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.
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.
"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.
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".
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.
And Killzone is much closer to a CoD4 then a Bioshock or Crysis.
You're not reading...
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.
More like more examples of you lying byt deliberately excluding over half of the criterias that I mentioned.
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.
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.
Consideirng how little we've seen of Killzone 2, you can only make that statement as an admittedly incomplete and slanted one.
The "simple can be rewarding and intense" statement worked in the days of COD2. With the looming release of the current FPS heavyweights, I had already mentioned earlier that the bar and the standard will have raised considerably. Of course, two years ago KZ2's gameplay would have knocked everyone's socks out clean, but after seeing Crysis, Bioshock, Halo 3 and COD4, I don't think that KZ2's simplicity in being some kind of futuristic, post apocalyptic version of COD2 will suffice anymore.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.
So now that you got your ass handed to you when it came to arguing facts, you resort to replying by expressing your own personal opinion? Sorry, but your verdict isn't remotely important enough to become even any kind of insignificant factor in this debate or anything worthy for me to respond to. Cheers.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.
Then that means the added content isn't anything significant. Otherwise, they'd have at least revised the scores for the game if not write a whole new review.Most sites don't bother to do new reviews for added content, try again, dear.
Again, it is because said DLC is rarely, if ever, anything significant. Your banter about the final chapter being "the most well designed part of the game" is nothing more than personal opinion and unsubstantiated drivel at best. As for the multiplayer component, it was present in the game in the review copies and the review scores already accounted for it. Just having online support added in later on doesn't really have a considerably positive effect on the actual merit of the multiplayer modes in KZ Liberation. It's pretty much the same multiplayer but online. You're really reaching here by exaggerating facts to strengthen your position here.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.
First of all, you accused me of using sloppy logic on the basis of an example you yourself were completely ignorant of. As for the developer track record, I brought it up only as a side-argument for justifying how one can objectively be more optimistic for COD4 than Killzone 2. Plus, the developer's sketchy track record also outlines one of the reasons for my skepticism towards the promises they made so far.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 plagmatis don't excuse you from being willfully ignorant of circumstance.
Yes, because he was. But the one or two cases where I did briefly comment doesn't exactly strengthen your case against me maintaining that I would similarly take issue with asinine comparisons the way you are doing now, because I didn't.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).
Of course, it was only an example. Only you would be so densely pedantic as to actually announce that this tangent of our discussion isn't actually worth any kind of debate.And this arguement is straight to the garbage bin, considering Resistance isn't Killzone 2, dear.
It did.If only it did.
I know you weren't, you half-wit. I was, elaborating on the kind of circumstances in which I would take issue and engage in a prolonged argument if necessary.Funny, you can't read, again, because I wasn't commenting on definitive verdicts.
And how can you say that I would when I haven't thus far, especially in light of the example of LIZARD's rambling that I didn't pay any attention to? I'm sure there are plenty of similarly such ******ed comments almost everyday on this board, the kind of comments you expect me to "grind to dust" into (like you "Ninja Gaiden is grossly overrated" brainfarts) but I don't. Mainly because they aren't worth responding and partly because I don't have the time nor the energy to. These days I simply say my piece in a thread and quietly move away, unless of course, one is inclined to argument, in the case of which I gladly oblige.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.
Yes, I'm sure you picture me as a smug, slack-jawed aristocrat wearing red silk with a pompous demeanor and a snob accent standing on a pedestal looking down on all of you "peasants". That's probably the reason why you hate me so much and feel internally obligated to challenge me.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.
The paragraphs I omitted, I did so because I either did not disagree with what you said in them or because I did not bother commenting on them due to their insignificance. It's downright stupid on your or anyone else's part to demand that I respond quote-by-quote to every damn line in every post, even where it is not required.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.
Maybe I forgot to mention that the hypersensitive whiner is generally just you. After all, aside from DMC, I really can't recall anyone else in the past few months who has argued with me on this forum besides you. And not surprising really either, considering how in every single argument you never fail to mention how much you hate my guts. It's just pitiful.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.
The last time I didn't bother responding because you posted two days after anyone said anything on the topic, the point at which I was too preoccupied with other things to be bothered to draft a response. Of course, if you're so intent on taking this as a sign of weakness, then I'll make it a point to address your posts every single time. But then if I do, you bail whining and crying about my inflated ego and smug attitude. Which I am sure you will do eventually in this thread as well. And of course, like you, I will take it as a sign of failure on your part and you'll hate me even more because of it. It's hilarious.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.
I've already mentioned why I didn't bother replying to each and every single paragraph. Just like how I mentioned it is completely ******ed for anyone to criticize me for not doing so while simultaneously moaning and *****ing like crybabies over my quote-by-quote responses.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.
But even in this flooded FPS genre, Halo clearly stands out. So if Resistance was actually better than Halo, then common logic states it should stand out as well. But it didn't. Because it's not better than Halo.The FPS kingdom on consoles was pretty much subpar before Halo came along. The FPS genre was flooded by the time Resistance came.
