[QUOTE="Lable1985"][QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="Lable1985"] I liked the KZ2 single player. Even if the story did suck it was still entertaining, and I have a love for the level design in the game from its integration with gameplay to its overall art design. The look of the levels is awesome. Won't argue that. The graphics engine Guerilla has lends itself and adds to the atmopshere of helghan. The level design itself from a gameplay aspect is awful though. So many cheap choke points with respawning enemies, just bland set piece after set piece, and uninspired shoot outs after another. It's too cookie cutter with the level design, and worst of all this amazing AI it has doesn't really show up. The AI is better than the crap you find in most shooters, but with how restricted and confined the levels are they really don't do much more than any other shooters AI. They flank, and they'll flush you out. Big whoop. What they should do with the sequel(hopefully, because what they showed at E3 was disappointing) is open the levels up a bit. Throw in a bigger field of play and let that AI run wild. If the AI has some breathing room it could make for some truly interesting shoot outs. Plus I might begin to tolerate those set pieces a bit more as change of pace. No don't entirely agree with some of what your saying, but I do understand. The AI could have gotten more love, As for the set pieces, and pacing. I loved them, but those 2 aspects are entirely dependent on the person to enjoy it or not. Though there are 2 levels I can think of that show off some of what you wanted from the game those being visari square, and those last few levels after the nuke scene(ripped directly from COD4) that took full advantage of the AI, and rarely had any choke points. The last few levels were nothing but choke points :P When you have to storm the castle, with everything all on fire, and those flying machine things gunning at you. It was pretty much run forward into a bunch of dudes as you have to go through one confined space after another. On Elite it entered the realm of trial and error more than rewarding difficulty. Also isn't vasari square with the bridge shootout at the beginning? infinite respawns until you move to magical spot that causes the next scripted scenario, and that big hold your ground and shoot everything in sight sequence.
[QUOTE="Lable1985"][QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] The look of the levels is awesome. Won't argue that. The graphics engine Guerilla has lends itself and adds to the atmopshere of helghan. The level design itself from a gameplay aspect is awful though. So many cheap choke points with respawning enemies, just bland set piece after set piece, and uninspired shoot outs after another. It's too cookie cutter with the level design, and worst of all this amazing AI it has doesn't really show up. The AI is better than the crap you find in most shooters, but with how restricted and confined the levels are they really don't do much more than any other shooters AI. They flank, and they'll flush you out. Big whoop. What they should do with the sequel(hopefully, because what they showed at E3 was disappointing) is open the levels up a bit. Throw in a bigger field of play and let that AI run wild. If the AI has some breathing room it could make for some truly interesting shoot outs. Plus I might begin to tolerate those set pieces a bit more as change of pace. jg4xchamp
No don't entirely agree with some of what your saying, but I do understand. The AI could have gotten more love, As for the set pieces, and pacing. I loved them, but those 2 aspects are entirely dependent on the person to enjoy it or not. Though there are 2 levels I can think of that show off some of what you wanted from the game those being visari square, and those last few levels after the nuke scene(ripped directly from COD4) that took full advantage of the AI, and rarely had any choke points. The last few levels were nothing but choke points :P When you have to storm the castle, with everything all on fire, and those flying machine things gunning at you. It was pretty much run forward into a bunch of dudes as you have to go through one confined space after another. On Elite it entered the realm of trial and error more than rewarding difficulty. Also isn't vasari square with the bridge shootout at the beginning? infinite respawns until you move to magical spot that causes the next scripted scenario, and that big hold your ground and shoot everything in sight sequence. Vasari Square isn't a bridge. And those last levels where mostly all open ares with chest high cover and different elevations. And how are chock points a bad thing at times? I'm mean people use choke points in real life all the time. I mean it'd be a little unrealistic if there weren't areas like that, and its practically impossible not to have choke points in inside places.
[QUOTE="Lable1985"][QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="Lable1985"] No don't entirely agree with some of what your saying, but I do understand. The AI could have gotten more love, As for the set pieces, and pacing. I loved them, but those 2 aspects are entirely dependent on the person to enjoy it or not. Though there are 2 levels I can think of that show off some of what you wanted from the game those being visari square, and those last few levels after the nuke scene(ripped directly from COD4) that took full advantage of the AI, and rarely had any choke points. The last few levels were nothing but choke points :P When you have to storm the castle, with everything all on fire, and those flying machine things gunning at you. It was pretty much run forward into a bunch of dudes as you have to go through one confined space after another. On Elite it entered the realm of trial and error more than rewarding difficulty. Also isn't vasari square with the bridge shootout at the beginning? infinite respawns until you move to magical spot that causes the next scripted scenario, and that big hold your ground and shoot everything in sight sequence. Vasari Square isn't a bridge. And those last levels where mostly all open ares with chest high cover and different elevations. And how are chock points a bad thing at times? I'm mean people use choke points in real life all the time. I mean it'd be a little unrealistic if there weren't areas like that, and its practically impossible not to have choke points in inside places. They aren't bad when done right. The idea is to provide a challenging obstacle, but in the case of Killzone 2 there are aspects where it is just cheap(because of respawning enemies). It's what makes CoD 4 on veteran more lame than satisfying. It's not clear out the spot and then go forward. It's make it by some magical line that forces the next set of scripted scenarios to appear. Not a fan of that. As for open areas? compared to what? Most of the stuff was corridorish, and small little arena type levels. Nothing was really big or opened up.
