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

[Zenien]

I hit the text limit, it was awesome.

 

[블라스]

You went where no man has gone before

 

[GFreeman]

I did that once, in an argument with some dude about the Wii I think. A feeling of shame crept over me when I realized what I had done

 

[Zenien]

THere is no shame!

Besides that post is nothing campared to this one

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=11123956&postcount=519

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=11123958&postcount=520

 

[GFreeman]

All that effort just so you could pretend that a woman actually has a chance in a fight with a man?

 

[블라스]

That's nothing, Zenien.
Look at my multiposting.

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=226980&page=198&highlight=government

 

[Zenien]

You broke the hype.

 

[블라스]

 

[TheCardPlayer]

It's funny how good this game is looking now that I have a PS3

 

[Phaser]

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 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.

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.

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.

"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.

Exactly, which is why I'm suspecting if they actually have any real variety to show off.

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".

Fine.

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.

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.

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.

Like I said, those are just unfulfilled promises at this point, especially since they have yet to show a second's worth of footage demonstrating said features.

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

So I expect them to show multiple scenarios like COD4. It's just that simple.

You're not reading...

Nice dodge. Read that quote of mine again, and try to answer it this time.

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.

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?

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

OK, I didn't bother to remember the other two you mentioned, level design and narrative, because I felt that sounded redundant so whatever.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Phaser]

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

What part of the statement that read "on the basis of all the information we have right now" didn't you understand?

Or do I now have to advise you to read my posts twice before hitting the reply button?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 proficientcy" 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.

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).

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.

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

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.

If only it did.

It did.

Funny, you can't read, again, because I wasn't commenting on definitive verdicts.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

And Halo did even better in the same timeframe under the circumstances at that time.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Purple Prancer]

OOOOOOH ****! OOOOOOOOOOH SHHHHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT!! QUOTE BATTLE! ROUND 3, FIGHT.


Seriously, you two are gonna ****ing clog the internet.

 

[Phaser]

Honestly Phaser, learn to relax.

Heh, take your own medicine, skippy.

 

[WhatsHisFace]

If my mind wasn't numb from a seven-hour Bioshock marathon... I'd be explaining why Killzone 2 doesn't deserve it's hype.

 

[Purple Prancer]

I would so be playing that right now, but first day of classes tomorrow. And if I do anything visually stimulating before going to sleep, it's burned in my mind for HOURS and **** just keeps looping in my head

This was especially bad when I played Kotor, then went straight to bed at 11, and found myself running around Tatooine, opening up dialogues and talking to people in my mind, then noticing it's 3 AM and I havent fallen asleep yet. I can never win

 

[WhatsHisFace]

Can you light things on fire with your brain?

 

[Purple Prancer]

Not directly, but I can tell my hand to douse the body with gasoline and then throw a lighter


And this one time I saw this nerdy *****emonster around school with his rolly bookbag ****, and I said in my head " ****ing fall", and not even two seconds later, he did

 

[WhatsHisFace]

How can you say such a thing when just yesterday we were reading about that five-year-old kid?

 

[Purple Prancer]

Because I didn't read it.

 

[Electro UK]

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.

 

[Spidey17]

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.

HA. Stupid XML. THeir were way too many cliffs in that game. But they were good for getting Jubilee to jump off and die. Then you could pay to resurrect her and do it all over again!!! I'm only partly joking.

 

[Zenien]

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.

Nice strawman tactics.

Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.

Quoting an opponent's words out of context -- i.e., choose quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions

Oversimplify a person's argument into a simple analogy, which can then be attacked.

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.

Gameplay footage and trailers as in Multiple, got it.

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.

And we've seen much more from CoD4 so far, gotcha.

"You'll be around the world in a number of poltical hotspots" Gee, I wonder why Sev and the Legion, who are a special military group who's purpose are to assist the ISA 'Navy', would be returning to one of the Vektan Carriers in between every mission, surely it might not be to get shuttled to another area of the conflict, that would be very improbable.

Exactly, which is why I'm suspecting if they actually have any real variety to show off.

I would expect that having only seen 1 area, it would be impossible to have seen multiple areas, which, by the way, in the COD4 media rollout, has happened over a period of time. It's not like the very first CoD4 video that was show wasn't just the bog sequence that was basically run of the mill. Oh wait, it was just the Bog rescue sequence, silly me.

Granted we did see a shot MP snipped 2 days later, but that was essentially just some shooting, and it was about a month after that were we saw something legitimately new. But, I mean, it's not like CoD4 is coming out much sooner then Killzone 2, or that CoD4 is a 2007 title when Killzone 2 is a mid 08 title and that wouldn't effect the rate or variety of any media rollout at all... oh wait, it would.

