Killzone 2 showing straight after MS E3 Keynote, July 10th

[블라스]

Goldeneye is such a licensing mess that we'll probably never see it again.

Truck you, you mothertrucking piece of ship!
I hope you choke on your own ship, rock sucker!

 

[WhatsHisFace]

Truck you, you mothertrucking piece of ship!
I hope you choke on your own ship, rock sucker!

You are a pay maggot who eats ship and virginia.

 

[블라스]

This is fun

 

[Zenien]

Here's a better version of one of the previous shots we had seen.

 

[sandwraith]

I really hope you get to play as the opposing faction in the game's multiplayer modes. They have such cool gear. Reminds me of WW1/Warhammer 40000

 

[GFreeman]

So, that's not some weird concept art or something? The Helghast looking really weird, like they're not really there. I can't figure out how to say it

 

[Zenien]

Well if you look at the background Killzone 2 really looks a bit like a painting in a way. Look at the barrel of the gun that the most prominent Helghast is holding and observe how the colors all sort of blend into one another on the rim of the barrel. The models themselves are absurdly 3D, but the post processing sort of makes things look less 3D-ish then your normal game. That's probably why it looks off to you?

I really hope you get to play as the opposing faction in the game's multiplayer modes. They have such cool gear. Reminds me of WW1/Warhammer 40000

Well you could play as the Helghast in Multiplayer in both the original and Liberation so chances are good. :P The sequence in the trailer were you see the Helghast going up against cover and blind firing just excites me at the idea of playing as them in Multiplayer (because they rock so much).

 

[sandwraith]

Pre-rendered? Or just your imagination?

 

[GFreeman]

Yeah, I guess. The guy up front looks like a cardboard cut out that would pop up during a tutorial level or something.

Anyways, what happens when my teammates die in this? Are they just dead like Halo, or do I have to run around and resurrect them like Gears?

 

[sandwraith]

Yeah, I guess. The guy up front looks like a cardboard cut out that would pop up during a tutorial level or something.

Anyways, what happens when my teammates die in this? Are they just dead like Halo, or do I have to run around and resurrect them like Gears?

I've always preferred the Rainbow Six style of teammates death. I guess it depends on whether Killzone 2 is gonna be heavily storylined based.

 

[Zenien]

No word on that. We know that if Rico goes down you'll have a period where you'll need to resurrect him, but they haven't mentioned anything about your other fellow Legion that descends on the Invader craft with you.

Your standard ISA grunt whoever will probably die without you having to restart the mission.

We know the names of 2 of the people on your squad. One is Sev, the guy with the mohawk (who you play as), and the other is Gardner, the guy who says "I am cold, right now I can't feel my nuts!" in the trailer.

It would be neat if all of those characters were expendable and the story would alter itself to reflect any of them dying (like specific end mission cutscenes for if someone died, or if all of them died, or whatnot). The end of the game could even play out differently depending on how many of them you kept alive.

 

[sandwraith]

Oy....Programmers' nightmare Zen.

 

[Zenien]

Well probably a nightmare for the production guys who suddenly have like more then twice the work to do in building the realtime cutscenes.

Pre-rendered? Or just your imagination?

Bah! None of it is pre-rendered.

 

[GFreeman]

I hope they just die off, or they're invincible like black sarge in Halo. I hated needing to resurrect that clown in Gears every few seconds during the berserker sequences.

 

[sandwraith]

But isn't the challenge fun? I think the game will be similar to Gears but gut instinct tells me most of the time you'll be conveniently "seperated" from the rest of your unit.

 

[Zenien]

 

[GFreeman]

There was no challenge, it was just annoying. I'd rez that guy, take 5 steps, and the dumbass would find some other way to kill himself. Thank God you couldn't jump off a cliff in that game.

 

[Zenien]

 

[GFreeman]

The fourth picture reminds me of fatman from metal gear for some reason.

 

[Zenien]

Well one thing Liberation did a good job of is make sure that you always had plenty of syringes, but not so many that if you were sucking beyond all measure that you could just bring Rico back every time. I imagine that typically the AI team mates will not be aggressive, in Killzone and that video we just say the team mates tended to hang back and give you support fire. (well aside from Rico in KZ but he couldn't die, so chances are they're tunning the AI to realize that it actually can die now...)

