Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Early Killzone 2 Reviews Looking Good

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the console-exclusivity-wars dept.

First Person Shooters (Games) 140

Reviews are beginning to appear for Guerrilla Games' upcoming first-person shooter, Killzone 2, a PS3 exclusive that has received a great deal of hype over the past several months. The reviews are mostly complimentary, but not overwhelmingly so; Ars Technica says it has "some of the best graphics yet seen on the PS3," and is a "solid take on the war-gaming genre." They also acknowledge that this is the latest game being held up as a standard for how good PS3 games can be, though the PS3 may not need such validation anymore. Edge Magazine is critical of the story, saying, "you could play the levels in random order to little ill-effect," but found the gameplay redeeming enough to warrant a 7/10. Concerns were raised early about the quality of the controls, but Guerrilla Games has affirmed that no changes will be made. Though the game won't be out for about a week yet, rumors of some fairly typical DLC plans are already cropping up. Giant Bomb recorded some video showcasing Killzone 2's multiplayer a while back.

cancel ×

140 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Early? (5, Insightful)

bhunachchicken (834243) | more than 5 years ago | (#26900031)

Early reviews? Scores have been pouring in for weeks! The game has received more than two dozen reviews from numerous sources, the vast majority of which have been unanimous in their praise of the game. The only blips have been EDGE (a magazine which has been going rapidly downhill for the past few years) and Maxim's review, which scored less than 50 Cent: Blood on the Sand. There again, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Having played the demo and watched all the gameplay videos, I'm confident my pre-order decision was a good one (£30 off Play.com, so it's not exactly breaking the bank).

The only downer I felt was that the original cast members from the first game, Templer, Lugar, etc., are not the lead characters in this sequel. I'm not even sure if any of them feature at all, apart from an odd cutscene here and there. A shame, really. Sometimes I think video game writers and designers need to consider that games like Killzone should care more about what happens to these characters as they fight this war. They don't have to be the most overly developed of characters, but at least it would allow the player to build an affinity with them, be more drawn into the story, and therefore enjoy the game on another level. (rant over - sorry)

Re:Early? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26900067)

Knowing this is slashdot and it is Sony related, I'm quite surprised the article is even have a positive spin !

Re:Early? (0)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 5 years ago | (#26900859)

I wouldn't piss on Sony if they were on fire.

Re:Early? (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 5 years ago | (#26901217)

That's understandable.

It's much smarter to *stomp* fires out or smother them.

Re:Early? (2, Interesting)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 5 years ago | (#26900223)

The only downer I felt was that the original cast members from the first game, Templer, Lugar, etc., are not the lead characters in this sequel.

The first game was not a major title. It can safely be said that most people who buy Killzone 2 will probably have never played the first game. From a writers perspective, this is man from heaven. They don't have to worry about the dreaded continuity.

Sometimes I think video game writers and designers need to consider that games like Killzone should care more about what happens to these characters as they fight this war.

There is a place for story in a game. But what must be remembered is that it is not a very big place.

Story in a game is like filling between layers in a cake. Sure it's tasty, and you can get pretty creative there(jam!!), but filling and icing is not what a cake is all about. Cake is about cake. And a game is about the game. Sure, put some delicious jam and chocolate icing between those layers, but the cake needs to be there, delicious and moist, as the base on which everything rests. Gameplay has to me the main ingredient in any game.

It is not that shooter games do not need story. It is that they are better served with a bite sized story. Shooter players are not looking for a Stienbeck-esque affair, broad, intricate and layered with meaning. They just want to shoot something. Think about Half-life, and how essentially, over the course of the game, nothing happens. The player, as Freeman, embarks on a journey with no specific goal, overcomes a series of loosely, if at all, related obstacles, and at the end has not reached any real conclusion. This breaks every accepted storytelling rule since Homer drafted the Odyssey. But despite all that, players loved it!

The reality is, that most of the story of games, comes from the playing. Scripted events, while they are appreciated, are not as essential to the immersion of a players as the gameplay, or the level design, or the art design, or the obstacles that they will face. Most people will remember a boss that challenged them before they remember a dramatic cutscene, complete with orchestral score. This goes double for first person games, where the player is literally seeing through the eyes of the protagonist.

Shooters get a lot of flack over their perceived poor storylines and shallow characters. While some of these criticisms are valid, it is invalid to say that shooters, or any game, MUST have Oscar worthy drama at every second turn. The player has enough drama facing down the hordes that are set against them. If you add any more, then that jam is just going to be cloyingly sweet.

Re:Early? (0, Offtopic)

Dr. Hellno (1159307) | more than 5 years ago | (#26900565)

From a writers perspective, this is man from heaven.

I don't know whether to make a gay joke or a jesus joke, so I'll settle for a meta-joke.

Re:Early? (0, Offtopic)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 5 years ago | (#26901359)

It's suppose to be mana a simple typo.

Story should be about why things happen (1)

Otis_INF (130595) | more than 5 years ago | (#26901913)

I think a story in a shooter in particular is really necessary because otherwise the game will become boring pretty quickly and the player will start wondering why s/he has to go there and click button X, why object O is at spot Y etc. A story gives meaning to all that, and the player thus is able to accept why things happen the way they did and why the environments/objects are the way they are. If you for example played Gears of war 1, there are numerous moments where you simply wonder why you're there, why you have to go there and why things happen the way they happen. Sure the shooting the crap out of every enemy is fun, but a story which gives meaning to the events makes a good experience a great experience (IMHO)

Re:Story should be about why things happen (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902035)

I disagree. The story tends to provide some extra variety but it's by no means essential (Doom and Quake pretty much had a story that consisted of "Evil guys appear. You're a lone soldier. Go kill them and save the world."). Story can make similar situations seem different by changing the underlying motivation or providing interesting cutscenes but in the end you're shooting enemies because if you don't they'll kill you.

Re:Early? (1)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902441)

Here's a couple of counter-examples: Deus Ex [wikipedia.org] & Marathon [bungie.org] . Both of these games has extremely deep story lines which helped to draw the player in. IMHO, story is what differentiates a good game from a great game.

