Why do people think Killzone sucks so bad?

[Anthony1]

One thing I kept hearing over and over again, after absorbing all that was e3 2005, was that people were so suprised by Killzone 2, because the original game sucked so bad.

They kept saying that it was amazing that people were so hyped for a game, considering the fact that Guerrilla had made the first game, and the first game was such a dud.


This suprised me quite a bit, because I had no idea that Killzone was a critical dissaster, at least according to all the websites and G4TV, etc, etc.

When I was re-united with a PS2 this past Xmas, Killzone was one of my favorite games to play, along with San Andreas and Ratchet 3 and others. So I was quite suprised to see that this game is getting dogged by alot of people.

So for the people that hate it, what is it about it that sucks so bad?

[Gamereviewgod]

Well, it was hyped as a Halo killer for one. That got expectations up.

Then it came out with some nasty frame rate problems that at times make it unplayable.

It's not a complete disaster. It's a competent FPS, just not what they said it was going to be.

[nik]

Yeah, people are just hype junkies, and if somthing doesn't live up to the fact, even though its a really well done product, they just reject it.

Shows the intelligence of some people.

[Ed Oscuro]

I picked up a copy of OPSM in Australia, plastered across one page was the slogan "In a perfect world, all games would be developed by Guerrilla!" (Well, that's at least pretty close.)

The universal complaints are about dumb AI and some really obvious graphical blunders - people have reported turning around and running straight into a wall that the engine had just decided to materialize.

[njiska]

Aside from the grapical and A.I. problems one must also remeber that ther PS2 controller isn't comfortable for FPS games. I, for one, still have a bitch of a time playing Half-life on the PS2.

Having the two sticks on the same axis makes them a real bitch to use. Alot of people who were hyped for this "Halo-Killer" were also people who had played halo and other fps games on the big black box and they were annoyed by the controls on the PS2.

[shopkins]

Different strokes, I guess. The PS2 controller is my favorite console controller for FPS.

[Gamereviewgod]

I'm with you Shop. I never had a problem with the PS2 controller.

[YoshiM]

Killzone....Killzone...is that the game where the commercials were hyping up the "innovative" shooting from behind cover? It looked no different than any other third person military shooter to me.

[Mr.FoodMonster]

No, that game was Kill.Switch and that game was awesome.

[njiska]

Different strokes, I guess. The PS2 controller is my favorite console controller for FPS.

2 questions

1. How many FPS console game have you played and how many with controllers other then the PS2 ones.

2. How the fuck can you handle having both sitcks on the same axis? I can't stand it and i know i'm not alone. In fact i use to think the complaint was almost unversial.

[geelw]

The universal complaints are about dumb AI and some really obvious graphical blunders - people have reported turning around and running straight into a wall that the engine had just decided to materialize.

Well, after playing throught the game four times, i NEVER had that happen. you'll see dead bodies change position and textures suddenly correct themselves, but as far as geometry appearing out of nowhere, i'd love to hear which level so i can see for myself.

other than that, most of the "halo-killer" comments seem to have come from the press, which has been doing that benchmark shortcut crap for far too long. games should be judged based on their own merits, not someone's narrow view of a genre. i could see what guerilla wanted to do with the first game, but time and processing power weren't on their side, obviously.

some things killzone nailed perfectly were the momentum of running with a weapon and the overall feeling that the player was on a battlefield. i hate fps games that feel as if you're riding on a silky smooth cart while shooting waves of enemies (goldeneye: rogue agent is the perfect example of this), and other games where you've got great AI, but lose the ability to run like hell for a few seconds just to get away from danger are also annoying (start a list, lol).

While the texture swapping in killzone was troublesome to look at, it really didn't affect the gameplay at all. the sometimes choppy frame rate and enemy AI bugged me more, as did the non-ability to commandeer enemy vehicles and use them against the helghast. other than that, the very last level was a bit too "um, we're out of ideas, so let's just send 200 enemies at the player" annoying. i just stayed in one place and shot soldiers until i coul get upstairs, then shot the last boss through a doorway while he was running around confused. oh well- i'd imagine guerilla has some surprises for us in the sequel.

g.

