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.
View
