****4 Days****

I never really understood this kooky reasoning that because the game before it was mediocre, that means the sequel is for sure going to be nothing special.

It's like people refuse to believe that a game series can improve--Even when we're knee-deep in the next generation.

And turning around such logic is pretty easy: Does anyone remember DMC and DMC2? Everyone thought 2 was going to be awesome because the game before it was such a trend-setter--And yet....The game was considered mediocre if not bad.

[QUOTE="CyanX73"][QUOTE="bezaire2005"][QUOTE="CyanX73"]

[QUOTE="Taijiquan"]Killzone was barely mediocre at best. Haze will do better. bezaire2005

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.

Now for the level 33 guy above trashing on Killzone , Man , You should know better being that level , because people look up to your rank for info , First of all , Killzone would of been better if they never cut half the game to run on PS2 , I mean shoot , They sent Killzone to Microsoft to let them know how great it was , and they stalled Halo to add extras , Everyone knows this , Gamestop and every other game company knows this and lets their customers know when they talk about Killzone a few years back , I mean it was NEWS , It was one of the greatest slaps in Microsofts face until they had to cut content , then it was a slap in SONY's face , You watch , Killzone 2 99% Destructible Environments , with solid Gameplay , Is gonna rock everyone's socks off , Killzone hasn't been hyped by Sony , just like Socom hasn't , it's the fans , because the limited info we do recieve is pure great news , unlike releasing a Halo 3 beta , which was like playing Halo 2 all over again with just different maps and upgrading the ground effects , Yeah , I said it , The only differenc was now the ground didn't look like over sized Pixels , they actually put grass , that was about it! It sucked , but yes , I'll probably still buy it , one thing I can say , Warhawk made Halo look like junk ,Warhawk is gonna be AAA , no doubt about it , Killzone is what Sony is waiting for , and that is because they know the potential , They have way more experience on 1st Party Customer Satisfaction , so dont doubt them yet.

[QUOTE="six_shot"]is that an in game pic?? if so...daaaangjustin_06

haha, no WAY is that an in game pic my friend :P

watch it actually be an in game pic..then your gonna have to change that face to :o

[QUOTE="bezaire2005"][QUOTE="CyanX73"][QUOTE="bezaire2005"][QUOTE="CyanX73"]

[QUOTE="Taijiquan"]Killzone was barely mediocre at best. Haze will do better. Psythce

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.

Now for the level 33 guy above trashing on Killzone , Man , You should know better being that level , because people look up to your rank for info , First of all , Killzone would of been better if they never cut half the game to run on PS2 , I mean shoot , They sent Killzone to Microsoft to let them know how great it was , and they stalled Halo to add extras , Everyone knows this , Gamestop and every other game company knows this and lets their customers know when they talk about Killzone a few years back , I mean it was NEWS , It was one of the greatest slaps in Microsofts face until they had to cut content , then it was a slap in SONY's face , You watch , Killzone 2 99% Destructible Environments , with solid Gameplay , Is gonna rock everyone's socks off , Killzone hasn't been hyped by Sony , just like Socom hasn't , it's the fans , because the limited info we do recieve is pure great news , unlike releasing a Halo 3 beta , which was like playing Halo 2 all over again with just different maps and upgrading the ground effects , Yeah , I said it , The only differenc was now the ground didn't look like over sized Pixels , they actually put grass , that was about it! It sucked , but yes , I'll probably still buy it , one thing I can say , Warhawk made Halo look like junk ,Warhawk is gonna be AAA , no doubt about it , Killzone is what Sony is waiting for , and that is because they know the potential , They have way more experience on 1st Party Customer Satisfaction , so dont doubt them yet.

Don't worry about my level, that doesn't concearn you at all.

In a world of facts, and sources to support those facts: you have nothing. Are you trying to tell me that they stalled Halo 2 (score 9.4 i believe), to compete with Killzone (6.9)? I'm usually the last guy to ask for a link of some proof of this, but I would love to see you come up with something to back this claim up because I never heard anything about this. Until you do, I call BS.

You also stated that they cut half the game to run on the PS2? First of all, if the developers created a game that they need to cut in half to fit on the system that is was targeted on, than they have to be absolutly the worst developers ever. There is no way in hell that they would have miss the target system specs by that much, especially so late in the consoles lifespan. They knew the hardware, the knew what it was capable of...there is absolutly no way they had to cut the game in half to fit on the console. Again, without a source....BS.

