CGI-Quality said:
TRios_Zen said:
CGI-Quality said:
MtxAmaze said:
Is like Killzone 2 gameplay kinda laggy that whats I heard and I dont want to get it if the gameplay is not userfriendly |
The gameplay isn't laggy. The majority of the complaints stem from people not being able to adapt to the kind of FPS that Killzone 2 is (control-wise). Believe it or not, it's not really like any other FPS I've played. I mean it's similar to Battlefield: Bad Company and F.E.A.R. in a few ways, but it doesn't play like them, it's really it's own experience and I don't recall it being "laggy".
|
CGI, with absolute respect (cause we need more folks like you on these boards), I disagree. Killzone 2 is IMO a beautifully envisioned, however very standard FPS.
To be fair, I haven't played Resistance 2, but FOM was a lot of fun, and the weapons made it a stand-out for me. So my recommendation would be Resistance 2.
THAT being said, Killzone 2 is a fun game, don't get me wrong, I prefer FOM to it though, and hear Resistance 2 was even better.
|
Explain to me what a "standard FPS" is...
If you're saying it's like many other games in the genre, I HIGHLY disagree...
|
Well... standard weapons (assualt rifle, sniper, pistol, rpg) = check. Standard level lay-out = check. Standard gameplay (shoot, evade, take cover till healed, repeat) = check. Now standard regenerating health with COD like health meter = check. In fact the only thing new about it was the cover mechanic, which IMO, didn't help the game but rather hurt it (I played it much better by NOT using the crouch/cover button).
I didn't hate the game, but would counter-query - what about it is different then any other FPS you've played?
