KillZone 2, worth the fuss?

 As per usual, I was drifitng through the blog section and came across:

Grinds My Gears: Call of Duty and Other Over-Hyped Games

Right then, most of it to me, seems a little superficial. I don't really care about CoD5, it's commited itself to suicide, pre-release by some ridiculous dev on dev bashing.

Back to the point, the blog says soemthign that made me feel enthusiastic enoguh to write a blog entry myself. Not that it is uncommon for me to do so.

"And I have a feeling that Killzone 2 might become the next Haze/Lair."

Now, I am a self professed PS3 fanboy. Check my blog entries if you don't believe me. But KillZone 2, to me does nothing.

Let's skip all of the cycnical bashign and get down to the nitty gritty of this monochrome shooter,  I can't udnerstand why the rumoured 60 million dollars has been poured into this when: 

-Resistance 2 looks and sounds better and isn't being a resource hog
-It's doing NOTHING new or innovative
-It's never going to beat Halo 3 critically due to bias
-And 8 Days could have used some of the monies

Don't get riled up just yet. I popped Resistance and 8 Days in there, mainly becuase I was running out of points. Why was i running out of points though? Becuase all I needed to say had been fulfilled by the second point.

Yes, 60 million dollars into a game that does nothing new. You could argue 100 million dollars went into GTAIV that did less than Killzone 2, but that was a definite seller, and Rockstar clearly haven't got consoles to support (and GTAIV didn't shift hardware). 

All I can say is that to me, the shooter is the prettiest thing ever. But can't i obtain the same experience with CoD4? Or are we still relatively in the dark about Killzone 2?

[pharmd]

if it doesnt have a multiplayer that appeals to me the way COD4 did then its dead to me =D

[CAPT IRISH]

the shooting genre is dead to me

[Dmack79]

1) WTF? Resistance 2 does not "look" better than Killzone 2. Even the Insomniac knows that. Insomniac is trying to make the best gameplay possible for an FPS, they ARE NOT aiming for R2 to look realistic like Guerilla is with Killzone 2.

2) And "its never going to be Halo 3 critically due to bias" ???

What, are you someone who can predict the future all of the sudden?

3)Nothing new or innovative??? SERIOUSLY, you don't know enough about Killzone 2 yet, to make that statement. We still have yet to see multiplayer, and we've barely seen any single player campaign.

MY POINT is that you should wait after E3 to make these judgements, esppecially since we only know about 35% - 45% of what the game will be like.

[Jinxstar]

Well it depends on what you are looking for in innovation my friend. Things in the game like lighting, destruction, physics are all top notch and "New" to the next gen of gaming at least to the degree we have seen in vids. What it is doing that is most important is setting a new engine up for people to work with. Hence the 60 million dollars and the 4 1/2 cell units it is supposed to run on. They weren't just making a game they were making tools for others to use and work with. The engine is completely unique and defining of the "Next gen" capabilities.

AS far as features to the game... While the explosions and everything "Look" absolutely amazing will it be worth the money if the game lacks in story, length and otherwise... Depends. Some gamers are GRaphics whores some love story some love innovation in the sense you write about. "Show me something I have yet to see before besides pretty". I don't really know what it will do different. From the videos I have seen I can see where it can feel very intense at times. It looks intense and if the AI(Another innovation) does what is seen in vids the wow. That is an accomplishment.

I really don't know what you would like to see. Give an example of what it is you would want out of the game. Shooters are very samey anymore and it's harder and harder to come up with new ideas and such... All I can say is game on bro and hope you enjoy it =D

[ape007]

I think that killzone 2 will be good but

it's kinda slow and heavy

I think resistance 2 will be a better game

don't get me wrong,that's my expectation,it could change the moment I play it.

let's wait and see

[Clinton514]

The constant robot like mentioning of Call of Duty 4 and Resistance 2, lack of "innovation" when there happens to be a few new tricks never really executed in an FPS game before.