Re:Early? (4, Informative)

AndyboyH (837116) | more than 5 years ago | (#26900293)

EDGE (a magazine which has been going rapidly downhill for the past few years)

Personally, I wouldn't agree with that. Edge provides solid reviews, and they actually use the full review spectrum (i.e. if a game's crap, it gets a 1 or 2, not a negative write up and a 6)

While Edge is sorely missing someone of the calibre of Mr Biffo in their columns section, and their gaming comic, Crashlander is trash, they're the only review that I (as a dev in the industry) actually want to read (although Eurogamer's reviews are starting to become equally as credible, although sometimes they're still a little too easily distracted)

Having read the review in question, I can also understand exactly why it is lower than the average. The game seems to be competant and pretty, but not anything 'great' in terms of gameplay or pushing the FPS genre forward. Which sounds like 7/10 to me.

Re:Early? (1)

jregel (39009) | more than 5 years ago | (#26900379)

I still subscribe to EDGE even though I've lost a lot of interest in the games industry. The main reason is that I've got every issue since 1 and it's a hard habit to break! :-)

For me, the best thing about EDGE was the Redeye column, but that's been gone a long time.

I've started reading Retrogamer instead, which I find more interesting.

Penny Arcade (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26901559)

These guys thought it would be fun to spend review copies to EVERY gamer site on the internet EXCEPT Penny Arcade to send a message.

Well, it did for me. I will not be buying this game.

It's slashdot Early man (1)

majorme (515104) | more than 5 years ago | (#26900599)

Gaming articles on slashdot are almost exclusively late and poorly written. As in pure crap.

Why bother writing about games when you don't care and don't know anything about them anyway.

Re:Early? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26900673)

It's also worth remembering, if KZ2 were a 360 exclusive, people would be foaming at the mouth to praise it, and it would be 10/10 across the board. Because the hype was set by the Sony haters after the E3 CGI stuff, everyone is out to criticize this, and clearly can't without making themselves look stupid/biased (Edge...)

Whatever the rating add 20% to get the equivalent 360 adjusted score.

Re:Early? (3, Interesting)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#26901769)

Let me preface my comment with this: I've owned both a 360 and PS3 and I've never really liked my PS3. I'm getting ready to sell it, in fact. I bought it for Home, blu-ray playback, and exclusives. But Home was delayed for a long time and sucked when it finally did come out, there are much cheaper blu-ray players now that don't require constant updates and actually work with my universal remote, and the few exclusives the PS3 have gotten (with the slight exceptions of Little Big Planet and Metal Gear Solid 4) have been mediocre at best. I'm actually getting ready to sell my launch PS3, as it just gathers dust now that I have a regular blu-ray player. My 360 on the other hand, is invaluable to me. Great exclusives, better quality and downloadable content on even multi-platform games, lets me stream movies from my Netflix account, it let me get in on the brief HD-DVD phase on the cheap (I still treasure my Battlestar Galactica Season 1 boxset, which has never been made available in HD on any other format), better controller for my big hands, etc.

But having said all that, there are still 360 exclusives (even popular ones) that I criticize. There are a lot of mediocre or boring shooter's on the 360 that just don't do it for me. I would give Gears of War 1 & 2 both "meh" scores, the same as some people are giving KZ2. And I just couldn't get into Dead Rising, with it's timed missions. So even a 360 fanboy like me doesn't just slobber over every game just because it's a 360 exclusive.

Re:Early? (0, Redundant)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902235)

Why the hell did you buy a Blu-Ray player if you already had a PS3?

Also, your PS3 can work with a universal remote, you just need one of these [nyko.com] or a PS2 remote and USB/PS2 adapter.

The PS3 is a decent machine, it just needs to work on its cock and balls.

Re:Early? (2, Informative)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902773)

For several reasons. Here are just a few.

  • First of all, I was able to get a good one for under $200 now.
  • Secondly, my new blu-ray player can be actually used with a universal remote (with a nice back-light, unlike the crappy PS3 blutooth remote) without some jerry-rigged patch that doesn't even work with a number of features. That adapter was never meant to be used with a PS3 and only half-ass works.
  • Thirdly, I no longer have to put up with mandatory system updates when I just want to play a blu-ray. The only way to get around this with the PS3 was to unplug it from the network. If you're connected to the network, even the slightest change in the blu-ray spec REQUIRES you to download and install an entire system update on the PS3 (which can take 20 minutes or more), with no option to skip the update and JUST WATCH MY GODDAMNED BLU-RAY! If you try to skip it one of these updates, it will just take you back to the PS3 menu and refuse to play the blu-ray. Even more annoyingly, doing one of these updates requires me to dig out and charge my PS3 controller because, unlike with the 360, the PS3 will not recognize the remote control during its updates. My new blu-ray player, by contrast, connects to the network and downloads quick firmware updates, but only when I ask it to, not when I JUST WANT TO WATCH MY GODDAMNED MOVIE!
  • Finally, my new blu-ray player has a nice slim conventional profile and I can sit my other DVD player on top of it. It's not a thick, bulky mess with a rounded top that eats up an entire shelf in my entertainment center and gets hot as Hell when it's on.

If I sound angry it's because I've spent the last 2 1/2 years dealing with the PS3's stubborn way of making something that should have been very simple into something incredibly frustrating and annoying.

Re:Early? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26902947)

I think your picking the fly sh*t out of the pepper. I got a PS3 for the Blu over a year ago. I've never been annoyed by updates. And you did spend $200 more than you needed to. I think the problem is between the chair and the PS3. The 360, when its working, looks like crap next to my sound system gear.

Re:Early? (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902099)

Claims of bias are coming up a lot when discussing KZ2. I really wonder if that's justified, I don't think anyone except FPS devotees that already own a PS3 even care about the game so why would they try to sabotage it? Especially to the point where claims of "conspiracy!" are warranted (and besides, the game got plenty of 10/10s, of course not everywhere but then again it's not Super Mario Galaxy)

Which is it? (1, Insightful)

macraig (621737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26900053)

So the reviews are looking good, but the game sucks?

Re:Which is it? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26900449)

Those aren't mutually exclusive. See Black & White. Or in the absurdly-overrated-but-not-complete-crap category, Half-Life 2 and BioShock.

Re:Which is it? (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 5 years ago | (#26900869)

Or in the absurdly-overrated-but-not-complete-crap category, Half-Life 2 and BioShock.

Now you're talking crazy.

Re:Which is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26901183)

They're dull rail shooters with a cool story. They'd make a good film, but as a *game* to, y'know, *play*, they're just typical FPS dreck.

Re:Which is it? (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902141)

Rail shooters are games where you cannot control your character's movement at all (beyond maybe selecting a branch to follow), not simply linear FPSes.

Re:Which is it? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902681)

They're dull rail shooters with a cool story. They'd make a good film, but as a *game* to, y'know, *play*, they're just typical FPS dreck.

