Another WOW OMG KZ2 Destructibility Thread (cool pics inside) (56k go away )

[QUOTE="MarloStanfield"]

[QUOTE="JLF1"]
I don't really know.

Nerkcon

It pisses me off

PS3 is having a pretty great year and there's some great exclusives on it at last. MGS4 is awesome and LBP /R2 look really cool as well

Why the hell are people hyping crap like Killzone 2? Why not hype Fear 2? Why not hype MAG? Zipper and Monolith are ten times better than Guerilla. killzone 1 sucked

Guerilla Games, who are working on KZ2, but with a better budget, timeframe, and more people, some from other developers.

[QUOTE="WalterPaladines"]Lemming stop bashing great games, i could call Geow 2 "bland and run of the mill" too. foxhound_fox

LAWL WUT? You can't be serious! Gears of War 2 is NOT a run of the mill shooter. Calling it bland is your opinion, but run of the mill it is not.

Gears of War is a one of a kind game. It definitely sets itself apart from other shooters this gen (epseically in the gameplay department). 

[QUOTE="Toriko42"]Um, who cares. It'll just be for looks, no important gameplay changes unlike in Battlefield Bad CompanyJLF1

Well it adds to the atmosphere. 

Sorry, but that just came off, to me, as a string of generalizations. :? Mordred19

LAWL WUT? You can't be serious! Gears of War 2 is NOT a run of the mill shooter. Calling it bland is your opinion, but run of the mill it is not.

Gears of War is a one of a kind game. It definitely sets itself apart from other shooters this gen (epseically in the gameplay department). 

TREAL_Since

[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"]LAWL WUT? You can't be serious! Gears of War 2 is NOT a run of the mill shooter. Calling it bland is your opinion, but run of the mill it is not.

Gears of War is a one of a kind game. It definitely sets itself apart from other shooters this gen (epseically in the gameplay department). 

foxhound_fox

Gears2 isn't too different from the 1st one but who cares? it's really fun 

[QUOTE="JLF1"]

[QUOTE="Toriko42"]Um, who cares. It'll just be for looks, no important gameplay changes unlike in Battlefield Bad CompanyToriko42

Well it adds to the atmosphere.

[QUOTE="Nerkcon"][QUOTE="MarloStanfield"]

 

It pisses me off

PS3 is having a pretty great year and there's some great exclusives on it at last. MGS4 is awesome and LBP /R2 look really cool as well

Why the hell are people hyping crap like Killzone 2? Why not hype Fear 2? Why not hype MAG? Zipper and Monolith are ten times better than Guerilla. killzone 1 sucked

Mordred19

Guerilla Games, who are working on KZ2, but with a better budget, timeframe, and more people, some from other developers.

Not mention direct contact from devs like Insomniac, Naughty Dog and the Sony devs who are working on God of War 3. :D

[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"]LAWL WUT? You can't be serious! Gears of War 2 is NOT a run of the mill shooter. Calling it bland is your opinion, but run of the mill it is not.

Gears of War is a one of a kind game. It definitely sets itself apart from other shooters this gen (epseically in the gameplay department). 

foxhound_fox

Premise and character design have very little to do with it. Gameplay wise Gears sets itslef apart from other shooters. 

[QUOTE="3picuri3"]

guess we all know what makes a game good for you - guess it's graphics :) pretty obvious.

i care about other things though Treal, sorry mate. and if COD4 can do bullet pen, why the hell can't KZ2 - lazy devs I guess that are too concerned getting their knock-offs of other games perfect instead of spending the time to make sure this is a fully realized next gen shooter.

JLF1

why do all cows assume that people that bash their games like halo - i can't stand halo. 

[QUOTE="JLF1"][QUOTE="3picuri3"]

guess we all know what makes a game good for you - guess it's graphics :) pretty obvious.

i care about other things though Treal, sorry mate. and if COD4 can do bullet pen, why the hell can't KZ2 - lazy devs I guess that are too concerned getting their knock-offs of other games perfect instead of spending the time to make sure this is a fully realized next gen shooter.

3picuri3

why do all cows assume that people that bash their games like halo - i can't stand halo.