Neat thing from the gameplay video: Sometimes there will be these cans of compressed something or other gas, and if you shoot it, gas will escape from the bullet hole and act like a jet engine, eventually the canisters will explode.

It's a nice alternative to the exploding barrel at any rate.

 

[Phaser]

I already covered this and it's a fairly basic and obvious point. I'm not sure why you're asking the question when I've provided the answer twice now.

No you've provided the answer to why Killzone failed (technical problems, A.I), but failed to address my point about why atmosphere and art direction didn't benefit Killzone the way you say it benefited HL2 as it's 'main strength'. You don't even understand that they are two completely different questions.

We've already seen some of it by now, we know there will be mini bosses and boses like the heavy who demand a particular strategy, I've gone into how health probably works, the focus on team mates lifted from Liberation, the weather aspect so on so forth.

The Heavy simply looks like heavy infantry, kind of like the Hunters in Halo. The shooting action also looks bland, particularly in the video where the player is repeatedly pressing the same button to open some kind of shields on a huge ray gun (or whatever it was) and then shooting to destroy it. What I've seen of Killzone 2 so far simply looks the same old recycled material from the E3 demonstration with little to no variety, unlike COD4. Hence my complaint. Oh and the fact that objectively, one still can't completely trust Guerrilla after two mediocre games and a single good one that wasn't even an FPS, no matter what you say about them 'growing and learning as a developer'. I'm a pragmatist and I don't believe in promises until I see some kind of result. And to this point, Killzone 2 simply looks like its gameplay doesn't have half the muscle of its visuals.

It's a good thing they designed that sequence with doing that in mind. Something like Killzone, or Halflife probably couldn't be summed up in a similar way without jumping around to other points in the game. Oh... right...

Wrong. Even if it can't be completely summed up in one demonstration, it's ridiculously easy to show off the variety in the game if it has any. Again, look at the demonstrations for Bioshock and Crysis. They showed plenty that helped point out what set them apart from other shooters. Killzone 2 hasn't. Most of Guerrilla's presentations is just raving about the technology of the game. Again, Doom III syndrome.

There is CoD4 showing multiple scenarios.

Yes.

There was the first good not flawed FPS factor going for it, unlike Perfect Dark which was not what people wanted and not a stellar game for the 360 in spite of user expectations, so CoD2 was the solution to that for both the hardcore and enthusiast gamer alike. It wasn't an amazing game. Pretty good for a WW2 game definitely, but not worthy of all those editors choice awards, granted maybe it did deserve them in the FPS realm in the wake of PDZ.

Did you fail basic reading comprehension? Was there any kind of system launch factor for the PC version of COD2? Where does PDZ count in the PC version of COD2 receiving just almost just as many positive reviews and Editor's Choice awards as it's 360 cousin? You're deliberately sticking your head in the sand because you want to downplay the achievements of what is obviously a great game on the basis of ill-conceived circumstantial excuses. You're really reaching here.

To elaborate on a point that I've already established twice now. That you supported when you said that even simplistic mechanics can still be rewarding provided they are executed well. Now you maintain that Half Life 2 mixed things up a lot, but when you look at what it actually 'mixed up' and the timespan the game encompasses, it can hardly be said that Half Life 2 constantly mixed things up. Now the roller coaster of Episode 1 is a bit of a different story.

I've already given numerous examples of how HL2 'mixed things up'. And there are a couple more that I didn't mention. I can give you a point-by-point summary of the entire game and how it constantly pushes you into different scenarios.

Enhanced and made workable by the atmosphere and nuance of Half Life 2, sorry but atmosphere, nuance, and level design, has everything to do with why Half Life works. Otherwise the you would see people always say "that sequence in Half Life 2 was so much fun". Everything works because of the total pakage yes, but it's the atmosphere, and cinematic qualities that sell Half Life 2, not them mixing it up per say when how they mix things up is very simple changes of situation.

So going by your argument if atmosphere and art direction can sell HL2, again, why weren't those elements even half as beneficial to KZ? Obviously you're putting a lot of emphasis on the impact of art direction and atmosphere here, but only when it is in the case of HL2. More double standards.

