"Expectations on Killzone 2 had reached ridiculous proportions; here's one of those cases where the game actually lived up to them." - 1up Wow, coming from them, that means something. Killzone 2 is going to be nothing short of epic. If 1up had this, along with many other great things to say about Killzone 2, to go along with an "A" for a rating (I personally thought they'd give it a B), that tells me that this game will be great. :)
[QUOTE="_Brennan_"][QUOTE="sirk1264"]does that translate to a 9 out of 10 or what? Sorry don't follow 1up too much.sirk1264
Well, A+ would be a 10/10, A would be 9.5/10, A- 9/10, B+ 8.5/10 etc ;) ah ok.Actually, that was just a total guess on my part. I really have no idea, but that theory DOES make sense. ;)
"Expectations on Killzone 2 had reached ridiculous proportions; here's one of those cases where the game actually lived up to them." - 1up Wow, coming from them, that means something. Killzone 2 is going to be nothing short of epic. If 1up had this, along with many other great things to say about Killzone 2, to go along with an "A" for a rating (I personally thought they'd give it a B), that tells me that this game will be great. :) Another great 1UP quote: "Shooters have replaced fighting games as the most over-saturated genre in gaming today, and it's increasingly difficult to stand out from the crowd. However, with its unparalleled graphics, incredibly well-paced single-player campaign and in-depth multiplayer offerings, Killzone 2 has established its place among top-tier console shooters."
I think I'm only going to dislike two things about the game. One is the story, which I think has no excuse for keeping the only Gears-ish character from the first game around, and pairing him with other Gears-ish characters and a Gear-ish main character. There was no room for the radically differnt Gregor Hahka to be in the game? Ridiculous to throw away such an opportunity.
Second is the lack of a cover system in MP. I know that Guerilla made that change based on playtesting, but I would have liked the MP to keep that full stop-and-pop sty/e from the SP.
Mordred19
Do you really want two people popping their tiny heads out of cover guarding a door? I think it would be so annoying just to have these little heads popping up everywhere. I'm glad they removed cover from MP.
If the enviorments are not just a bunch of chokepoints, then there is no issue with people turtling behind cover.
Yes, there is...they're much harder to hit and promote camping... I really don't think it'd work. It works fine w/o the cover system.
[QUOTE="Blitz_Nemesis"]i dont see this amazing game getting worse then a 9.5 here on GS._Brennan_
That's what I think it'll get, but I wouldn't be shocked if it got an 8.5. :? I wouldn't visit SW ever again if that happened.... At this point, I don't care what GS gives it. Sure it would be ownage here, but that's just here. In real life, killzone 2 is still a great AAA quality game.
[QUOTE="_Brennan_"][QUOTE="Blitz_Nemesis"]i dont see this amazing game getting worse then a 9.5 here on GS.munu9
That's what I think it'll get, but I wouldn't be shocked if it got an 8.5. :? I wouldn't visit SW ever again if that happened.... At this point, I don't care what GS gives it. Sure it would be ownage here, but that's just here. In real life, killzone 2 is still a great AAA quality game. Agreed.
giving the player a believable means to use the enviorment to surivive in combat shouldn't be a bad thing. and in regards to level design, if it was not possible to turtle in a completely safe spot, then camping would not be encouraged by the cover system. it's not supposed to be an all-powerful advantage. besides, there are grenades in the game, which we all know are useful tools for clearly out enclosed spaces.
I mean, should every FPS just force players into straight up shootouts where they have to die and respawn as quickly as possible?
I think I'm only going to dislike two things about the game. One is the story, which I think has no excuse for keeping the only Gears-ish character from the first game around, and pairing him with other Gears-ish characters and a Gear-ish main character. There was no room for the radically differnt Gregor Hahka to be in the game? Ridiculous to throw away such an opportunity.
Second is the lack of a cover system in MP. I know that Guerilla made that change based on playtesting, but I would have liked the MP to keep that full stop-and-pop sty/e from the SP.
urdead18
Do you really want two people popping their tiny heads out of cover guarding a door? I think it would be so annoying just to have these little heads popping up everywhere. I'm glad they removed cover from MP. I don't agree 100%, I mean you could solve most of the camping problems you speak of with a simple grenade. Plus I'd imagine camping behind cover simply wouldn't be as fun as running around in a game like K2
I think I'm only going to dislike two things about the game. One is the story, which I think has no excuse for keeping the only Gears-ish character from the first game around, and pairing him with other Gears-ish characters and a Gear-ish main character. There was no room for the radically differnt Gregor Hahka to be in the game? Ridiculous to throw away such an opportunity.
