Killzone 2 is "barely mediocre"? (According to Surfer Girl it is...)

[sieanr]

FOOD said:

sieanr said:

FOOD said:

What a horrible blog. I'm not questioning whether or not he/she played Killzone 2 in E3 or some other games convention, but I am questioning how he/she is able to argue Resistance 2 will be better than Killzone 2 when no one has even played Resistance 2.

Don't get me wrong, Insomniac is a great dev team, and I love their games to death, but I think it is too early to be making irrational statements like that.

I think Killzone 1 was a good game, and I also think the reason it didn't get the "AAA" status is because of the hardware limitations. I know, someone is going to give the "it was a supposed Halo-killer!" It wasn't Guerilla's statement. It was some idiot's who didn't know what he was talking about. Besides, they were completely different games. The only thing that was similar was that they were both FPS's. Other than that, the art direction and stories were different and good in their respective manners. Halo was a run and gun game, and Killzone was a cover and fire game. It's essentially like comparing CoD4 to Bioshock. Both are FPS's, but different in every other aspect.

Guerilla Games has great visionaries and art direction, and their programmers have the potential to make a great game. It's good to see--from what has been shown--that it's running smoothly on the new hardware.

Maybe the fact that Killzone 2's budget is so huge will pay off in the long run. Aside from attracting casual gamers to the gorgeous graphics and what not, Sony might not let this game release until everyone of their cousins and cousins' friends love the game. More than likely, Sony is going to be extremely careful with their massive investment. They probably won't turn a profit until 2010.

I'm beginning to think that blog is slandering about Killzone 2 to be entertaining. They don't go in depth as to why it's "mediocre." I've heard in IGN's podcast that it's a solid game from what they've played (controls etc.).

This is one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard.

For starters, making a game that is "too ambitious" for a system is the mark of a bad developer. Making a game that is too much for a system to handle is something any band of idiots can do; a proper developer knows the limits of a system, and works within those limits. Basically its like making Doom 3 in 1996, and then claiming you're the worlds greatest developer despite the fact that nothing can play it beyond 1fps.

But thats beside the point since you're base argument is completely wrong, and its a fairly obvious example. Black, an FPS, looks amazing and runs fairly well on the PS2, all while shitloads of stuff is happening on screen. That game is a prime example of what a capable, talented developer can do when understanding the hardware and working within the systems limits.

Killzone was a technical mess not because of the hardware, but because the developer was careless and pushed the product to market before it finished. There is no real reason why anything attempted in Killzone would be impossible for the PS2, and as far as I know just about everything they attempted was done by other games.

Now with that disproven, lets go back to you're original argument; If GG overextended themselves with KZ1, then what is to say they wont do the same with KZ2?

Too much ambition is the mark of a bad developer? I don't think so, at least not generally speaking. Lots of things can come out of having a lot of ambition. For starters, developers can spawn innovation and what not--and I'm not going to write an essay on it either. But I guess the guys who made Grand Theft Auto 3 through San Andreas were bad developers for making  games with a huge, immersive worlds. If you ask me, the 3D Grand Theft Autos  were seen as pretty damn ambitious back in the day, and the new one seems very ambitious too.

In this sense "over ambitious" means that you try to achieve something that isn't possible. I thought this fact was obvious given my argument, especially with the sentence following that, but I guess you missed that too.

You stated that the reason KZ received bad scores is because of technical issues due to the PS2 hardware. Now I stated that the hardware shouldn't cause your game to perform poorly, because if it is then you are obviously trying to make a game that is better suited for a different platform. An extreme example of this would be Doom 3 in '96. I agree its an absurd example, but it gets the point across - making a game that doesn't run well on the hardware is the mark of a bad developer, not poor hardware. So I really don't see how you couldn't understand that. 

You're argument isn't clear. To the best of my knowledge--and I did beat the game--Killzone ran on the PS2 without having to switch any RAM or video cards, so the developers didn't make it unplayable. Guerilla did work within the console's limits. Maybe they went all the way up to the limits (framerate slowed down sometimes), but they didn't exacly go beyond what the console could handle. If they did, there would be no one in the world with a PS2 that passed Killzone.  So your comment about DOOM 3 in 1996 is just stupid, really. 

The developers didn't make the game unplayable, but they did a bang up job of making it a technical mess. The thing is they didn't go up to the console limits, in fact I'm pretty sure they weren't even close, they just did a shitty job of making the game.

Funny thing is you mention framerate as being due to the hardware, but ignore LOD, ragdoll, ect issues that I remember being prevalent when I played. Those sorts of things cant be chalked up to the hardware, but can easily be attributed to a developer who really doesn't know what they're doing, or a game that was released too soon (see the next-to-last point, lol)

But heres the thing that makes no fucking sense as you originally said this; "I also think the reason it didn't get the "AAA" status is because of the hardware limitations."

Yet you now say that they didn't exceed what the system was capable of. Which is it pal? Because, honestly, thats one hell of a contradiction.

"Aw, I bought my PS2 in 2001, I need the slim PS2 model to run Killzone!" <--Never heard that.

LOL no relevant 

Black was a good game, I'm not going to deny that, but it was a different direction from Killzone. Besides the art direction, Killzone was meant to be more of a cover and fire game. Black was just mindless running and gunning. Get your games straight. Sure, they're both FPS's, but differnt games nonetheless. Killzone did a good job at what it was trying to do, and Black did a good job at what it was trying to do. Again, Killzone was within the console's limits like Black was, if it wasn't there'd be no one with a PS2 that could play that game and pass it.

For starters you need to play more FPS games because KZ is very much a run and gun type of game and very much not a cover and fire game. Of course it mostly comes down to the way you play it, in which case Black could also be a cover type game.

But once again you've missed the point entirely. The fact of the matter is Black was a very technically impressive game and it ran fairly well on the PS2 and it was an FPS. The reason I brought it up is because people frequently tote the line that the PS2 couldn't do FPS games, so KZ should be forgiven. But thats false since Black, Timesplitters, ect ran fine. As I side note, I don't know why people think an FPS is fundamentally more demanding than a GOW.

Oh, and again you contradict you're original claim that KZ had problems because the PS2 hardware was weak. So here it sounds like you agree with me, KZ had technical issues because the developer lacked talent.

Do you have proof that Killzone wasn't finished? I don't know about you, but when I passed the game there was a beginning and an end. Oh, you can't forget the bad guys in between. There was story, no missing dialogue, and enough guns.  

I said wow

Way to read things literally. The fact of the matter is the game was put on market before the developer had time to polish the game - you know, that thing that talented developers to push the game from good to great. Actually, I retract that, KZ was buggy and had some significant unresolved technical issues; and thats the sort of thing you see in a game during late beta - not a release and sure as hell not an RC. Those sorts of things shouldn't be present in a retail game, otherwise the developer is exceptionally bad or just put out an unfinished product.

And I fairly certain that GG has said they want to take their time with KZ2 because they rushed KZ.

What exactly did you disprove?

I guess nothing since you disproved your self.

"If GG overextended themselves with KZ1, then what is to say they wont do the same with KZ2?" - Maybe you can answer this now since what I wrote should make my argument clear to you.