[hezeuschrist]

First, Sony themselves hyped Killzone as a Halo killer, and that was the games undoing. Halo was never the be all end all of FPS games, but when Killzone went into development it was all the rage. Blame Sony for that one.

I've never played the game, but from what I understand it's an overall average shooter, compounded by the fact that you're playing a game in which you shoot at things from a first person persepctive without triggers. Sony using the same controller for the PS2 as the PS1 was one of the worse things to happen to the industry.

I've tried to play FSP games on the PS2 shitpad, and I simply can't. The placement doesn't bother me so much as not having triggers and the horrible quality of the analog sticks themselves in comparison to the Xbox and Gamecube sticks. Every PS2 shooter should support a keyboard and mouse, seeing as the system sports two USB ports right on the front of it, but it doesn't and that's really sad, because I feel that could have immensely improved the overall killzone experience for a lot of people.

[swlovinist]

1. It was hyped as the Halo Killer for the PS2
2. Its multiplayer was choppy and nothing close to Halo
3. Single player was good, but that is not whay many play Halo


bottom line: solid FPS, but lets face it, the PS2 is just underpowered to do a game right like this.


I expect alot from the PS3, including an answer to Halo!

[swlovinist]

1. It was hyped as the Halo Killer for the PS2
2. Its multiplayer was choppy and nothing close to Halo
3. Single player was good, but that is not whay many play Halo


bottom line: solid FPS, but lets face it, the PS2 is just underpowered to do a game right like this.


I expect alot from the PS3, including an answer to Halo!

[Gamereviewgod]

2 questions

1. How many FPS console game have you played and how many with controllers other then the PS2 ones.

2. How the fuck can you handle having both sitcks on the same axis? I can't stand it and i know i'm not alone. In fact i use to think the complaint was almost unversial.

1. Many. Red Faction, RF II, Kilzone, 007 Nightfire, Medal of Honor, etc. I had one third party controller, but it sucks. Dual Shock, always.

2. I never knew it was a problem, and I don't understand why it is. The thought never even entered my mind. So they're on the same axis; how is that worse than the Xbox controller? I'm not being harsh or defensive, I just don't understand at all.

so much as not having triggers

What the the L1, L2, R1, R2 buttons???

I love the Dual Shock design. I always have. It's been my favorite controller in the past two gens. The Gamecube controller is a close second, but the button config doesn't always feel right for some games.

[bargora]

Oh noes! Tehy r on teh s4me 4x15!!1!

Look. Just admit that you are getting old and crotchety and don't want to learn another controller. It happens to all of us.

If your first dual-stick FPS was Unreal Tournament on the PS2 (like it was for me), then you'd probably be bitching about the fucked-up off-axis stick placement on the Xbox controller.
Halo sucks, BTW.

[njiska]

1. Many. Red Faction, RF II, Kilzone, 007 Nightfire, Medal of Honor, etc. I had one third party controller, but it sucks. Dual Shock, always.

2. I never knew it was a problem, and I don't understand why it is. The thought never even entered my mind. So they're on the same axis; how is that worse than the Xbox controller? I'm not being harsh or defensive, I just don't understand at all.

It's hard to explain why the offset axis is more comfortable to me and why it's more comfortable to a lot of people. I have a feeling it has something to do with a psycological thing, but for some reason many people perfer the offset axis. I actually have co-ordination problems using the Dual shock and i honestly can't tell you why. I've used all 3 console controllers for fps games and i just find the dual shock uncomfortable.

Oh noes! Tehy r on teh s4me 4x15!!1!

Look. Just admit that you are getting old and crotchety and don't want to learn another controller. It happens to all of us.

If your first dual-stick FPS was Unreal Tournament on the PS2 (like it was for me), then you'd probably be bitching about the fucked-up off-axis stick placement on the Xbox controller.

Old and crotchety? Don't want to learn another controller? I think you'd better calm down there, son.

First off i am neither old nor crotchety. I'm 20 and liberial minded.

