Killzone PS3 Devs Aim To Silence Critics At E3
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="-Renegade"][QUOTE="UpSwing"]I don't see why I should expect an Amazing game from such an untalented developer.
Even IF they manage to get some good graphics going, I STILL have no faith the actual game will be any good.
In the ULTRA competitive FPS genre there are some Truly talented Devs out there.... Guerilla is NOT one of them.
Blinblingthing
how about they have increased their force by over 100 developers and the project is now funded by sony which has spent millions of dollars on production?
Sure one can always argue the first one wasn't all that. But now when you see over 100 devs, over 20 million (so I've read in ) investments. There has got to be something seriously different between the Killzones on PS2 and PS3
Lost Planet is relatively a good game. AA here. the budget was very high. I believe around 20-25 million. the dev was capcom(very,very,very good dev). Lots of workers oh by the way. And the game only was AA. an 8.1. Sure Killzone 2 can be a good game. But a mind blowing FPS. one of the top FPS games. something worthy mentioning. I highly doubt it. Guerilla is the most unproven dev out there, and many expect them to do something fantastic. i dont know why the first game got any hype.[QUOTE="jsnepo"][QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="R-Dot-Yung"]Halo was originally designed for PC. Halo was really good. ALso i believe Guerilla made another game. shellshock nam 67 that wasnt all that good either. in fact it got lower than a 67. it got 5.4(54). Guerilla may have improved, but i dont see them as a huge FPS dev because so far all they showed was a prerendered trailer and false hype. Plus they werent exacly modest when they were building up hype for Killzone 1. And we all saw how that game ended up.I see the hate is still strong agaisnt GG
You guys obviously dont know why Killzone 1 turned out the way it did, it was a PC game originally
GG hasnt even had a chance, Killzone 3/2 w.e u wanna call it will be the game that proves they can do it or proves that they cant
to judge them on a rushed PC port to an inferior system is really unfair
jg4xchamp
Do you think Halo would be good if the Xbox has the same hardware as the PS2?
WOulda, coulda, shoulda. How about we stick with what happened. Halo was an xbox game that was originally designed for PC. by a much better dev. that dev was able to translate that game very well onto a brand new console. Also the biggest thing about halo were the controls. They were the best on any console shooter. THe ps2s controllers only flaw was that it sucked at FPS. also Timesplitters is a good example of a shooter that is good on PS2. Freedom Fighters as well. and if the control scheme, story, fun online, and amazing gameplay was still there then yes Halo would be just as good on PS2. The graphics never made halo. The gameplay did. Killzone is remembered by many as a game that flopped because it had graphical issues. thats not all true. the game lacked variety. the shooter was generic. most felt the story wasnt drawn out right. the gameplay aspects were dull in nature. Killzone sucked on many levels in terms of a shooter.damage control
It wasn't about the graphics. Actually the graphics were good. It was about the technical limitations of the PS2.
[QUOTE="pundog"][QUOTE="-Renegade"][QUOTE="UpSwing"]I don't see why I should expect an Amazing game from such an untalented developer.
Even IF they manage to get some good graphics going, I STILL have no faith the actual game will be any good.
In the ULTRA competitive FPS genre there are some Truly talented Devs out there.... Guerilla is NOT one of them.
-Renegade
how about they have increased their force by over 100 developers and the project is now funded by sony which has spent millions of dollars on production?
Gears of War was done by a small team(I can't remember the number but I remember hearing well under 100)and only cost $10-15 million to make. It did pretty well last timeI checked.Bigger isn't always better.geow of war lacked in single player and wasnt that impressive to me at all. its just another overhyped game by the lemmings once again.
Some 360 owners agree Gears is way overhyped, and not as good as the brainless lemmings say it is.