If a game is better than or even closer to the level of Halo, it will have some kind of impact. Because Halo is widely regarded as the king of console FPSs, any game that is truly better than Halo will have a noticeable effect on the genre as a whole.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.
And Halo did even better in the same timeframe under the circumstances at that time.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.
Again, no one said that Resistance is a failure here except you. I have no problem accepting it is a good, maybe even a great game for some. But saying it is better than Halo is just asinine, especially when you have yourself admitted it is inferior to Halo in many respects.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.
Of course Halo's cinematics, story and main character weren't as revolutionary as it's gameplay mechanics, but comparatively speaking they were superior to Resistance in every way, and as such are contributing factors to Halo's overall superiority over 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.
No, it's not. Halo surpasses Resistance not only in terms of being more revolutionary, memorable, successful, respected, critically acclaimed, having a better story, main character and cinematics but also superior controls, A.I, art direction and music.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.
Did I ever say it was? My main argument in this whole debate is that Resistance is simply in no way whatsoever a better game than Halo. I don't know what you're trying to accomplish here by going off on ******ed tangents saying Halo wasn't perfect and whatnot.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.
Again, when did I say otherwise? Sure, Resistance has received good scores and sold decently, it might be great for some people even though it's not my cup of tea but it definitely ain't no Halo.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.
Honestly Phaser, learn to relax.![]()
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.
I don't think people actually gave a damn about the first Killzone after realizing what a botch-up job it was. Well, everyone except apologetic and defensive Sony fanboys.
Actually, it's pretty much confirmed that the levels in Call of Duty 4 would be quite varied by just looking at the gameplay footage and trailers.
The game is sure to take you around a number of political hot spots around the globe, with varied mission parameters - the ghillie suit sniper level is all about keeping a low profile, the Middle Eastern warzone is pretty much the videogame equivalent of Black Hawk Down, and the ship assault level has a small group of special ops forces murdering crew in their sleep. Suffice it to say that we've seen much more variety from COD4 than Killzone 2 so far.
Exactly, which is why I'm suspecting if they actually have any real variety to show off.
Fine.
If you go back and watch the 15 minute demo of Bioshock from E3, the lead designer quite effectively gave you an idea of the number of options you have in the game, by showing the characters hacking abilities, using plasmids, using different ammunitions for different situations, even the decisional dilemma you're bound to encounter when dealing with the Big Daddies and the Little Sisters.
So I expect them to show multiple scenarios like COD4. It's just that simple.
Nice dodge. Read that quote of mine again, and try to answer it this time.
It received criticism for some sequences being longer than they were supposed to. So? Still doesn't change the fact that HL2 puts you in greater number of different situations than most two shooters combined. And that is exactly my point about the gameplay variety of HL2 being its main strength.
Sure, the art direction, level design and narrative are also quite strong in HL2, but that sure wouldn't have been worth a damn in a game with incredibly basic shooting mechanics that is over 10 hours long. Heck, even with that much variety people still complained about the game dragging at certain points. How do you think it would've fared without that variety?
OK, I didn't bother to remember the other two you mentioned, level design and narrative, because I felt that sounded redundant so whatever.
I just don't buy all their promises when not only the videos, but also the damn screenshots released of the game so far all seem to be from that very same level, or some other level that doesn't look much different. All that talk about multiple paths, vehicles and whatnot...I'll believe it when I see it.
I just don't get this half-assed mentality of putting down anything because it is staged, linear or scripted. Not every game is supposed to be a GTA or Deus Ex. If a linear game means that it'll give me a far more immersive and cinematically intense experience than the ones that shower me with a buttload of gameplay options, where is the problem in that? It's only a negative point for those who are capable of liking only one type of game and I feel sorry for those chumps, because their poor selectivity is obviously depriving them of some really great titles.
What part of the statement that read "on the basis of all the information we have right now" didn't you understand?![]()
The "simple can be rewarding and intense" statement worked in the days of COD2. With the looming release of the current FPS heavyweights, I had already mentioned earlier that the bar and the standard will have raised considerably. Of course, two years ago KZ2's gameplay would have knocked everyone's socks out clean, but after seeing Crysis, Bioshock, Halo 3 and COD4, I don't think that KZ2's simplicity in being some kind of futuristic, post apocalyptic version of COD2 will suffice anymore.
So now that you got your ass handed to you when it came to arguing facts, you resort to replying by expressing your own personal opinion? Sorry, but your verdict isn't remotely important enough to become even any kind of insignificant factor in this debate or anything worthy for me to respond to. Cheers.
Again, it is because said DLC is rarely, if ever, anything significant. Your banter about the final chapter being "the most well designed part of the game" is nothing more than personal opinion and unsubstantiated drivel at best. As for the multiplayer component, it was present in the game in the review copies and the review scores already accounted for it.