In addition to what's already been corrected abing rail shooters, typical FPS "dreck"? You mean in both it is first person perspective and you shoot stuff? Because that's about all that's typical about those games.

IANAL But.. (1)

doyoulikegoatseeee (930088) | more than 5 years ago | (#26900065)

that is a lot of fucking links

Not a hardcore gamer unless you own a ps3? wtf? (5, Insightful)

alienunknown (1279178) | more than 5 years ago | (#26900071)

From one of the linked articles Here [arstechnica.com] :

Gamers need to stop worrying about the sales numbers of the PS3 and arguing over the merits of PlayStation Home. The truth is that the system is flush with excellent, exclusive games, and we're way past the point where you can call yourself a hardcore gamer and not own the hardware.

That is something I would expect to read on a fan-boy site and not a tech blog.

Re:Not a hardcore gamer unless you own a ps3? wtf? (2, Insightful)

retro.sufi (1288520) | more than 5 years ago | (#26900093)

I agree. On the whole I found it all to be a bit biased. I own a ps3 myself and I do regard the killzone franchise as awesome. But I think all of this is just propaganda.

Re:Not a hardcore gamer unless you own a ps3? wtf? (1)

lorenzo.boccaccia (1263310) | more than 5 years ago | (#26900211)

doubly so, as that article comes after month and years of bashing of the platform.

Re:Not a hardcore gamer unless you own a ps3? wtf? (1)

Dr. Hellno (1159307) | more than 5 years ago | (#26900593)

I see it as backlash against a lot of anti-sony sentiment out there; to say that the PS3 is pretty good (and I'm sure it's pretty damn good) isn't enough to counteract the bile spewed in various flame wars across the internet. A moderate statement of that nature simply sinks in a sea of venomous discontent.
P.S. I only own a 360 and I've been happy with it thus far but I would have a ps3 too if I could scrounge up the cash.

Re:Not a hardcore gamer unless you own a ps3? wtf? (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902175)

I don't think writing articles that reek of bias (like the "you're not hardcore without a PS3" claim) is going to help reduce the flamewars, instead it's more likely it'll fan the fires, maybe in an attempt to make flame warriors throw links to the article at each other to get page views.

Re:Not a hardcore gamer unless you own a ps3? wtf? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26900133)

You need a Wii, PS3, 360, 360 Elite, PS2, Gamecube, Virtual Boy, Atari, 486, Super Famicom, Famiclone, custom MAME cabinet, Game Boy, Game Gear, PSP, Japanese Super Megalo Cabinet, and a Sega Dreamcast to be a hardcore gamer.

Re:Not a hardcore gamer unless you own a ps3? wtf? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26900183)

Conspicuously absent from your list is a $10,000 alienware PC.

Re:Not a hardcore gamer unless you own a ps3? wtf? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26902325)

Because a "Real Gamer" would know better than to throw his/her money away on an overpriced (as in, enough to make Steve Jobs blush) OEM rig.

Re:Not a hardcore gamer unless you own a ps3? wtf? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26900189)

you are missing the monopoly board, now with even more exacerbation of underlying family issues

Re:Not a hardcore gamer unless you own a ps3? wtf? (1)

Dr. Hellno (1159307) | more than 5 years ago | (#26900601)

monopoly board, now with [...] underlying family issues

Actually, if monopoly taught me anything, it's that the guy who gets the most land the earliest dominates everyone else, including family. Sorry dad, you landed on Boardwalk. Cough it up.

Re:Not a hardcore gamer unless you own a ps3? wtf? (2, Informative)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902205)

Pfft, Monopoly is for casual board gamers. At least get something like Puerto Rico or Agricola [boardgamegeek.com] when we're talking about hardcore qualifications!

Re:Not a hardcore gamer unless you own a ps3? wtf? (1)

wisty (1335733) | more than 5 years ago | (#26900567)

Where is your SNES? Poser.

Re:Not a hardcore gamer unless you own a ps3? wtf? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26900741)

He listed it, Super Famicom.

Perhaps you're the poser if you didn't even know that.

Re:Not a hardcore gamer unless you own a ps3? wtf? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26900647)

Custom MAME cabinet? Real hardcore gamer would not go that low. Real arcade hardware all the way!

Re:Not a hardcore gamer unless you own a ps3? wtf? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26901715)

You forgot the ps1...

Re:Not a hardcore gamer unless you own a ps3? wtf? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26900629)

However it's entirely true. If you don't own a PS3, you clearly aren't a hardcore gamer.

It's clear to everyone that to get the best coverage, you need a PC, a 360 and a PS3. However to get 99% coverage, you just need a PC and a PS3 (as almost every Xbox "exclusive" is also out on PC, and usually better on PC).

Re:Not a hardcore gamer unless you own a ps3? wtf? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26900765)

You n00bz just can't stand it when us elite gamerz get some attention. It's probably cause you get pwned all the time when playing online.

Signed: Johnny - 15 years old

Re:Not a hardcore gamer unless you own a ps3? wtf? (2, Funny)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26901125)

The comment was probably made for the same reason that ~50% of all car advertising is designed to make people who already bought a car feel better about your purchase - except possibly with less of an advertising slant. Hard to day in a world of slashvertisements, right? But the author clearly owns a PS3 - he probably bought it at launch and is trying to make himself feel better about his $599 george foreman grill. Wannabe hardcore gamers are always elitist. I would argue that you're not really hardcore until you've built yourself gaming hardware, repaired a game console, and installed a modchip, plus you have to own a pissed off PC and when you fart halo action figures fly out of your ass.

Re:Not a hardcore gamer unless you own a ps3? wtf? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26901801)

Apart from the farting, I've done it all.
Guess I'm semi-hardcore?

re: Ars and the PS3 (2, Interesting)

King_TJ (85913) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902503)

I don't know... Accusations are constantly flying about the folks over at Ars having a bias towards the PS3. Perhaps they do. But as someone who is, by and large, not even really a "console gamer" - I came to the same conclusion they have.

I bought a PS3 only 2-3 months after they were released. At that time, Resistance and EA's Fight Night boxing title were about the only noteworthy releases I could find for it. Still, I saw the potential the hardware had, and realized it was finally a "console that made sense to own, along-side of whatever high-end computer system I was gaming with".

At the end of the day, a Wii is "doing its own thing" with inferior hardware, but a creative new angle on what a console should do. Great, but I didn't really WANT my gaming to be that physically involved. The XBox 360 is too much like buying another PC with embedded Windows and controllers replacing the mouse and keyboard.