[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="jsnepo"][QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="R-Dot-Yung"]Halo was originally designed for PC. Halo was really good. ALso i believe Guerilla made another game. shellshock nam 67 that wasnt all that good either. in fact it got lower than a 67. it got 5.4(54). Guerilla may have improved, but i dont see them as a huge FPS dev because so far all they showed was a prerendered trailer and false hype. Plus they werent exacly modest when they were building up hype for Killzone 1. And we all saw how that game ended up.I see the hate is still strong agaisnt GG
You guys obviously dont know why Killzone 1 turned out the way it did, it was a PC game originally
GG hasnt even had a chance, Killzone 3/2 w.e u wanna call it will be the game that proves they can do it or proves that they cant
to judge them on a rushed PC port to an inferior system is really unfair
jsnepo
Do you think Halo would be good if the Xbox has the same hardware as the PS2?
WOulda, coulda, shoulda. How about we stick with what happened. Halo was an xbox game that was originally designed for PC. by a much better dev. that dev was able to translate that game very well onto a brand new console. Also the biggest thing about halo were the controls. They were the best on any console shooter. THe ps2s controllers only flaw was that it sucked at FPS. also Timesplitters is a good example of a shooter that is good on PS2. Freedom Fighters as well. and if the control scheme, story, fun online, and amazing gameplay was still there then yes Halo would be just as good on PS2. The graphics never made halo. The gameplay did. Killzone is remembered by many as a game that flopped because it had graphical issues. thats not all true. the game lacked variety. the shooter was generic. most felt the story wasnt drawn out right. the gameplay aspects were dull in nature. Killzone sucked on many levels in terms of a shooter.damage control
How? please i would love to know. I stood by my comment. that your situation is a situation that isnt/didnt/and wont happen anymore. I also gave u my answere to your question. Yes it would be just as good on PS2. wheres the damage control. I gave u examples of 2 great console shooters on PS2. I gave u other reasons why killzone sucks other than graphics. I gave u reasons other than graphics why halo and halo 2 were good. it was never the graphics. it was the gameplay, the depth, the campaign, the story, the multiplayer, the variety, the online, etc. What technical limitations forced the Killzone gameplay to suck. It could have had a great online, vareity, an amazingcampaign, depth, all that stuff. We saw lots of PS2 games do that better thanxbox some times. socom is a great example of a sony shooter with great online.SO please explain where theres damage control.[QUOTE="KAS3Y_JAM3Z"][QUOTE="-Renegade"][QUOTE="UpSwing"]I don't see why I should expect an Amazing game from such an untalented developer.
Even IF they manage to get some good graphics going, I STILL have no faith the actual game will be any good.
In the ULTRA competitive FPS genre there are some Truly talented Devs out there.... Guerilla is NOT one of them.
Blanco98
how about they have increased their force by over 100 developers and the project is now funded by sony which has spent millions of dollars on production?
Since when does money mean it's going to be a good game?
Errr since always more money means better Devs means better team, Gears costed the or near as Mcuh and the game was awsome wasent it?? They contract the best of the best teams and make games which are unbelievableSo alot of money was put into Gears of War and it turned out to be a success...... therefore throwing a bunch of money at Killzone is gonna make it a success????? *sigh* :roll:
I all of a sudden have the urge to say "Remember kids.... STAY IN SCHOOL"
[QUOTE="Blinblingthing"][QUOTE="-Renegade"][QUOTE="UpSwing"]I don't see why I should expect an Amazing game from such an untalented developer.
Even IF they manage to get some good graphics going, I STILL have no faith the actual game will be any good.
In the ULTRA competitive FPS genre there are some Truly talented Devs out there.... Guerilla is NOT one of them.
jg4xchamp
how about they have increased their force by over 100 developers and the project is now funded by sony which has spent millions of dollars on production?
Sure one can always argue the first one wasn't all that. But now when you see over 100 devs, over 20 million (so I've read in ) investments. There has got to be something seriously different between the Killzones on PS2 and PS3
Lost Planet is relatively a good game. AA here. the budget was very high. I believe around 20-25 million. the dev was capcom(very,very,very good dev). Lots of workers oh by the way. And the game only was AA. an 8.1. Sure Killzone 2 can be a good game. But a mind blowing FPS. one of the top FPS games. something worthy mentioning. I highly doubt it. Guerilla is the most unproven dev out there, and many expect them to do something fantastic. i dont know why the first game got any hype.Every great dev started greatness at somepoint. Point. People can can screw up (KZ) and have their glorifying moment some point later (KZ 2)
[QUOTE="-Renegade"][QUOTE="pundog"][QUOTE="-Renegade"][QUOTE="UpSwing"]I don't see why I should expect an Amazing game from such an untalented developer.
