after reading through the responses, the one thing i am convinced of is that people don't seem to know the definition of innovation.
my post should have been simple to understand. the killzone level of realism and immersion has never been done before, so to do it is by definition innovation.
battlefield bad company was awesome, but its chief innovation was due to environmental damage. its controls were pretty much the same as cod4 in feel. in fact, one can successfully play both games the same way. i know becaue i do. killzone is a unique game in that to play it requires a completely style of play.
as far as the AI, i recall the baddies on halo3 jumping from side to side to avoid incoming fire. wolfenstein 3d anyone? real sharp AI there.
as for there rest of what i included, i still cannot tell whether you are being obtuse on purpose or not.
you show in what you responded to really not know killzone at all, but more than that you seem to have a paucity of knowledge of what would be considered innovative.
for you to say that a repackaged halo2 is mega-innovative, but a game which does something in spirit which has never been done before in generic and blah blah blah. so much of what's coming from you reads like what xbots were saying on gamespots user reviews when they were trying to lower the score. pathetic.
and more people like immersion that you seem to think. all my halo friends dumped it for cod4 because of the immersion, and now they love killzone.
you represent the voice of a militant group of gamers who think fps evolution peaked with halo. well i got news for you....twitch shooters are a thing of the past. now that consoles have the power to pursue total immersion that is where the future will be.
one last thing, i completely agree that halo3 will live on with many people...but for the exact same reason that bret michaels still has a music career.
art is the excrement of culture