The PS3 earns its space in my living room by serving as a blu-ray disc player and "media center" (as it can display slideshows of my photos from a computer on my LAN, play music from one, and even stream video content from one).

If anything, I think it's really a shame the current PS3s ditched the backwards compatibility with PS2 games. That was yet another big positive with the purchase of the one I got.... I can literally buy PS2 titles for about $1.99 each in discount bins at local game shops, making the whole console gaming proposition much more cost-effective than it might have looked when people first saw that sticker price for the PS3 itself.

Re:Not a hardcore gamer unless you own a ps3? wtf? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26902569)

lol @ Fan-boy. This is the thing that discredits us Playstation fanboys! You cannot accuse someone of not being a hardcore gamer for not owning or liking a system. Thats total bs. I personally own all systems and i like Playstation 3 the most but i find myself moving towards Xbox 360 for online gaming and some great xbox only titles.

Hype hype hype... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26900079)

Killzone 2 is a good game, certainly above average. In the looks department it blows most games out of the water but the game play is generic FPS game play. There is nothing new here and nothing that is going to break barriers or set a new bar for overall game development. It's not the ultimate Sony exclusive that Sony fans were waiting for. It's a good AAA title that had way too much hype surrounding it.

This game has been hyped for very, very long. The first trailer was in summer of 2005...it seemed like an eternity for the game to arrive on shelves.

Killzone 2 will bring the PS3 some better acclaim but everyone on earth knows that God of War III is going to not only set the bar for this generation of games but it's going to destroy the bar.

Re:Hype hype hype... (1, Informative)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 5 years ago | (#26900325)

Killzone 2 is a good game, certainly above average. In the looks department it blows most games out of the water but the game play is generic FPS game play.

This line has been repeated, ad nauseum, by almost everyone who has encounted or reviewed the game. I'd like to take this to task.

Firstly, on the matter on graphics. Personally, while I understand that they are good, I do not agree that the graphics in Killzone 2 are as much above other games as they have been made out to be. While they are technically impressive, they do not completely eclipse the graphics that can be seen on many recent titles(Gears of War 2, Resident Evil 5, Uncharted). Having said that, this is just a personal opinion, from someone with poor vision.

Secondly, the criticism that the game is "generic" or "unoriginal" is in my opinion, totally unjustified. For those who have not played the demo, let me explain.

Killzone 2 features a cover system. Holding L2 while against cover will cause the player to "hug" the wall. At the point, the left stick can be used to shimmy along the cover, and to peek out over or to the side in order to shoot. The gameplay encourages this by making it clear that running out of cover and shooting is very likely to get you killed very quickly.

This is a new game mechanic that fairly radically changes the gameplay of the FPS. Like the shoulder view in Resident Evil 4, Z-targeting in the Ocarina of Time, and the cover system in Killswitch, this is potentially a genre changing innovation. Killzone 2 is essentially bringing the Killswitch cover system from third person shooters, into the first person shooter domain. If this is not innovation, then I'm not sure what qualifies.

Personally, having of late seen reviewers, time and again, criticize first person shooters for being "unoriginal" or "bland", I can only conclude that the review community has become jaded towards the genre. I think they are finally coming down off their shameless hype high preceding Halo 3 and have become cynical about the entire concept of FPS games. While the FPS market is admittedly saturated, there is still innovation in this area, even if reviewers are unable to see it.

Re:Hype hype hype... (5, Informative)

iainl (136759) | more than 5 years ago | (#26900367)

Gears, Vegas, GRAW and many other games not only have cover systems, but implement them better than Killzone. That it also sticks doggedly to a first-person view so you can't see much while in cover isn't a significant innovation, if you ask me.

Yes, Edge got rather carried away with their review of Halo 3. However, 7/10 is if anything better than I'd expect to see at the bottom of that text - they've reviewed tonnes of PC FPS titles like that and given them 6/10.

Re:Hype hype hype... (1)

MadnessASAP (1052274) | more than 5 years ago | (#26900933)

That it also sticks doggedly to a first-person view so you can't see much while in cover isn't a significant innovation, if you ask me.

Sure it is, I've never seen it done anywhere before and I rather like the sound of it. When you hid behind a wall, rock w/e because some asshold with a gun twice your size is trying fill your body with large metal slugs you can't see the entire battlefield, you see what's in front of your eyes.

Re:Hype hype hype... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26902139)

Third-person view is stupid. Why should you be able to see what's all around you when you're face is inches from a rock?

Re:Hype hype hype... (1)

iainl (136759) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902621)

Umm, because it's a videogame?

Speaking to various journalists I know, some have been an awful lot harder on the game than Edge have been. Others think it's as good as Gears 2.

Actually, thinking about it, the ones that hate the game think it's as bad as Gears 2, as well. So make of that what you will.

Re:Hype hype hype... (2, Funny)

glwtta (532858) | more than 5 years ago | (#26900447)

I can only conclude that the review community has become jaded towards the genre.

Gee, you think? After all, this is the genre where, apparently, "being close to a wall" is a groundbreaking innovation.

Plenty of FPSs are fun, but they're all essentially the same game - there's only so much that reviewers can find to talk about.

Re:Hype hype hype... (0, Redundant)

Xest (935314) | more than 5 years ago | (#26900633)

"This is a new game mechanic that fairly radically changes the gameplay of the FPS"

Yes, it's absolutely nothing like the cover system in Gears of War, Gears of War 2, Rainbow Six Vegas, Rainbow Six Vegas 2, Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2 is it?

Sticking to first person in cover isn't innovation, it's a game design choice. The games listed above don't do this (RB6 Vegas is notable because it's an FPS rather than 3rd person title apart from in cover) because they feel it doesn't add anything to their game. It's not that it's in any way a new idea, it's just a different game design choice. Also of course, if you zoom whilst behind cover in many of these sorts of games it does switch back to FPS so even in that respect it's not new.

The reason RB6 Vegas seems to switch to 3rd person for cover is because it's more interesting to see your character doing his thing than it is to just have a camera bobbing around rather uninterestingly as you move along a wall.

Re:Hype hype hype... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26902709)

...they do not completely eclipse the graphics that can be seen on many recent titles(Gears of War 2 ...

I'd really, really like to know, in what world does Gears of War 2 look good? If anything, it strikes me as proof-positive that UE3 finally, finally, needs to be taken out back and shot.

Yay! (1)

apodyopsis (1048476) | more than 5 years ago | (#26900099)

my *personal* viewpoint is that KZ2 is one I am really waiting for.

