I was gonna post that days ago, after the first response to this thread:p but since it was kinda racy I didn't want to risk it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hsu
Printable View
I was gonna post that days ago, after the first response to this thread:p but since it was kinda racy I didn't want to risk it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hsu
I'm quite ashamed to be assosiated with the PS3 fanbase after the upoar over Killzone 2. When your complaining over a 9.4 then you know your insecure with your console.
From what I've seen, the new Killzone's gonna build on the strengths of the original. I remember when some PC tard saw me playing it, and immediately began whining about how it's not a real FPS because you can't bunnyhop across the entire map while getting headshots on every target. Well, no :skull::skull::skull::skull:. That game requires cover, and lots of it, and doesn't reward you for trying to fire while running. You can have a target right in your crosshairs, and still miss due to the inherent inaccuracy caused by human imprecision, a flawed weapon, or environmental factors. A refreshing dose of reality compared to the omfg i haxor ur headsh000t x1000 multiplior combo11!!! crap of the typical FPS.
Too true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreddz
Yeah, completely. In my eyes, the console isn't doing itself any favours by giving this a near perfect score. I played it again last night after my last post, thinking I didn't give a proper shot. My thoughts are the same. It's not bad, but it's certainly not great. If this is the near-peak of the Playstation 3 then I should be anything but optimistic about upcoming titles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreddz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big D
Very true. This game is very realistic like it would be in a real war
Call of Duty seems unrealistic and oversimplified compared to this. Certain things, like the AI especially, could never even be on the same tier as KZ2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket Edge
I definately believe the realism is putting off many players. It's not as accessible, because you can't hit someone a mile away with a pistol or a SMG simply by putting your cross hairs on them. Nor can you keep your sights on the same position that your enemy was in before they took cover and expect them to uniformly return to it when they pop back out.
On so many levels, it's making other shooters seem absurd and obsolete. Call of Duty among them.
I've been playing the demo with no crosshairs and no interface/HUD, absolutely nothing on the screen that isn't apart of the action, including ammo count and clip count. It's by far the most cinematic experience in a video game, on a console or a PC.
:DWow, that'd really annoy the PC crowd. "WAAAH I LOST I HAD NO AMMO ITS NOT FAIR THEY DON'T TELL YOU WAAAH WHEN DO YOU RELOAD HOW DO I SHOT GUN" etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolivar
:(Quote:
Originally Posted by Big D:DWow, that'd really annoy the PC crowd. "WAAAH I LOST I HAD NO AMMO ITS NOT FAIR THEY DON'T TELL YOU WAAAH WHEN DO YOU RELOAD HOW DO I SHOT GUN" etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolivar
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Hsu:(Quote:
Originally Posted by Big D:DWow, that'd really annoy the PC crowd. "WAAAH I LOST I HAD NO AMMO ITS NOT FAIR THEY DON'T TELL YOU WAAAH WHEN DO YOU RELOAD HOW DO I SHOT GUN" etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolivar
Oh come on, you can't honestly compare COD to this and say that KZ2 is more realistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolivar
I'll just comment on COD here. To me, its the most realistic FPS i've played. It has real breathing simulations, running, jumping, and the data about the weapons seems accurate. I know people complained about the range of some weapons but it really isn't that bad at all. The bullet count, weapon sounds, reload animations & speeds are spot on, and when your being hit your aim gets screwed up. It's all these little things that make it a great gaming experience. KZ2 just didn't have any of that for me. You can run about the same speed as a racecar. How is that realistic? And we can't say that the weapons ability are anyway differant in KZ2 (like its range & damage) because it isn't. I remember there was a couple of other things, but It been a bit since I last played the demo so I don't want to say something I'm not clear about.
I was impressed by this in KZ2, but COD has all of that too. Enemy simulations are brilliant in both.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolivar
Anyway, I don't want to seem like I'm flying a flag here for Call of Duty or something, but seeing the massively positive reviews has sparked me to compare the two.
OK I don't own a PS3 and my PC is a laptop so I doubt I will play Killzone 2 anytime soon. However my 2 cents here...
Dreddz I completey agree about the insecure in your console choice statement there, sure the ps3 needs some serious titles to justify it's impressive price tag when a 360 now costs under £200 for all but the elite model (and thats under £230, I won't mention the wii because I don't want to go in to my usual wii rant) £299.99 is expensive for a console, it's cheaper than the PS3 was but still.
