Welcome to the "Crysis Effect", where just because a game looks great, people pan it as just a graphics-wh0ring game. People seem to forget that Crysis got a 9.5, a killer score that must have come from more than pretty foliage. I'm sure the same is true for KZ2, which also got a AAA score.
[QUOTE="GreyFoXX4"] So once again if you put: TF2, BF2, Doom series, Wolfeinstein, Fear and whatever else you want to throw out there together you get KZ2. heretrix
That sounds like a totally original game that offers something new. :|
I honestly think this fact is flying over the head of many KZ2 fanboys in this thread. But the real question is: Why do they need to feel that it is completely original to be good? WoW wasn't revolutionary in design, but it was a revolution for MMOs regardless. KZ2 put together a lot of things together into a solid package, what's to really hate? I've seen pretty much all the things the OP mentioned in other games, but that doesn't make KZ2 less deserving of praise. It just means some of the KZ2 fans need to check their smacktalk before spewing things like "KZ2 was the first game to let you revive teamates".
Now I'm not here to bash KZ2, mostly because I'm of the opinion that a game can be fantastic without necessarily doing anything new, but I'd like to help fix this revisionist history before it catches on. [QUOTE="S-Slambo"]1). K2 changes missions during matches online, something not done before and something that future games will most likely adopt and become the norm, because it's genius. Agreed, it's an awesome system, but other games have done similar things. In Quake Wars, even though there are overarching objectives, each player is dynamically given a set of objectives, depending on class and battlefield situation. KZ2's system is definitely interesting for mixing classic gametypes, though. 2). Graphics are unmatched for CONSOLES, no past or recent FPS matches the level of realism and detail/ligthing and animations shown in K2. Improved graphics/animation/atmosphere in FPS games evolution is a staple of the genre. 3). K2 introduces for the first time a FP view cover system, NOT DONE BEFORE, and it works incredibly well. No. There was a Rainbow Six game that, while jumping to 3rd person, had a cover system in a FP game. That's not mentioning the fact that you can lean, crouch, and crawl in most PC FPS games for a decade. I know a lot of you are saying the system works better, but I think it works better because of a console controls limitation. With a lean system in most PC games, you don't stick to anything, so it actually gives you more control over how you want to use cover. 4). K2 for the first time (while done before in a 3rd person shooter) in a FPS enables the player to revive there squad mates to health, during combat. Now I'm thinking you haven't played many FPS games. Return to Castle Wolfenstein did this years ago, and has since been implemented in many games like the Battlefield series. I honestly don't know if RTCW was the first to do it, but it definitely had the biggest lasting impact on how it is done. 5). Best A.I in a FPS on consoles if not all around, if you have played k2 you will know the A.I is one of the best if not THE BEST. I've only played some multi, but almost all the reviews I've read have labeled the A.I. as competent. I will also note that many reviews panned the friendly A.I. as not that great, but not overly bad. K2's gameplay due to realism and weight, feels much better than your typical weightless air gun style movements seen in many games like COD4, IMO...Thanks to the animations, it feels good and rewarding to shoot and have killed someone. Again, you haven't played many PC FPS games. I've played mods that have added more realism, weight, etc. I will say that KZ2 is probably the first to really open it up to more people. Being able to change player types during respawns (turrents, rockets, health, sniper guys) is very refreshing and different. Man, I'm feeling like a broken record here, but go try some more FPSs. Team Fortress, RTCW, Battlefield, and probably many more are game series that have class systems as their bread and butter. and with so little to NO lag, the game is flawless. There are a lot of good fps's out there, but IMO k2 takes it a step further, scores and people all around have praised k2 since launch. Hope you guys are enjoying the game BTW. Thank you. I'm going to throw this out there, but besides games like Doom (introducing Deathmatch) and Quake (introducing online play and modding), Return to Castle Wolfenstein was probably the most fresh multiplayer game to come out in a long time.
I'm not really arguing the validity or quality of a remake; I've played good remakes too. But, all in all, what the hell is the point of spending a bunch of money, time, and effort making a game that's already been made? Or, on our end of things, what's the point of spending a bunch of money, time, and effort playing a game we've already played?
What's the point of watching a movie we've already watched? Or a remake? Because new ideas and implementations can really add to the previous work and even help it realize its initial dream. Exactly. I don't condone all remakes, but there are definitely ideas and technology developed over the years that would benefit many old titles greatly. Nevermind graphics, but things like online connectivity, newer control ideas, etc.
There used to be this old WW2 mod for UT99 called "The Third Reich" that designed for realism over gameplay. After a few beta version of integrating more and more realism, it simply became boring. You'd get shot in the leg, and then would be forced to crawl around while you bled to death over a few minutes. Realistic? Yes. Fun? Not one iota. I guess what I'm saying is it's nice when games can integrate some realism that is still fun, but integrating things just for realism's sake is not.
I only played the trial version about a year ago, but for all the cool "old school" Kung Fu video loading screens and slick style, it played like a tech demo. Fun to fool around with, but nothing really compelling to keep you there. Might have been worth the $10 (or maybe more?) it was selling for, but I had my fill after an hour.
Whether or MS started the DLC idea or not is irrelevant. The fact is not all DLC is made equal and is not priced proportional to the content, and that is not Microsoft's fault. Not only that, but different people will have different opinions as to how much something extra is worth. For example, $5 for (many good) extra multiplayer maps is a tough pill to swallow for someone that grew up on PC games like me, but at least it's content that I know takes a decent amount of manpower to make from creation, texturing, balance, etc. Charging a few bucks for a silly costume (SF4, LBP) to me is rediculous.
[QUOTE="RonSWinTeam"]Hi guys, My name is Ron, and I'm a member of the Windows Outreach Team. If you're running Windows Media Center on your PC, it makes using your XBOX360 as a media center pretty easy. You can stream the media over your home network with very little work. Here's a link to the Windows Media Center page for more info: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/features/media-center.aspx Hope this helps. If you have any other questions about media center-ish type stuff, just holler and I'll see what I can do for you guys. Cheers, Ron Windows Outreach Team I would LOL...but I do use the WMC stuff on my 360 to watch movie files and show off my photo albums, and it really was easy to set up. Running the ethernet cable between my PC and TV was also easier than extending my video card's DVI output. I'm also glad that the NXE added all those (useful) codecs that were missing, since the support was pretty poor before.
Yes and no. They're able to complete objectives reasonably well, but they also don't do many of the things that real people do (mine farmers, switch classes dynamically to better suit what is going on). For the complexity of the game, though, they're great.
Log in to comment