[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="Malta_1980"] why do we suddenly feel the need to have the FPS genre totally re-invented cause KZ2 is getting close to its release date ???
Crysis stood out of the competition due to its amazing visuals.... Halo3 stood out of its competition cause mmm it sold a lot.... COD4 stood out of the competition because it had a nice sp and its online was a huge success on all systems...Bioshock had an interesting story & atmosphere... Resistance2 had a nice sp and an incredible mp + 8 co-op mode..... but none of the above mentioned games re-invented the genre...
KZ2 wont either but it has a nice cover system, great atmosphere, great character animation, a intresting universe (helghast/helghan vs ISA), according to beta testers has a great mp & modes, solid gameplay (according to previews) and amazing visuals (compared to other console games)... it doesnt have co-op and thats something i wish GG would include.... but overall KZ2 is shaping up to be one of the best (imo might be the best) FPS game available on consoles once released...
sirk1264
Well honestly not really: Crysis - aside from its phenominal visuals and physics, it had totally open ended level design, that offered a freedom of choice and play style - enforced by the nanosuit.
COD4 - while it is essentially linear, high scripted gameplay, it was done very well, and offered much variety in level design, and events to keep it constantly fresh and engaging. Its multiplayer was also a unique twist.
Halo 3 - while its singleplayer was well.... Halo, its was feature packed, and its multiplayer sported loads of modes, options and the best community options for a console game.
Bioshock - Compelling singleplayer, that gave flexibility to the players combat sty-le (even if it is a 'dumbed down' shock 2).
Resistance 2 - linear shooter design, of course done well, however it too, like Halo 3 was feature packed.
Its not about reinventing the genre, its about standing out. Hell from that none of those games reinvent the genre at all...And quite a few of those games dont even have very unique design, rather bunking into almost the same category.
What KZ2 seems to have going for it in terms of unique-ness is, the cover system, visual design, and solid mp (with bots). Visuals are visuals - its the game design that concerns me, and honestly KZ2 seems to focus far more on the visual flair, than unique design, which puts it at a disadvantage, as its going to be compared directly to every Linear Scripted FPS out there. I have to say I like its cover system (blindfire in particular). That is quite unique.
And honestly I think too many devs rely on either visuals or more feature, ontop of a standard design template; but that is my personal opinion.
Why do people ignore this post. This is how i've been feeling about KZ2 the whole time. All it has is visuals. R2 set the bar as far as content is concerned for an FPS on the ps3. If Killzone 2 doesn't come with splitscreen and COOP then its going to suffer greatly as far as replayability is concerned. Playing multiplayer can only go so far. The more variety the more replayability. what is with these physic gipsies? stop acting like you've played the final game. gsus... Its not all about visuals, read the impressions, previews..its all about gameplay too, the gritty realism, animations, hit detections, cover system, etc etc...it all comes together well and sets it self apart from many other shooters..the animations alone make it feel much more different. who cares about split screen, thats just you trying to bash it. wait and see. 
Log in to comment