Second, despite the fact that i do really love the xbox and the type S controller i am not some MS loving fanboy who's afraid to learn another controller. I take my controllers seriously and i learn them well. Fuck i even went the extra mile to buy 2 loigtech wireless ps2 controllers just to enhance the experience. I know the controller well and i have never liked the placement of the left thumb stick. I've gotten use to using it for platformers and for MGS3 but i can't stand it for fps. I've also never understood why sony likes to keep it there. DC, GC and the Box all have it in the better spot, but for some reason sony wants to be different.

Third, the first dual-stick FPS game i played was Half-life on the ps2 and i didn't like the controls for it. I've also spent a good amount of time playing time spliters and UT for the ps2 and i still can't stand the left thumb stick. Hell to be honest i have such problems using to thumbstick that i often will switch to playing UT and Half-life on the dreamcast.

[Anthony1]

I just wanted to say that getting back to the topic of Killzone, I guess I never heard all the "it's a Halo killer" stuff. So I didn't start playing it with any of those kinds of expectations.

Actually, my expectations for most PS2 games are very low, considering the system was poorly designed, so when I play a game like Killzone on it, it actually impresses me quite a bit.

I do understand that the game can be very choppy at times, and that there are some A.I. problems, etc, etc, but I also think the game has a cool "feel" to it and it sets a nice mood with the atmosphere and the sound, etc.

I thought that it had great production, and that the developers were basically trying to make a game that the PS2 really can't handle, but they did it anyway, and despite the fact that it has some serious issues, it's still pretty damn impressive overall.

But I can see that if the hype for it was off the charts, then people can be very much dissapointed with what they ended up getting.


Anyways, why does Guerrilla (the developers) spell Guerilla like that, with the two R's?

[grayrobertos]

I also had gripe with the ps2 controller I just don't think that they ever expected you to use both, It seemed like an after thought. for me the best controller ever for fps was the n64, I really do think it plays better for fps than the cube.

I played killzone and it seemed to go in the catagory of many the fps games this generation of just meh. Doesnt do much wrong but just does everything all right. There are to many games like this at the moment.

At least we can laff about really bad ones.

[cyberfluxor]

I of course just entered the PS2 scene not too long ago. I saw this game for $5 but they were missing the disc (WTF?). I recalled some commercials and hype on the game but wasn't sure of the reviews. Just recently I looked a few reviews up and dug into the older threads and it looks as though it wasn't a Halo killer but had some decent single player attributes. So, over a year later is it considered a must FPS to get on PS2 with its life comming towards the end? Is this one of the must get games for the system? When looking back does the game still perform as one of the better titles compared to these ending market launches? And finally will Killzone 2 be placed as a PS3 launch or will the PS2 possibly pick it up as well?

[roushimsx]

So, over a year later is it considered a must FPS to get on PS2 with its life comming towards the end? Is this one of the must get games for the system? When looking back does the game still perform as one of the better titles compared to these ending market launches? And finally will Killzone 2 be placed as a PS3 launch or will the PS2 possibly pick it up as well?

Killzone was pretty damn good. The level design drew inspiration from pretty much every major conflict in the 20th century (starting off with an obvious and well done homage to World War 1's trench warfare), which actually made it feel pretty fresh when wrapped up in its little sci fi theme. The framerate takes a little getting used to, but within a level or so then you'll be set. It saddens me that Guerrilla wasn't able to port this one to PC or Xbox like they did for Shellshock Nam '67. Killzone is a far superior game and it would have been nice to run it on hardware that could have done it justice.

There are quite a few AI glitches in the game and at times it does feel like you're fighting against the militarized Helgast Special Olympics Squad, but good lord does the game stay fun. Multiple characters allow you to take varying approaches to how you complete levels (some, such as the last one, are more varied than others) and your AI partners never die. So while they may at times act like they belong in Daikatana, you'll never get punished for their stupidity.

There was one level were you have to plant bombs around a bridge and run away before it blows up. My partner got stuck on the bottom level and didn't make it off in time, so I spent the rest of the level hearing her yell, "COMING!" as she was stuck at the bottom of a ravine. Pretty funny stuff. Also, some of the physics bugs can be pretty fun. Sometimes it's possible to get an enemy to stick into the level when you use a shotgun, so in the bunker raid I popped enemies in the heads and watched their bodies dangle from the ceiling. Gold.