[QUOTE="3picuri3"][QUOTE="TREAL_Since"]

 

Oh no the game is doomed :P. No bullet penetration. Not having it is totally acceptable considering how amazing the game looks. The lighting, processing effects, animations, hit response system excel compared to other console shooters to make up for no bullet penetration IMO.

Also, when you say bullet penetration do you mean shooting through walls? If so, that's a game design that has that the "power of the cell" can handle since COD4 has it ;). 

TREAL_Since

guess we all know what makes a game good for you - guess it's graphics :) pretty obvious.

i care about other things though Treal, sorry mate. and if COD4 can do bullet pen, why the hell can't KZ2 - lazy devs I guess that are too concerned getting their knock-offs of other games perfect instead of spending the time to make sure this is a fully realized next gen shooter. 

- Then Gears and Halo 3 weren't impressive for not doing bullet penetration (graphics wise)? 

- Hey don't tell me I think graphics make a game :evil:. They can defintely make one better! Atmosphere is very important for a shooter :).

- Bullet penetration isn't a testament of a game being great graphically. It's mostly a gameplay design this gen (since both the 360 and PS3 can handle it with ease... it could have been done last gen actually!)

- Games like Gears, Halo 3, Far Cry 2, Resistance 2, and KZ2 don't go that route. They focus on other things as far as game design is concerened. It's extremely picky to dog KZ2 out for having no bullet penetration when it does many other things so well :). Now if you dogged it our for not having online co-op for SP then that would absolutely legitimate.

dude, you totally don't get it at all.

i don't give a crap about visuals. too many games these days look pretty and play like turd. i count gears and halo and uncharted and crysis among those games, and mgs4.

if people weren't so blown away by visuals that they ignore the core gameplay then maybe we wouldn't be getting so many bland generic titles this gen. it's a shame - gaming is nosediving just like hollywood. big explosions and pretty graphics win fans over, not compelling stories or gameplay.

bullet penetration has NOTHING to do with graphics, i'm talking gameplay - my argument is that they should have put as much effort in to KZ2 gameplay as they did the visuals, but they didn't - so imo the game fails. and yes, i'm in beta (eat your heart out, hater has a beta spot). 

[QUOTE="3picuri3"][QUOTE="JLF1"]
Because the devs perhaps didn't want it.

If destruction is so easily achieved and last gen why don't Halo 3 have it? Are Bungie lazy?JLF1

why do all cows assume that people that bash their games like halo - i can't stand halo.

why do you assume i give 2 ***** about Halo? 

 

dude, you totally don't get it at all.

i don't give a crap about visuals. too many games these days look pretty and play like turd. i count gears and halo and uncharted and crysis among those games, and mgs4.

if people weren't so blown away by visuals that they ignore the core gameplay then maybe we wouldn't be getting so many bland generic titles this gen. it's a shame - gaming is nosediving just like hollywood. big explosions and pretty graphics win fans over, not compelling stories or gameplay.

bullet penetration has NOTHING to do with graphics, i'm talking gameplay - my argument is that they should have put as much effort in to KZ2 gameplay as they did the visuals, but they didn't - so imo the game fails. and yes, i'm in beta (eat your heart out, hater has a beta spot).

3picuri3

You're saying a lot of things that don't make sense.

Talking about Gears, Halo, Uncharted and Crysis (Our lord, Crysis) and even MGS4 about ignoring gameplay when not one of them does that. Especially a game like Crysis which has some of the most varied and engaging FPS gaming I've seen in a long time. These games aren't just lauded for their graphics, they all happen to play extremely well at the same time.

Bland and generic. You're going to have to elaborate on that one...  

why do you assume i give 2 ***** about Halo?

3picuri3

[QUOTE="3picuri3"]

 

dude, you totally don't get it at all.

i don't give a crap about visuals. too many games these days look pretty and play like turd. i count gears and halo and uncharted and crysis among those games, and mgs4.

if people weren't so blown away by visuals that they ignore the core gameplay then maybe we wouldn't be getting so many bland generic titles this gen. it's a shame - gaming is nosediving just like hollywood. big explosions and pretty graphics win fans over, not compelling stories or gameplay.

bullet penetration has NOTHING to do with graphics, i'm talking gameplay - my argument is that they should have put as much effort in to KZ2 gameplay as they did the visuals, but they didn't - so imo the game fails. and yes, i'm in beta (eat your heart out, hater has a beta spot).