A second point to make is if you look at the points out of 10 going in to decimals they're actually just dividing a percentage by 10 to give it so the game actually scored 94% on their (IGN) measures. If we say 10 measures on what they mark on it's 10% per measure. I would say Killzone 2 failed to score 10 out of 10 or 100% because it lacks co-op mode. Co-op mode is not essential but it certainly adds to the game, if it didn't then why would gamers like Myself, Psychotic and DK still play the Halo 3 Campaign mode? It's the co-op side of it, the side that declares "hey the story is a good way to blow off steam and not worry about some jerkoff giving you crap" whilst still managing to play differently on each play through. The fact that Killzone 2 has multiplayer is why it got above 90% percent. The fact that Killzone 2's multiplayer is very good apart from the fact that most reviews I have watched or read say the flashy graphics slow it down at times means it wouldn't get the full 5% available for a competitive only multiplayer, I'd say it lost 1% for that and 5% for no co-op modes. I work as a computer game developer and thats what I believe makes a difference to Killzone 2's score. As for the Gears of War 2 game being 1% higher than Killzone 2? Well, it has co-op mode, it has competitive mode, it has a lot of things but perhaps the game lacks in single player or has a few more glitches they found ect whatever it lost 5% somewhere it's not perfect but then when you look at independent review magazines or sites how many games tend to get 100% not bloody many I reckon, after all I remember the fuss when Vagrant Story on the PS1 got 40/40 in a japanese magazine that had NEVER given any game a 40/40 in the past.
Those who are arguing about realism in games and whether COD or Killzone offers better realism I have a few points to make:
+ Firstly accuracy in games, Killzone has never been a rewarding game if you're the type to just launch an entire clip at your opponents and kill anything in the area, Killzone 1 was notorious for the fact that it forced players to learn burst fire technique and to use it at all times unless they wanted to make the enemy duck and not much else. The running and gunning part too has never been forgiving on COD the running and gunning part is much more forgiving it has to be admitted. However heres a real life fact:
The AK-47 can be fired on fully automatic at a stationary transit van side on from around 20 meters away and never hit the van once in an entire clip of 30 rounds. The same gun on single fire can hit a target 500 meters away depending on the ability of the person shooting it.
The reason being the AK-47 was designed to beat the Germans, aside from being very simple and easy to maintain so it wouldn't freeze up so much in siberian winters. It also was used mostly by a conscripted army of farmers who didn't know how to shoot. Therefore those who survived and knew or learnt to shoot well could utilize the single fire ability to pick off enemy soldiers or commanders from a good distance. Since richochet rounds can still kill people the main purpose of the AK-47 rifle is to keep the enemy ducking in the hopes that the ricochets don't kill you. A ducking enemy is not shooting back allowing you to close the distance. Against the professional soldiers of the German army and the incredibly accurate MP-40 this was good for the poorly trained, ill equipped russian army.
+ Soldiers on the field of battle can often fire every round they are carrying and never hit a damn thing, this is because unlike shooting on a practise range they're shooting at people who are in general moving around a lot intelligently (it has to be said before some idiot says they've gone hunting and shooting a moving target is easy, animals move differently to a human what understands what gunshot is and how to act in the event of a fire fight), creating a crapload of noise oh and for added kicks are shooting back at you...keeping your ass to cover and avoiding being shot whilst shooting at them cannot be easy, if it were no soldiers would ever die in war. A soldier running doesn't shoot down a couple of people who are covered by a concrete wall he'll possibly fire a few rounds to keep them ducking but preferably his squad mates hiding behind cover nearby will shoot at the enemy for him keeping them ducking and if possible killing them.
+ In real life 1 bullet is all it takes, sure soldiers have been shot 6 or 7 times and kept shooting the enemy but 1 round is enough to take a soldier out of the battle and out of the war either in a body bag or in a wheel chair or hospital bed. In a computer game you're shot repeatedly, some games try to explain this survival ability, Spartan 117 The Master Chief from Halo wears bodyarmour, his body is part cybernetic as well and he has a personal kinetic shield to deflect hard rounds and absorb energy rounds. In Halo 1 he lasted quite a while without shields even had a health bar, in 2 he died relatively faster, in 3 without shields death soon follows unless you can find cover or disengage from the fight. In COD you often get shot upwards of 20 times by assault rifles wearing nothing more than clothing or kevlar and survive not only that but 20 seconds or a health later you're ready to eat another 20 rounds and a grenade blast. Games and realism generally don't mix.
+ More for the pro COD rules and has such great realism in it crowd here: Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare, nice idea what about the games flaws? I play this regulary on lunch breaks in HMV with friends there I've been shot through a foot or so of concrete in the game environment and killed by people using SMGs or Pistols or even shot guns...A very heavy anti-tank pilot sniper rifle hmm perhaps I could imagine it but how would a sniper know I was there without seeing me? (radar doesn't exist in real life either so turn that off for realism) Call of Duty 4 sucked for realism because pretty much any and all guns had great armour penetration, if it was so great in real life then why would soldiers bother to take cover behind concrete walls? Surely they'd be just as well off standing in the open and getting a better aiming position?