Even IF they manage to get some good graphics going, I STILL have no faith the actual game will be any good.
In the ULTRA competitive FPS genre there are some Truly talented Devs out there.... Guerilla is NOT one of them.
WalterPaladines
how about they have increased their force by over 100 developers and the project is now funded by sony which has spent millions of dollars on production?
Gears of War was done by a small team(I can't remember the number but I remember hearing well under 100)and only cost $10-15 million to make. It did pretty well last timeI checked.Bigger isn't always better.geow of war lacked in single player and wasnt that impressive to me at all. its just another overhyped game by the lemmings once again.
Some 360 owners agree Gears is way overhyped, and not as good as the brainless lemmings say it is.
It is not way overhyped. its worthy of its AAA score. and it deserved its GOTY award last year. I hate it when gears is actually considered the best shooter game out there. Personally i think the online in rainbow six is way better. Personally all that game has on Halo is graphics. It deserves its 93 on gamerankings it was an overall great game. the best no. There are gonna be lots of games that will be better than Gears. but to say it was amazingly overrated is a false statement. the game was AAA.[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="Blinblingthing"][QUOTE="-Renegade"][QUOTE="UpSwing"]I don't see why I should expect an Amazing game from such an untalented developer.
Even IF they manage to get some good graphics going, I STILL have no faith the actual game will be any good.
In the ULTRA competitive FPS genre there are some Truly talented Devs out there.... Guerilla is NOT one of them.
Blinblingthing
how about they have increased their force by over 100 developers and the project is now funded by sony which has spent millions of dollars on production?
Sure one can always argue the first one wasn't all that. But now when you see over 100 devs, over 20 million (so I've read in ) investments. There has got to be something seriously different between the Killzones on PS2 and PS3
Lost Planet is relatively a good game. AA here. the budget was very high. I believe around 20-25 million. the dev was capcom(very,very,very good dev). Lots of workers oh by the way. And the game only was AA. an 8.1. Sure Killzone 2 can be a good game. But a mind blowing FPS. one of the top FPS games. something worthy mentioning. I highly doubt it. Guerilla is the most unproven dev out there, and many expect them to do something fantastic. i dont know why the first game got any hype.Every great dev started greatness at somepoint. Point. People can can screw up (KZ) and have their glorifying moment some point later (KZ 2)
Did i say Killzone cant be good. I just showed how big money and lots of devs doesnt mean it will own. Lost Planet is not anything special Would u as a PS3 owner honestly feel u missed out on something by not playing lost planet. No. Would u get that with a Gears(AAA) for the most part yes, thats an actual good game. that had less devs behind it. and less money. compared to lost planet. that was the point of my post.
[QUOTE="Blinblingthing"][QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="Blinblingthing"][QUOTE="-Renegade"][QUOTE="UpSwing"]I don't see why I should expect an Amazing game from such an untalented developer.
Even IF they manage to get some good graphics going, I STILL have no faith the actual game will be any good.
In the ULTRA competitive FPS genre there are some Truly talented Devs out there.... Guerilla is NOT one of them.
jg4xchamp
how about they have increased their force by over 100 developers and the project is now funded by sony which has spent millions of dollars on production?