JLF1

why do you keep assuming things :P.

i'm not arguing for any console in specific, i'm a gamer first. i have no allegiance to any brand tyvm :P i'm a bit stronger willed than that.

i'm just tired of shallow games getting so much praise around here. but i guess that's the trend with everything these days from TV to mainstream music to movies. everyone seems to eat up the fluff... we need more games that focus more on creating a great experience in terms of gameplay / story / and visuals. too many games put all their chips on one of the 3 and it's getting a bit tiring imo. 

[QUOTE="3picuri3"][QUOTE="JLF1"]
Because the devs perhaps didn't want it.

If destruction is so easily achieved and last gen why don't Halo 3 have it? Are Bungie lazy?JLF1

why do all cows assume that people that bash their games like halo - i can't stand halo.

Don't argue with that guy, he is a lemming pretending to have a PS3, which he doesn't, no less in the beta.

3picuri3 The reason I know you are lying about being in the beta is because you have to be signed up to Playstation Underground, which is I bet that you aren't. Not to mention there were some other perks you had to do, in which case you also had to be signed up to the Guerrilla games official website which Obviously you aren't.

So ear your heart out 3picuri3, just pretending to be that guy. Lemmings have sunk to an all time low.

why do you keep assuming things :P.

i'm not arguing for any console in specific, i'm a gamer first. i have no allegiance to any brand tyvm :P i'm a bit stronger willed than that.

i'm just tired of shallow games getting so much praise around here. but i guess that's the trend with everything these days from TV to mainstream music to movies. everyone seems to eat up the fluff... we need more games that focus more on creating a great experience in terms of gameplay / story / and visuals. too many games put all their chips on one of the 3 and it's getting a bit tiring imo.

3picuri3

it's a shame the damage is incredibly superficial. 

you'd think with the power of the cell and a crazy budget they could beat destruction from games that came our for PS2 (red faction anybody?).

for kz2 its just facades on walls and pillars that can be destroyed - and funny enough there is no bullet penetration, which also really sucks for a next gen shooter. 

3picuri3

LOL, you have no idea how game developement works. and please while your at it, name me a FPS that does all that K2 does. 

[QUOTE="3picuri3"]

why do you assume i give 2 ***** about Halo?

JLF1

first off Halo really isn't that kind of game, it focuses more on run & gun in SP and multi. so having penetration is a bit of a moot point, but it would have been nice if they added it - they didn't. sucks.

KZ2 lends itself more to tactical firefights where cover is key - it's a pretty immersive package overall with the visuals but i'm quickly taken out of it when my bullets don't go through 1/8 inch corrugate steel, or anything. call me picky, but if a game is trying to hard to be something then why stop short or achieving that vision? i have quite a few other issues with the game, penetration isn't my only one.  

and please while your at it, name me a FPS that does all that K2 does. 

Eyezonmii

what? you mean name another shallow shooter that disappointed me? Drakes was pretty bad. didn't like Halo (any of them).

and buddy, i know a heck of a lot more about development than you think or know :). 

You can't go around calling games shallow without any context.

Shallow compared to what? 

[QUOTE="JLF1"][QUOTE="3picuri3"]

why do you assume i give 2 ***** about Halo?

3picuri3

first off Halo really isn't that kind of game, it focuses more on run & gun in SP and multi. so having penetration is a bit of a moot point, but it would have been nice if they added it - they didn't. sucks.

KZ2 lends itself more to tactical firefights where cover is key - it's a pretty immersive package overall with the visuals but i'm quickly taken out of it when my bullets don't go through 1/8 inch corrugate steel, or anything. call me picky, but if a game is trying to hard to be something then why stop short or achieving that vision? i have quite a few other issues with the game, penetration isn't my only one.  

If cover is the key --> Eliminating cover would result in = ?

Especially with the cover system, right?

And apart from that there are certain objects in the game that can be blown apart, knocked away to reveal more of the enemy e.g. Sandbags and metal stands. And LMAO @ Halo being run and gun. Compared to another game that actually has bullet penetration, it's just not.  

