Killzone 2 "brings nothing new to the genre?"

Killzone 2 brings nothing new to the genre?

I've seen a lot of arguments for and against this game. In terms of against, the biggest one is:

"It brings nothing new to the genre, it's just pretty graphics."

Hmm, where to start?

The game looks good, and one could make the argument that there aren't any giant overhauls to the FPS genre here, there are some minor ones, but not necessarily anyting deemed "revolutionary," however, most the most part, Killzone 2 takes elements that work very well, even if we have already seen them before, and blends them into a very good game. One could say there isn't much 'new' here and I can see the reasoning, even though I'm a Killzone fan, I won't deny that there isn't anything so revolutionary it'll blow your mind, but what the game does have it makes for an all-around well-crafted and enjoyable shooter.

Also, yes, the graphics are, how to put it, gorgeous, in an apocalyptic dust storm kind of way, or just gorgeous in general. This isn't a bad thing, it's a good thing.

The game is fun, the weight of the character feels right, sure you can't jump seventeen feet in the air like Unreal Tournament will let you, but the physics are quite realistic and feel as though they haven't been "cartoonified" as minimally as possible.

My point is, although it might not bring and giant changes to the genre, ask oneself "Is it a good game, is it fun, is it beautiful to look at, do I like playing it?"

As far as the PS3 goes, for exculsive shooters this year, is it the best exclusive shooter on the PS3? Yes.

Is it the best shooter on the PS3 this year? One of them, there are a couple others to consider, but it could be.

Is it the best exclusive that's been on a Playstation system? Probably.

Is it the best shooter ever made? This is gray area and there are so many games to consider that the question can't be answered.

The point is, although it doesn't bring much new to the genre, it uses parts that have already been used before and blends them into a great and total package. THAT is why it is a good game.

Killzone 2 brings nothing new to the genre?

I've seen a lot of arguments for and against this game. In terms of against, the biggest one is:

"It brings nothing new to the genre, it's just pretty graphics."

Hmm, where to start?

The game looks good, and one could make the argument that there aren't any giant overhauls to the FPS genre here, there are some minor ones, but not necessarily anyting deemed "revolutionary," however, most the most part, Killzone 2 takes elements that work very well, even if we have already seen them before, and blends them into a very good game. One could say there isn't much 'new' here and I can see the reasoning, even though I'm a Killzone fan, I won't deny that there isn't anything so revolutionary it'll blow your mind, but what the game does have it makes for an all-around well-crafted and enjoyable shooter.

Also, yes, the graphics are, how to put it, gorgeous, in an apocalyptic dust storm kind of way, or just gorgeous in general. This isn't a bad thing, it's a good thing.

The game is fun, the weight of the character feels right, sure you can't jump seventeen feet in the air like Unreal Tournament will let you, but the physics are quite realistic and feel as though they haven't been "cartoonified" as minimally as possible.

My point is, although it might not bring and giant changes to the genre, ask oneself "Is it a good game, is it fun, is it beautiful to look at, do I like playing it?"

As far as the PS3 goes, for exculsive shooters this year, is it the best exclusive shooter on the PS3? Yes.

Is it the best shooter on the PS3 this year? One of them, there are a couple others to consider, but it could be.

Is it the best exclusive that's been on a Playstation system? Probably.

Is it the best shooter ever made? This is gray area and there are so many games to consider that the question can't be answered.

The point is, although it doesn't bring much new to the genre, it uses parts that have already been used before and blends them into a great and total package. THAT is why it is a good game.

get-ka12

I'm pretty sure the argument was never about KZ2's quality (well most of the arguments) but rather on how generic an plain it looked. I haven't played it so my only commnet is I don't like the colour scheme. I prefer more than what I would find in a cement factory.

I didn't find the game to be particularly fun. I prefer R2.

It's definitely not the best exclusive on the Playstation brand. And in my opinion, it certainly isn't the best shooter on the PS3.

Killzone 2 brings nothing new to the genre?

I've seen a lot of arguments for and against this game. In terms of against, the biggest one is:

"It brings nothing new to the genre, it's just pretty graphics."

Hmm, where to start?

The game looks good, and one could make the argument that there aren't any giant overhauls to the FPS genre here, there are some minor ones, but not necessarily anyting deemed "revolutionary," however, most the most part, Killzone 2 takes elements that work very well, even if we have already seen them before, and blends them into a very good game. One could say there isn't much 'new' here and I can see the reasoning, even though I'm a Killzone fan, I won't deny that there isn't anything so revolutionary it'll blow your mind, but what the game does have it makes for an all-around well-crafted and enjoyable shooter.

Also, yes, the graphics are, how to put it, gorgeous, in an apocalyptic dust storm kind of way, or just gorgeous in general. This isn't a bad thing, it's a good thing.

The game is fun, the weight of the character feels right, sure you can't jump seventeen feet in the air like Unreal Tournament will let you, but the physics are quite realistic and feel as though they haven't been "cartoonified" as minimally as possible.

My point is, although it might not bring and giant changes to the genre, ask oneself "Is it a good game, is it fun, is it beautiful to look at, do I like playing it?"

