyone forgot about the textures in 2008 though, as they were clearly improved (wow, a game that was two years away from release actually improved 1 year later, damn! I guess those ppl hating thought there wouldn't be improvements). But now, there was a new problem!

'Its too linear!'
'The AI sucks!'

Funny how CoD 4, for example, didn't getting any flak for being linear. Double-standarts anyone? Oh, and the AI was confirmed by the devs to be toned down for the demo kiosks, and after watching all the gameplay videos showing ppl (who were attending e3) playing, I can say it was a pretty wise decision by Guerrilla, cause everyone playing...well, sucked. I guess ppl aren't used to actually having heavy recoil on weapons and there being little to none aim-assist.

So Killzone 2's next public showing is going to be at Leipzig in a few days, where ppl will get to play the multiplayer. It'll be funny to see what ppl will find to b!tch about. Obviously they'll turn whatever fault they find into a major issue, because everybody knows Killzone 2 is supposed to be absolutely perfect, reinvent the FPS genre and, obviously, bake cookies while you play it. Chocolate chip cookies.

/rant

[AKIronMaiden]

I also sort of doubt that this guy actually got his hands on KZ2 personally. In the article he mentions restarting to see if parts were scripted, I mean, if he was a E3 in a long line with people wanting to play game I doubt he had the time to restart it. But that's just what I think.

[juuken]

Wow, such a negative article. I mean...Halo and Gears weren't very revolutionary so why does he have to pick on a game like Killzone 2?

I guess it's cool to hate on Killzone 2.

[DJ]

"Killzone was billed as the PlayStation 2's "Halo killer" in what was more likely an out-of-context comment from Sony."

Game journalists coined the term "Halo Killer", not Sony.

[gameraxis]

earlier people were talking about how a FPS revolutionizes, in my opinion timeshift did and that game was @$$... FPS's are not neccesarily about revolutionizing the genre, rather taking a mechanic that works,(in this case near perfected from what I've seen so far) and giving us their story...

for example, whats different about killzone 2 than other FPS's... well we fight this faction called the hellgast that have red eyes. after they invaded us we need to bring the fight back to them on their home planet. how the story unfolds, the design of the levels, the look of the tanks and guns, and enimies...

THATS what makes every good FPS worth playing, knowing ur gonna be shooting ur shotgun and machine gun and pistol, but wanting to go through the NEW experience and listen to the story THESE developers have to tell... that's what its all about!!

I don't know if i conveyed what i wanted to in this message, hopefully u guys know what I'm trying to get at... this game doesn't need to revolutionize the genre (but I've never seen a FPS cover system, no RSV2 doesn't count, third person) it just needs to tell its story and take all the fundamentals and do it the best, which once again from what i can tell it is well on its way... and YES i like halo1 and 3

[AcidHorse]

I knew I should have stopped reading after the first paragraph. This guy has just attributed liking Killzone 1 to being a fanboy. So, if you enjoyed Killzone 1 in anyway, he thinks you are Sony fanboy. First off, this supposed 'journalist' used the word 'fanboy' to describe a person who's tastes were different from his.

I agree that Killzone 1 sucked. That isn't my problem with person; it's how he goes about insulting people who managed to find something they liked about that game. That is fine for any random sociopathic blogger, but for a person who wants to be recognisee as a profession or, at the very least, and intelligent person, his comments were out of line and his opinion about Killzone 2 is tarnished by his obvious dislike for the Playstation brand. This guy is a hack and a complete twat. Reading (wasting) this article wasted a few minutes of my life I wish I could get back.

[rockleex]

Well... its multiplayer was. I never tried the single player.

But me and my friends always played 2 player splitscreen against bots. Most of the time, I forget that they're bots. Me and my friends would always use the cheapest tactics, but it seemed like the bots always adapted to it. If they failed at adapting, then they simply don't venture to where we camp anymore.

If only Killzone 1's single player was polished.

[Jrome]

Killzone 2 is coming out they ask, what has it done that is new? Even though it actually provides a new experience not only in the cover system etc but in the level of immersion it gives.

Halo 3 is coming out they say OMFG THIS IS AWESOME THEY ARE INCLUDING MAPS AND NEW WEAPONS THAT THEY COULD JUST INCLUDE IN AN UPDATE!!!! -.-

I'm sorry but HALO: CE was great, Halo 2 was good, Halo 3 was half-assed. I mean Halo is great, the story has me going, I read the books I kept up with the theories as halo 3 was approaching but I find it unfair that they don't say anything about Halo 3 even though the gameplay has stayed the same through all of the games. The only thing that changes the flow is the weapons. As in any other FPS the weapons is really the only thing that separates any FPS from another FPS.

The thing with Killzone is, it has weapons, immersion AND a cover system to separate it. Plus a great story. Resistance also has a great story. Halo has a great story, but I think they started slacking near the end still enjoyed it though.

[reckoner]

I'm still getting it. Looks freakin amazing.

[smurfie4]

Not half as much as you failed with that comment there. -_* This is the typical petty gripe every gaming journalists puts towards this game. "The graphics are good but theres not enough pink and purple." The guy had the nerve to say its a corridor shooter. 0_0 Last time I checked, you cant drive a tank down a dam hallway. The world is open but the gameplay is fairly linear, just like COD4. I cant wait until guerilla reveals different colors. What are they going to complain about then? "Theres too many colors in this game, it needs more gray."

[IQUITN4G]

There isn't even any point saying anything to counter some of the crap that's being said in these comments.Idiots and an embarrassment to gamers that know a thing or two about what makes great games.

[Honor_in_Armor]

Let's not judge a book by it's cover let alone form an opinion on a book by reading a couple of it's pages.

One level may not represent the whole game in itself. One level is not a summary of a game (unless the game is repetitive). Ok, so this game MAY not be revolutionary in the way we want it to be, but if a game meets today's standards (set by the likes of COD4, Halo 3, Half-Life) does that translate into an inferior game with lower ratings? If a game does not raise the bar, does it get a 7/10 as opposed to a game of identical quality released before that raised the ladder higher at that time and earning a 9/10? Then will this very game that is often compared to the proven games/franchises but is similar with a different story, better graphics and technical prowess get a 8/10 or less for not innovating?
The word "innovation" in the gaming world brings a meaning that using different techniques or approaches in a game will bring different ways of having fun in games. However, just because a game doesn't innovate doesn't mean it still won't be fun.

Personally, I am more worried about glitches, framerate drops and other technical issues, than anything any else in the game. Those annoyances can turn a potentially fun game into a chaotic mess of an entertainment source. Second would be originality. This is different from "innovation". What will set this apart from other games. What can I take away from this game as a sort of memorabilia that will give nostalgia in the years to come? Third, is replay value. Can I keep coming back for more like I did when I had my sonic, street fighter, bomberman, etc games back in the day? The games that I play the most and that have amazing replayability are usually my favorite of games. I hope Killzone 2 will be one of those. Still, I won't hype myself to cloud nine.

[theEnemy]

The reviewer is.

He doesn't even know the story of Killzone 1.

[rockleex]

Killzone is really starting to look like a better version of COD4. If they fix the "clunkiness" of the controls, then there's no doubt it will better than COD4... if there IS any clunkiness.

I think the most important aspect they should focus on for multiplayer is the level design. COD4's level design is what makes the game tactical. Although killing people is fun, its a lot better when you know you outsmarted your enemies and didn't have to totally rely on your reflexes.