Guerilla has already said there will be much bigger levels then the one seen in the demonstration and more enemies on screen. So wait and see, it's only the third level. Maybe you didn't even watch the video, but that city is huge and entirely loaded at once, taking up around 2 gigs of data through all the geometry and textures. I've seen everything on CoD4 and you're exagerating just a bit.

That city sure looks huge, but that doesn't mean it is the entire level. The actual level might very well be only a part of the city while the rest is just scenery. Just like the helicopter insertions in GRAW where you see this massive city stretched on across for miles and miles, but it's not the actual level now is it? But you can easily see in the COD4 video particularly the one with the rocket launcher and the enemy tankers half a mile away with enemies shooting at you that the levels are actually as expansive as they seem to be.

If you really want I could post up CoD4 stuff and dissect it very easily. Aside from textures you'd have a hard time doing that with Killzone 2.

You can and it would be nothing but mindless jabber. The people who gave COD4 (there are quite a few of them and they are pretty well-known) Best Graphics/Technology over Killzone 2 have seen and played the game in person, while you and I have not, which is why their opinion and their analysis holds infinitely more weight than yours. In fact, just read this recent hands-on preview at Gamespot and see how the guy can't stop endlessly praising both the actual game and its visuals. Pretty much all the Killzone 2 previews I've read thus far is generally little more than gawking at the eye-candy.

You're free to your opinion.

Of course I am. And my opinion is backed with actual facts, which makes it right.

In your opinion which you are unable to substantiate as fact.

Well your apparent failure to highlight the distinction of KZ2 and constant "wait and see" comments based on currently unfulfilled promises only strengthens my position. And yes, it is an undeniable fact that on the basis of all the information we have right now, all of the shooters that I have mentioned - Crysis, Bioshock, Halo 3 and COD4 have a lot more to offer than KZ2.

Neither game is out yet.

Of course, I am not passing a conclusive judgment here. I am merely posting my impressions of how KZ2 ranks up against competing shooters thus far in terms of actual gameplay, which is to say, not very good.

Blow back effect, and it was coming off some terrible WW2 era shooters. It was seen as the 'redeeming' WW2 game.

Oh, you mean COD2 coming off "terrible" WW2 shooters like Brothers In Arms: Road to Hill 30 and it's sequel, Earned in Blood, both of which were highly acclaimed and favorably reviewed WW2 PC FPSs, both of which were released before COD2? In fact, Earned in Blood hit stores just 20 days before COD2, so it can easily be argued that COD2 was actually coming off some great WW2 shooters. Not to mention that it was the true sequel to the first COD that won innumerable GOTY awards, which results in weighted expectations for the game to surpass it's illustrious predecessor. Why don't you actually check up on your facts before making inane claims like that? 'Redeeming WW2 game' my ass.

The difference between those games is that you are taking reviews of Liberation in that state, and Liberation got those missing features added in later. Rendering your argument to the garbage bin as you like to say.

It would be rendered to the garbage bin when you actually bring me reviews of Liberation with the added content, otherwise your entire point is easily dismissed on the basis of the added content not having enough merit to warrant a new review or revise the old score. Try again, my dear.

This entire point is meaningless though as I never brought up the developers track records. Killzone 2 is a very new game for a very different Guerilla then the team that made Killzone 1. CoD4 is a new CoD game taking place in a modern setting.

Ah, but you did argue with me on the point, going even so far as accusing me of using "sloppy logic" on the basis of an example you were yourself ignorant of. Of course you didn't bring the point up, I did, but you tried to prove me wrong anyway and are now backpedaling because the attempt blew up in your face. Amusing.

You would have a problem if people shared then enthusiasm by saying it will be better then Halo 3, or X FPS.

Hah, we've already had THE_LIZARD#1 make countless number of posts like that saying Resistance would be better than Halo, Gears and whatnot and I didn't bother to waste my time writing entire page long rebuttals to him.

However if you were to take no issue with someone saying that (which has been almost proven here that you WOULD take issue with someone saying Killzone will be better then just about any FPS coming out between then and now) then you're point might be valid. As is, it's not, and a product of your slanted double standard.

