The Biggest Double Standard This Gen Exposed
To fully appreciate the point of this story, you'll either have to relive the four years of nit-picking you had to endure, or jog your memory to about three years ago and remember promises that weren't kept. The double standard I am talking about is the way Killzone is being raked over the coals for it's trailer although it in almost every way surpassed the trailer and Halo 3 for showing an arguably equally as detailed and impressive trailer for Halo 3, but not being kept to it's standard of quality despite being told that the quality of Halo 3 would also match it's highest quality trailer, but Halo 3 did not nearly match it's quality in any way.
The reason I'm saying this is the biggest double standard is because these two games are probably the two that are the most well known FPS for each respective console. Halo 3 with it's legions of followers and console-saving reputation, and Killzone with it's unbelievable trailer flagshipping Sony's exclusive titles this gen.
I decided to bring up the points because I'm probably one of the few who will admit to both loving both Killzone and Halo. I'm also probably the only PS3 owner who will say Halo 1 was better than Killzone 1, so I'm not looking to knock either game or either franchise, but to again expose the bias in the corporate media. If you can't tell, I can't stand the corporate media's utter lack of professionalism, but I digress.
The Killzone scenario I'll do last, because it's known, and I don't want to waste time on it.
So the first franchise I would like to cover is probably one of my all time favorites, Halo.
In 2006, Halo was shown at the tail end of E3 with incredible footage that was said to be in-game by Bill Gates, and confirmed by Peter Moore's nodding head (shown @ 1:17:40):
http://www.gamespot.com/video/6149780
but the very next year, Halo 3's trailer didn't even look half as good as the trailer:
http://www.spike.com/video/halo-3-e3-2007/2873826
You'd think the media would've been all over that, but critics were rather silent. Odd, since the media had a two whole years of practice to (rightly) rip on Kilzone 2's trailer being fake. Perhaps it wasn't so obvious... or was it?
To further the comparison, here's an image from the trailer:
http://www.youthcentral.vic.gov.au/digitalAssets/14483_Halo3Body.jpg
Versus
http://www.bungie.net/images/Games/Halo3/Screenshots/H3_E307_Chief01.jpg
which I got from Bungie's site directly to convey the point about The Chief from 2006 to 2007.
Even my four favorite Halo 3 pics show the stark differences between the trailer and final game:
(my favorite trailer pic of the chief)
http://www.youthcentral.vic.gov.au/digitalAssets/14483_Halo3Body.jpg
(my favorite Halo 3 in-game pic: looks the most real, like an overcast day. Hopefully not a bullshot)
http://buttonmashing.com/wp-content/uploads/halo3-hands.jpg
(my favorite trailer pic of the background)
http://ployer.com/archives/2007/04/27/Halo3.jpg
(my favoirte pic from the multiplayer Beta)
http://punchbutton.beloblog.com/archives/images/0507/halo%203.jpg
Because of that, when the bubble shield commercial came out:
http://www.mydigitallife.info/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/halo3ad.JPG
who doubted that the footage shown in that commercial wasn't in-game?
Again, I'm not trying to take Halo 3 "down a peg" at all; it's just to show how Halo 3 was given a pass for over-promising and under-delivering whereas Killzone 2 exceeds it's trailer in almost every way, but gets torn-down for very minor issues.
The second part of the story all goes back to the 2005 E3 trailer where they showed incredible footage of Killzone2, you know the one:
http://ps3.ign.com/dor/objects/748475/killzone-next-gen/videos/killzone_081005.html
Anyways, everyone called Bull-scat on the trailer being real (and they were right to do so in this instance), but the game (as we know so far) did right by the trailer:
http://media.psu.com/media/Killzone2_final_intro.mov
to the point that the side-by-side using (now) older footage shows that Killzone 2 exceeds the trailer in almost every way shot by shot:
http://talkplaystation.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/killzone2-e3-vs-now.jpg
Yet this game is so picked-apart by the media and the "media" (read: glorified bloggers) that we learned about the industry term for a widely-used technique called the "bullshot" from Killzone's image tweaking incident:
http://cdn1.gamepro.com/article_img/gamepro/156868-1-1.jpg
The curious thing is that simple things like this can be brought up just as quickly and easily as looking through the information, but for some reason, it becomes too hard for "reporters" nowadays if they can't copy and paste it.