As far as the PS3 goes, for exculsive shooters this year, is it the best exclusive shooter on the PS3? Yes.

Is it the best shooter on the PS3 this year? One of them, there are a couple others to consider, but it could be.

Is it the best exclusive that's been on a Playstation system? Probably.

Is it the best shooter ever made? This is gray area and there are so many games to consider that the question can't be answered.

The point is, although it doesn't bring much new to the genre, it uses parts that have already been used before and blends them into a great and total package. THAT is why it is a good game.

get-ka12

Is it the best exclusive that's been on a Playstation system? Probably.get-ka12

I didn't find the game to be particularly fun. I prefer R2.

It's definitely not the best exclusive on the Playstation brand. And in my opinion, it certainly isn't the best shooter on the PS3.

Silverbond

the only people who will say it isnt good are people who havnt played it.

BUT it still doesnt bring anything new. people who call it new or innovative are idiots

the only people who will say it isnt good are people who havnt played it.

washd123

People can't have an opinion?

it has a cover system. older fps may have done it but its the first this gen on a console.

I could ask what mw2 brings new

the only people who will say it isnt good are people who havnt played it.

BUT it still doesnt bring anything new. people who call it new or innovative are idiots

washd123

I did like the seamless switching game modes rather then the game ending and going back to the load out screen. I don't think I've seen a game that does that :O.

it has a cover system. older fps may have done it but its the first this gen on a console.

BlackTragedy

So.... it didn't bring anything new to the genre? Because we are talking about the genre and not the gen.

it has a cover system. older fps may have done it but its the first this gen on a console.

I could ask what mw2 brings new

BlackTragedy

I thought the use of the sixaxis controller for turning the wheel during one of the game's begining sequences was quite unique... it certainly seemed like a new addition to the genre, and it added a lot to the experience. In fact it almost convinced me not to take the game back a few days after I played it.

I think a reason whymany people say it isn't good is for the sake of system wars.

What other FPS has such good A.I and such a long campaign? Not Halo and not MW2. KratosHimself

You know, the game that effectively pioneered intelligent, believable responsive A.i. in shooters.

I did like the seamless switching game modes rather then the game ending and going back to the load out screen. I don't think I've seen a game that does that :O.

KrazyKev26

Killzone 2 brings nothing new to the genre?

I've seen a lot of arguments for and against this game. In terms of against, the biggest one is:

"It brings nothing new to the genre, it's just pretty graphics."

Hmm, where to start?

The game looks good, and one could make the argument that there aren't any giant overhauls to the FPS genre here, there are some minor ones, but not necessarily anyting deemed "revolutionary," however, most the most part, Killzone 2 takes elements that work very well, even if we have already seen them before, and blends them into a very good game. One could say there isn't much 'new' here and I can see the reasoning, even though I'm a Killzone fan, I won't deny that there isn't anything so revolutionary it'll blow your mind, but what the game does have it makes for an all-around well-crafted and enjoyable shooter.

Also, yes, the graphics are, how to put it, gorgeous, in an apocalyptic dust storm kind of way, or just gorgeous in general. This isn't a bad thing, it's a good thing.

The game is fun, the weight of the character feels right, sure you can't jump seventeen feet in the air like Unreal Tournament will let you, but the physics are quite realistic and feel as though they haven't been "cartoonified" as minimally as possible.

My point is, although it might not bring and giant changes to the genre, ask oneself "Is it a good game, is it fun, is it beautiful to look at, do I like playing it?"

As far as the PS3 goes, for exculsive shooters this year, is it the best exclusive shooter on the PS3? Yes.

Is it the best shooter on the PS3 this year? One of them, there are a couple others to consider, but it could be.

Is it the best exclusive that's been on a Playstation system? Probably.

Is it the best shooter ever made? This is gray area and there are so many games to consider that the question can't be answered.

The point is, although it doesn't bring much new to the genre, it uses parts that have already been used before and blends them into a great and total package. THAT is why it is a good game.

get-ka12

How is any of that new to the genre?

[QUOTE="BlackTragedy"]

it has a cover system. older fps may have done it but its the first this gen on a console.

I could ask what mw2 brings new

tagyhag

oh but didnt craw for the 360 have tps mode

[QUOTE="tagyhag"][QUOTE="BlackTragedy"]

it has a cover system. older fps may have done it but its the first this gen on a console.

I could ask what mw2 brings new

BlackTragedy

oh but didnt craw for the 360 have tps mode

GRAW pc had a cover system

the FPS genre has had a cover system since the 90s

just because its new to the consoles doesnt make it new

I wouldn't say it didn't do anything new, or that it was a particularly bad game, it just didn't do anything exceptionally well, nothing that makes it really stand out, Halo has the MP and vehicles and epic story, COD has that incredibly intense sp and mp is loads of fun too, half life just wins at life ai/physics for 2,

what did killzone 2 do? it broght clunky controls, a very weak class based MP ( seriously you could barely tell teh difference between classes, play bf2/teamfortress 2 for that), the SP wasn't exactly memorable, it boiled down to, we got attacked by space nazi's in 1, now we are going to blow them up. So basicly to sum up killzone 2, its a good game but there is zero depth to any aspect of the game.