I already provided a very good example above that proves you wrong. Of course, the difference between someone maintaining that Killzone 2 would be better than every single competing FPS is that the person in question has given a final verdict on the matter and it would be incredibly easy to tear his arguments down on the basis of fact and suffice it to say, I would. But, my comments in this thread are only my impressions based on the current information available, the status quo, and I am more than willing to withdraw them if KZ2 shows its bite is just as deadly as its bark. Even my assertions of COD4 ending up as the better shooter than KZ2 are filled with words like "might" and "likely", implying an estimation rather than a definite outcome.

I've come to realize that you must miss nuance in conversations, based off of the last time you didn't pick up on simple logic and people basically threw up their hands and walked away.

I rarely come to this forum anymore. I've got a full-time job, studies, games to finish and movies to watch. I only bothered posting because it was a weekend, otherwise I simply wouldn't bother since I would only end up arguing about games instead of playing them, as some hypersensitive whiner takes issue with what I said and everything goes to text-war from there.

Besides, it's ironic that you seem to bring up past 'defeats' to reinforce point, because if we were to take that into account, then you've bailed out infinitely more than I did, so what does that say about your failure to grasp simple logic? Whatever excuse you come up with in response to that, consider it an answer on my behalf as well. After all, nothing is more amusing than you jumping on me for saying I miss nuance in conversation, when you have repeatedly shown your constant failure to compose a grammatically correct post without endless editing and still have mistakes in them. Let's just put it this way - I'll learn to notice the "nuance" in your posts when you learn how to properly compose them.

Resistance is nowhere near as:

Successful - It's a launch title for the PS3 a system that is very expensive. It has still sold near 1 million copies in America. But you can't expect it to be as successful as Halo for reasons I'll get into pretty quickly.

If that is your justification, then Halo's example is even more extraordinary because it almost single-handedly saved a console that everyone and their dog had already condemned to be the next DC before it's release and went on to sell a record number of copies. The odds were far more unfair to Halo than they were to Resistance.

revolutionary - Agreed, which plays into why it isn't as sucessful. Halo set a new standard for Console FPS games and we've seeen console FPS games copying Halo for a while now. Resistance isn't revolutionary, it's just a very good console FPS (better then 95 percent of the rest) that is in the vein of Halo. Thus it's not redefining the standard and wouldn't be as revolutionary.

Thus we come to an agreement that Resistance was nowhere near as revolutionary as Halo and was in fact, derivative. I just can't see how anyone spin this into a positive argument for Resistance being better than Halo.

critically acclaimed- Agreed, which plays into the revolutionary critique and the fact that it was seen as derivative when it was first shown, and bore a lot of the PS backlash all the way through and even past release.

Great games overcome the burden of negativity and the baggage of bad press, not use them as excuses for their failures. Halo, a no-name title was launching as the premiere launch game of a console from a company that everyone hated and had already condemned to failure beforehand. The first Half-Life was swept aside as another wannabe using a dated engine in comparison to the likes of more anticipated titles Quake 2 and SiN. Nobody paid attention to Riddick because it was a licensed game based on a film that sucked, a developer no one gave a damn about and an actor few people liked. The fact that Resistance came nowhere near to reaching the levels of acclaim that Halo did is only a testament to its own failures and shortcomings. Period.

memorable - Story isn't nearly as cinematic, Nathan hale isn't nearly as iconic as Master Chief. Memorable plays into all the first three categories.

Ergo, one can easily use those points (far better story, cinematics and an iconic main character) as proof of again why Halo is significantly superior to Resistance.

respected - Agreed. But aside from the main character being less Iconic, and the game being made in the same vein as the game that came out years ago and hasn't been topped, all that has nothing to do with the quality of the game.

Who gives a flying **** the quality of Resistance here? The topic is that Resistance, regardless of how good or otherwise anyone thinks it is, is simply nowhere near the level of Halo, let alone be the better game. And all the points I mentioned are just some of the reasons why it is not.

It's very possible for a game to be lower in all these categories because of circumstance and partly because of the knee jerk reaction of the game itself as well as its own issues but still be better then the game that came before it.