Microsoft used deceptive methods, Sony on the other hand lied outright.
I'm sure Killzone 2 will be a fine game. But there is no chance in hell it will have the gameplay or be as innovative as Halo 3 was. Not to mentioned the monstrous sales and high review scores. Even with the 18 month gap...let's not compare the two.
In all honestly if you set up two pictures one each from Killzone 2 and Halo 3 it doesn't even look like it's in the same generation of gaming.
I just hope it doesn't get a free pass like Resistance 2 did.
How do you know that Killzone 2 "won't have the gameplay" if you haven't even played the game?, and what in the world is that supposed to mean?
I seriously don't know why so many Xbox fans keep mentioning Killzone 2's gameplay like it's some kind of taboo or mystery. Killzone 2 is a more realitic, tactical First Person Shooter, Halo to me is more Run-and-Gun with little skill needed to play the game.
And what in the world was so innovative about Halo 3 or Halo 3's gameplay? Nothing if you ask me and Halo 3 is far from innovative. If you want to talk about innovation, talk about Killzone 2's First Person Cover system because it is the first of it's kind. Rainbow Six Vegas has a Cover System, but it's not like Killzone 2's.
I was going to put that in this blog. Here's the link you're talking about:
http://ps3.ign.com/dor/obje...
But also please READ the blog. I included a clip of Bill Gates saying that the initial trailer was IN-GAME footage, which is different from IN-ENGINE(shown @ 1:17:40):
http://www.gamespot.com/vid...
The only reason I didn't include the clip you were referring to was because all of the videos in that clip were target renders versus final product, and I didn't want to start another side discussion. Killzone 2's clip showed preview code as well. I decided it wasn't fair to compare the two in this instance because as of now, we all know that there are already improvements to the preview code.
If they would've had a trailer versus final code comparison, I would have put it on the blog.
Halo 3 didn't improve dramatically from it's 2007 pre-release showing to the actual release like I hoped it would, so that comparison was valid.
Again, not bashing Halo 3 or Killzone 2... I loved the first games, and Killzone 2 has the burden of impressing me now, not Halo 3.
Halo 3 did that already. :D
WELL YOU ARE WRONG!!
You are NOT the only one who thinks so!!!
(because I do too) =D
I loved both games, but Halo makes me sweat!
I think a lot of the gaming media just took advantage of the fact that Killzone 1 wasn't all that it was proclaimed to be and didn't have problems with taking shots at Killzone 2 because of that. If Killzone 1 had turned out something like Halo on the first Xbox, then I doubt they would be giving Killzone 2 such a hard time.
Sometimes I think a lot of gaming journalists are really afraid to say anything negative towards Halo because if they do, it's like a sin or something.
I'm glad that Killzone 2 has actually matched and surpassed the infamous E3 2005 trailer in almost every aspect because I think that it will finally shut up all the doubters and naysayers.
However, I would like to comment that, the writer of this blog article has done a great job remaining unbiased and reporting facts, with links/pics/vids to back up his claims.
Excellent job, and really a good point you are making.
Bubbles +
Also thanks to BigPete7978 for sending me a link to this article as I may not have ever noticed it.
Pixelsword, I hope to see more from you.
HALO 1, HALO 2, AND HALO 3, WERE NOT INNOVATIVE in any way shape or form. The halo series just took a bunch a great IDEAS and brough them into one decent game.
Anyway, as for the blog, well done. :)
1. Halo was the first FPS to limit the guns you can carry to two. That brings an element of strategy and pre-planning to FPS that wasn't there before
2. Halo was also the first FPS to have the health bar automatically renew itself, making health packs unecessary.
There may be more, but that's the only two I remember.