I was mildly unimpressed by the Resistance2 multiplay mode (though the single player is amazing) and I am really looking forward to KZ2.

I think we are beginning to see the effect of the better capabilities of the PS2 in terms of performance, visuals and disc storage (BD vs DVD).

Re:Yay! (3, Insightful)

Dr. Hellno (1159307) | more than 5 years ago | (#26900623)

we are beginning to see the effect of the better capabilities of the PS2

yes, the PS2 will trounce all other current generation systems.

p.s.
In all honestly I think it does in a lot of ways. I have a 360 but the ps2 is the only system I brought to college.

Re:Yay! (1)

apodyopsis (1048476) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902705)

doh! fair cop.... damn me for being too lazy to proof read. :(

Re:Yay! (1)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 5 years ago | (#26901681)

visuals and disc storage (BD vs DVD)

I still get the feeling that the only way to make HD games spill over into multiple DVDs is to stuff them with fmv. But given how fmv is generally looked down upon over in game cut scenes, I still don't think this will be a major problem. (Resistance: Fall of Man is an fmv offender.)

I have a copy and it just rocks!!! (1)

vitorspencer (1480755) | more than 5 years ago | (#26900107)

I am lucky to already have a copy of the game, and can say to everyone: this game rocks!!! It is full pack with the best FPS action I've seen. Yes, there are more games in the market which I'd say the same, but definitely KZ2 is in my top list, it is worth all the good ratings, and I just can't stop playing!

Re:I have a copy and it just rocks!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26900763)

Are you by any chance a member of the Church of Killzone 2 [churchofkillzone2.info] ?

Re:I have a copy and it just rocks!!! (1)

Devir (671031) | more than 5 years ago | (#26900909)

At least someone has some enthusiasm albeit a little over the top.

I've been dying for a good FPS to come out for the PS3 for a while now. (haven't played any of the Resistance games). MSG4 is still my top PS3 game to date. Now i want more "game" less "movie".

I may be inclined to finally pay $60 for a new release in a very long while. It sucks, I was going to get another game the name of which I can't remember.

Re:I have a copy and it just rocks!!! (1)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 5 years ago | (#26901143)

I am lucky to already have a blah blah blah marketing bullshit can't stop playing!

Hahah, you have a crappy job.

Re:I have a copy and it just rocks!!! (1)

cshcrgo (1454975) | more than 5 years ago | (#26901187)

I have pre-ordered the game and I don't regret it. The cover system,the graphics, and the atmoshphere seem really promising. I did, however, find the controls almost unbearable when playing the demo. Is this something you've gotten used to or did you simply enjoy the controls from scratch? I don't see how you could learn to cope with the whole delay-and-then-accelerate-thingy that they have implemented, but maybe (hopefully!) I'm wrong.

Re:I have a copy and it just rocks!!! (1)

vitorspencer (1480755) | more than 5 years ago | (#26901269)

Actually, when playing the demo I also had issues with the controls, they seemed confusing. But the full game starts just a bit before the action that starts the demo, including a brief explanation of the main controls (move,run, etc...) and somehow that helped on getting used to them, it just felt more natural I guess. But ... what do you mean by delay-and-then-accelerate-thingy?

Re:I have a copy and it just rocks!!! (1)

cshcrgo (1454975) | more than 5 years ago | (#26901603)

But ... what do you mean by delay-and-then-accelerate-thingy?

In the demo I got the feeling that there was a slight delay between moving the (right) stick and an actual response in the game. Then it felt like I got a slight acceleration in the rotation rather than a constant velocity. Maybe I imagined the whole thing, but I found it harder to aim than in e.g. the Call of Duty games.

Re:I have a copy and it just rocks!!! (1)

vitorspencer (1480755) | more than 5 years ago | (#26901687)

Uhmmmm, know what you mean. And you are right, i also felt that delay and then acceleration... I can't name them, but its not the first game I feel it. However, it didn't get in the way of the experience. I find myself aiming rather good after a few minutes of getting used to.

Could it be done on the 360? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26900165)

Ok, I regularly frequent sites like N4G (Don't go there, it's like everyone is an anonymous coward, but worse) and there's always a mass outcry if you so much as imply that the 360 is somewhat powerful, at least enough to contend with the PS3 for a while yet.
The main consensus seems to be "PS3 == Most powerful console on earth, thus 360 == suckiest console on earth".

Now, I'm no expert and this is where /. comes in. I'm a firm believer that although the PS3 has an exceptional amount of power behind it considering what it is (And it's price), most of this power is incredibly difficult to use when making a game. I attribute this to games being incredibly linear, from a programming sense (In that you pretty much have to do tasks like A.I., physics, graphics, input, etc. in a very specific order and can't do any of them before the other is finished, for example you can't render the scene if you don't know where the objects in the scene are, so you can't start rendering until the physics have been finished and such). It's possible to break up some of these tasks into enough threads that all of the SPUs have stuff to do, but with deadlocks (I can't remember the correct term, it's when a thread puts a block up to stop another thread messing with it so bad things don't happen) and whatnot, a lot of them may end up waiting for other threads to finish. This is my basic understanding of how it all works, but as I said, I am no expert. On the off chance that a vaguely expertise person reads this, or even someone with a bigger understanding of the hardware and games and such, could you tell me if I'm even anywhere close to the mark?

What's more, is it reasonable to assume that even graphically amazing games like Killzone 2 would be more than possible on the 360, since apparently the 360 has a more powerful GPU (something to do with the eDRAM inside it)? Or is this just 360 fanboy FUD?

For the record, I'd like to state that I am stating all this from a neutral perspective and, in fact, own both consoles.

Re:Could it be done on the 360? (4, Informative)

John Betonschaar (178617) | more than 5 years ago | (#26900531)

You're somewhat in the right direction, but not entirely right. The main difficulty programming the PS3 is not that it's particularly hard to break up a game engine/ AI/ graphics effects/ whatever into enough threads to keep the PS3's SPU's busy, the hardest part is actually scheduling the threads to prevent memory contention, stalling SPU processes, communicating inputs & outputs etc. It's a step back from writing code and having the compiler do all the hard work, only having to track the interaction between 2, maybe 3 threads that run all the time. With the PS3 you'd be handling the same 2 or 3 threads on the PPU, plus tens, maybe even 100s of 'micro-threads' distributed over the SPU's, constantly starting, pulling data from RAM, spending some time processing, pushing back the result, etc.