Pfft, petty excuses yet again. It's hard to imagine there is anyone actually dumb enough to maintain that Resistance could still be better than Halo in spite of being an inferior product in all those aspects, especially after you've just made a point about how "everything works because of the total package" in the case of HL2, so how the hell can Resistance be a dud in so many aspects compared to Halo and still be the better game? It's downright pitiful how you switch and apply different standards as you see fit.

 

[Zenien]

No you've provided the answer to why Killzone failed (technical problems, A.I), but failed to address my point about why atmosphere and art direction didn't benefit Killzone the way you say it benefited HL2 as it's 'main strength'. You don't even understand that they are two completely different questions.

Don't lie, I said:

- art direction, atmosphere, narrative, and level design

Killzone possessed art direction, atmosphere, but a flawed narrative and level design. In fact thanks to the AI and level design the game was pretty bad most of the time except some levels were the level design flowed well and the AI flaws weren't as apparent. By all acounts without the great atmosphere and art direction killzone would have been seen as little more then a game without any redeeming qualities. You ask yourself "Why do people care about Killzone" even ignoring Liberation, it's because of the amazing art direction and atmosphere. The ideas were undercooked, the AI flawed, the level design uneven. But there were moments in the original where it all worked, and the idea of Guerrilla being able to improve themselves enough to realize their original ambition is why people were and are geniuinely excited for Killzone 2. Liberation just gave that point of view more legitimacy.

The Heavy simply looks like heavy infantry, kind of like the Hunters in Halo. The shooting action also looks bland, particularly in the video where the player is repeatedly pressing the same button to open some kind of shields on a huge ray gun (or whatever it was) and then shooting to destroy it.

I'd say it looks less bland then your typical real world setting shooter. Killzone might not have the enemy variaty of Halo, but it certainly looks to have a bit more then something like CoD4 on the basis of something like the "Heavy". Granted who knows how much they'll mix things up with snipers or what have you, hopefully they have a lot of things like that. Not that they'd probably need to rely on setting changes as much, due to having what looks like much more dynamic AI.

What I've seen of Killzone 2 so far simply looks the same old recycled material from the E3 demonstration with little to no variety, unlike COD4.

"Same old recycled material" perhaps because it is the same level we saw in the old CG trailer, and we've seen 1 10 minute (if that) segment from and early level in Killzone 2, we haven't exactly been shown multiple scenarios and levels like CoD4.

Hence my complaint. Oh and the fact that objectively, one still can't completely trust Guerrilla after two mediocre games and a single good one that wasn't even an FPS, no matter what you say about them 'growing and learning as a developer'.

I don't completely trust them, if you read you've seen taht I've never been giving them absolute endorsement. My comments so far are about what 'little' we know, and what has impressed me. I've never said "It will almost certainly be better or worse then X game".

I'm a pragmatist and I don't believe in promises until I see some kind of result. And to this point, Killzone 2 simply looks like its gameplay doesn't have half the muscle of its visuals.

Fair enough, that's your opinion.

Wrong. Even if it can't be completely summed up in one demonstration, it's ridiculously easy to show off the variety in the game if it has any. Again, look at the demonstrations for Bioshock and Crysis. They showed plenty that helped point out what set them apart from other shooters. Killzone 2 hasn't. Most of Guerrilla's presentations is just raving about the technology of the game. Again, Doom III syndrome.

Right, actually.

Crysis is deliberately a sandbox game that focuses on giving you superhuman powers, so of course it will be easy to show that. Bioshock didn't show a huge amount of variaty in any one demonstration, and even then both those devs were essentially blowing the lid off their game. The Killzone devs are just giving you a sneak peek, and they've said everything from vehicles, to other weapons, to story, to multiplayer, to how else the weather will impact the game, those are all things they aren't talking about/showing at this time. THe fact is they didn't choose to just around location to location, or highlight the free form aspect of their sandbox FPS because Killzone isn't a sandbox FPS. It's linear and probably good deal less liniear then CoD4 considering they've mentioned multiple paths through the campaign.

Yes.

And Killzone is much closer to a CoD4 then a Bioshock or Crysis.