And thanks to everyone for the kind comments; you all are too kind. :D
The main thing halo did that was the truest of innovations was bring FPS controls viably and comfortably to a Console controller. It made sense and worked well. The only slightly less important thing it did was make LAN parties fun for all and not just those with PC's. Also due to the tight control scheme and 16 player matches it became a phenomenon. Skill and chaos combined nearly flawlessly. That was the innovation Halo Combat Evolved brought.
Halo 2 refined it and 3 was more of the same... However with as many FPS's that have taken the leap and made controls even better ala COD4(My opinion may not be yours) and expanded multiplayer to near flawless levels not everyone needs feel short changed.
In a nut shell what halo did was make a huge push for FPS games on consoles. How many were on consoles before that you can remember? How many that were any good as well(Golden eye was good but try going back and you may feel different). None compared to Halo. So what it did was open a new category(apart from puzzle,RPG and platformer games to name the most popular) to consoles and is now the most popular genre for console owners by far. So that being said anyone who likes FPS games on consoles owes a debt to halo for being the initial push and the people at bungie for making it good and showing other devs there is a market for it.
My opinion though if you care. I hate the Halo story, The golden cow it has become and the characters offer me nothing of value when compared to characters like Kratos, Mario and random SAS member in COD4. I feel it is halo 3 was shallow, short, way too hyped, glitchy, pure fan service offering little in terms of innovation or graphics and I don't care what anyone says the AI sucks. All that happens when you turn the difficulty up is you get head shot more. The enemy doesn't employ any different tactics. I feel halo 3 was halo 2.1 and thats it. I'm not saying killzone will be the next greatest thing in terms of everything but graphics at least can not be denied. I feel the Halo franchise needs to move on and evolve. Truth is ODST looks so far to be doing so but we shall see.
Game on.
Although I do remember FPS games for earlier consoles like Quake II for the PS1, Turok for the N64, and other games, they didn't play well. Controls for just about any game I can think of that I can remember weren't tight at all. I think the best controls that I can recall was for Codename: Tenka, but even then it was a confusing mix of buttons and D-pad sequences to make your player competent.
And I totally agree about the COD4 innovations. :D
So when anyone ever asks it was controls for consoles and PVP for consoles that made halo innovative. Halo 2 really raised the bar for online... Halo 3 to me, like I said, was meh but bungie got a lot of money to milk the cow so I can't blame them and fans enjoyed it. However I feel the wave of perfect scores was unjustified and incredibly biased... If it was the MS money machine, PS3 resentment, diehard fanboys or most likely a mix then whatever. To each his own. I never liked the series really and I really tried but yeah...
I really dont see KZ2 breaking down walls in the same ways halo 1 did but I see it putting some significant dents in them which really is more what is needed. Graphics are amazing and initial previews from people are good. From the First person cover system to the Ai to the destructible environments... I just got done watching the new info on Qore and it was really good. Made me pretty excited for the game where as up until today I was just waiting for a new game. Now I am waiting for a new good(hopefully) game =D
Still though in this blog i see a lot of people saying they hate dark games... I always have too. I hated Doom troopers(genesis), the last boss in gears 1, MK3, condemmned 2.... and most games where it's so dark you dont get it... Where you just get lost because you can't see where your going or what not, This game looks a lot brighter then people give it credit but we shall see...
Anyway I'm ranting a lot and could go on but I wont. Game on guys
It's tough as I'm very patriotic and love my USA, but I also try to keep it real.
12
I'm glad everyone is seeing that I'm not trying to bash the games, I love the games; I have no problem with them: I'm focused on the media. The media is causing otherwise friendly gamers to go at each other, because these guys get paid by the word and don't really care if there's any objectivity or facts guiding their articles.
Sadly allot of misguided American consumers falsely believe that Halo is innovative. Just coz the US media says it is so. It never was. Golden Eye on the n64 controlled flawlessly, and had amazing console multilayer games. Years before the xbox.
I have been reading N4g since before all the next gens released, and the anti Sony garbage has always been here in the media (USA) but it is really ramping up lately.
If this is how M$ do business (FUD etc) then I feel bad for the future of technology.