Everyone covering Killzone 2 never seems to take the time to understand where the series came from and where it's going. If it means nothing to you...well what do you want us to do? Don't follow it anymore.

No disrespect to you though. You did take the time to write this.

[frayed]

I think the term 'innovation' has become a buzz word. It's like when someone says, 'Oh, yeah, we're taking it to the next level.' What does that mean? Nothing. It implies a positive step forward, but rarely commits itself to actual details of how and why gameplay is being improved. Innovation without decent application is unimportant.

For instance, everyone loves COD4, most agree, and yet, really, where is the 'innovation' in that game. It simply takes many of the gameplay elements present in the previous games, or other military shooters, and does them expertly and well - for the most part it feels like a combination of GRAW and Half-life 2. And, after all, isn't that whats important? Most excellent games these days tend to be jacks-of-all-trades. Oblivion, GTA4, Mass Effect etc, all combine well recognised genre elements to produce a product with compelling and deep gameplay.

Therefore, I don't think the question about Killzone 2, or any game, should be 'what is innovative about it?' But, 'what excellent gameplay does it offer?' Who could want more? If it truly excels at what it does then it should be a great game. If it fails to live up to the standard of gameplay it attempts to create, then it will not.

Innovation should go hand in hand with creating a better gameplay experience, but we're fools if we don't ask 'why?', when developers reveal some new technology. For an good example of an innovation that was introduced as a gameplay enhancing technology, you need only look at the Euphoria physics engine and its use in games such as GTA4 and The Force Unleashed.

I hope Killzone 2 manages to do both.

[socomnick]

says the man with a Haze avatar. Before you make fun of my halo avatar Halo 3 was good people that say it was trash never played it. :) Halo 3 had more revolutionary features than 90 percent of games.

[Jinxstar]

@ Socom.

Besides the controls in halo 1 tell me a few. I played and beat halo 3 and turned it in within a week.

[Clinton514]

You have little place in these conversations with your fanatical attitude. You probably haven't even played Haze so why bother commenting on things you know NOTHING about?

[Isaac]

Tell me any innovation made by Halo 3 for the FPS genre as far as single player goes.

Even sadder is how the same people that rate Halo 3 a 10 give Resistance a 6 (Eurogamer and Edge), despite the fact that they have a lot of similarities. Sad that Haze has 6.0 on metacritic and Halo 9.4 despite the fact that they are almost exactly the same. The storyline in halo is garbage, the campaign is a huge yawner and the characters have no personality.

And judging by the art style, I am surprised it got an M-rating, but hey, M-rated games are more appealing to young children like you, Microsoft knows, so knowing ESRB needs funds, Microsoft did them a favor probably, just as they did for most press outlets. Check gamestats and the public opinion on metacritic though, you'll see more accurate scores for halo and resistance.

Halo is a great case of how to market a video game on a MBA class, but a poor case on a Ph. D. in game theory and computer science on how to design video games, at least on single player.

If Halo 3 is only about multiplayer just say so, but even then Resistance owned Halo 2, COD4 > Halo 3, and it might just be that Resistance 2 will own COD4. Where does that leave the Halo franchise? Who knows, and who cares anyway, not the academy nor gamers that aren't casual or fanboys.

[frayed]

To be fair, I set that Avatar before the game came out... never got round to playing it thus far (apart from the demo). Never got round to changing my Avatar either... Hey ho.

[strongbad1441]

Why everyone trashes the original Killzone for the PS2. Now before this weekend, I had never played it, and I was out looking for a different multiplayer game, and picked it up for ten bucks or something like that. I sat down to play it with my buddy, and we had a pretty good time. Personally I didn't like it better than Resistance, the Unreal Tournament Series, or COD4, but it was still fun. I don't know why everyone thinks it's horrible, when it isn't. It's just a solid FPS from four years ago.