Sure one can always argue the first one wasn't all that. But now when you see over 100 devs, over 20 million (so I've read in ) investments. There has got to be something seriously different between the Killzones on PS2 and PS3
Lost Planet is relatively a good game. AA here. the budget was very high. I believe around 20-25 million. the dev was capcom(very,very,very good dev). Lots of workers oh by the way. And the game only was AA. an 8.1. Sure Killzone 2 can be a good game. But a mind blowing FPS. one of the top FPS games. something worthy mentioning. I highly doubt it. Guerilla is the most unproven dev out there, and many expect them to do something fantastic. i dont know why the first game got any hype.Every great dev started greatness at somepoint. Point. People can can screw up (KZ) and have their glorifying moment some point later (KZ 2)
Did i say Killzone cant be good. I just showed how big money and lots of devs doesnt mean it will own. Lost Planet is not anything special Would u as a PS3 owner honestly feel u missed out on something by not playing lost planet. No. Would u get that with a Gears(AAA) for the most part yes, thats an actual good game. that had less devs behind it. and less money. compared to lost planet. that was the point of my post.i know its not all about funding, but with the time and funds they have invested in kx2. its logical to expect something good. maybe not great but at least good
[QUOTE="jsnepo"][QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="jsnepo"][QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="R-Dot-Yung"]Halo was originally designed for PC. Halo was really good. ALso i believe Guerilla made another game. shellshock nam 67 that wasnt all that good either. in fact it got lower than a 67. it got 5.4(54). Guerilla may have improved, but i dont see them as a huge FPS dev because so far all they showed was a prerendered trailer and false hype. Plus they werent exacly modest when they were building up hype for Killzone 1. And we all saw how that game ended up.I see the hate is still strong agaisnt GG
You guys obviously dont know why Killzone 1 turned out the way it did, it was a PC game originally
GG hasnt even had a chance, Killzone 3/2 w.e u wanna call it will be the game that proves they can do it or proves that they cant
to judge them on a rushed PC port to an inferior system is really unfair
jg4xchamp
Do you think Halo would be good if the Xbox has the same hardware as the PS2?
WOulda, coulda, shoulda. How about we stick with what happened. Halo was an xbox game that was originally designed for PC. by a much better dev. that dev was able to translate that game very well onto a brand new console. Also the biggest thing about halo were the controls. They were the best on any console shooter. THe ps2s controllers only flaw was that it sucked at FPS. also Timesplitters is a good example of a shooter that is good on PS2. Freedom Fighters as well. and if the control scheme, story, fun online, and amazing gameplay was still there then yes Halo would be just as good on PS2. The graphics never made halo. The gameplay did. Killzone is remembered by many as a game that flopped because it had graphical issues. thats not all true. the game lacked variety. the shooter was generic. most felt the story wasnt drawn out right. the gameplay aspects were dull in nature. Killzone sucked on many levels in terms of a shooter.damage control
How? please i would love to know. I stood by my comment. that your situation is a situation that isnt/didnt/and wont happen anymore. I also gave u my answere to your question. Yes it would be just as good on PS2. wheres the damage control. I gave u examples of 2 great console shooters on PS2. I gave u other reasons why killzone sucks other than graphics. I gave u reasons other than graphics why halo and halo 2 were good. it was never the graphics. it was the gameplay, the depth, the campaign, the story, the multiplayer, the variety, the online, etc. What technical limitations forced the Killzone gameplay to suck. It could have had a great online, vareity, an amazingcampaign, depth, all that stuff. We saw lots of PS2 games do that better thanxbox some times. socom is a great example of a sony shooter with great online.SO please explain where theres damage control.LOL! Did you know that the original post in our quote is about what Guerilla is as a group of developers. You simply can't discredit them just because ofsome games that didn't score well. You keep on saying Bungie is better and that could be true but you keep on bashing GG. Remember ONI for PS2? Bungie developed that.
What I want to say is, quit the bashing.
To answer some of your questions, the campaign was good and lenghty with some replayability. The story was excellent as well. The gameplay was hindered by slowdowns, etc. And like the early post, it was a rushed port. You'll know if you were able to play it. It wasn't even optimized. But does it mean GG isa bad developer? No.
[QUOTE="xHINDERx"]I hope so the game looks sooooooooooooooo goood:DPrid3r
This just sound dumb......We didn't even see anything of the game yet , other then it's fake CGI trailer .