Just Casue 2, why it didn't make that list is beyond me, when i played JC1 i was impressed with the effort to try someting new (to an extent), it failed hard but had potential, but Just Casue 2 took everything that was wrong and fixed it (new grapple hook FTW).
Although I enjoyed Spiderman 1 when it came out; from a critical standpoint, it did kinda suck. Average at best. Spiderman 2 was a brilliant open ended superhero game and it's still one of the most fun games to just move around the game world without actually doing anything. So yea, I'll go with Spiderman 2.
The original street fighter 2: the world warrior was pretty bad imo. Guile was just the most broken character ever. They made every thing a million times better in the next versions of it imo
Twisted Metal 2 :). Not that TM1 was bad, just that TM2 was better. I remember the first Street Fighter. It was cool at the time but looked like poo compared to games that followed. SF1 was like an improved Karate Champ. But I like Karate Champ more (full point).
[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="Lable1985"][QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] The last few levels were nothing but choke points :P When you have to storm the castle, with everything all on fire, and those flying machine things gunning at you. It was pretty much run forward into a bunch of dudes as you have to go through one confined space after another. On Elite it entered the realm of trial and error more than rewarding difficulty. Also isn't vasari square with the bridge shootout at the beginning? infinite respawns until you move to magical spot that causes the next scripted scenario, and that big hold your ground and shoot everything in sight sequence. Vasari Square isn't a bridge. And those last levels where mostly all open ares with chest high cover and different elevations. And how are chock points a bad thing at times? I'm mean people use choke points in real life all the time. I mean it'd be a little unrealistic if there weren't areas like that, and its practically impossible not to have choke points in inside places. They aren't bad when done right. The idea is to provide a challenging obstacle, but in the case of Killzone 2 there are aspects where it is just cheap(because of respawning enemies). It's what makes CoD 4 on veteran more lame than satisfying. It's not clear out the spot and then go forward. It's make it by some magical line that forces the next set of scripted scenarios to appear. Not a fan of that. As for open areas? compared to what? Most of the stuff was corridorish, and small little arena type levels. Nothing was really big or opened up. So you don't remember the desert levels, or the mech. Those both took place in large open areas. Funnily enough I never encountered any respawning enemies, even on the hardest mode so maybe I'm just lucky.
[QUOTE="Lable1985"][QUOTE="shakmaster13"]The answer is obviously FF8.FragTycoon
FF8 was horrid, and so were the rest of the games after it.
What are some of the RPG titles that you like better then FFVIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XII?
I find that mostavid FF haters have never played these games and tend to lump them together.
Hint: none of these games are sequels ;)
I've played all of those games dude. In fact I still own FFVIII, FFXII, FFX, and FFXIII. btw, any game that feel bold enough to a number at the end of it is a sequel in my eyes even if its not a real sequel(like Red Steel 2) Oh, and for other RPG titles I like more than those. Let me list em disgaea 1, FFVI, FFVII, Chrono Trigger, Chrono Cross, and Earth Bound just off the top of my head, and those aren't even including Western RPG's
Spider-Man 1 was actually pretty decent. It's dated now, but I had a lot of fun with it. Spidey 2 is far better, of course. And I liked Killzone 1. That said, I vote for Jak 3, sequel to Jak 2. I'm not comparing it to Jak and Daxter (a classic, BTW), but just Jak 2. Jak 2 was NOT horrible, nor a bad game by any means, but parts of it were really boring and drawn out, with very little platforming. It was all driving hover cars and shooting. Meh... Jak 3 however, had so much variety, and just enough of every gameplay mechanic; shooting, platforming (a ton more than in Jak 2), driving, and various other activities. I love that game.
[QUOTE="Kleeyook"]It's a shame that the first KZ was a terrible game. It couldn't kill Halo. And the 2nd one wouldn't be able to either because Halo has spawned too many sequels and it's the largest console FPS besides COD already. I think Halo = Gran Turismo for consoles. And KZ = Forza. Even if it's better, it'll never beat. BTW, it's just like how LBP will never beat Mario no matter how good and innovative it is. :( That's because LBP has terrible platforming elements. Sure the builder is nice but the actual gameplay is horrid.