[Dmack79]

It's not a terrible game, it's just a decent FPS game that any FPS fan will have fun with. It's not a Unbelievably excellent game, it's just that game you'll have fun with for 30 min. (or more) and then move onto something else.

[K1LLZ1LLA]

First off you dont seem very Understanding. Sony Is not going to show off any real power or innovation till E3 this year or a K2 demo at the end of the year. your right they ARE holding off on some things. and i don't know about any of you guys.

but Halo 3 SUCKED!! even the Pro's at MLG from what i heard dreaded having to change to H3.

but back to main points you are completely correct about Resistance 2. It WILL be astounding. 60 Player Battles no matter what the graphic quality sounds pretty astounding to me!!

If you look at Killzone 2. they way it plays and feels. its more of squad based action(small teams). Resistance looks like clan systems will be heavily played upon. expect to see pro teams require a min of 8 players in my opinion.

[Aclay]

In my opinion, Killzone 2 is in a league of it's own. The fact that Killzone 2 is the first FPS game that has a cover system that is kept entirely in First Person view and to me, that's groundbreaking because it's never been done before.

I'm also looking forward to the story in Killzone 2 as well because I played the first Killzone game and loved it, and I can't wait to see what happens in Killzone 2.

As far as Killzone 2 not being innovative or not doing anything different, there's a lot of other shooters that have been released and have gotten high scores during this generation of consoles that have done abosoultely nothing innovative in terms of gameplay in the FPS genre. Like I said before, Killzone 2's coversystem is very innovative and when I first saw it, I was blown away.

Let me ask you this: What is COD5 going to have in it that will be innovative or groundbreaking?... hardly anything at all, it may have slightly better graphics, but you can't really expect developers to do a lot more with FPS games.

Killzone 2 does not look like any other FPS game out on the market right now and that is what makes it different from anything else. Killzone 2 even has it's own trademark enemies, those Helghast soliders with the glowing orange/red goggles and that makes it stand out as well. Resistance 2 is a Sci-Fi shooter, but Killzone 2 is more of a Realistic Sci-Fi shooter, plus, Killzone 2 is going to be very cinematic and the fact that Killzone 2 has virtually no HUD adds more depth to the game. Up until now there hasn't been a very cinematic shooter and that's an area where Killzone 2 will deliver big time as well. And when I say "cinematic", I don't mean long cutscenes either.

I have very high expectations for Killzone 2 and I know that it will deliver. As far as Killzone 2 being another Haze/Lair, that's not a possibility because Guerrilla Games has been working with Insomniac as well as other Sony first party publishers and they have all been sharing with each other various tips and things in regards to game development and with their combined input, there's no way in HELL Killzone 2 will fail to deliver because it will deliver.

Just because the first Killzone game didn't live up to the hype, that's no reason to automatically call Killzone 2 a fail because by now Guerilla has obviously learned from their first mistakes and this time around they've got much more powerful hardware and technology to work with.

And really, we haven't even gotten the full scoop on Killzone 2 yet. Producer Steven Ter Heide said that there will be vechiles in the game at Playstation Day, but he couldn't talk about it yet. Believe me, there is a LOT of stuff about Killzone 2 that we don't know about yet. At E3, I'm pretty sure that's when everything will be revealed, as well as Killzone 2's multiplayer.

There's supposed to be a Killzone 2 beta later on this year, so if you get into the Beta, you'll be able to play the game and take it for a test drive and see if it's what it's all cooked up to be.

[King_many_layers]

I completely agree with you.

her's my little take, just a little something I get confused over.

Gears of War's appeals:

realistic look ( with washed out colour pallete )
Great cover system
Smart enough enemies
enclosed linear levels.
Actual story.

Killzone 2:

Realistic look ( with washed out colour pallete )
Great cover system
Smart enough enemies ?? - unkown just yet
open linear levels.

But hey... it's not innovative - bin it. * confused face *

edit:

Also, why are people saying it's going to be poo with no replay value, the only reason COD4 is replayable is it's online really.