Or, as an aside, that at the end of that 7-10 minute sequence, we say a Helghan Attack fighter drop out of the cloud layer on an intercept course with the players position. Presumably to engage the player somehow. Yeah we totally didn't see that, or the Heavy, within a 10 (probably a little less in real gameplay) minute sequence.

Fine.

Golden.

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.

I shouldn't need to remind you that Bioshock is very different in approach then say CoD4 or Killzone, but I think I might have to. Bioshock is a very different approach to FPS then, say, CoD4 and Killzone. You'd expect a presentation like the Bioshock presentation from something like Bioshock or Deus Ex or Crysis, not from a more traditional FPS.

So I expect them to show multiple scenarios like COD4. It's just that simple.

Then don't expect them to follow the same exact style of media rollout as CoD4 within a tenth of the time span and a much larger release window between now and whenever the game comes out in comparison to the time frame Killzone is facing so far.

Nice dodge. Read that quote of mine again, and try to answer it this time.

It wasn't a dodge, not to mention the hypocrisy considering your first response. You were restating a question you asked elsewhere and I had already answered elsewhere. I never said there was a system launch factor that played into CoD2.

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.

If variety was its main strength then it wouldn't have received criticisms for being overlong winded because of a lack of variety, or sufficient variety when you look at the pacing and depth of those changes within the game as a whole.

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?

It would be much worse if it didn't have the amazing level design, narrative and atmosphere to pull you into the experience, obviously. Granted it still would have been pretty terrible, but the changes in gameplay were nothing huge event to event because the mechanics of all those changes were all very simple, it's the level design, atmosphere, and narrative that made everyone work better then the sum of its parts.

OK, I didn't bother to remember the other two you mentioned, level design and narrative, because I felt that sounded redundant so whatever.

Fair enough, though such things are mutually exclusive.

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'm not saying buy all their promises, but if you're going to criticize them for apparent lack of variety you shouldn't be comparing them on equal footing to a game that we've seen so much more of in a much longer period of time. The metrics between the two for a comparison like that is entirely off, and you know this.

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.

It isn't about linear being back, it's about creating the illusion of freedom, a lot of times the more linear the experience is the less successful the illusion. CoD is probably one of the more restrictive example down the how incredibly static the AI is. Once you'd played through a level more then once it doesn't feel dynamic at all. Games like Deus Ex and GTA are obviously on differing parts of the spectrum.

What part of the statement that read "on the basis of all the information we have right now" didn't you understand?

What part of the statement that read "You can only make that statement as an admittedly incomplete and slanted one" didn't you understand? As in my statement was a re-affirmation of the fact that your opinion is based off of very little that we have seen.

Or do I now have to advise you to read my posts twice before hitting the reply button?

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 wait, CoD4 which uses the same simple and intense combat system is now not enough, by your own admission. I guess Counter Strike, the most played multiplayer game on PCs just can't hack it anymore. Of course since CoD uses simple mechanics, I can see the multiplayer being really addictive, but wait, isn't that simple and addictive gameplay? Great scott.

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.

My verdict, eh? You push aside the validity of 'personal opinion' and then go on to say that my verdict isn't remotely important enough to become even any kind of insignificant factor in this debate or anything worthy for you to respond to. Essentially saying that this debate is 'facts' and clearly yours are the correct one?

Get out of here.

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.

Actually, the multiplayer component was limited to people being within a few feet of each other, and most review sites and magazines would be lucky to get two copies of a game for review (this is substantiated by 1UP, EGM, and Gamespot if you’ve ever listened to their podcast). So no, the vast majority of sites couldn't even face someone in Killzone Multiplayer unless they made their reviews after the release which is against the norm.

Yes because the final chapter in a highly narrative based campaign is not a significant addition, or the fact that for all intents and purposes the multiplayer was all but entirely unusable by the reviewers. Right, neither the final chapter nor actual working multiplayer are significant additions. Surrre.

Secondly the reason most sites don't re-review games is that doesn't bring in the traffic, and their staff is plenty busy working on features, previews, reviews, and playing all the upcoming games. So no Phaser, the mere fact that you would try to argue that content and the addition of content doesn't effect a game like Killzone Liberation, and thereby a review of it, is ludicrous. Especially in the case of something like Liberation which was unfinished prior to the free DLC release. It wasn’t add on content.

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.

Aside from the things I already brought up, Guerilla also made changes to the bullet trajectories between the crippled offline version and the version that actually made it possible for 99 percent of the people who bought Liberation to play Multiplayer with more then say on average 1 other person forget having 12 players. Basically all you could do before was explore the maps.

I'm not exaggerating anything. You’re insistence on this point only makes you look foolish and hypocritical when you act like the reviewers were even able to properly judge the merits of the multiplayer. Go look at the reviews, Phaser, after you've taken your foot out of your mouth.

First of all, you accused me of using sloppy logic on the basis of an example you yourself were completely ignorant of.

