KruzeS on 02 September 2007
Stoff: And why must so many people now assume that every single game has to completely change the way we play.
Not every game. And incremental improvements are just fine most of the time. But a $50m endeavour should be set to a little bit higher standard, I expect.Also, I wouldn't go as far as saying it should "completely change the way we play". But are purely technical merits (like 1080p, 7.1surround, new rendering techniques and "candy" physics - choose those that apply), really worthy of $50m? I'd sure find a bigger focus on things that actually impact gameplay (like AI, the physics engine, the game environments, etc) far more interesting.
Now, I'm not saying this specifically about Killzone, but about big budget games in general. On Killzone, Sieanr already brought up the weather, and I imagine this can be a great feature for a game such as this. It may also (and probably does) evolve on AI, physics; have nicely designed and interesting enviroments; great controls. But, unfortunately, the things being hyped for this game seem to be mostly the technicalities (which as a CS major I actually do find somewhat interesting, though as a gamer not so much) - see Hus's post for a bit of that.
I hate to bring up Lair here, but focusing mostly on those technicalities didn't turn out all that great for it. In the end, even the water effects are being criticized. Coincidentally, I think Lair is only getting the pounding it's getting because it was an over hyped huge production. Had it been a small budget project, it's reception would've been way different, I imagine. Let's hope the same doesn't happen with Killzone.
Reality has a Nintendo bias.