He said he hopes the game looks good. Why would he need to see the game to hope it looks good
[QUOTE="Prid3r"][QUOTE="xHINDERx"]I hope so the game looks sooooooooooooooo goood:DBlinblingthing
This just sound dumb......We didn't even see anything of the game yet , other then it's fake CGI trailer .
He said he hopes the game looks good. Why would he need to see the game to hope it looks good
I'm french and I understand english better then you do . ( prob ? )
The way he said it , he can't mean that he hope the game will look good . it sound more like : I hope that Guerilla Silence the critics , the game look sooooooooo good :D
[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="jsnepo"][QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="jsnepo"][QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="R-Dot-Yung"]Halo was originally designed for PC. Halo was really good. ALso i believe Guerilla made another game. shellshock nam 67 that wasnt all that good either. in fact it got lower than a 67. it got 5.4(54). Guerilla may have improved, but i dont see them as a huge FPS dev because so far all they showed was a prerendered trailer and false hype. Plus they werent exacly modest when they were building up hype for Killzone 1. And we all saw how that game ended up.I see the hate is still strong agaisnt GG
You guys obviously dont know why Killzone 1 turned out the way it did, it was a PC game originally
GG hasnt even had a chance, Killzone 3/2 w.e u wanna call it will be the game that proves they can do it or proves that they cant
to judge them on a rushed PC port to an inferior system is really unfair
jsnepo
Do you think Halo would be good if the Xbox has the same hardware as the PS2?
WOulda, coulda, shoulda. How about we stick with what happened. Halo was an xbox game that was originally designed for PC. by a much better dev. that dev was able to translate that game very well onto a brand new console. Also the biggest thing about halo were the controls. They were the best on any console shooter. THe ps2s controllers only flaw was that it sucked at FPS. also Timesplitters is a good example of a shooter that is good on PS2. Freedom Fighters as well. and if the control scheme, story, fun online, and amazing gameplay was still there then yes Halo would be just as good on PS2. The graphics never made halo. The gameplay did. Killzone is remembered by many as a game that flopped because it had graphical issues. thats not all true. the game lacked variety. the shooter was generic. most felt the story wasnt drawn out right. the gameplay aspects were dull in nature. Killzone sucked on many levels in terms of a shooter.damage control
How? please i would love to know. I stood by my comment. that your situation is a situation that isnt/didnt/and wont happen anymore. I also gave u my answere to your question. Yes it would be just as good on PS2. wheres the damage control. I gave u examples of 2 great console shooters on PS2. I gave u other reasons why killzone sucks other than graphics. I gave u reasons other than graphics why halo and halo 2 were good. it was never the graphics. it was the gameplay, the depth, the campaign, the story, the multiplayer, the variety, the online, etc. What technical limitations forced the Killzone gameplay to suck. It could have had a great online, vareity, an amazingcampaign, depth, all that stuff. We saw lots of PS2 games do that better thanxbox some times. socom is a great example of a sony shooter with great online.SO please explain where theres damage control.LOL! Did you know that the original post in our quote is about what Guerilla is as a group of developers. You simply can't discredit them just because ofsome games that didn't score well. You keep on saying Bungie is better and that could be true but you keep on bashing GG. Remember ONI for PS2? Bungie developed that.
What I want to say is, quit the bashing.
To answer some of your questions, the campaign was good and lenghty with some replayability. The story was excellent as well. The gameplay was hindered by slowdowns, etc. And like the early post, it was a rushed port. You'll know if you were able to play it. It wasn't even optimized.
