[QUOTE="bezaire2005"][QUOTE="CyanX73"][QUOTE="bezaire2005"][QUOTE="CyanX73"] [QUOTE="Taijiquan"]Killzone was barely mediocre at best. Haze will do better. foxbait95
Again, what was so bad about the game that is unrepairable? What was so bad that there is no possibility for improvement? Can't get an answer.
Great question
While we are at it, what is so bad about any game that is unrepairable?
Nothing? Wow, than we should hype every game AAA.
Not true. Some games just have a bad premise. Most games don't get a 40 million dollar budget. Amazing that none of you can tell me what was so bad about KZ.
If money was the deciding factor in whether or not a game is amazing or not, than 40 million would be great. But sadly, most people won't care if a game cost 40 million to make if it sucks. Don't act like games need monster budgets to be successful. Take Gears of War for example. It cost only 10 million to make and there is no current equal to it. So rest your money comment because it's irrelevant.
Amazing how you couldn't tell me what was so bad about another game that couldn't be fixed. Everything can be fixed. That's why nobody chose to answer your question...because it's pointless and applies to every game. If an original game has a bad premise, the developers can take the sequal in another direction. It's not that nobody can answer your question, it's that your question sucks.
As far as things that were wrong with the game: It was very linear. Each mission was pretty much the same... you go somewhere, shoot something, than move onto the next mission to do it again. Of course this will make a "good" game, but it's certainly nowhere near AAA quality.
What did this gamedo to separateitself from othershooters?The guns were generic, and can be found in just about every fps on the market. The missions werenot much different than you would find in any other FPS game. The graphics were nice, but didn't stand above anything else out at the time.
And the framerate sucked. Go ahead, deny it if you wish...but when the framerate gets so bad that it's hard to properly aim...there's a problem.
ok then, i would have to say Kllzone 1 had the best mellee attacks of any fps ive played, it also had some of the, if not the best reload animations of any fps , and the story is good ,AND the whole art direction and character models i liked.gears was good, but i wouldnt say that nothing touches it? it looks good, but not too much after that you can really say about the game, super linear , killswitch gameplay, no variety for gameplay , game only had 3 colors in the entire game lol, they looked good tho, i really didnt like gears.
It was linear, but it brought variety to the gameplay. Not only did you have to fight off these huge enemies, in some levels you had to completely stay out of the dark. Also there was the part where one member of the group had to keep the spotlight on the other person while he maneuvered his way through enemies while trying to stay out of the dark.
On top of that, there were lots of innovative weapons. The chainsaw gun, the hammer of dawn, the torque bow...what was the must innovative gun in Killzone? The AK-47? Gears also had the active reload system which is uncommon in other shooters. These were things that Gears brought to the table that distinguished itself from other shooters. The result? Great ratings from nearly every review site, and the top online game of the next generation so far, as well as over 4 million copies sold.
And I don't see why you chose to mention those things you liked about Killzone while quoting me. They didn't apply to anything at all that I talked about. I didn't say that the game did everything terrible, I was just answering the kid who asked the same question about 40 times on what was wrong with the game. Although I find it a stretch to say it had the best melee and reload animations, the game had some positive aspects...I agree. But none of those things will make it live up to the hype that the game is getting.
Log in to comment