Killzone 2 brings nothing new to the genre?

I've seen a lot of arguments for and against this game. In terms of against, the biggest one is:

"It brings nothing new to the genre, it's just pretty graphics."

Hmm, where to start?

The game looks good, and one could make the argument that there aren't any giant overhauls to the FPS genre here, there are some minor ones, but not necessarily anyting deemed "revolutionary," however, most the most part, Killzone 2 takes elements that work very well, even if we have already seen them before, and blends them into a very good game. One could say there isn't much 'new' here and I can see the reasoning, even though I'm a Killzone fan, I won't deny that there isn't anything so revolutionary it'll blow your mind, but what the game does have it makes for an all-around well-crafted and enjoyable shooter.

Also, yes, the graphics are, how to put it, gorgeous, in an apocalyptic dust storm kind of way, or just gorgeous in general. This isn't a bad thing, it's a good thing.

The game is fun, the weight of the character feels right, sure you can't jump seventeen feet in the air like Unreal Tournament will let you, but the physics are quite realistic and feel as though they haven't been "cartoonified" as minimally as possible.

My point is, although it might not bring and giant changes to the genre, ask oneself "Is it a good game, is it fun, is it beautiful to look at, do I like playing it?"

As far as the PS3 goes, for exculsive shooters this year, is it the best exclusive shooter on the PS3? Yes.

Is it the best shooter on the PS3 this year? One of them, there are a couple others to consider, but it could be.

Is it the best exclusive that's been on a Playstation system? Probably.

Is it the best shooter ever made? This is gray area and there are so many games to consider that the question can't be answered.

The point is, although it doesn't bring much new to the genre, it uses parts that have already been used before and blends them into a great and total package. THAT is why it is a good game.

get-ka12

It is not 2001 anymore. No shooter these days will bring anything new to the genre.

Look at MW 2.... does nothing different.

It is not 2001 anymore. No shooter these days will bring anything new to the genre.

Look at MW 2.... does nothing different.

Ninten007

[QUOTE="Ninten007"]

It is not 2001 anymore. No shooter these days will bring anything new to the genre.

Look at MW 2.... does nothing different.

skrat_01

i can understand L4D its hardly revolutionary but its innovative but really what did STALKER do or SH? the RPG/FPS hybrid had already been done and as had the open world. and isnt SH just a multiplayer game sans gravity?

[QUOTE="Ninten007"]

It is not 2001 anymore. No shooter these days will bring anything new to the genre.

Look at MW 2.... does nothing different.

skrat_01

You do the same thing you do in the orignal Doom or Wolfenstein. You are behind a gun shooting stuff.

You do the same thing you do in the orignal Doom or Wolfenstein. You are behind a gun shooting stuff.

Ninten007

which was the revolution. theres been minor revolutions in the genre (the creation of story driven FPS, multiplayer FPS, RPG/FPS,Open worlds) but mostly its been innovations like physics, and co-op , and aim down the sights, and adding things on.

[QUOTE="BlackTragedy"]

it has a cover system. older fps may have done it but its the first this gen on a console.

I could ask what mw2 brings new

tagyhag

[QUOTE="washd123"]

the only people who will say it isnt good are people who havnt played it.

Silverbond

People can't have an opinion?

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="Ninten007"]

It is not 2001 anymore. No shooter these days will bring anything new to the genre.

Look at MW 2.... does nothing different.

washd123

i can understand L4D its hardly revolutionary but its innovative but really what did STALKER do or SH? the RPG/FPS hybrid had already been done and as had the open world. and isnt SH just a multiplayer game sans gravity?

]

You do the same thing you do in the orignal Doom or Wolfenstein. You are behind a gun shooting stuff.

Ninten007

KZ2 is not very original...but I wasnt expecting the Second coming of Deus EX when I popped the disc in..just a decent shooter...nothing great,but decent.

It did do some innovative things.

It introduced spawn grenades.

Warzone (game mode) is an innovative online play (in how it streamlessly links several game modes together).

Thats something.

it was a good game but could have done with a lot of improvement.The only main draw was it was really good looking when you think about it, the only thing that i had never seen before and i thought was rather cool was switching game modes on the fly that was pretty nifty i wish more developers would follow this and i think it would work well in a seperated team tactical on CoD.

But its a good game deserves its 9 and was a good comebackfor Guerilla after a lot of bad press.But still could have done with some more fine tuning namely the cover system.

My problem with it is the lack of interesting enviroments, and Rico was a annoying character.

It did do some innovative things.

It introduced spawn grenades.

Warzone (game mode) is an innovative online play (in how it streamlessly links several game modes together).

Thats something.

dercoo

wow...Obviously you havent played killzone online or you just suck...cause I havent had this much fun in ages in single player and especially online. You dont know a good game if it hit you in the face. Top game of 2009 by far.

It did do some innovative things.

It introduced spawn grenades.

Warzone (game mode) is an innovative online play (in how it streamlessly links several game modes together).

Thats something.

dercoo