Did you fail basic reading comprehension? Was there any kind of system launch factor for the PC version of COD2? Where does PDZ count in the PC version of COD2 receiving just almost just as many positive reviews and Editor's Choice awards as it's 360 cousin? You're deliberately sticking your head in the sand because you want to downplay the achievements of what is obviously a great game on the basis of ill-conceived circumstantial excuses. You're really reaching here.

You're not reading...

I've already given numerous examples of how HL2 'mixed things up'. And there are a couple more that I didn't mention. I can give you a point-by-point summary of the entire game and how it constantly pushes you into different scenarios.

Selectively ignoring things like game length and the depth and frequency of those changes, yes you have. Why do you think HL2 recieved flak for being long winded. That answers itself by the way.

So going by your argument if atmosphere and art direction can sell HL2, again, why weren't those elements even half as beneficial to KZ? Obviously you're putting a lot of emphasis on the impact of art direction and atmosphere here, but only when it is in the case of HL2. More double standards.

More like more examples of you lying byt deliberately excluding over half of the criterias that I mentioned.

That city sure looks huge, but that doesn't mean it is the entire level. The actual level might very well be only a part of the city while the rest is just scenery. Just like the helicopter insertions in GRAW where you see this massive city stretched on across for miles and miles, but it's not the actual level now is it? But you can easily see in the COD4 video particularly the one with the rocket launcher and the enemy tankers half a mile away with enemies shooting at you that the levels are actually as expansive as they seem to be.

The thing is this one level that you base the entire game off of, is exactly 1 part of 1 level, set deliberately in a dense urban industrial environment. If you had been following Killzone you'd know that Guerilla had previously said a year ago that the game would let you use air, ground, and sea, vehicles. That hardly sounds like every level will be like the one they showed, now does it? And even if they nixed that, they have said very recently that they will have bigger and more expansive levels then the one shown. The fact that we haven't seen those levels yet and you claim to be a , doesn't mean that we can discount the possibility of their existance, which makes commenting on the level size in Killzone 2 a bit of a lost venture until we see more.

You can and it would be nothing but mindless jabber. The people who gave COD4 (there are quite a few of them and they are pretty well-known) Best Graphics/Technology over Killzone 2 have seen and played the game in person, while you and I have not, which is why their opinion and their analysis holds infinitely more weight than yours. In fact, just read this recent hands-on preview at Gamespot and see how the guy can't stop endlessly praising both the actual game and its visuals. Pretty much all the Killzone 2 previews I've read thus far is generally little more than gawking at the eye-candy.

Do be fair, those same people praised CoD2, and while the campaign gameplay of that game was boring, obviously Multiplayer is entertaining. We do know that things seem much more intense in single player this time around, so maybe that will help offset the tedium of how linear and staged it is and how obvious that becaomes if you approach a CoD2 game with much more then mouth breathing over the graphics.

 

[Zenien]

Well your apparent failure to highlight the distinction of KZ2 and constant "wait and see" comments based on currently unfulfilled promises only strengthens my position. And yes, it is an undeniable fact that on the basis of all the information we have right now, all of the shooters that I have mentioned - Crysis, Bioshock, Halo 3 and COD4 have a lot more to offer than KZ2.

Consideirng how little we've seen of Killzone 2, you can only make that statement as an admittedly incomplete and slanted one.

Of course, I am not passing a conclusive judgment here. I am merely posting my impressions of how KZ2 ranks up against competing shooters thus far in terms of actual gameplay, which is to say, not very good.

Like I said you're free to your opinion regardless of how erronous it may be. Considering you're singing the praises of CoD4 whilst you lambast Killzone for alledgedly being simple of all things, but then turn around and say simple can be intense and rewarding. You happen to not find the simple KZ2 gameplay that you've seen to far intense and rewarding, ok fine.

Oh, you mean COD2 coming off "terrible" WW2 shooters like Brothers In Arms: Road to Hill 30 and it's sequel, Earned in Blood, both of which were highly acclaimed and favorably reviewed WW2 PC FPSs, both of which were released before COD2? In fact, Earned in Blood hit stores just 20 days before COD2, so it can easily be argued that COD2 was actually coming off some great WW2 shooters. Not to mention that it was the true sequel to the first COD that won innumerable GOTY awards, which results in weighted expectations for the game to surpass it's illustrious predecessor. Why don't you actually check up on your facts before making inane claims like that? 'Redeeming WW2 game' my ass.