well thats ur opinion and i did believe the gameplay sucked overall and felt generic. the storyline had potential but wasnt drawnout like i felt it should hve. i dont think the game had depth or much variety with its online. I said the game sucked and the dev is unproven. Bungie made oni ok. Bungie made the myth and marathon series on PC. both excellent games. and i said yes Halo 2s gameplay wouldnt be altered for PS2. the graphics wouldnt be as good. but for the msot part Halo would have been just as great on PS2 if the cotrol scheme could work well. Maybe thats another hurdle Guerilla had with PS2. the controller really isnt all that good with FPS games. MAybe the new PS3 six axis can help. the triggers are better. etc. But i did play the game. I wanted a good shooter for my PS2. Alot of media hyped the game. So i had it preordered. Mistake. i mean my friend enjoyed the game. but he would rate it a high 7 low 8. me i low 7 high 6. but in general i play alot more shooters. I wouldnt deny Killzone 2 its greatness if it indeed was a good game. but im not giving the dev any props until i see some sign of success from that dev. To me devsmean alot. I would rather play call of duty from infinity ward than Treyarch. Devs give u a sense of reliability. can big time devs flop. sure. but they have a better pedigree than saya dev whose best console game got a 6.9[QUOTE="jsnepo"][QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="jsnepo"][QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="jsnepo"][QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="R-Dot-Yung"]Halo was originally designed for PC. Halo was really good. ALso i believe Guerilla made another game. shellshock nam 67 that wasnt all that good either. in fact it got lower than a 67. it got 5.4(54). Guerilla may have improved, but i dont see them as a huge FPS dev because so far all they showed was a prerendered trailer and false hype. Plus they werent exacly modest when they were building up hype for Killzone 1. And we all saw how that game ended up.I see the hate is still strong agaisnt GG
You guys obviously dont know why Killzone 1 turned out the way it did, it was a PC game originally
GG hasnt even had a chance, Killzone 3/2 w.e u wanna call it will be the game that proves they can do it or proves that they cant
to judge them on a rushed PC port to an inferior system is really unfair
jg4xchamp
Do you think Halo would be good if the Xbox has the same hardware as the PS2?
WOulda, coulda, shoulda. How about we stick with what happened. Halo was an xbox game that was originally designed for PC. by a much better dev. that dev was able to translate that game very well onto a brand new console. Also the biggest thing about halo were the controls. They were the best on any console shooter. THe ps2s controllers only flaw was that it sucked at FPS. also Timesplitters is a good example of a shooter that is good on PS2. Freedom Fighters as well. and if the control scheme, story, fun online, and amazing gameplay was still there then yes Halo would be just as good on PS2. The graphics never made halo. The gameplay did. Killzone is remembered by many as a game that flopped because it had graphical issues. thats not all true. the game lacked variety. the shooter was generic. most felt the story wasnt drawn out right. the gameplay aspects were dull in nature. Killzone sucked on many levels in terms of a shooter.damage control
How? please i would love to know. I stood by my comment. that your situation is a situation that isnt/didnt/and wont happen anymore. I also gave u my answere to your question. Yes it would be just as good on PS2. wheres the damage control. I gave u examples of 2 great console shooters on PS2. I gave u other reasons why killzone sucks other than graphics. I gave u reasons other than graphics why halo and halo 2 were good. it was never the graphics. it was the gameplay, the depth, the campaign, the story, the multiplayer, the variety, the online, etc. What technical limitations forced the Killzone gameplay to suck. It could have had a great online, vareity, an amazingcampaign, depth, all that stuff. We saw lots of PS2 games do that better thanxbox some times. socom is a great example of a sony shooter with great online.SO please explain where theres damage control.LOL! Did you know that the original post in our quote is about what Guerilla is as a group of developers. You simply can't discredit them just because ofsome games that didn't score well. You keep on saying Bungie is better and that could be true but you keep on bashing GG. Remember ONI for PS2? Bungie developed that.
What I want to say is, quit the bashing.
