| Kantor said: And there is our dilemma. The people complaining about the controls didn't want Killzone 2. They wanted CoD4 with motion blur, a lightning gun and Helghast. They may not admit this, hell, they may not even know this, but pretty much anybody comparing the controls to CoD4 wanted what I have described. It's obvious that the majority likes it. Anecdotal data: Look in the Sony forum. How many pro-KZ posts do you see, how many anti-KZ posts? I would say the ratio is something like 20:1. And I'm not sure realism was what they wanted. Don't act like the controls were a mistake, Guerilla had over 4 years and a good 40 million dollars to develop one game. Don't you think they would have noticed if something was wrong? The controls were a design choice. I think they were a good one, some people don't, apparently. |
You couldn't have been more wrong with that CoD comment. They're completely different games. One is a class-based game with emphasis on squads, tactics, and positioning. The other has lots imbalanced gimmicks, involves lots of spawn-killing, and a has stupid little perk that everyone and their dog uses to make grenades pop out of their corpses - you don't know how many times I've stepped away from someone after killing them in KZ2. You know what I do when I feel like gettin one of the top scores in a CoD5 match? Get my 2 free kills with a rifle grenade, then blow myself up for an ammo refill and repeat. It's even more effective when playing TDM in a Team Tactical match (how's that for tactics?). I can't do lame shit like that in KZ2 and I'm glad.
As for the posts.....This is VGchartz. All it takes is a game with good graphics for people to start making countless threads about it. This was especially true for KZ2. You should know this by now.
And for a game with 4 years of development, they sure left out alot of things.