Hm I had forgotten about those, good point. I retract my statement, however CoD2 is grossly over appreciated. Personally, and that's something you should keep in mind with making your own ego fuelled broad provlamations, I found CoD2 to be simple, formulaic, repetitive, and all together far too linear. I found it not intense, but run of the mill boring.

It would be rendered to the garbage bin when you actually bring me reviews of Liberation with the added content, otherwise your entire point is easily dismissed on the basis of the added content not having enough merit to warrant a new review or revise the old score.

Most sites don't bother to do new reviews for added content, try again, dear.

The fact is that missing its final chapter which is considered the most well designed part of the game as well as missing it's extensive multiplayer component that is considered the best multiplayer on the PSP are huge ommisions, but companies not bothering to re-review the game shows nothing, but taht companies very rarely if ever re-review games. You don't see new scores for an entire game when it gets DLC, free or otherwise. So sorry, but you're wrong.

Ah, but you did argue with me on the point, going even so far as accusing me of using "sloppy logic" on the basis of an example you were yourself ignorant of. Of course you didn't bring the point up, I did, but you tried to prove me wrong anyway and are now backpedaling because the attempt blew up in your face. Amusing.

Quite, even so amusing as to the fact that you yet again prove you can't read with 100 percent proficientcy. Seeing as I didn't say your sloppy logic was to do with the alledged innacuracy, as it had to do with meerly going off developer track records and not taking context into consideration. Guerilla has more context then your typical scenario, and even your views as a pragmatist don't excuse you from being willfully ignorant of circumstance.

Hah, we've already had THE_LIZARD#1 make countless number of posts like that saying Resistance would be better than Halo, Gears and whatnot and I didn't bother to waste my time writing entire page long rebuttals to him.

Of course you did make statements saying he was wrong flat out, he just never challenged your egomania like I tend to do (which is usually a giant was of time, but I digress).

And this arguement is straight to the garbage bin, considering Resistance isn't Killzone 2, dear.

I already provided a very good example above that proves you wrong.

If only it did.

Of course, the difference between someone maintaining that Killzone 2 would be better than every single competing FPS is that the person in question has given a final verdict on the matter and it would be incredibly easy to tear his arguments down on the basis of fact and suffice it to say, I would.

Funny, you can't read, again, because I wasn't commenting on definitive verdicts. merely that you would argue and take issue with anyone saying that they believed Killzone 2 stood a good chance of being better then any of those games. Not in the usual 1 post sense mind you, but as always you will attempt to grind to dust anyone who dares challenge your mighty opnion by having a different one. If you've noticed my side of this arguement is merely reactionary to your endless addoration of your own voice.

But, my comments in this thread are only my impressions based on the current information available, the status quo, and I am more than willing to withdraw them if KZ2 shows its bite is just as deadly as its bark.Even my assertions of COD4 ending up as the better shooter than KZ2 are filled with words like "might" and "likely", implying an estimation rather than a definite outcome.

Fair enough. Granted maybe if you bothered to show the sort of restraint you have in this part of your post you might just not end up in so many text wars. Usaully I ignore you. I only posted to say taht I felt you were taking the Doom 3 syndrom to a bit of an extreme. I went on to very plainly state what he had seen and haven't seen as well as some basic opinions about CoD4. IT didn't warrant a paragraph by pragraph response, but you as usual decided to turn into into a text war and even omit a lot of my paragraphcs so you could focus not on the basis of waht I was saying but what you could nitpick and try to attack.

I rarely come to this forum anymore. I've got a full-time job, studies, games to finish and movies to watch. I only bothered posting because it was a weekend, otherwise I simply wouldn't bother since I would only end up arguing about games instead of playing them, as some hypersensitive whiner takes issue with what I said and everything goes to text-war from there.

Granted if you view every person who takes 'issue' with what you have said as a hypersensitive whinner maybe you're the one who needs to grow a thicker skin.

Besides, it's ironic that you seem to bring up past 'defeats' to reinforce point, because if we were to take that into account, then you've bailed out infinitely more than I did, so what does that say about your failure to grasp simple logic?

