Killzone 1 sales number

[blowfish]

sieanr said:
Thanks for your opinion, but the game was dull as is. Sorry, but wether or not you like it, the game would still have been mediocre if not for the lousy "technical issues". And the developer did have a vision, but they lacked the talent to impliment it both in terms of design and technical finesse.

PSX Extreme - "The game's got a bevy of problems, including boring gameplay, a horrendous framerate, and lousy aiming."

Gamer.tv - "About as interesting as keeping a pistol for a pet...It's a fine technical achievement, sure, but there's little game here. The graphics alone keep Killzone off the bottom."

Gaming Age - "But at no point does it feel like anything but an old fashioned arcade shooter with a few more controls. When there are so many first person shooters available that offer opportunity for strategy ' with wide open levels and options for how to approach an objective ' it's disappointing that Killzone is so thin in that dimension."

Playmagazine - "Whether head shot or grenade to the feet or shotgun blast at point-blank, aiming your weapon never feels efficiently precise."

games(TM) - "While Killzone is fairly satisfying, with suitably gung-ho action, there's never any variation, meaning what seems fun becomes wearisome after an hour or so."

Yahoo Games - "Without the ambitious graphics engine, Killzone's linear run-and-gun combat would vanish into the swarm of generic shooters."

eToychest - "As the game stands now, it’s just too mundane, slow and...well...gray (either literally and/or figuratively, depending on your palette preferences) to really merit much applause. "

WHAM! Gaming - "Stunning visuals, intense audio and an interesting backstory can't quite make up for the mediocre gameplay and technological glitches. "

Xequted - "Our final issue with the game is that, there is no variety in what you are doing each level changes your location, immersing you into another lush environment, but the aim is always the same; whatever Helghan party you come across – kill them and move on. "

Gamezilla - "Combat, simply put, just doesn't feel right. The pacing feels too sluggish, and as a result, is largely unexciting."

Rewiredmind - "You'll not appreciate the "on-rails" feeling that Killzone provides. You will appreciate the wonderful graphics and score that ' barring the enemy voices ' is one of the best I've heard in a long while. "

Cheat Code Central - "The FPS gameplay is a little on the mediocre side and the game is rife with flaws including a really bad slowdown glitch that permeates both the single-player and online modes."

Gamebiz - "Levels are often linear and heavily scripted."

And here is the real gem, and from IGN no less - "A decent game presented in an intriguing universe and with a stunning sense of style. Ironically though, it's the audio and visual qualities (however faulted they may sometimes be) that save the actual underwhelming gameplay of this one from utter mediocrity."

So, do you want to argue that "technical issues" are the reason this game had derivative gameplay? Were "technical issues" to blame for the god awful aiming? Were "technical reasons" the root cause off how mind numbingly slow this game was? Did "technical reasons" cause this game to be incredibly linear?

And I'll say it again - One CGI trailer and people are hyping this game with no gameplay and no real screens. Hell, we dont even know if this is a sequel or prequel to Killzone. What other game can you say this about?

Yes i am saying technical issues are the reason the gameplay suffered. When you've got a game that you are struggling to run on a ps2, then when are you supposed to get the time to refine the gameplay? The answer is you don't. If the company spent most of it's time just trying to get the game engine up to scratch then the gameplay will suffer, simple as that. And if you're having trouble aiming then you need to learn how to play a fps.