[QUOTE="3picuri3"]

why do you keep assuming things :P.

i'm not arguing for any console in specific, i'm a gamer first. i have no allegiance to any brand tyvm :P i'm a bit stronger willed than that.

i'm just tired of shallow games getting so much praise around here. but i guess that's the trend with everything these days from TV to mainstream music to movies. everyone seems to eat up the fluff... we need more games that focus more on creating a great experience in terms of gameplay / story / and visuals. too many games put all their chips on one of the 3 and it's getting a bit tiring imo.

JLF1

i think some of the best gameplay innovations happened last gen. this gen has been pretty middle of the road.

lbp has made leaps and strides for user created console content, albeit a weak platformer overall.

Rainbow 6 gave us a great fully functional cover fire system that gears and many other games have been 'borrowing'. i know it was in other games before, but R6 was the first to get it right.

COD4 had a comprehensive penetration system.

TF2 finally fully realized the vision of TF1 that began over a decade ago - and kz2 promptly ripped it off.

Apart from that we've had a staggering amount of 'same old' games that just repeat the same old tired formulas with minor visual improvments. 

You can't go around calling games shallow without any context.

Shallow compared to what? 

[QUOTE="3picuri3"][QUOTE="JLF1"]
I didn't.

I just asked if you think Bungie is lazy because they didn't add a last gen easily achieved feuture?

inertk

first off Halo really isn't that kind of game, it focuses more on run & gun in SP and multi. so having penetration is a bit of a moot point, but it would have been nice if they added it - they didn't. sucks.

KZ2 lends itself more to tactical firefights where cover is key - it's a pretty immersive package overall with the visuals but i'm quickly taken out of it when my bullets don't go through 1/8 inch corrugate steel, or anything. call me picky, but if a game is trying to hard to be something then why stop short or achieving that vision? i have quite a few other issues with the game, penetration isn't my only one.  

If cover is the key --> Eliminating cover would result in = ?

Especially with the cover system, right?

And apart from that there are certain objects in the game that can be blown apart, knocked away to reveal more of the enemy e.g. Sandbags and metal stands. And LMAO @ Halo being run and gun. Compared to another game that actually has bullet penetration, it's just not.  

cover should be like it is in real life. if you're behind a box made of cardboard you should be dead. if you're behind a thin piece of metal you should be dead. anything else just rips people from the propped up realism of the experience. might want to clarify your first 2 sentences there as they don't make a heck of a lot of sense.

and mate, i've played all Halo. ALL are run & gun, at least that's how i've played them all and beaten them all. there are hardly any points where you have to be tactful in how you approach a situation, even on the most difficult settings. it's NOT a challenging game compared to other shooters out there.  

[QUOTE="Eyezonmii"]

and please while your at it, name me a FPS that does all that K2 does. 

3picuri3

what? you mean name another shallow shooter that disappointed me? Drakes was pretty bad. didn't like Halo (any of them).

and buddy, i know a heck of a lot more about development than you think or know :). 

You still didn't answer his question.

Here's my reqeust: Name a shooter that does everything that KZ2 does and looks just as good at the same time. 

[QUOTE="3picuri3"][QUOTE="Eyezonmii"]

and please while your at it, name me a FPS that does all that K2 does. 

TREAL_Since

what? you mean name another shallow shooter that disappointed me? Drakes was pretty bad. didn't like Halo (any of them).

and buddy, i know a heck of a lot more about development than you think or know :). 

You still didn't anser his questoin.

Here's my reqeust: Name a shooter that does everythign that KZ2 does and looks just as good at the same time. 

5$ he says Gears2 :D lulz 

[QUOTE="3picuri3"][QUOTE="Eyezonmii"]

and please while your at it, name me a FPS that does all that K2 does. 

TREAL_Since

what? you mean name another shallow shooter that disappointed me? Drakes was pretty bad. didn't like Halo (any of them).

and buddy, i know a heck of a lot more about development than you think or know :). 

You still didn't anser his questoin.

Here's my reqeust: Name a shooter that does everythign that KZ2 does and looks just as good at the same time. 

