Killzone 2 demo - Thoughts?

Anyone else manage to play the demo? Sony have been kind of funny with releasing this demo as its on the EU PSN but you have to pre-order at Gamestop in the US to play the demo. Although anyone with any common sense should already have PSN accounts in all regions in case something like this happens.

I was actually taken a little off guard by this game as I didn't have any plans to get it anytime soon but the demo makes me wanna get it day 1. I don't wanna go into detail about this game as Ill just make it sound like every other shooter any there, but this game kicks some serious ass. The demo is an absolute tease though. I beat it in 7 minutes but could probably beat it in 5 if I'm quick.

Anyone else manage to play the demo yet?

Yes, I did... and I have to say, that this is one of the worst games (demo) I ever played...

I cant wait for this game personally

this is what PSM had to say about it

In Issue 27 of the Official PlayStation Magazine - Australia, Killzone 2 received a 10/10, and the game was said to have "amazing, fluid graphics and animation, the best game ever made" as well as "beautifully constructed levels and intense sweaty-palmed action". The review concluded saying "Killzone 2 is the best console first person shooter ever made."

In their February 2009 issue, the US version of Official PlayStation Magazine gave Killzone 2 a score of 5/5, stating players "will instantly tag this sequel as a powerful contender for best game of 2009."

In the February 2009 issue of the Official UK Playstation Magazine, they awarded Killzone 2 a 9/10 with the editor Tim Clark stating, "The most surprising thing isn't the visuals - anyone who's seen recent footage will know it's the most handsome thing on the system - but the fact it's got the gameplay to match."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dastan

Yes, I did... and I have to say, that this is one of the worst games (demo) I ever played...

---

I'd agree with you in terms of the length of the demo. Other than that, I've bumped it up a few notches on my Rental queue. Money is tight!

Video review of kill zone 2 ( they played the real game)
It looks fantasitc

Killzone 2 Review Videos - G4tv.com

I definitely enjoyed it a lot and was awed by some of the effects, but demo was way too short, even though I expected it to be. Still buying it though.

I liked the heavy feel to the characters and the aiming is definitely a challenge.

If you want something to laugh at, watch this idiot:
YouTube - KILLZONE 2 DEMO IS BETTER THAN ANYTHING THE 360 CAN AND WILL EVER OFFER

LOL!

^ That vid was funny as hell, the guys whole channel is humorous.

My gf once said that if a diner isn't open 24 hours a day, it's not a diner, it's just a diner-themed restaurant.

Well, the Killzone 2 demo makes every shooter up to now look like a shooter-themed video game.

This is a prime example on how graphics can actually add to every other facet in the video game. I'm not sure if I've played a shooter this tense. I think its unprecedented on many levels, and the utter war on the internet right now over it is truly shocking. Getting this day one, it's pre-ordered.

YouTube - Killzone 2 Demo Gitch: Ride the Flying Platform

Anyone else tried this? You can see way more of the level and can use the turrent used when your fighting the tanks. Just something neat I thought was worth pointing out. Definitely extends the life of the demo.

I've been through the demo about 5 times now and I'm surprised by how different it is each time you play. I like how the Helghast like to taunt you every now and then. I also like the little touches Guerilla made to this game. For instance, if you shoot one of the exploding barrels in the warehouse sometimes they will blow up instantly but sometimes you will just pierce the barrel which then leaks gas. Nice touch.

NPCs say different things sometimes too. Like the part when you have to alley-oop to that elevator, the guy you lift up has said 2 different things to me the 3 times I played.

I'm not too fond of the shooting, partly because I dont' like the Dualshock for shooters but also the 'realism' they're going for makes it more prohibitive. Definitely something I can adjust to when playing the game 'for real' though.

I killed one of my own teammates. The MAIN ones cant be killed but I just killed some random guy standing guard. The way the blood poured was so good! The blood actually started to soak into the ground and it became more brown and looked stale! Awesome!

It's a bit all over the place. It's like someone got a shoot-em-up from 10 years ago and yanked it up onto PS3 graphics. Some touch's are nice (such as the animation of the grenades), but aspects of the game (although other people might not see them as flaws) really annoyed me. When you scoop in a weapon its not only hard to see anything but you don't really know if you've hit anyone. The bullets don't make any noise at all, which in a way you need 'cos you want to know if your hitting someone or a wall next to him. Also, it didn't explain things very well. I had to find out how to blow up a bridge while my teammate was constantly cursing at me.