Oh, and there's a bug on the amphibious assault mission where sometimes the scripting breaks and you can't continue, forcing you to play through the mission again. That sucked and it's fairly common, but I've never had it happen to me twice in a row.

Some of the dialog is cringe-worthy (total b-movie stuff), but there are some really fun firefights and a couple of points where you'll be looking down to make sure you're actually playing the game on a PS2 and not an Xbox. I've got high hopes for being able to one day play the game via emulation with a bumped up emulated CPU speed to remove the slowdown.

I'd recommend avoiding the multiplayer unless you like filling up your memory card with patches (which take forever to snag because of how slow the memory card interface is).

As far as single player goes, I'd say it eclipses Halo by a good amount. I've yet to play Halo 2 (I've heard mixed things about the SP in that game and I know only like 2 or 3 people bought it for that purpose), so I'm not sure how it compares to that. I do feel that the game is one of the gems of the PS2 catalog though and should be checked out if you like first person shooters.

[lordnikon]

bottom line: solid FPS, but lets face it, the PS2 is just underpowered to do a game right like this.

This is an innaccurate assumption. The only way your comment would be true, is if Killzone had the best framerate of any game on the Playstation 2, which it does not.

There are a ton of games that push the Playstation 2 to its limits, look fantastic, and run at a high framerate of 45-60fps.

Black
Burnout 3
Burnout Revenge
Metal Gear Solid 3 Subsistence
Area 51
Project Snowblind
TimeSplitters 2
TimeSplitters Future Perfect
Warhammer 40,000: FireWarrior

All of the above games look great, some of them better than killzone, and run at a very high framerate. The Burnout Games run just as good as their Xbox counterparts. FireWarrior is a PS2 exclusive FPS running at a full 60fps. The game runs butter smooth.

The one game that pushed the PS2 to is utmost limit is Area 51. This game was not ported to the PS2 from another version. In-fact the developers were concentrating on the PS2 version first and foremost and then bringing it over to the Xbox and PC. The developers who made this game are the same team who developed Tribes Aerial Assault on PS2, so they have a close bond with the platform. All you need to do is load up Area 51 online in the map "SHAFT" with 16 players to understand that this game pushes the PS2 bigtime. They make use of instance rendering to allow an almost infinite display of a single object without hogging system memory. Watch this technical demonstration to see it in action:

http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/a...481&id=6121481

How well a game runs has NOTHING to do with the hardware. It all comes down to whether or not the developer is willing to optimize the game for a platform. Guerilla was more interested in geeking out over nice screenshots, rather than making a game perform well in both framerate and network performance.

Killzone's short comings are not the fault of the PS2, but of Guerilla.

[Porksta]

What the the L1, L2, R1, R2 buttons???

Those are more shoulder buttons than triggers IMHO.

What do you mean by they are on the same axis? One stick moves you up and down, one axis moves you left and right. Those are two axises (axi?).

[Six Shooter]

The most notable thing that ruined this game is the fact that you had to empty an entire god damn magazine into an enemy's head to kill them. Not to mention the framerate was absolutely atrocious, and the simple fact that it was just plain lacking in anything resembling entertainment value. This is without a doubt one of my most hated games of all time. Did anyone even playtest it before it was released?

[lordnikon]

The top gripes I had with the game are:

1.) Poor framerate (Imagine if Free Radical developed killzone. It would be gorgious!)

2.) Death scene too long online - When playing online, after you die you get treated to a camera panning around your character for about 10-15 whole seconds. This is way too long. I don't care if I am getting killed over and over, but barely getting to play the game because you are spending most of your time watching your dead polygonal corpse is horrible.

3.) 16 players are way too much for the maps provided. What a mess. 90% of the time your deaths will result from being shot in the back. This game is 12x more fun online with teams of 4 on 4, or 6 player solo deathmatch, where you can engage your enemy face to face and die with honor.

4.) In the single player, all you kill is Hellghast (where are the huge bosses? SPOILER WARNING: Killzone is wandering through a maze shooting helghast over and over and over... Thats it. Oh wait and reaching checkpoints... Which your "buddy" a.i. tell you exactly where to go. )