It doesn't really help that game engines are generally based on existing codebases and ported between architectures all the time either. It's not easy to extract high performance from a game engine that has to run well on the homogenuous 3-core architecture of the 360 as well as on the heterogenuous 2+7 core architecture of the PS3. And let's not forget the split-memory architecture, where half of the main memory effectively has zero bandwidth to the CPU and should only be accessed from the GPU. Which leaves only 256MB of RAM or a major headache laying out your data in memory.

Last but not least you're right about the GPU: the 360 GPU has significantly better fill-rates, especially when complex shaders are used. The Cell in the PS3 can be used to offload graphics stuff and not be limited by shader performance, but again it's not easy.

I believe the KZ2 engine was designed from the ground up for the PS3 architecture, which probably explains why it looks so good compared to cross-platform PS3 titles.

The Edge Magazine review is odd... (1)

Otis_INF (130595) | more than 5 years ago | (#26900177)

Reading the Edge Magazine review of KZ2, I get the feeling it is written by a person who clearly doesn't like FPS shooters, PS3's or both. Considering the fact that similar games on the 360 received high acclaim from Edge, it looks like Edge wasn't entirely fair with the review. At least, that's what the review tells me. KZ2 arrives a couple of months after GeOW2, it can't be that in those couple of months the requirements to be an entertaining shooter has become that much higher. The review has similarities with the Eurogamer review of Fear2 which was rewarded a 5/10, also completely off the mark.

Oh well... the rest of the reviews on metacritic are pretty positive.

Re:The Edge Magazine review is odd... (1)

Ren.Tamek (898017) | more than 5 years ago | (#26900221)

That's just the way Edge magazine roll. They actually had a heavy pro-PS3 bias for a long time, things were bound to swing back the other way at some point. There is almost universally no point in reading any of their reviews, they tend to just pick a stance, write a paragraph on the way the game 'feels' to them, and possibly throw in some pretentious analogies to liven things up. Actual review scores seem randomly picked at best, from what I've gathered.

Shame really, their features are actually very good, but all in all you'll be best off reading Games(tm) as the quality of writing is much better nowadays.

Re:The Edge Magazine review is odd... (1)

Colourspace (563895) | more than 5 years ago | (#26900283)

I agree, Edge does seem to have lost its, um.... edge. GamesTM does seem to be the better read nowadays, and not clogged up with as much 'industry' stuff either - I want to read about games, not devs dammit, and I don't want to have to go to some PLAY like mag thankyouverymuch...

Re:The Edge Magazine review is odd... (1)

Ren.Tamek (898017) | more than 5 years ago | (#26900555)

The whole front and back sections is industry and culture stuff :). Thats actually the main reason I buy the magazine, I don't really even read the reviews, I prefer asking a friend whose personality and preferences you already know for their opinions. That way you know their biases well before you even hear the review. But each to their own eh?

Re:The Edge Magazine review is odd... (3, Informative)

twokay (979515) | more than 5 years ago | (#26901065)

It wasn't really that odd. Sure the PS3 fanboys went mad, but that was to be expected for anything other than a 9 or a 10. The review its self was pretty positive (if you read it), and Edge traditionally scores lower than the IGN or Gamespot's. 7/10 is a solid score.

Ive not played the game, but honestly from what i have seen, the gameplay is nothing other than run-of-the-mill for a shooter. Multiplayer seems to have had more thought put into it, but even that is basically COD4's level/unlock system.

If i had a PS3 i would buy it for sure, because i like shooters. But for anyone else there are games that provide the same experience already out.

Often with these big platform exclusive games, their review becomes a review of the platform -- rather than the game -- in many readers eyes. Saying Killzone 2 is average is saying the PS3 is average, so there is more at stake for some than just a game review.

As for Edges reviews generally. There are some inconsistent scores. But because the review is written and scored by an individual, and that is the only opinion given in the magazine. It is bound to happen from time to time. Overall the magazine is still one of the few i trust for an engaging read and sensible reviews.

Is it just me? (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 5 years ago | (#26900233)

Is it just me or does it just look like a fairly standard shooter, with a TF-style multiplayer? Graphics? Good. Sound? Good. Gameplay? Standard FPS fare. Controls? Dunno because I don't have a PS3, but I imagine that keyboard/mouse players would be thrashing anybody who's trying to play it with any other controller (ala every other FPS out there). Whoever shot that multiplayer video certainly wasn't using a proper mouse.

I don't see anything astounding here. It might be a good technical achievement (getting this to run on PS3) but then, to be honest, I'm not even that impressed at that given the PS3's hardware. Could someone enlighten me: What's the big fuss?

Re:Is it just me? (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 5 years ago | (#26900271)

Oh, and "you could play the levels in random order to little ill-effect"...

That's a comment I could apply to 99% of FPS shooters out there, starting with the classics like Quake (four episodes, play them in any order, every X level is a boss level, little melding of scenery, story etc. between levels), Doom (linear levels, pretty much randomly made), even back to Wolfenstein 3D and Spear of Destiny. Admittedly, the more modern ones are more story-based (why people think that's so important, I don't know) like Half Life 2, etc. But even the original Half Life you could quite easily switch levels here and there and nobody would really have noticed.

Storylines: Half Life 2 and its various episodes had a good story. But to be honest, I spent most of the cutscenes where I still had control jumping around bored to tears because I either wanted to get on and kill the scum, or I wanted the lift/door to activate so I could move on. And every "surprise" where you suddenly come under attack, I'm sitting there from the start of the cutscene poised in a nice safe position waiting while the character reel through thirty seconds of plot before the action starts... I *know* that those tunnels are going to fill up with a bunch of aliens at any moment, but they kept on yabbering. The fun of swinging a crane to take out the baddies, or the fear of seeing those stalkers come over the tops of the trees did ten times more than all the plot elements put together for me. Gameplay over story, wins every time.

Re:Is it just me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26901021)

Doom has linear levels? Maybe you need to go play that one again.

Re:Is it just me? (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902917)

Storylines: Half Life 2 and its various episodes had a good story. But to be honest, I spent most of the cutscenes where I still had control jumping around bored to tears because I either wanted to get on and kill the scum, or I wanted the lift/door to activate so I could move on. And every "surprise" where you suddenly come under attack, I'm sitting there from the start of the cutscene poised in a nice safe position waiting while the character reel through thirty seconds of plot before the action starts... I *know* that those tunnels are going to fill up with a bunch of aliens at any moment, but they kept on yabbering. The fun of swinging a crane to take out the baddies, or the fear of seeing those stalkers come over the tops of the trees did ten times more than all the plot elements put together for me. Gameplay over story, wins every time.