Just having online support added in later on doesn't really have a considerably positive effect on the actual merit of the multiplayer modes in KZ Liberation. It's pretty much the same multiplayer but online. You're really reaching here by exaggerating facts to strengthen your position here.
First of all, you accused me of using sloppy logic on the basis of an example you yourself were completely ignorant of.
As for the developer track record, I brought it up only as a side-argument for justifying how one can objectively be more optimistic for COD4 than Killzone 2. Plus, the developer's sketchy track record also outlines one of the reasons for my skepticism towards the promises they made so far.
Again, I'm laughing my ass off on being told that I can't read with "100 percent proficiency" by someone who can't write worth a damn, even a single bloody paragraph without at least half a dozen screw-ups, in spite of recycling words that had already been posted with their correct spelling earlier and browsers having spell-check.
And they tell us to take TOEFL and IELTS exams when many of their own native language speakers are essentially linguistic handicaps.![]()
Yes, because he was. But the one or two cases where I did briefly comment doesn't exactly strengthen your case against me maintaining that I would similarly take issue with asinine comparisons the way you are doing now, because I didn't.
As for that little quip about my 'egomania', I find it sad and downright pathetic that you so childishly harbor such juvenile animosity towards me, so much to the point that you can't help repeatedly express it in spite of realizing what "a giant waste of time" it is. Have fun with your idiocy.![]()
Of course, it was only an example. Only you would be so densely pedantic as to actually announce that this tangent of our discussion isn't actually worth any kind of debate.
I know you weren't, you half-wit. I was, elaborating on the kind of circumstances in which I would take issue and engage in a prolonged argument if necessary.
And how can you say that I would when I haven't thus far, especially in light of the example of LIZARD's rambling that I didn't pay any attention to? I'm sure there are plenty of similarly such ******ed comments almost everyday on this board, the kind of comments you expect me to "grind to dust" into (like you "Ninja Gaiden is grossly overrated" brainfarts) but I don't. Mainly because they aren't worth responding and partly because I don't have the time nor the energy to. These days I simply say my piece in a thread and quietly move away, unless of course, one is inclined to argument, in the case of which I gladly oblige.
Yes, I'm sure you picture me as a smug, slack-jawed aristocrat wearing red silk with a pompous demeanor and a snob accent standing on a pedestal looking down on all of you "peasants". That's probably the reason why you hate me so much and feel internally obligated to challenge me.
The paragraphs I omitted, I did so because I either did not disagree with what you said in them or because I did not bother commenting on them due to their insignificance. It's downright stupid on your or anyone else's part to demand that I respond quote-by-quote to every damn line in every post, even where it is not required.
Maybe I forgot to mention that the hypersensitive whiner is generally just you. After all, aside from DMC, I really can't recall anyone else in the past few months who has argued with me on this forum besides you. And not surprising really either, considering how in every single argument you never fail to mention how much you hate my guts. It's just pitiful.
The last time I didn't bother responding because you posted two days after anyone said anything on the topic, the point at which I was too preoccupied with other things to be bothered to draft a response. Of course, if you're so intent on taking this as a sign of weakness,
then I'll make it a point to address your posts every single time. But then if I do, you bail whining and crying about my inflated ego and smug attitude. Which I am sure you will do eventually in this thread as well. And of course, like you, I will take it as a sign of failure on your part and you'll hate me even more because of it. It's hilarious.![]()
I've already mentioned why I didn't bother replying to each and every single paragraph. Just like how I mentioned it is completely ******ed for anyone to criticize me for not doing so while simultaneously moaning and *****ing like crybabies over my quote-by-quote responses.
But even in this flooded FPS genre, Halo clearly stands out. So if Resistance was actually better than Halo, then common logic states it should stand out as well. But it didn't. Because it's not better than Halo.
If a game is better than or even closer to the level of Halo, it will have some kind of impact. Because Halo is widely regarded as the king of console FPSs, any game that is truly better than Halo will have a noticeable effect on the genre as a whole.
And Halo did even better in the same timeframe under the circumstances at that time.
Again, no one said that Resistance is a failure here except you. I have no problem accepting it is a good, maybe even a great game for some. But saying it is better than Halo is just asinine, especially when you have yourself admitted it is inferior to Halo in many respects.
No, it's not. Halo surpasses Resistance not only in terms of being more revolutionary, memorable, successful, respected, critically acclaimed, having a better story, main character and cinematics but also superior controls, A.I, art direction and music.
Did I ever say it was? My main argument in this whole debate is that Resistance is simply in no way whatsoever a better game than Halo. I don't know what you're trying to accomplish here by going off on ******ed tangents saying Halo wasn't perfect and whatnot.
Again, when did I say otherwise? Sure, Resistance has received good scores and sold decently, it might be great for some people even though it's not my cup of tea but it definitely ain't no Halo.
http://uk.media.ps3.ign.com/media/748/748475/vids_1.html A pretty neat 3-part commentary, lets you see just how detailed the game really is.