So I picked up Killzone 2 over the weekend, and I think it is a great game and the graphics are great. However, one thing I am really disappointed about is the controls. For one, the controls only have minor changes in their "alternative" controls not really customizing to each gamer very well. Another thing is a non-toggle run feature making it extremely hard to stop and turn while running. The game has also many complaints about the input lag in-game controls, and I guess they came out with a patch to try and correct some of these addressed issues, however, I am moving next week so I have already cancelled my cable/internet so I was unable to download it.
I don't want to be to biased but I have played 3 series extensively; Rainbow Six:3, Halo, and Call of Duty. These are probably the biggest/most popular series in current gaming today and they all resemble some similarities in controls and playing style. One biggest change I have noticed is the complete disregard for the classic (B, or O) as a melee attack, and it is not able to be customized either. Now I know every game designer wants to set it'self apart from the competition but in this case is it hindering the game?
I posted this comment in a forum thread; asking if other people thought the controls were Mediocre... and within hours there were over 75 posts about people slamming the controls saying they hinder the game or others sticking up for their originality. Many people went back to a previously loved game because of the difference. Peronsally, controls aren't going to make me stop playing a game, I love video games and I respect the time and effort put in to create such a game like Killzone 2. The game is fun and has good gameplay so I am going to finish it out, but we will see if there are any more control patches to come.
So I end with my inquiry, when it comes to a specific genre of game (FPS in this case), is it better for gaming developers to stick to the mold created by previous blockbusters like Rainbow Six, Halo, and Call of Duty?