Perhaps it's different audiences - it looks like the FPS genre has really split into two subgenres. There's the mindless "lets kill/snipe/hunt/shoot the bad guys" (e.g., Doom, Quake) and "let's do a story about why you're killing/sniping/hunting/shooting bad guys" (e.g., Half-Life series, Halo). Optionally, the latter might add a bit of strategy and tactics to it.

Me, I got over the mindless shooting around the Quake 2/3 era - it was fun for a while to blow off steam, but then I got sick shooting the same things over and over again. From then, I never really cared about the FPS genre (partly becausae it ended up being a mere benchmark for video card supremacy). I then picked up an Xbox really late into the game, and found Halo in the bargain bin. I have to admit, I was skeptical, but hey, it was $10 and people said it was good for an FPS. I enjoyed that quite well and became a Halo fan. Then I got a good PC and a coworker told me to get Half-Life 2, and I started enjoying that as well. And heck, you can probably classify HL2:e1 and HL2:e2 as "more of the same", but the story is intriguing and enjoyable (to me, and many others).

For me, story is important - not only do the pauses help one catch their breath (I can't take continuous action, sorry), but it helps me relate.

To each one's own. Some want to blast bad guys all day, others want a meaning to their blasting. I don't consider myself an FPS player at all, but the Half-Life series and Halo I'd play again and again because I enjoyed their storylines, and it appealed to my senses that it wasn't a 100% shoot-fest. (And yes, I found Portal very interesting.)

Re:Is it just me? (1)

Lockblade (1367083) | more than 5 years ago | (#26900355)

I think most of the fuss comes from two things: The original Killzone was billed as a Halo-killer, but fell flat for technical reasons: The PS2 couldn't handle it.

The second is that it's a PS3 exclusive. You just don't see exclusives much any more. Even though the PS3 as a platform is just as good (give or take a game or two) as the Xbox, the exclusives are either a given (MGS4) or seen as inferior (Resistance 1&2). So, when an exclusive title comes out for the system and there's no real response from the other party in terms of game, it seems better.

Re:Is it just me? (1)

Tiber (613512) | more than 5 years ago | (#26901719)

Well that and the fact that their cover system has already been done to death, and it doesn't seem terribly interesting. I happen to really like how it's done in Rainbow Six and felt it was only "good" in Gears of War. However both of these harken back to Splinter Cell, which was the first shooter to really push the limits of the idea as I recall.

Re:Is it just me? (2, Informative)

RogueyWon (735973) | more than 5 years ago | (#26900357)

Yeah, what we have here is a classic case of a game which is, let's face it, more about the petty politics of console wars rather than the quality of the game itself. It's not alone in this; Metal Gear Solid 4 on the PS3, Gears of War and its sequel on the 360 and... well... pretty much any first-party Nintendo game on the Wii (Nintendo fanboys are particularly bad for this) all fall into the same category. The rabid elements of the system in question's fanbase have a psychological need to believe that this game must be the BEST THING EVER and any criticism of the game, no matter how moderately expressed or well evidenced, is an OUTRAGEOUS INSULT not only to the game itself, but also to the host system and the personal honour of the fanboy himself.

Owning all 3 systems and not having a particular ideological bias in favour of one of them (though I do find that the nature of the Nintendo fanbase occasionally pushes me away from the Wii a bit), I can generally at least try to take a balanced view of the games in question. Killzone 2 looks very pretty - there's no denying it's making good use of the PS3 hardware. I don't think it's on a par with Crysis graphically, but then, good luck experiencing Crysis properly on any system that doesn't cost at least twice the retail value of the PS3 (even with the performance improvements they made in the patch, and in Crysis Warhead). The gameplay looks fairly generic shooter, albeit with some decent-ish AI. But I'm not really seeing much to set it apart from Gears of War 2, Resistance 2 or FEAR 2, all of which have more or less sated my thirst for shooters in recent months to a perfectly satisfactory standard. I might pick it up at some point, once I've finished FEAR 2, but I can't claim to be in a particular hurry, particularly with Dawn of War 2 due for release any day and liable to soak up a lot of my gaming time over the next month. The apparent flaws relating to plot, variety of enemies and controls are all worrying, though I know better than to trust reviews too far over these things.

To be honest, the shooter I'm really starting to get excited about now is the Aliens title, due to be published by SEGA, but I note the release date on that has now slipped to 2010.

Re:Is it just me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26900575)

I do find that the nature of the Nintendo fanbase occasionally pushes me away from the Wii a bit

I've been seeing / hearing this sentiment a lot lately. Not just in regard to Nintendo games, but also specifically the Final Fantasy and Kingdom Hearts series. I googled around a bit and it's true that the Kingdom Hearts fanbase seems particularly creepy and silly. Still... why not just appreciate the game on its own merit? Why does the anonymous internet fanbase matter to your own personal enjoyment of the game?

Re:Is it just me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26900759)

Because we have a sense that shared attributes make us a part of a "community". We are both posting to this website, therefore we are part of the Slashdot community. If you buy a Wii, you are part of that community, and so on. As part of a community, you somehow bear responsibility for the actions (good or bad) of your fellow community members.

This is bullshit, of course, but the myth persists.

Re:Is it just me? (1)

RogueyWon (735973) | more than 5 years ago | (#26901077)

Oh yeah, you're right about the Kingdom Hearts fanbase. I can't say I've noticed it so much regarding Final Fantasy (which I think, as the "bigger" brand, tends to attact more of the mainstream crowd), but if you go looking around for Kingdom Hearts fansites and stuff... well... you'll very quickly find some scary stuff. The kind of stuff that, frankly, makes you wonder whether this whole new-fangled intarweb thing was such a good idea after all. It's almost as bad as Sonic the Hedgehog fandom, which has been covered at length in somethingawful's Awful Link of the Day section over the years. The real irony around KH fandom is that most of it appears to have only the most superficial connection to the (generally very good) games - it's mostly based around some weird fanfiction... fantasy... erm... thing.

I picked up on Nintendo in particular because it's very, very obvious here on slashdot. I've often suspected that "rabid Nintendo fan" is often synonymous with "embittered former-gamer who hasn't actually owned a console for a decade but just hates MS and Sony" (and let's face it, we have a lot of those around these parts). Seriously, try making a post criticising Mario Kart and just wait for the flames. It's a pity in a way; Nintendo do some good stuff in among the reheated rubbish (I'm highly partial to Wii-Fit, which has helped me lose quite a lot of weight), but I read the venom from Nintendo fans online and it just turns me right off. I can't help it; it's an emotional reaction. When I load up a Nintendo game, I just get these visions of rabid slashdot posts flashing through my mind.