Actually I've only brought up 1 'defeat' where it was glarringly obviopus to the other 8 people in the thread that you either legitimately didn't understand simple logic or there was some sort of a language barrier, or you were making a grand play to avoid being 'wrong' by pleading some form of ignorance. And sorry, but I only bail on you because I eventually get sick of your constant blathering and smug egomania.

Whatever excuse you come up with in response to that, consider it an answer on my behalf as well.

If only our circumstances were the same.

After all, nothing is more amusing than you jumping on me for saying I miss nuance in conversation, when you have repeatedly shown your constant failure to compose a grammatically correct post without endless editing and still have mistakes in them. Let's just put it this way - I'll learn to notice the "nuance" in your posts when you learn how to properly compose them.

Oh I have poor written grammar, no denial there. However when you deliberately miscontrue and omit things like you do, Phaser, well, it makes your excuses a little weak.

If that is your justification, then Halo's example is even more extraordinary because it almost single-handedly saved a console that everyone and their dog had already condemned to be the next DC before it's release and went on to sell a record number of copies. The odds were far more unfair to Halo than they were to Resistance.

The FPS kingdom on consoles was pretty much subpar before Halo came along. The FPS genre was flooded by the time Resistance came.

Thus we come to an agreement that Resistance was nowhere near as revolutionary as Halo and was in fact, derivative. I just can't see how anyone spin this into a positive argument for Resistance being better than Halo.

Seen as derrivative, Phaser, seen as derrivative. And it's about as derrivative of Halo as most other FPS games in the vein of Halo that we've seen these days. All that still means Resistance can be a better game pound for pound then Halo, it just means it won't have the same impact.

Great games overcome the burden of negativity and the baggage of bad press, not use them as excuses for their failures. Halo, a no-name title was launching as the premiere launch game of a console from a company that everyone hated and had already condemned to failure beforehand. The first Half-Life was swept aside as another wannabe using a dated engine in comparison to the likes of more anticipated titles Quake 2 and SiN. Nobody paid attention to Riddick because it was a licensed game based on a film that sucked, a developer no one gave a damn about and an actor few people liked. The fact that Resistance came nowhere near to reaching the levels of acclaim that Halo did is only a testament to its own failures and shortcomings. Period.

Actually Resistance has overcome the burden of Negativity for those that have played it. It has scored very well and sold very well on the limited Userbase of the PS3. The difference between Resistance and Halo, or the original Half Life is that Halo and the original Half Life redefined FPS games for their time, Resistance did not but that doesn't make it a failure. It's a rare thing when a game reshapes the industry, and certainly that has nothing to do with a game coming out much later being better or worse.

Ergo, one can easily use those points (far better story, cinematics and an iconic main character) as proof of again why Halo is significantly superior to Resistance.

If you want to twist them to that end sure. But Halo wasn't supperior because of it's story, cinimatics, or main character, and it certainly didn't reshape console FPS shooters on that basis, so on second thought, no.

Who gives a flying **** the quality of Resistance here? The topic is that Resistance, regardless of how good or otherwise anyone thinks it is, is simply nowhere near the level of Halo, let alone be the better game. And all the points I mentioned are just some of the reasons why it is not.

Actually it's very much at the heart of the arguement that you are failling to grasp. Nowhere near the level of halo respective to each games time? Sure. But taken on their own merits and throwing their own acomplishments relative to the market they were both in at the time? Resistance is the better game.

Pfft, petty excuses yet again. It's hard to imagine there is anyone actually dumb enough to maintain that Resistance could still be better than Halo in spite of being an inferior product in all those aspects, especially after you've just made a point about how "everything works because of the total package" in the case of HL2, so how the hell can Resistance be a dud in so many aspects compared to Halo and still be the better game? It's downright pitiful how you switch and apply different standards as you see fit.

Half Life strikes a very unique balance that no other games in the industry can replicate. The problem for your arguement is that I am not applying different standards at all. And Halo 1, for what it got right, wasn't perfect in every respect at all. So there goes that arguement right there. Half Life suceeds because of the percarious balance it strikes, but other games can be similarly uneven in differing respects and still be a great or amazing game.

 

[Zenien]

Honestly Phaser, learn to relax.

 

[블라스]

3 times