Because my statement of sloppy logic was in reference to the specific developer history, oh wait it wasn’t.

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.

Yes, you very clearly only brought it up as a 1-sided argument, thank you for so bluntly admitting your mistake. It's uncharacteristic of you.

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.

Maybe this might be difficult for you to grasp, now correct me if I'm wrong, but "read" and "write" are two separate things. I've always had sloppy grammar, however my reading comprehension in grade 8 was that of a University graduate, I read Catcher in the Rye in Grade 2, of all things, so best of luck criticizing me as a hypocrite for bringing up your apparent lack of ‘reading’ ability when you're the one who can't even make the proper distinction between what it is to read and what it is to write, in a written conversation no less.

 

[Zenien]

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.

Actually the fact that you admit to doing that as an absolute at all just shot your defense down the drain. What would have happened if he'd answered back, I wonder? We all know, even the people who would take your side in this argument.

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.

The example with very different set of circumstances behind it. Enjoy your idiocy, chum. Like I said you've already proven yourself wrong with your own prior response.

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 yet here we are, with me having never said that I think Killzone will be better then any of those games. Clearly you don't know yourself very well. In fact your whole inference that I was saying Killzone 2 would be better, which ended up in you saying ‘fine’, sort of tells the tail of everything.

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.

Then you just invalidated your entire defense then, I'm afraid to say.

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.

Funny as that visual is, that's not what I think of you, well, nowhere remotely near to the extent you suggest (hyperbole included), and I certainly don't hate you either.

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.

Well, that's good, because I never said I wanted to reply to things quote by quote. In fact I said it was unnecessary.

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.

Oh, really? I hadn't picked up on that. I don't hate your guts Phaser, I just find your incessant, as WHF put it, "I will kill everything" argument attitude to be a sign of someone who can't flipping grow up. You outright admit that the reason you don't 'nazi post' anymore is lack of free time. If you are so mature why don't you show your ‘e-maturity’ a bit more. Like I said, my post didn't warrant some multi post of doom. I take some responsibility for answering you back in a similar fashion, but there's no need to start at the drop of a hat.

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,

What a hypocritical statement though, from the guy who was saying other people run away, and then turning around and claiming someone else views it as a sign of weakness. No sorry, I don't. Unlike you do, apparently, since you felt so inclined to bring it up prior when you claimed I ‘ran way’ all the time.

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.

So you make a hypocritical statement and then willfully acknowledge it not one paragraph later, amazing.

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.

Except I specifically made it a point that replying with each and every paragraph I made with that post was unnecessary and that simply taking a look at the post as a whole and formulating a general response would have been desirable.

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.

Resistance has stood out for those who have played it, like I said, a game doesn't and often times can't make as big of an impact while still being as good or better then a game that came before it. Sorry.

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.

No if it's merely better, to have an impact on the entire genre as a whole it would have to be a revolutionary, or hugely progressive step from Halo. Look at LoTrO, that game is considered by a lot of MMORPG players to be incrementally better then WoW, but it will never have the impact of WoW.

And Halo did even better in the same timeframe under the circumstances at that time.

Filling a whole in the market always reaps huge rewards if the product is right, look at the wii.

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.

And Halo is inferior to Resistance in many respects, like level design, pacing, weapons, multiplayer, online infrastructure/options, heck once you get into the game the enemies are about a draw where it not for the enemies in Halo having more diversity in the tactics you have to employ.

You said it "comes nowhere near the level of Halo" and "A testament to it's own failures and shortcomings". I should have been more precise instead of just opting for failure as a short hand. I should have said 'doesn't mean it comes nowhere near the level of Halo or that it doesn't surpass it'.

[quiote]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.[/quote]

If you say so, what is the enemy you encounter when approaching the Church. What's the weapon you get on the third playthrough.

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.

You're free to your opinion. I have no interest in starting another "war of game design elements" argument with you.

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.

More ‘opinion’, Phaser? You brought up how Halo Resistance allegedly falls short of Halo in ever way, I just brought up the fact that Halo isn’t and never was perfect. I had already said that Resistance outdid Halo is several aspects.

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.

Is Resistance greater than Halo in terms of impact? Definitely not, but you kept professing that simply because it didn't have the impact of Halo in the original criteria that you mandated that it couldn't be a better game, that it somehow proved Halo the better game when everything you listed had little to do with actual game quality as a true objective measure there of. Even now, you are having to say "Well Halo is better at X" and it just goes to show what a load of crap your original argument is.

 

[Zenien]

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.

MUCH better quality then the stuff I had posted. Thanks, Electro.

 

[GFreeman]

Do you guys even really know what you're arguing about anymore?

Anyway, the commentary is pretty cool. This game will probably be a lot better than the first, but I still don't think it's going to be able to compete with the other "big" FPS games.