Still, I know its probably not the worst of them out there, but there is absolutely no comparision between this & Call of Duty for example. Best game ever made? Then we haven't come very far. Won't be spending my bucks on it.

I guess its just preference then, cause I really dont like Call of Duty and its floaty gameplay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocket Edge

When you scoop in a weapon its not only hard to see anything but you don't really know if you've hit anyone. The bullets don't make any noise at all, which in a way you need 'cos you want to know if your hitting someone or a wall next to him. Also, it didn't explain things very well. I had to find out how to blow up a bridge while my teammate was constantly cursing at me.

---

I can kind of agree but at the same time the animations on the enemies reacts very well when shot. So you always know your making contact by the way the enemie reacts. I'm glad the enemies aren't bullet sponges like it RE5. Plus it seems like litres of blood pour out when they are shot.

Baisically enjoying Killzone 2 is down to whether you can enjoy realistic shooters. Your character doesn't zip around all over the place and his jump seems quite petty compared to other shooters but I can appreciate all of that. I'm just happy it isn't just trying to be Call of Duty in space. So many people compare the two games but they don't feel anything like each other. People should stop comparing Killzone 2 to every other shooter and accept it as something quite unique.

IGN gave Killzone 2 a 9.4 Gears 2, which is not even a first person shooter, a 9.5! Which is a better score for those stupid PS3 owners who don't know this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreddz

Baisically enjoying Killzone 2 is down to whether you can enjoy realistic shooters.

---

I would say that compared to Operation: Flashpoint or Hidden & Dangerous that Killzone 2 is about as realistic as Charlie Chaplain impersonating Charlie Chaplain.

Quote:

---

So many people compare the two games but they don't feel anything like each other. People should stop comparing Killzone 2 to every other shooter and accept it as something quite unique.

---

I'm not sure that "don't compare this to anything else" is a valid line of argument or criticism. I'm pretty sure that if I wrote a post-apocalyptic novel and people said it wasn't as good as The Road, that I wouldn't get very far telling them not to compare it to The Road. You get unique games that can't be compared obviously at times, but within a given genre, it is perfectly reasonable to compare two different games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hsu

IGN gave Killzone 2 a 9.4 Gears 2, which is not even a first person shooter, a 9.5! Which is a better score for those stupid PS3 owners who don't know this

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreddz

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.

---

Too true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreddz

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.

---

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 Big D

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.

---

Very true. This game is very realistic like it would be in a real war

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocket Edge

Still, I know its probably not the worst of them out there, but there is absolutely no comparision between this & Call of Duty for example. Best game ever made? Then we haven't come very far. Won't be spending my bucks on it.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolivar

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 Big D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolivar

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 Hsu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolivar

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.

---

:(

---

LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolivar

On so many levels, it's making other shooters seem absurd and obsolete. Call of Duty among them.

---

Oh come on, you can't honestly compare COD to this and say that KZ2 is more realistic.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolivar

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.

---

I was impressed by this in KZ2, but COD has all of that too. Enemy simulations are brilliant in both.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocket Edge

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolivar

^ 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.

---

I think I'm being complimented...hehehe thanks :D

I got my copy today, two days before release. My local retailer broke the street date for whatever reason but I'm not complaining. I've gone through the first 5 missions so far. Considering there is only 10 this game is undoubtably short. You would think 5 years in development would allow them to make a more beefy game but I guess they spent most of that time tweaking their engine.

I'm impressed so far but not blown away admittedly. Once you get past the graphics it really is just another shooter unfortunately. A very well executed one mind you. The set pieces are great but still nothing garish. I haven't played through the entire game so maybe that will change but so far the action seems very contained except for a few instances. Its funny because in the demo they show a pretty "meh" segment of the level but right after that the :skull::skull::skull::skull: really hits the fan. I dunno why they didn't show the entire level or just show the segment right after the demo finishes. They also try to throw in boss in there in level 5 but it seems kind of stupid as the boss seems to always be conviently next to a bulb which sprays out electricity which stuns the boss. Just seems a little too convient for the player.

Weapons so far are pretty standard but I love what they did with the flamethrower. You shoot it like a water pistol so you can arc your aim to make it land over cover where the enemies are hiding. Great touch which makes it much more unique than other flamethrowers in games.

I guess the game didn't really live up to the hype as I'm certainly not going head over heels about the game but if your comparing it to games like Halo and Resistance its definitely better than those. Although it doesn't quite reach the greatness that Half Life achieved. Still worth picking up if your into these sorts of games.