Treal, i dunno why it's so hard for you to get. i don't care about things being wrapped up in pretty little packages. i'd argue TF2 did everything KZ2 does and is the better game. i don't want another shallow shooter experience like KZ2 that just borrows from other games. i already played KZ2 years ago in the form of Battlefield series, TF1, and TF2. they were awesome, i don't need another one with an overall game design that reminds me of a bad slipknot video, as pretty as it might be.

so here, to make it deadly simple:

-I don't like games that are just pretty packages with ripped of features of other games. I don't like rehashes, I like unique complete experiences.

you can keep asking me questions that you think play to your side of the argument, but that's absolutely meaningless if you fail to see my side of things mate. i don't care about pretty packages like you do - i care about solid gaming. imo KZ2 has been done to death over and over already and i couldn't care less how pretty they've made it look.

[QUOTE="inertk"]

You can't go around calling games shallow without any context.

Shallow compared to what?

[QUOTE="3picuri3"]

first off Halo really isn't that kind of game, it focuses more on run & gun in SP and multi. so having penetration is a bit of a moot point, but it would have been nice if they added it - they didn't. sucks.

KZ2 lends itself more to tactical firefights where cover is key - it's a pretty immersive package overall with the visuals but i'm quickly taken out of it when my bullets don't go through 1/8 inch corrugate steel, or anything. call me picky, but if a game is trying to hard to be something then why stop short or achieving that vision? i have quite a few other issues with the game, penetration isn't my only one.

3picuri3

If cover is the key --> Eliminating cover would result in = ?

Especially with the cover system, right?

And apart from that there are certain objects in the game that can be blown apart, knocked away to reveal more of the enemy e.g. Sandbags and metal stands. And LMAO @ Halo being run and gun. Compared to another game that actually has bullet penetration, it's just not.

cover should be like it is in real life. if you're behind a box made of cardboard you should be dead. if you're behind a thin piece of metal you should be dead. anything else just rips people from the propped up realism of the experience. might want to clarify your first 2 sentences there as they don't make a heck of a lot of sense.

and mate, i've played all Halo. ALL are run & gun, at least that's how i've played them all and beaten them all. there are hardly any points where you have to be tactful in how you approach a situation, even on the most difficult settings. it's NOT a challenging game compared to other shooters out there.

If the game isn't built around the concept why add it in? You said cover is key, imagine Gears of War with bullet penetration. Btw, how is the cover system in the game?

Second, don't put words into my mouth. I never said that Halo was challenging, I said that compared to a current game with bullet penetration (CoD4), it isn't even remotely run and gun. 

Finally, what shooters would you consider shallow? Apart from apparent turds like MGS4, Crysis, Gears. And which aren't? I'm confused as to where you draw the line. 

I think it's nice how the rubble flies out and there's much destruction going on about. I wonder if you can topple buildings or destroy entire pillars and cause buildings to eventually collapse though. :|

Still, it's interesting to see, however I'll wait and see how it plays on the gameplay. I see you can shoot down some cover, that's cool and nice, but didn't RFOM have that too? Are they preset animations too, or limited to certain types of cover, or is it useable in all areas if you have enough firepower? Crysis to me still has better destruction. You can mow down entire places with enough fire power. :D 

[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"][QUOTE="3picuri3"]

what? you mean name another shallow shooter that disappointed me? Drakes was pretty bad. didn't like Halo (any of them).

and buddy, i know a heck of a lot more about development than you think or know :). 

3picuri3

You still didn't anser his questoin.

Here's my reqeust: Name a shooter that does everythign that KZ2 does and looks just as good at the same time. 

Treal, i dunno why it's so hard for you to get. i don't care about things being wrapped up in pretty little packages. i'd argue TF2 did everything KZ2 does and is the better game. i don't want another shallow shooter experience like KZ2 that just borrows from other games.

so here, to make it deadly simple:

-I don't like games that are just pretty packages with ripped of features of other games. I don't like rehashes, I like unique complete experiences.

you can keep asking me questions that you think play to your side of the argument, but that's absolutely meaningless if you fail to see my side of things mate.  

If KZ2 borrows amazing ideas it doesn't mean it's shallow. The ideas are still amazing to begin with LMAO!