There are a few other franchises that stir up the same effect - I can't believe I forgot to mention Halo in my previous post. Halo's an interesting case, actually, in that it can be and is used both ways. All three of the Halo games are a bit of a mixed bag in terms of quality, so fanboys highlight the good stuff and bang on about it endlessly, while those with a bone to pick with MS (again, not in short supply here) use the games' shortcomings as conclusive proof of why the Xbox (360) must suck. I suspect the reaction the games deserve is more along the lines of "hmm... a solid enough 7 on 10, but let's not get too hung up on it, eh".

Re:Is it just me? (1)

metamatic (202216) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902537)

Yeah, the character classes are blatantly inspired by TF2.

An engineer who uses a shotgun and builds robotic turrets? Gosh, that sounds familiar...

So basically, the multiplayer is TF2 with gritty and gruesome graphics. Not sure that's something I want, really.

Re:Is it just me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26903297)

It is just you. You know what I hate the most, I hate the fanboys trying to diminish the game just because it is not on their "favorite system". It is envy, pure envy.

Killzone 2 easily blows any other game out of the water in terms of graphics. The gameplay is heavier, weightier. Unlike COD or any other shooter. The cover mechanics in the first person changes the dynamic of the game, unlike any other shooter. The AI is awesome and unlike any other shooter the enemies hide, try to flank you and try different things. Playing the game many times over is perfectly possible and still find enjoyment because of the AI. The multiplayer sounds to be awesome, way ahead of Team Fortress or any other example you might come up with.

Seriously, give up. The game is awesome, live with it.

Now, Release KZ1 On PC! (2, Insightful)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 5 years ago | (#26900359)

They could "monetize" KZ1 all over again if they were to release it for PC IMHO. I don't think I'm the only one that would happily buy KZ1 for PC, even with no or limited MP capability. It was great on PS2, but with the control flexibility etc available with a PC, it would rock!

Strat

Re:Now, Release KZ1 On PC! (1)

Narishma (822073) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902093)

When was the last time Sony released one of their non-MMO games on PC?

don't write about games please (0, Flamebait)

majorme (515104) | more than 5 years ago | (#26900583)

Slashdot is always, and I mean ALWAYS weeks late when it comes to games, so why bother using words such as "early"?

Also, the article is poorly written.

Who's that with the what's it now? (3, Funny)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 5 years ago | (#26901067)

Playing video games... on a blue ray player? How deliciously absurd!

Early reviews? Good one. (1)

Etylowy (1283284) | more than 5 years ago | (#26901223)

Early reviews? We have published our review (based on a original retail game version provided by Sony) like 9 days ego and we are from Poland, which in game publishers calendar is even worse off than Australia.

And yeah, the game rocks and rocks hard.

"some of the best graphics yet seen on the PS3" (1)

dniq (759741) | more than 5 years ago | (#26901379)

Exactly the point: most games look bad on PS3, unless they're exclusive. Then they come close to those on the 360 and sometimes even on PC. End yet, the KZ2 is a far cry from Sony's promised 1080p HD gamin. In fact, it doesn't even seem to be rendered at 720p - looks more like it's been rendered at a lower resolution, and then scaled up with antialiasing (similar to MGS4).

I can't imagine how can you make a true HD game on a device with only 256MB of Video RAM, and with a BluRay drive that can only read data at about 9 megabytes per second. So, you get a MGS4 and the likes, which takes AGES to install onto PS3's internal hard drive, multiple times. I'd rather change a DVD any day - takes a few seconds, than to wait for minutes for the content to get copied at a ridiculously slow speed onto internal hard drive.

That is not to say KZ2 is a bad game - not at all. It's just one of the games that users of 360 and PC have gotten accustomed to long time ago. Hell, just look at one of the ancient games on 360 - Splinter Cell: Double Agent! The graphics there were absolutely fantastic, and that was October 2006 - 2.5 years ago!!!

Re:"some of the best graphics yet seen on the PS3" (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 5 years ago | (#26901957)

You're missing the point of the PS3. Don't think of it as a gaming system with hardware arguably equivalent to that of the 360 but a poorer overall gaming experience due to poor software implementation. Think of it as a media center with hardware significantly superior to that of the 360 but a poorer overall media serving experience due to poor software implementation.

Re:"some of the best graphics yet seen on the PS3" (1)

Theoboley (1226542) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902965)

Spoken like a true 360 Fanboy. MGS4 didn't take THAT long to install. Figure 5 minutes per chapter, and if you sit through all the cut scenes... that's a solid 5-7 hours per chapter for a 5 minute load. And as for the "Unless theyre exclusive" bullshit, you need to take a look at any review site. They score the games the same NOWDAYS because ps3 developers are starting to figure out the Cell and making ported games look and play as well on the ps3 if not better.

arstech article familiar? (1)

Funk_dat69 (215898) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902221)

If you replace "PS3" with "Gamecube" and KZ2,Uncharted with Windwaker and Eternal Darkness, you start to have a very familiar story of a 3rd place console.

For what it's worth, there's something to be said for not being the console targeted for every lame shovelware game that's released.

Halo killer? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902763)

I am quite sure that THIS time, the killzone franchise will live up to it's "halo killer" predictions from 5 years ago. And by halo killer I do mean that it will be more advanced (and by that I mean graphically) than Halo 1.

Action/RPG should replace FPS (1)

Jeez01 (1442147) | more than 5 years ago | (#26902961)

KZ2 is excellant just like GoW or Halo but that said i does not have much replay value once you play thru it first time you are done (MP is not anything new there). IMO Action FPS will give way to Action/RPG games like Fallout 3, Bio shock, this where devs can clearly show their talent in developing a storyline/character and giving open sandbox environment for players to play with.

What is so nice in this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26903311)

I have now watched few videos from game and ALL what I can see is same FPS for PC/Mac and other consoles. Few new nice graphical implents like the gun blur, it looks more like real gun and it's weight. But otherwise it was same old FPS.

The FPS games sucks if it is played with pads and not with keyboard + mouse combo. And why they need to put all those stupid red/green etc ligts to units uniform that even the enemy can see you from the dark when range is more than 5m.

Well, this might be nice game for Playstation 3 owners... but in typical FPS genre... not so great...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>