Second is the lack of a cover system in MP. I know that Guerilla made that change based on playtesting, but I would have liked the MP to keep that full stop-and-pop sty/e from the SP.
munu9
Do you really want two people popping their tiny heads out of cover guarding a door? I think it would be so annoying just to have these little heads popping up everywhere. I'm glad they removed cover from MP. I don't agree 100%, I mean you could solve most of the camping problems you speak of with a simple grenade. Plus I'd imagine camping behind cover simply wouldn't be as fun as running around in a game like K2
Semi true, but what if a cloaked sniper is peeking out from a corner across the map? No way in hell you're going to hit him.
Maybe Guerilla hasn't detailed enough why the cover didn't work in MP, but I've read their quote again. It says players would move back from cover to feel more free to move around. That is odd to me.
Maybe Guerilla hasn't detailed enough why the cover didn't work in MP, but I've read their quote again. It says players would move back from cover to feel more free to move around. That is odd to me.Mordred19
I'm pretty sure it was Beta Testers that said it broke the flow of the game, it makes sense, the cover system would have made the mp a lot slower, a lot more campers and so on, and I think the maps are pretty big.
[QUOTE="Mordred19"]Maybe Guerilla hasn't detailed enough why the cover didn't work in MP, but I've read their quote again. It says players would move back from cover to feel more free to move around. That is odd to me.Eddie-Vedder
I'm pretty sure it was Beta Testers that said it broke the flow of the game, it makes sense, the cover system would have made the mp a lot slower, a lot more campers and so on, and I think the maps are pretty big.
Well the Guerilla dev in the quote said that because MP levels were more arena-like and less linear than the SP, players were more susceptible to being flanked. Now doesn't that balance out the cover system? The point of flanking is to circumvent the enemy's dug in position. It seems kind of contradictory. As for the speed, why should being slow be a bad thing? and as for camping, that is a tactic players should have the option to use at their own risk. camping is a dangerous tactic that is not a sure-fire key to victory.
this might just simply be an issue of different wants from this MP. I would have liked it to seperate itself a bit further in the core gameplay. to me, a first cover system would have been very fresh and very welcome. there's no gaurentee that it would have been totally in synch with the health system, but tweaking health to fit a situation is a simpler matter.
So does this mean that Metacritic will give Killzone 2 a 10/10? Cause according to the results:
1Up A/A+
Metacritic 1Up 10/10
There you have it, another 10/10 for Killzone 2 at Metacritic. :D
Nike_Air
Where are you getting the A+ from ? A/A+ on 1Up, yet at Metacritic they gave Gears 2 a 10/10 from 1Up. So does that not tell you that Killzone 2 should get a 10/10 on Metacritic?
giving the player a believable means to use the enviorment to surivive in combat shouldn't be a bad thing. and in regards to level design, if it was not possible to turtle in a completely safe spot, then camping would not be encouraged by the cover system. it's not supposed to be an all-powerful advantage. besides, there are grenades in the game, which we all know are useful tools for clearly out enclosed spaces.
I mean, should every FPS just force players into straight up shootouts where they have to die and respawn as quickly as possible?
Mordred19
The reason cover was removed is because it distorted the dynamic flow of the game, making it much slower paced than they wanted. And if you really want to cover, just crouch behind something. That has worked in all previous online shooters?
[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"][QUOTE="Mordred19"]Maybe Guerilla hasn't detailed enough why the cover didn't work in MP, but I've read their quote again. It says players would move back from cover to feel more free to move around. That is odd to me.Mordred19
I'm pretty sure it was Beta Testers that said it broke the flow of the game, it makes sense, the cover system would have made the mp a lot slower, a lot more campers and so on, and I think the maps are pretty big.
Well the Guerilla dev in the quote said that because MP levels were more arena-like and less linear than the SP, players were more susceptible to being flanked. Now doesn't that balance out the cover system? The point of flanking is to circumvent the enemy's dug in position. It seems kind of contradictory. As for the speed, why should being slow be a bad thing? and as for camping, that is a tactic players should have the option to use at their own risk. camping is a dangerous tactic that is not a sure-fire key to victory.
Idk :P But if it was the Beta Testers that asked for it to be off they probably had a good reason.
