Top

Re4er

Trainee
CRank: 5Score: 0

User Review : Killzone 2

Ups
  • Excellent Graphics and lighting effects{Fun skirmish mode{Incredible skirmish Ai
Downs
  • Online lacks addictiveness and fun{No replay value{Bad Campaign Ai

What happened?

I regret to say that after playing this game I wanted to go play COD4. I don't know if this is a bad thing but I do know that once I finished the game there was, well nothing much left to do. The storyline provides a thrilling, action packed experience. With many different weapons to choose from and walls to shoot apart. But I found myself in a state of repetitiveness; about half way through the game I noticed that there really wasn't much new or exciting about this game at all. Maybe because I expected much more from it.

Sure there are some boss battles that provide an extra thrill every once and a while and the occasional turret mounting and explosive barrels exploding, but I found I was doing the same thing pretty much all the time, duck pop up and shoot, duck pop up shoot another guy and repeat. The cover system was useless for me; I'd say I used it around 5 times throughout the whole game and usually by accident. It just caused frustration and glitching.

I tried the online component of Killzone 2 and I wasn't impressed one bit, I actually have to say that I enjoyed the skirmish mode better. This is because it's more intense and the Ai friendlies actually do something because it looked like they're more engaged in the battles.

I also have to say I was disappointed that there was no offline co-op campaign. I bought this game and went over to a friend's house; we were both hyping to play it together only to find out that there was no co-op. Very, very disappointing.

But overall I think this is an average FPS and I've definitely seen better on the Playstation 3.

Score
8.0
Graphics
Ok game play. It's been done before and better. Specifically with the cover system.
9.5
Sound
Excellent graphics, some of the best of seen. But still not the best. Nice but sort of weird and dark polish to the game. The locales are mostly identical. Could've had a jungle or beach, something to show off the game a little better.
9.0
Gameplay
Good sound. The explosions, enemy callings and death yelling, gunshots, and thunder all made the game come alive.
7.8
Fun Factor
The campaign was fun the first time through. But extremely boring the second. Watching helghast burn to death is fun. Online is what brings the score down for me. One word, Horrible. Skirmish is fun and great but it wears down quite quickly with the limit of maps and classes.
6.5
Online
I didn't enjoy the online experience anymore than I enjoy watching players run around in circles, into walls or into enemy bullets. Maybe I would've enjoyed it more If I hanged out in the lobby more often looking for the bigger more exciting games.
Overall
7.9
The story is too old to be commented.
ThatCanadianGuy2682d ago

Sounds like you haven't even played the game..

ThatCanadianGuy2677d ago

But in reality he didn't.

Read my comment below.

-PINNER-2676d ago (Edited 2676d ago )

I thought it was odd that he said, "I found I was doing the same thing pretty much all the time, duck pop up and shoot, duck pop up shoot another guy and repeat". And then in the next sentence claims "I'd say I used (the cover system) around 5 times throughout the whole game and usually by accident".

How is Skirmish mode more intense than Warzone? So playing multiplayer against the AI is more intense than playing against real people who think, strategize, and communicate. From the sound of it, I'd have to say that he didn't put more than an hour into the online.

Last of all, he said, "I regret to say that after playing this game I wanted to go play COD4. I don't know if this is a bad thing but I do know that once I finished the game there was, well nothing much left to do". Ahh... question, what else is there left to do after any FPS campaign mode? Answer: Play Online. Since he is making this statement in comparison to CoD4, I would like to know what else CoD4 offered after completing it's story mode. That game didn't have Co-op or anything extra to do after the credits rolled.

Maybe Guerrilla should have added an extra 10 min. airplane level, that would have made it better.

Major_Tom2679d ago (Edited 2679d ago )

Yeah I gotta side with Canadianguy, did you play five minutes then put it down? Looks like you're just beefing the online just to go against the grain and it's factually false to add.

Jager2679d ago

You have NOT played Killzone 2.

LeGenDx2679d ago

if he did then he did not play the game. i would aim for their head an they would move within 1 sec trying to dodge me.

k i just read ur review.. the thing that got me the most is this

" I bought this game and went over to a friend's house; we were both hyping to play it together only to find out that there was no co-op. Very, very disappointing."

i even wonder if u even got 20 % of the game or did u just rush through it.

theres been news for months that this didnt have co-op

socomnick2677d ago

well the enemy ai is great in this game, friendly Ai is kinda bad.

news4noobs2679d ago

we discovered the one and only honest ps3 user. good review!

Snatcher2679d ago

Killzone 2 is average at best. The game has absolutely no fun factor, no variety, bad storyline, bad voice-acting, long loading screens and no co-op.

LightofDarkness2678d ago

Afraid I must agree. It's very reminiscent of the Doom III problem: excellent technology, average game. The game relies heavily on it's technical prowess alone as justification for it being a great game. I haven't enjoyed the on-line component thus far, and the single-player is only slightly above average as modern shooters go. That's MY opinion of the game after two play-throughs and about 4 hours of on-line play. I just don't care to play the game any more unfortunately, I was banking on the on-line being as great as it was hyped to be, but it has thus far failed to engage me. I really wanted to love this game, but I must say I've been disappointed some what. I'm getting that GTA IV feeling again...

thor2678d ago

I REALLY wish that KZ2 had had bad graphics.

If KZ2 had had bad graphics, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to say "it's got great graphics, but not so great gameplay". The reviews which showered it with praise would still be there.

There's something which REALLY irritates me about people who complain about HIGHLY CRITICALLY ACCLAIMED games because of minor problems, and then play a game that got average reviews and say "oh it was quite fun actually". It's as though people's expectations affect inversely their experience of the game.

Look at the evidence. 99% of reviewers obviously disagree with you. Even Edge magazine, the review with the LOWEST score on metacritic, praised the action and the multiplayer. In fact, they LOVED the multiplayer - their only major compaint was with the story. The lack of co-op DOESN'T AFFECT YOU when you're playing single-player and multiplayer! I.e. if KZ2 had co-op, the single-player or multiplayer wouldn't be any better; it's just that you're using the lack of co-op to bash the game.

Because KZ2 has great graphics, it not only gives you an excuse to bash the game, it actually affects in your mind your experience of the game. Every second you're playing you look around and think "wow, these are some great graphics, but let me ignore them and analyse the gameplay so much that I stop enjoying it".

KZ2 is one of the only games I have seen which has taken so much flak for having great graphics.

info2676d ago

now there is a simple concept for all the windger to understand. Do you like it when a teacher marks you down without even going through all your test ?

There you go. I am not going to rate a game without finishing the game, then you have a valid opinion.

This goes for this review which is nto even close to being called a review as well as the more "professional ones" out there (hint hint Edge reviewing resistance 2 with a few lines hinting at online same for killzone.

-PINNER-2676d ago

This is called the college radio effect. When people like an underground unproven artist, some one not well known. They like to cling to it like it has personal meaning to them, then the band hits it big, gets a couple songs on the radio, and signs on to a major label. The people who liked them in the beginning, now feel the band has sold out and they stop buying their new music.
Same thing goes for video games. People just have a hard time not being biased toward something they have pre-determined to be to popular. Now that's not to say that on the other side some people aren't to forgiving to a game because of it's popularity. GTA4 for example was a really good game, but the reviews tended to gloss over a lot of the problems. Where as in Kilzone 2's reviews we saw a lot of nitpicking cause some people were determined to find problems.

In the end, review scores are just a gimmick to get people to go to a website or buy a magazine. If they didn't have a number attached to the review, people just wouldn't care about them as much.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2676d ago
Show all comments (44)
The story is too old to be commented.