ssj12 said:
yes it easily would have been. Like a poster said above, it might not have lived up to the media's halo-killer hype, which killed everyone's view on it, but it was still a fun and enjoyable game. Last time I check Fun = Good.
|
Killzone had an assload of problems. It was more than just overhype that killed the supposed halo killer.
It's controls needed more testing, to say the least, and the wonky controls combined with an often sub-25 fps framerate made the game troublesome to play. The game also suffered from rampant texture pop-in and buggy AI (sometimes enemies would go completely brain dead).
However, I agree that it was still a decent game. I certainly had fun with it, especially the offline multiplayer with bots.
Killzone had so much potential. It had so many cool things going for it, and I think they could've solved every issue the game had with a few months more testing, except for the "you're suppose to be in a war, but where is everbody?" feeling, and their decision to go with that wierd jumping model.
What Killzone could've been is why I had a pretty decent amount of faith in GG for Killzone 2. I knew given the resources of being an internal studio, they'd be able to polish Killzone 2 to the max. Plus, Killzone was developed concurrently with Shellshocked, and both were GG's very first titles, so many of the faults with the original were probably from inexperience. Liberation showed that they were growing in experience as a developer, and many of the quibbles with the original Killzone I felt could've been fixed by a more experienced dev team.