Dynamic Matches (new feature), fully intergrated clan support (with a gambling system for leader board position), squad sysem (with squad invites during a match), mix and match c|ass sysetm (can't be found ANYWHERE in FPS), and bots.

All of this together in one game is truly amazing! 

So you don't like it when a game adopts an amazing feature/mechanic from another game and adds a unique twist on it? You ONLY play games that are 100% innovative? Ok. Bye. You must be one unhappy gamer :(.

Just say you don't like the game. These accustations are lame. 

You can't go around calling games shallow without any context.

Shallow compared to what? inertk

compared to all the games they cannibalized for features. i consider immitative and derivative games to be shallow because they have to identify themselves through other games.

KZ2 is shallow because it does just that. steals features from tons of other games and puts a big shiny bow on it. to me that's shallow. it offers me nothing new when compared to the other games it's stolen features from. 

Like someone said, it's all superficial. Nothing to go "WOW OMG" about, but the game looks great none-the-less.

Gears 2 had similar damage, but chunks didn't disapear like this:

[QUOTE="3picuri3"][QUOTE="TREAL_Since"]

 

You still didn't anser his questoin.

Here's my reqeust: Name a shooter that does everythign that KZ2 does and looks just as good at the same time. 

TREAL_Since

Treal, i dunno why it's so hard for you to get. i don't care about things being wrapped up in pretty little packages. i'd argue TF2 did everything KZ2 does and is the better game. i don't want another shallow shooter experience like KZ2 that just borrows from other games.

so here, to make it deadly simple:

-I don't like games that are just pretty packages with ripped of features of other games. I don't like rehashes, I like unique complete experiences.

you can keep asking me questions that you think play to your side of the argument, but that's absolutely meaningless if you fail to see my side of things mate.  

If KZ2 borrows amazing ideas it doesn't mean it's shallow. The ideas are still amazing to begin with LMAO!

Dynamic Matches (new feature), fully intergrated clan support (with a gambling system for leader board position), squad sysem (with squad invites during a match), mix and match c|ass sysetm (can't be found ANYWHERE in FPS), and bots.

All of this together in one game is truly amazing! 

So you don't like it when a game adopts an amazing feature/mechanic from another game and adds a unique twist on it? You ONLY play games that are 100% innovative? Ok. Bye. You must be one unhappy gamer :(.

Just say you don't like the game. These accustations are lame. 

first off, it's criticisms, not accusations, lmao.

2nd, no - the ideas were amazing to begin with - but if you lack the tact to use them in your game they become shallow afterthoughts, like KZ2. have you played it even? do you know how poorly the system works when compared to the games the features were taken from? 90% of what determines the success of a feature is it's implementation - not the freaking idea. my lord.

by your line of reasoning taking the best elements of all games and smashing them together like bricks would make a 'truly amazing' game - well sorry Treal if I don't share you simplistic angle on game development. if the implementation isn't there surrounded by the package that made the feature great to begin with chances are it's not going to fly with the same grace it did originally. that my friend, is a FACT.

[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"]

If KZ2 borrows amazing ideas it doesn't mean it's shallow. The ideas are still amazing to begin with LMAO!

Dynamic Matches (new feature), fully intergrated clan support (with a gambling system for leader board position), squad sysem (with squad invites during a match), mix and match c|ass sysetm (can't be found ANYWHERE in  FPS, and bots.

All of this together is truly amazing! Too bad you don't like it because it's not all 100% innovative. 

So you don't like it when a game adopts an amazing feature/mechanic from another game and adds a unique twist on it? You ONLY play games that are 100% innovative? Ok. Bye.

Just say you don't liek the game. These accustations are lame. 

3picuri3

about as lame as your attempt to retort them :). sorry you don't understand my argument, i'm not going to try to elaborate more as i think you've proven that pointless in many other threads.  

I'm only trying to tell you that KZ2 is not a "run of the mill" shooter. Your reasons for refering to it as such are basically unfounded.

You must not play/not like 90% of games that come out since they are not all 100% innovative.

I see your side. I just don't agree with it since it's mostly opinion (you don't like when games adopt features and mechanics from other great games). It's fact that KZ2 separates itself from the average shooter (just as Gears 2, Halo 3, and Resistance 2 does). My entire point.