[QUOTE="Mordred19"]giving the player a believable means to use the enviorment to surivive in combat shouldn't be a bad thing. and in regards to level design, if it was not possible to turtle in a completely safe spot, then camping would not be encouraged by the cover system. it's not supposed to be an all-powerful advantage. besides, there are grenades in the game, which we all know are useful tools for clearly out enclosed spaces.
I mean, should every FPS just force players into straight up shootouts where they have to die and respawn as quickly as possible?
navstar29
The reason cover was removed is because it distorted the dynamic flow of the game, making it much slower paced than they wanted. And if you really want to cover, just crouch behind something. That has worked in all previous online shooters?
crouching is one thing. exposing your whole side when stepping out from behind cover is something else. there's no way to lean to the side if you are standing or crouching. that is in pretty much every online FPS. there was the opportunity to make progress in that area and adress that issue, and I find it unfortunate that that is being pushed back.
[QUOTE="navstar29"][QUOTE="Mordred19"]giving the player a believable means to use the enviorment to surivive in combat shouldn't be a bad thing. and in regards to level design, if it was not possible to turtle in a completely safe spot, then camping would not be encouraged by the cover system. it's not supposed to be an all-powerful advantage. besides, there are grenades in the game, which we all know are useful tools for clearly out enclosed spaces.
I mean, should every FPS just force players into straight up shootouts where they have to die and respawn as quickly as possible?
Mordred19
The reason cover was removed is because it distorted the dynamic flow of the game, making it much slower paced than they wanted. And if you really want to cover, just crouch behind something. That has worked in all previous online shooters?
crouching is one thing. exposing your whole side when stepping out from behind cover is something else. there's no way to lean to the side if you are standing or crouching. that is in pretty much every online FPS. there was the opportunity to make progress in that area and adress that issue, and I find it unfortunate that that is being pushed back.
It sucks how everyone ignores what EA did. Just look at how no one knows which game it is I'm referring to.
[QUOTE="navstar29"][QUOTE="Mordred19"]giving the player a believable means to use the enviorment to surivive in combat shouldn't be a bad thing. and in regards to level design, if it was not possible to turtle in a completely safe spot, then camping would not be encouraged by the cover system. it's not supposed to be an all-powerful advantage. besides, there are grenades in the game, which we all know are useful tools for clearly out enclosed spaces.
I mean, should every FPS just force players into straight up shootouts where they have to die and respawn as quickly as possible?
Mordred19
The reason cover was removed is because it distorted the dynamic flow of the game, making it much slower paced than they wanted. And if you really want to cover, just crouch behind something. That has worked in all previous online shooters?
crouching is one thing. exposing your whole side when stepping out from behind cover is something else. there's no way to lean to the side if you are standing or crouching. that is in pretty much every online FPS. there was the opportunity to make progress in that area and adress that issue, and I find it unfortunate that that is being pushed back.
So are you willing to trade off mayhem for slow methodical cover based shooting online? I'm not and I'm almost certain most would take mayhem. I'm sure they've tested it a lot and tried different variations and it didn't work. I'm sure if it had it would have been implemented. But I'd take the cover-less MP over a with-cover MP (at least for KZ2) anyday.
It shows the multiplayer maps that will be in the game... I think they're absoloutly amazing. I'm glad that Guerilla put so much effort into this game. It's just taking too long to come out...it's gonna be a long three weeks..
So are you willing to trade off mayhem for slow methodical cover based shooting online? I'm not and I'm almost certain most would take mayhem. I'm sure they've tested it a lot and tried different variations and it didn't work. I'm sure if it had it would have been implemented. But I'd take the cover-less MP over a with-cover MP (at least for KZ2) anyday. navstar29
So are you willing to trade off mayhem for slow methodical cover based shooting online? I'm not and I'm almost certain most would take mayhem. I'm sure they've tested it a lot and tried different variations and it didn't work. I'm sure if it had it would have been implemented. But I'd take the cover-less MP over a with-cover MP (at least for KZ2) anyday. Mordred19
I wouldn't want either extreme. Not in this case.
Well I didn't mean in the extreme's, I guess I worded that poorly. But in that general direction (Not communism or fascism, but slightly liberal or conservative, if you get what I mean). From the video's I've seen of the multiplayer, It looks like it has a really good pacing, not overly arcady, but at the same time not too slow, a good blend of tactical fast paced shooting. Albeit thats only from video's but hopefully that holds true in the multiplayer.
You know what im starting to hate. People that say whining about KZ2 getting a 9. KZ2 will not be the best game you have ever played. Its a pretty good game but not so awesome that it will become legendary. Forget all the hype and just enjoy the game.
Log in to comment