[QUOTE="Saxsoon"][QUOTE="Kleeyook"]It's a shame that the first KZ was a terrible game. It couldn't kill Halo. And the 2nd one wouldn't be able to either because Halo has spawned too many sequels and it's the largest console FPS besides COD already. I think Halo = Gran Turismo for consoles. And KZ = Forza. Even if it's better, it'll never beat. BTW, it's just like how LBP will never beat Mario no matter how good and innovative it is. :( That's because LBP has terrible platforming elements. Sure the builder is nice but the actual gameplay is horrid. Horrid? Sure it can be floaty at times, but its never bad unless someone doesn't design a level that complements that. LBP is still a far better game than New Super Mario Bro. Wii, sunshine, and Mario cart wii.
[QUOTE="Lable1985"][QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="Lable1985"] Vasari Square isn't a bridge. And those last levels where mostly all open ares with chest high cover and different elevations. And how are chock points a bad thing at times? I'm mean people use choke points in real life all the time. I mean it'd be a little unrealistic if there weren't areas like that, and its practically impossible not to have choke points in inside places. They aren't bad when done right. The idea is to provide a challenging obstacle, but in the case of Killzone 2 there are aspects where it is just cheap(because of respawning enemies). It's what makes CoD 4 on veteran more lame than satisfying. It's not clear out the spot and then go forward. It's make it by some magical line that forces the next set of scripted scenarios to appear. Not a fan of that. As for open areas? compared to what? Most of the stuff was corridorish, and small little arena type levels. Nothing was really big or opened up. So you don't remember the desert levels, or the mech. Those both took place in large open areas. Funnily enough I never encountered any respawning enemies, even on the hardest mode so maybe I'm just lucky. The mech level was a bunch of enemies coming at you so you can kill them easily. It was a cool change of pace for a minute, but it overstayed its welcome to be quite honest. As far as open goes. It wasn't all that open. There was a lot of enemies, but to make killing them easier you had a mech. As for the desert level. I actually like that level, more enemies would have made it nice. I liked using the sniper rifle during that missinon.
I doubt many in SW played Spidey 2 in it's time, as it was quite impressive, and when I have brought it up over the years in conversations about Crackdown, Prototype, Infamous, no one seems to remember it.:(
SolidTy
I'd say Spider-Man 2. Played the heck out of that game. Like you I still bring it up when a game like Infamous pops up.
[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="Lable1985"][QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] They aren't bad when done right. The idea is to provide a challenging obstacle, but in the case of Killzone 2 there are aspects where it is just cheap(because of respawning enemies). It's what makes CoD 4 on veteran more lame than satisfying. It's not clear out the spot and then go forward. It's make it by some magical line that forces the next set of scripted scenarios to appear. Not a fan of that. As for open areas? compared to what? Most of the stuff was corridorish, and small little arena type levels. Nothing was really big or opened up. So you don't remember the desert levels, or the mech. Those both took place in large open areas. Funnily enough I never encountered any respawning enemies, even on the hardest mode so maybe I'm just lucky. The mech level was a bunch of enemies coming at you so you can kill them easily. It was a cool change of pace for a minute, but it overstayed its welcome to be quite honest. As far as open goes. It wasn't all that open. There was a lot of enemies, but to make killing them easier you had a mech. As for the desert level. I actually like that level, more enemies would have made it nice. I liked using the sniper rifle during that missinon. That mech level flew by for me, but I guess that's because I wasn't dying every 5 seconds like the other levels, because I was an idiot, and played on the hardest setting on my first play through. I do love the sniper rifle in that game. Makes me wish the sixaxis was used for more snipers rifles on the ps3. My favorite part of the desert level was when I got the awesomeness that was to bolt gun.
I liked AoE more than AoE2. Castles were annoying...
KG86
0_0 the castles were one of the best additions to the game. Cure they were hard to take down, but they're castles what do you expect. And its not like you couldn't take them down very easily with siege units anyway.
I can't believe no one has said Super Mario Bros. 3. I'm not saying 2 was bad, but it wasn't even a real Mario game (for the US at least), it was some other game with Mario characters tacked on. Add to this that Super Mario Bros. 3 is probably the greates platformer of all time it makes 2 look like gutter trash.
[QUOTE="ZippySlappy"]A link to the Past.siLVURcross
Zelda II was a fine game :| I don't think that, in the Zelda timeline, ALttP is even considered a sequel to Zelda II. TBH that whole timeline is garbled...
I can't believe the difference between Just Cause and Just Cause 2! They really stepped their game up with the second installment! That one and the second Call of Juarez was marginally better then the first, not thatthe first Call of Juarez was crap, just that BIB was a lot better!
[QUOTE="siLVURcross"][QUOTE="ZippySlappy"]A link to the Past.BreakTheseLinks
Zelda II was a fine game :| I don't think that, in the Zelda timeline, ALttP is even considered a sequel to Zelda II. TBH that whole timeline is garbled... Well no, it's not. But I think what this thread really means is simply the next game to be released in the series.
Log in to comment