^ Interesting Dreddz, sucks I still have to wait 2 days...

Are you going to try the multi-player? If it's good and it's not region locked, we should start a clan.

I dipped into one game of multiplayer last night. Fortunately for me the servers were up the day I got the game. I dunno if it was my connection or just the servers but the game seemed kinda laggy when playing. I was still having fun though and the match lasted for around 15 minutes with the game types changing every few minutes. I hear you have to play more to unlock classes and weapons so I've only been able to play as a grunt with a machine gun so far. Ill definitely be playing more, just to see how the class system turns out. I loved Team Fortress 2 so I hope this will turn out just as good. And Ill be up for a clan. Dunno how much use Ill be but I seemed to be doing pretty decently in the match I was in.

Other things I forgot to mention were the controls. In the demo if you amped up the sensitivity the game would respond slightly quicker but in the full game they have definitely tweaked the sensitivity even more. If you amp up the sensitivity now you can allow it to be much more quicker than in the demo. If you turn it up all the way it actually becomes too fast and unplayable. I still like mine pretty slow compared to others.

And if anyone wants to know about the story, well its practically non-existent. I haven't played the previous Killzone games but I don't think I really have to. Other than the brief introduction there is no story advancement. Probably for the best as this game is all about the action and after the first 10 minutes the game is relentless with what it throws at you. Your squad mates are pretty generic but I'm actually fond of these types of characters Ill admit. Although one of them says "Stay Frosty" at one point which was ripped straight out of Aliens, kind of lazy if you ask me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolivar

^ 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.

---

I would too, had it not been bright blue on white.

I just beat the game an hour ago. I think I may have been too critical on the game before because the game definitely picks up in the later few levels. They really did leave the best parts till the end of the game. Although the final level is very mixed. The first half is awesome, with one particular moment which is probably one of the most epic and chaotic moments ever produced in a video game. But right after that they throw you into one of the most tedious and long boss fights ever in a FPS. It literally took me over an hour to beat the final boss and I just got frustrated by the end of it. Its a shame that they had to leave the game off on easily the weakest part of the game. Oh and the ending leaves a lot to be desired.

Overall I'm very happy with the final product. Its definitely one of the best action based FPS's I've ever had the joy to play and I definitely plan to go through the game again on a higher difficulty. Although whether or not I can go through the final boss fight on anything higher than normal remains to be seen.

Interesting...

I've read the backstory on Killzone.com, they have a long history timeline starting at the 2050 energy crisis everyone was predicting a few years ago. It's actually very interesting, shame the story in the game doesn't live up to that. I feel like Resistance 2 did that intentionally, hoping you'll buy the comic and novel when that comes out.

Game is fine. Struggled a little bit with whether or not I wanted to buy it when I saw it in the store today, but it's turning out okay. Adjusting to the controls wasn't bad since I played the demo a bit, despite my general dislike of the Dualshock for first person shooters. Multiplayer seems like a lot of work to get anywhere :p played until I ranked to 'Sergeant' and I can still only be the Rifleman:P Oh well. Decent chance I will send it back after I finish the single player, like I should have done with Gears. Unlikely to spend much time in those multiplayer games with some of the other things takin' up my game time.

I've dabbled in the multiplayer for quite a bit now. Its fun but similer to Halo and Resistance its very hard for me to get fully into. I don't think I do too badly but constantly wandering around the maps to then suddenly die out of the blue isn't fun. Sprinting into a room with a shotty and shooting like a madman definitely is though. It also takes ages to rank up and even when you do nothing seems to happen. All that said I still find it fun and will probably play some more if I can peel myself away from Street Fighter IV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreddz

...if I can peel myself away from Street Fighter IV.

---

Word.

Killzone 2 is one of those games that makes me proud to own a PS3. I can't stand all this controversy from 360 owners, just because they're missing out on something big. And there's a lot more to come. If you compare the sales of the PS3 to the 360 when it was around for the same time as the PS3 is now, the PS3 has sold a lot more. That's a fact. I own both, so I've got the best of both worlds, but I play my PS3 more than 360. Even online play is better on PS3, just because of the maturity of the community.

I took it back today. Finished the single player, it was fine. Got up to Sgt 1st class in multiplayer, but I'm really not going to be playing that much. Street Fighter 4 is indeed my primary source of online engagement these days.

Got nearly $40 for it. Not bad.

if anyone is playing let me know i would love to play with compitent players IronOcean is my tag cause i am not original