I find it hard to believe that they sent members to MS to tell them how good the game was, especially sicne Guerrilla Games stated specifically that they don't want to compete with Halo at all (http://www.answers.com/topic/killzone?cat=entertainment). Again, without a source...BS.

Fans hyped Resistance to be a Halo killer...how did that work out? There was tons of great news about this game before it's release, yet it failed to even scratch the surface of the Halo franchise. Fans hyping a game it means nothing, especially since all there is to judge this game by is some fake CGI footage. You even said yourself that Sony isn't hyping this game. Don't you think if they had full faith in this game they would hype it? Doesn't make sense.

WARHAWK MADE HALO LOOK LIKE JUNK? Did you really say that? First of all, they aren't even the same type of game so you can't even compare the two. Second, Warhawk shouldn't even be ****fied as a real game. For a while they weren't even sure if they were going to release it on disc, and it has no single player. There is now ay that this game makes Halo look like junk, and you look likea complete fool for saying that.

I'd also like to see a source about your Gears statement. All I've seen is that it costs 10 million, so if you can find me a source that says otherwise than I'll believe you. Otherwise - BS.

Learn something from this: nobody believes you unless you can support your arguments.

***4 Days**** I'm bumping this one for Ultra-Alue because she is annoyed with all the KillZone thread and all the KillZone hype... hahaha

***4 Days**** I'm bumping this one for Ultra-Alue because she is annoyed with all the KillZone thread and all the KillZone hype... hahaha

aka_aj03

yeah you already know8)

Here's some sweet Helghast art :

please please someone find the 'killzone tv advert showed just in the uk' where a man was being chased bu helghast, wakes up in hospital with the fittest bird ive ever seen then a helghast grabs her by the hair.......THE END.

youtube is being a lord, a medal for someone who can find the vid and link me.

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.

bezaire2005

I'm not saying MONEY is the SOLE deciding factor in whether a game is good or not. Why oh why do some of you take one aspect of my statement and turn it into my ground statement. I bring up money not because money is everything but even you have to agree money matters? A game given this sort of budget is going to arouse interest in people. Heck, you don't have to be a PS3 owner to at least be curious what a game with that large a budget will do.

SOme did choose to answer my question but the vast majority of people bashing Killzone have never played the first one, imo. That's why I asked what was so bad about it. I wanted to hear from people that played it. The game's premise wasn't you milking cows (no pun intended) to save the world or you planting flowers to stop an alien invasion; the game had a typical first person shooter story. You may say my question sucks, and that's your opinion, but others choose to actually give me an answer as to why the game was bad in their opinion and then agreed that their gripes were fixable.

If you want to be linear, then heck, what game isn't linear? Most FPS involve you shooting, doing more shooting, maybe hopping in a vehicle, shooting, and then taking cover. You guys act like Killzone was supposed to re-invent the wheel. Yeah you shoot a gun and yeah it's another save the world game but that doesn't mean it's horrible. The prettiest console game out right now is incredibly linear but that didn't stop it from selling big time now did it?

The guns were generic? How many different ways can a bullet come out of something? And it's a war simulator. I actually liked that the guns were...not generic.....realistic. Reloading was a planned event because (like in real life) it actually takes time to do. If I want wacky guns I can plug in RFOM and shoot through walls.

Yeah the framerate sucked. But was the first game on PS3? If it was, then I'd agree with you and say this game does not deserve all this "hype" but guess what, it wasn't on PS3. In case you're not aware of this, but when a game is done on a more powerful console it provides the developers with more options/avenues to explore.

In the end you have your opinion and I have mine. And despite you saying my question was stupid, you actually gave me an answer (in between the insults :) ). Hope to talk to you after Killzone is displayed at E3.

I never really understood this kooky reasoning that because the game before it was mediocre, that means the sequel is for sure going to be nothing special.

It's like people refuse to believe that a game series can improve--Even when we're knee-deep in the next generation.

And turning around such logic is pretty easy: Does anyone remember DMC and DMC2? Everyone thought 2 was going to be awesome because the game before it was such a trend-setter--And yet....The game was considered mediocre if not bad.

Pariah_001

Exactly. These are the sort of people that are deservedly termed "fanboys." They don't understand that a PS2 is not a PS3. If the first killzone was a PS3 game and it stunk, I could see their point. But, again, it wasn't. Good point on DMC 2, I was really let down about that game. IMO, I've seen the major jump in improvement with titles like GTA, Street Fighter, and Mortal Kombat II.