KZ2 has features that are only available in KZ2. Fact. 

[QUOTE="inertk"]

You can't go around calling games shallow without any context.

Shallow compared to what? 3picuri3

compared to all the games they cannibalized for features. i consider immitative and derivative games to be shallow because they have to identify themselves through other games.

KZ2 is shallow because it does just that. steals features from tons of other games and puts a big shiny bow on it. to me that's shallow. it offers me nothing new when compared to the other games it's stolen features from. 

That's the thing, as it currently is every game is an amalgamation of multiple ideas or trends.

With Killzone you're not making a lot of sense, you want it to have a feature from another game but criticizing it on the same terms. Which I'm pretty sure makes you a hypocrite. But at the same time you're not even acknowledging whatever it is the game does that's original. 

It's kind of sad, you must be the type of person who played Gears of War and thought of Killswitch instead of enjoying the actual game. Granted, if you apply the same logic to everything, you must be a very negative person.  

[QUOTE="3picuri3"][QUOTE="TREAL_Since"]

If KZ2 borrows amazing ideas it doesn't mean it's shallow. The ideas are still amazing to begin with LMAO!

Dynamic Matches (new feature), fully intergrated clan support (with a gambling system for leader board position), squad sysem (with squad invites during a match), mix and match c|ass sysetm (can't be found ANYWHERE in  FPS, and bots.

All of this together is truly amazing! Too bad you don't like it because it's not all 100% innovative. 

So you don't like it when a game adopts an amazing feature/mechanic from another game and adds a unique twist on it? You ONLY play games that are 100% innovative? Ok. Bye.

Just say you don't liek the game. These accustations are lame. 

TREAL_Since

about as lame as your attempt to retort them :). sorry you don't understand my argument, i'm not going to try to elaborate more as i think you've proven that pointless in many other threads.  

I'm only trying to tell you that KZ2 is not a "run of the mill" shooter. Your reasons for refering to it as such are basically unfounded.

You must not play/not like 90% of games that come out since they are not all 100% innovative.

you're a great assumer Treal. a great assumer. shame you're not right. i play nearly every game that comes out for my job - so i think my perspective is well founded.

KZ2 is run of the mill. if graphics make a game not run of the mill to you then fantastic, enjoy your graphics. imo KZ2 is a convaluted mess of features torn from other games slapped in to a sloppy gameplay package. it looks pretty, and is fun for a while - but when you start to think about the games these features came from you quickly realize how derivitave the game is - and how much more fun the games that originally had those features in them are.

sorry i don't share your overly optimistic view - and i'm guessing you haven't actually even played it yet have you?  

[QUOTE="3picuri3"][QUOTE="inertk"]

You can't go around calling games shallow without any context.

Shallow compared to what? inertk

compared to all the games they cannibalized for features. i consider immitative and derivative games to be shallow because they have to identify themselves through other games.

KZ2 is shallow because it does just that. steals features from tons of other games and puts a big shiny bow on it. to me that's shallow. it offers me nothing new when compared to the other games it's stolen features from. 

That's the thing, as it currently is every game is an amalgamation of multiple ideas or trends.

With Killzone you're not making a lot of sense, you want it to have a feature from another game but criticizing it on the same terms. Which I'm pretty sure makes you a hypocrite. But at the same time you're not even acknowledging whatever it is the game does that's original. 

It's kind of sad, you must be the type of person who played Gears of War and thought of Killswitch instead of enjoying the actual game. Granted, if you apply the same logic to everything, you must be a very negative person.  

there is nothing original the game has, that's my point. it's a mash of other concepts from other games.

and you're absolutely wrong that every game is a combination of other ideas and trends, at least in the sense i'm talking about it. the class systems and core game mechanics in KZ2 are DIRECTLY torn from other games with minor twists. it's like an emo TF2 game with a splash of Battlefield. so no, i'm not a hypocrite at all - you just don't get what i'm getting at.

there's a difference between borrowing a cover mechanic and borrowing entire core gameplay elements and class systems, etc. if you can't see that then i dunno what to tell you mate, lol.  

but go ahead and keep oversimplifying things and making baseless attacks on me and my character over a video game - who's truly the negative person here? thought so. 

