Killzone 2 (Demo)

[Matt]

So true Darwock. And worst of all is that it only happens with this game. I have never read a review for any other game that states it does nothing new.

CoD, Halo, or games from other genres like Gran Turismo. But they do excel in their genres, like so far, every review states this does. Why this is being singled out for this is beyond me. People want to hate this game. I dont know why.

This is probably going to upset a few of the brainwashed members here, but I genuinely think all the dislike for this game is because it's a PS3 exclusive. You put this exact title, exactly how it is, on the 360, and those same naysayers would be creaming themselves.

Me, I don't care what format it's on. TBH I'd like it on the 360 so more of my mates can join in online, but I've a PS3 as well so I'm sorted

[MJ]

I finally had time to play the demo last night and really wanted to like it from what I've seen and read and the fact I like first person shooters but I didn't think it was that great.

The graphics look good but didn't blow me away and the motion blur got annoying after a while.

The controls didn't feel very good, especially the cover system with the horribly placed triggers and thumbsticks, no matter what controller scheme I used the PS3 controller just doesn't work in my hands. I've never got on well with any PlayStation controllers and this just confirmed it.

This would have been my first PS3 game and I pre-ordered it at Game yesterday before playing the demo but I'm not sure if I'll bother getting it at release and might wait for the price to drop.

[smokedog]

After reading all the comments, I'm kinda scared about saying that I wasn't impressed by the demo. Like tom-nook said about the limited field of vision, but didn't find it as bad as Resistance 2. But I could live with that, the main problem was the controller for for me.

How do you get a 360 controller to work on the PS3?

[H-Man]

I have another question though, what makes an FPS not "just another FPS"?

I want the solution to encounters to not be immediately obvious. Something more than point the gun at a bad guy and pull the trigger. Being stuck behind cover and thnking 'wtff am I going to do now'?! is a good thing.

Take headshots. There was a time when no games had this. Now we get to target a specific party of the body and the experience becomes all the more involved for it. Golden Eye let us juggle bad guys by shooting limbs. You could keep 3 or 4 occupied while they hop around - that was all good. Halo gave us shields to take down (plasma charge, or shooting the jackals hand etc), multiple enemy types each with their own weakness and behaviour, vehicles, equipment. You're forced to make desicions quickly and adapt, and there's a great deal of scope for experimenting as a result. The demo in Killzone 2 shows what I consider to be the absolute basics in a fps, yet it doesn't build upon them in the slightest.

I want weakspots (aimging for joins in armour, the window of a riot shield, wounding shots, heart/groin shots?), multiple enemy types, and physics beyond exploding barrels. Sure, add the odd grunt/combine - its nice to have cannon fodder that fall easily - but have them as a change of pace. My big gripe with the CoD series has always been that despite the production value the games have never evolved beyond shooting a bunch of identical bad guys. Killzone 2 gave me the same (Edge described it well as a multiplayer map filled with AI bots) feel.

// Having said all this, i'd pick up Killzone 2 just for the hit animations (which I love and are something I wish all shooters would adopt) if the controls didn't have this weird inbuilt lag and impossibly slow turning circle. wtf is up with that?

[Darwock]

After reading all the comments, I'm kinda scared about saying that I wasn't impressed by the demo. Like tom-nook said about the limited field of vision, but didn't find it as bad as Resistance 2. But I could live with that, the main problem was the controller for for me.

I wouldn't worry about that, sounds to me like a perfectly valid reason not to be getting along with it. In fact I'd take someone saying "it's average because it just feels average" over some of the reasons that have been dug up for justification of negative opinions.

The reasons given in that Edge review (if I believe what I'm told) are good examples of reaching to find negatives. No humour or imagination and too much swearing, come off it... it's a gritty war game. Looks like these reasons will become the official points of argument for the naysayers from now on though, thanks Edge

[MrMarbles]

Take headshots. There was a time when no games had this. Now we get to target a specific party of the body and the experience becomes all the more involved for it. Golden Eye let us juggle bad guys by shooting limbs. You could keep 3 or 4 occupied while they hop around - that was all good. Halo gave us shields to take down (plasma charge, or shooting the jackals hand etc), multiple enemy types each with their own weakness and behaviour, vehicles, equipment.

I want weakspots (aimging for joins in armour, the window of a riot shield, wounding shots, heart/groin shots?), multiple enemy types, and physics beyond exploding barrels. Sure, add the odd grunt/combine - its nice to have cannon fodder that fall easily - but have them as a change of pace.

Can someone please make me a game that combines all of the above?

Or point me in the direction of one.

It sounds like Time Crisis crossed with Metal Gear Solid 2, forced into an FPS. I'd buy it.

Also: regarding the demo, I was able to move the loading screen around once by tilting my controller but have been unable to since. Why is this?

[H-Man]

That game doesn't exist, yet

Golden Eye, Perfect Dark and Halo 3 are the closest.

Am I really alone here - does nobody else prefer the more involved gunplay the games above offer to the no brainer point and shoot we see in this demo?