+ Also in any Call Of Duty/ Medal Of Honour or other "modern" or "ww2" FPS titles the encountering of the obligatory tank or 2, cue handily placed missile launcher and a spectacular tank explosion. Reality check: Tanks are designed to withstand hand held RPG rounds for the most part. a shaped charge can blow through armour but mostly the use of RPGs on Tanks is to immobilize the tank. Disabling a tank on the field of battle by destroying it's track and then moving the battle away from the tank is singulary one of the most effective tactics out there, A tank can deal a lot of death and punishment but it has a limited range and ability to do so. If it cannot move it cannot participate in combat as much if the battle then moves away and it cannot accurately shoot it's targets then the Tank is out of the battle. Tank battles aren't about blowing up the tank, they're about killing the crew or disabling the tank without the ability to fire it's gun or move the tank is as good as dead, a disabled tank can be recovered after the battle the dead crew cleaned out or the damage repaired and that gives the victor of the battle one more tank, with tanks costing millions of pounds who will complain that the russian made tank you just disabled is not good enough for your army, may not be the type we use but it can be used or ransomed back to the original owners or sold on after the war for a good price. With an RPG blowing the track off and immobilizing the machine most crews are ordered to bail if possible because otherwise troops can encircle and assault dropping grenades down the turret hatch to explode within killing the crew.
In closing: Call of Duty tries to reflect either modern or historical warfare but contains very little realism in the game mechanics. Killzone 2 is set in a futuristic battlefield which means it gets more slack on the realism front for having the defense of "but this is science fiction and anything is possible" The requirement of Killzone to burst fire your weapons, take cover as much as possible and fire preferably from a stationary position means overall even though it and Call Of Duty both have several misgivings and unrealistic features in their mechanics Killzone 2 does win the realism battle, mainly because what it does attempt realism on is much more realistic than Call of Duty's attempt on realism in general because although COD uses real life weapon names, ammo counts, skins and possibly gives real facts about the guns in the weapon description it doesn't deliver a realistic approach to how they work (see point about COD 4 and walls earlier) and it fails to deliver a realistic ww2 or modern warfare combat experience.
^ Iceglow, I gotta say, every time you come in here with these long-ass posts on every intricate detail about everything, I can't help but read it from start to finish. You're one of the few that can do that, I'm specifically talking about your discussion on consoles and reliability when it was revealed the 360 execs knew it was easily RROD-able. And I'm not just saying that because you came down on the side of KZ2.
Some of this is borderline "did you even play the demo?" but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. 1st, I don't think you could even compare reload animations. That's a no-brainer, KZ2's reload animations are breathtaking, not to sound like i'm over-exaggerating. Yes, you do run fast, but that's closer to sprinting for me, since you're already running with full stick push, due to pressure sensitivity nowadays and all that. That could just be a matter of disagreement. And I'm pretty sure ALL FPS nowadays, your aim moves when you get hit, that's nothing new. Lastly, I would say overall the movement feels massively better/more realistic in KZ2 overall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket Edge
However, I think one thing can't be under-emphasized and that's AI of the enemies. I remember Far Cry 2 bragging about its AI, and they got nothing on these guys. FEAR2's have been highly acclaimed, but even they aren't on this level. I gotta say the AI in KZ2 is unprecedented. And that's playing on a demo version. On normal.
Well I guess were at a deadlock as we obviously have differant views here.
I think people may put a little too much emphasis on the character your controlling in regards to realism in Killzone 2. The reload animations, weapon recoil and the heavy feeling while moving your character is spot on. Although not everything is perfect. I would like to point out though that being able to sprint while reloading a rocket launcher isn't exactly realistic. In my opinion its everything around you that really adds to the realism.
The enemie animations are the best I've ever seen, same goes for your squad mates. When the Helghast are coming through the windows in the warehouse it looks like a non-interactive cinematic but you can totally shoot them while they come down. The physics here are also spot on. In the demo, when your in the warehouse its always fun to shoot the exploding barrels because everything around the explosion looks realistic. Always at a steady framerate too. Plus everything that is going on around you makes you feel like the games attention is never on you and your not some super-soldier that is going to change the tide of battle by yourself.
Also JKtrix pointed out earlier about your squad mate saying different things while he lifts you up onto the ledge after the tank fight. What is impressive though is that I've been through the demo 4 times now and he has said a different thing every time. Not game changing by any means but shows how much attention really went into this game.