So you play games for your job, yet you've no problem breaking NDA to tell us about the game? That's odd.

How's the cover system btw? And what features has the game stolen? Classes? Badges? Clan points? Come on, you're being very vague with your criticisms. 

[QUOTE="inertk"][QUOTE="3picuri3"]

 

compared to all the games they cannibalized for features. i consider immitative and derivative games to be shallow because they have to identify themselves through other games.

KZ2 is shallow because it does just that. steals features from tons of other games and puts a big shiny bow on it. to me that's shallow. it offers me nothing new when compared to the other games it's stolen features from. 

3picuri3

That's the thing, as it currently is every game is an amalgamation of multiple ideas or trends.

With Killzone you're not making a lot of sense, you want it to have a feature from another game but criticizing it on the same terms. Which I'm pretty sure makes you a hypocrite. But at the same time you're not even acknowledging whatever it is the game does that's original. 

It's kind of sad, you must be the type of person who played Gears of War and thought of Killswitch instead of enjoying the actual game. Granted, if you apply the same logic to everything, you must be a very negative person.  

there is nothing original the game has, that's my point. it's a mash of other concepts from other games.

and you're absolutely wrong that every game is a combination of other ideas and trends, at least in the sense i'm talking about it. the class systems and core game mechanics in KZ2 are DIRECTLY torn from other games with minor twists. it's like an emo TF2 game with a splash of Battlefield. so no, i'm not a hypocrite at all - you just don't get what i'm getting at.

there's a difference between borrowing a cover mechanic and borrowing entire core gameplay elements and class systems, etc. if you can't see that then i dunno what to tell you mate, lol.  

but go ahead and keep oversimplifying things and making baseless attacks on me and my character over a video game - who's truly the negative person here? thought so. 

TF2 and Battlefield, I'm pretty sure they used borrowed concepts as well. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I see your side. I just don't agree with it since it's mostly opinion (you don't like when games adopt features and mechanics from other great games). It's fact that KZ2 separates itself from the average shooter (just as Gears 2, Halo 3, and Resistance 2 does). My entire point.

KZ2 has features that are only available in KZ2. Fact. 

TREAL_Since

name these unique features Treal. i think we did this before and you were able to name one out of a list of 10 obviously stolen features from other games.

KZ2 does nothing to seperate itself from the flock, and i bet if you sat down with the developers they'd agree with that statement. i think it's very much by design that this game is so familiar to so many people through it's borrowed features. it's just my opinion that that is a bad thing, but fans of pop fiction and pulp gaming will love it i guess because it's just more cotton candy to eat up. 

[QUOTE="3picuri3"][QUOTE="inertk"]

 

That's the thing, as it currently is every game is an amalgamation of multiple ideas or trends.

With Killzone you're not making a lot of sense, you want it to have a feature from another game but criticizing it on the same terms. Which I'm pretty sure makes you a hypocrite. But at the same time you're not even acknowledging whatever it is the game does that's original. 

It's kind of sad, you must be the type of person who played Gears of War and thought of Killswitch instead of enjoying the actual game. Granted, if you apply the same logic to everything, you must be a very negative person.  

tmntPunchout

there is nothing original the game has, that's my point. it's a mash of other concepts from other games.

and you're absolutely wrong that every game is a combination of other ideas and trends, at least in the sense i'm talking about it. the class systems and core game mechanics in KZ2 are DIRECTLY torn from other games with minor twists. it's like an emo TF2 game with a splash of Battlefield. so no, i'm not a hypocrite at all - you just don't get what i'm getting at.

there's a difference between borrowing a cover mechanic and borrowing entire core gameplay elements and class systems, etc. if you can't see that then i dunno what to tell you mate, lol.  

but go ahead and keep oversimplifying things and making baseless attacks on me and my character over a video game - who's truly the negative person here? thought so. 

TF2 and Battlefield, I'm pretty sure they used borrowed concepts as well. Correct me if I'm wrong.

you're wrong and right. TF1 created the class shooter mold, Battlefield borrowed from it, TF2 fully realized it (compared to TF1)... well not fully, 10th class still to come apparently.