[ezee ryder]

This is probably going to upset a few of the brainwashed members here, but I genuinely think all the dislike for this game is because it's a PS3 exclusive. You put this exact title, exactly how it is, on the 360, and those same naysayers would be creaming themselves.

Me, I don't care what format it's on. TBH I'd like it on the 360 so more of my mates can join in online, but I've a PS3 as well so I'm sorted

Yup it is a shame to say but it would be very interesting to see comments if this title was on the 360.

For anyone to say Killzone 2 is not technicially impressive is a bit baffling from my point of view. The looks stunning, best looking game I have seen on a console so far.

I also don't really get it when people say the gunplay is not as "involving" as Halo 3, Goldeneye or Perfect Dark. I mean Killzone 2 is a gritty, in your face war game. You are not gonna get Helghast running around tagged with a plasma grenade saying "demon, demon!". Jeez, yes you can simplify it as you "just point and shoot" but that is the main aim of a FPS game! It's not like all you are gonna do in Killzone 2 is run around like a complete maniac and just blast everything in your way, there is going to be a bit more to it than that. The game must be reviewing well for a reason right?!

[Matt]

I'm still waiting for someone to finally put forward a genuine reason why Halo3 was "innovative". And I say that as a massive Halo1 fan. But 3 was pretty generic. Some nice setpieces, that was about it.

End of the day, genuine reasons to dislike KZ2 are fine - you don't like the control, the PS3 controller particularly, seems to be the main issue. I think the devs are going for more weight with the weapons rather than the twitchy nature of say CoD4. I think some of the problems attributed to the pad, namely poor accuracy, are more a result of a console game not having a load of aim assist. In a game like L4D, on my 40inch TV I can aim an inch to the side of a zombie and get a headshot. Aim assist is great on a console as pads lack the precision of a mouse. Getting the "feel" right is tough, as games with more assist automatically make the player feel more "powerful" and immediately, that's a benefit. Who doesn't like running round doing headshot after headshot

[Darwock]

Just had a great moment in the warehouse where I killed a guy about to throw a grenade at me, he dropped it and killed all his mates lol

As mentioned before aiming is no problem for me, and I have only played 2 FPS's in my life (Halo and the first PS2 Medal of Honour) - I think you've all just been mollycoddled!

[Uli]

For anyone to say Killzone 2 is not technicially impressive is a bit baffling from my point of view. The looks stunning, best looking game I have seen on a console so far.

it looks impressive but judging from the demo it's also quite obvious for me that the devs pulled off a lot of old and new tricks (dead bodies disappear, extensive use of motion blur) to hide that, again, Killzone pushes the Playstation beyond it's current technical accessibility .

[Eight Rooks]

To be honest I played through the majority of Halo 1 and 2 (not finished 3) just running around like a maniac and blasting everything in my way. I never felt the animations added any real gameplay depth to GE or PD, either, at least not on Normal difficulty (which this demo's set on, remember?). I appreciate the tactical stuff is there, I just don't think it's the be-all and end-all of why the franchise is as good as it is. That argument just strikes me as another extension of people not realising how good they are at videogames (a genre, or overall) - I admit I groaned a little seeing the only real distinct "change" in the enemies (other than a reaction animation) was shooting their helmets off... but at the same time, yes, it's a grimdark-bald-space-marines, relatively "realistic" military FPS, not a heavily SF-lite, fantastical technology one. If you simply can't accept context in this situation you run the very real risk of ending up thinking "Yawn, I shot him in the head twice and he fell over! I insist on being swamped with at least fifty enemies of six or seven distinct types all requiring a different weapon loadout and strategy who can each kill me in one shot, otherwise what did I even load the bloody game up for?"

[EvilBoris]

I'm still waiting for someone to finally put forward a genuine reason why Halo3 was "innovative". And I say that as a massive Halo1 fan. But 3 was pretty generic. Some nice setpieces, that was about it.

For me the ability to hijack enemy vehicles, deployable equipment, 4-player campaign co-op and replays were all both very innovative features in Halo 3.

[MrMarbles]

As mentioned before aiming is no problem for me, and I have only played 2 FPS's in my life (Halo and the first PS2 Medal of Honour) - I think you've all just been mollycoddled!

Being mollycoddled is probably bang on the money; in the past five years, aim-assist has become a staple feature of console FPSes.

Having said that, it's become a staple feature with good reason - it makes FPSes on console far more accessible and, arguably, more playable and more fun; it removes the frustration of having to fine-tune aim with a controller that isn't as proficient at such a task as a mouse.

Still, I'm finding that there's plenty of satisfaction to be had from getting successful shots in the demo purely because of the minimal aim-assist present.

[capcom_suicide]

I've read some interesting comments on this thread. I played again for the umpteen time, and I have say I'm still loving it.

I do agree that some parts of the visuals have sharp edges, and they use tricks to improve things, I also notice the game looks uber good on my old pio plasma, which again softens images.

Either way, I don't mind, as it's the best looking game I've ever played and the AI is just brilliant fun.

Can't wait for the 25th!