To answer some of your questions, the campaign was good and lenghty with some replayability. The story was excellent as well. The gameplay was hindered by slowdowns, etc. And like the early post, it was a rushed port. You'll know if you were able to play it. It wasn't even optimized.
well thats ur opinion and i did believe the gameplay sucked overall and felt generic. the storyline had potential but wasnt drawnout like i felt it should hve. i dont think the game had depth or much variety with its online. I said the game sucked and the dev is unproven. Bungie made oni ok. Bungie made the myth and marathon series on PC. both excellent games. and i said yes Halo 2s gameplay wouldnt be altered for PS2. the graphics wouldnt be as good. but for the msot part Halo would have been just as great on PS2 if the cotrol scheme could work well. Maybe thats another hurdle Guerilla had with PS2. the controller really isnt all that good with FPS games. MAybe the new PS3 six axis can help. the triggers are better. etc. But i did play the game. I wanted a good shooter for my PS2. Alot of media hyped the game. So i had it preordered. Mistake. i mean my friend enjoyed the game. but he would rate it a high 7 low 8. me i low 7 high 6. but in general i play alot more shooters. I wouldnt deny Killzone 2 its greatness if it indeed was a good game. but im not giving the dev any props until i see some sign of success from that dev. To me devsmean alot. I would rather play call of duty from infinity ward than Treyarch. Devs give u a sense of reliability. can big time devs flop. sure. but they have a better pedigree than saya dev whose best console game got a 6.9That seems to be fair. :)
Can't wait for teh Halo 3 killa. Why am I feeling a sense of deja vu?ironwarrior2Because some people never learn.
[QUOTE="Blinblingthing"][QUOTE="Prid3r"][QUOTE="xHINDERx"]I hope so the game looks sooooooooooooooo goood:DPrid3r
This just sound dumb......We didn't even see anything of the game yet , other then it's fake CGI trailer .
He said he hopes the game looks good. Why would he need to see the game to hope it looks good
I'm french and I understand english better then you do . ( prob ? )
The way he said it , he can't mean that he hope the game will look good . it sound more like : I hope that Guerilla Silence the critics , the game look sooooooooo good :D
I am sure every one knows that trailer was CG. Its pretty much a typo i am sure an his part. I mean why would KZ2 silence the E3 crowd if we've already seen it???????
You understand english better than me???? Look up at that Bolded text up there.
Either youprobably made a type like he probably did, or you just owned your self
Why do people try and advance this lie that KILLZONE had a good story? That's the most bizarre thing about the whole hype operation fronted by the cows.JiveT
Well alot of lemmings try to advance the lie that Halo 2 had a good story line and was an overall great game....when in truth it only had one good portion, teh online.
If you never played the online portion (me, not willing to pay $50 a year juat to play a game online) then you'd most likely think the game was garbage (like me), and rightly so since bungie themselves apalogized after many years of the game being released, saying that the game really wasn't all that good.
to each his own, you see only what you want to see. I could take your argument and make it fit for any overly fanatic fan group out there.
Can't wait for teh Halo 3 killa. Why am I feeling a sense of deja vu?ironwarrior2
that's impossible... 360 owners will buy Halo3, ps3 owners buy killzone2 so how can it be a halo killer... that's ridiculous
[QUOTE="-Renegade"][QUOTE="UpSwing"]I don't see why I should expect an Amazing game from such an untalented developer.
Even IF they manage to get some good graphics going, I STILL have no faith the actual game will be any good.
In the ULTRA competitive FPS genre there are some Truly talented Devs out there.... Guerilla is NOT one of them.
KAS3Y_JAM3Z
how about they have increased their force by over 100 developers and the project is now funded by sony which has spent millions of dollars on production?
Since when does money mean it's going to be a good game?
Since when did a name of a comapany be the final factor of quality in a product, I thought it was alot of things from time, money and the people hired to do the job.
oh my god microsoft is so talented, crap, oh wait, they had to buy out every developer they have cause they dont know games from their own ass. wow. **** yawndxmcatSo rather than risk trying to start up their own development team or risk using anunexperienced developer MS used their resources to make sure they got the best talent they could. Its this little thing called being smart. For example, MS bought Bungie, a talented devloper who did a great job with the marathon andmythseries. They then created the Xbox franchises flagship game. Sony decides to use a developer who's sole production was a game that scored under a 6 and then gave them a big franchise like Killzone, which managed to score a 6.9.MS did the smart thing and used their resources to givethemselves the greatest chance at success.So who doesn't know games from their ass now?
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment