Never have played the game. 60$ is just too much for a 5 hour game with no multiplayer and little replay value.

Who cares if it is casual or not. Plenty of people like me enjoy the game. At the end, people is happy with their purchase and they are leaving a lot of money for Nintendo.

Just because you don't like the game doesn't mean that others won't like it. 

Nah. I never ask about what console someone owns. However my friends don't reply with things like "omg fuck you fanboyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!"

No. I did it because you said "all the big RPG franchises are coming to 360/ps3" while in fact NONE of them are coming to the 360. ALL of them are going to Wii, Ps3, DS or Psp. Not 360

I also listed games coming in 09 for the ps3 (FF13, RE 5) try to READ FOR ONCE.

About Galaxy : exactly, just came out, we still have to see how much it sells vs some of the big ps3 games coming (MGS4, GTA 4)

I said:

You said:

However you posted this before...

I just lol'd

Why are they bigger ? I will bet you a 6 month ban (or even better, a perma ban just the whole site can get rid of you) that Brawl + Mario Kart + Galaxy are going to outsell MGS 4 + GTA 4 + LBP (or any other ps3 game coming out in the first half of 08 that you want to use for the bet)

Hopefully you will accept this bet.

No is not a matter of opinion. Is a matter of FACTS. The Nintendo franchises, in fact, have sold more than sony franchises in the past. Pokemon and Mario are much bigger franchises that anything coming for the ps3. We don't need opinions on this, as sales data easily backups my argument.

And it wasn't an insult. If you say that i don't know anything about baseball i won't get offended, because in fact, i don't know anything about baseball.

You are still attacking people ? remember that you were warned already.

I played lair, believe it or not even if the controls were good the story sucked. And the combat sucked. I played it on my psp as well..

"""There was a playable Killzone 2 demo? Oh wait no, it just had some game trailers. The game looks beautiful so it must be fun right? LAIR."""

no, some guys had some access to the demo level and saied it was ok (frame rate/control etc ...).
i dont think it can be compared to Lair

Actually, EGM gave Killzone 2 the dumbest A.I. award after having played it. Kotoku also mentioned the A.I. was dumb as nails

Gameinformer played it, and they said that ps3 owners atleast have one AAA title for 2008.

http://kotaku.com/gaming/notag/killzone-2-hands-on-293495.php


After sitting through a short and familiar presentation of Killzone 2 at the Games Convention last week I was finally given a chance to play the game.

Before handing over the controller, the developers explained that in the game you play as Sef, a legionnaire called in to help quell the resistance on the Helghast home world of Helghan as the regular army fights to topple the Helghast leader.

The pointed out the various filters used in the game to give the world a darker, more realistic look and talked a bit about the game's new first-person lean and peek system which allows you to stick to walls and then pop-out to shoot, without ever leaving the first-person perspective.

Killzone 2 is ever bit as visually stunning while playing it as I remembered it being while watching the E3 demonstration. The lighting is moody and atmospheric, there's a level of detail in the game that is very reminiscent of Resistance: Fall of Man. Effects, plenty of interesting effects, abound. The end of your gun, for instance, is slightly blurred. Lightning, on the level we were shown, constantly rips through the air above and none of it appears pre-canned. And that attention to detail didn't come cheap. The single level shown at the Games Convention, the same shown during E3, sucked up 2GB of space on the Blu-ray disc.

The controls were very tight. I had no trouble targeting head-shots and popping off rounds at enemy troopers and then ducking back behind columns or walls. The movements in the game also felt fairly solid, I never seemed to get stuck anywhere and was able to dance around in fire fights with no trouble at all. The death animations for the bad guys were a bit over the top, but not so bad as to be distracting.

While the game seems to have enormous potential, mostly because of it's over-the-top look and solid mechanics, I was very disappointed in Killzone 2's artificial intelligence system. The team said they knew that AI was a problem in the original Killzone, so they did a lot of work on it. They said they now operate in groups, can recognize destructible environments and respond to fire, but it didn't seem that way to me.

As I watched someone else play the game, I saw bad guys doing things like standing in the middle of an open door exchanging rapid-fire shots with the player, never bothering to move or get out of the way. Then I gave the game a hand and found enemies standing around, standing with their sides to me as I walked up to them. In one case, there were two bad guys standing next to each other. I walked up to them from the side, shot the first guy several times to kill him and then shot the second guy a single time. He didn't respond. I shot him again, nothing. So I killed him.

I asked the team what the game's difficultly was set on and they said medium to hard. After an awkward pause, one of the developers added, "but it's very early and we're still working on the AI."

I'm not saying that the game is deeply flawed, just that the AI is. Fortunately, they've got plenty of time to work on that and I suspect up until now their top priority has been graphics. Now that they've got that pretty polished I suspect they'll move on to AI.

The AI is the only problem. They better do something about it then.

Dan Hsu defending the dumbest A.I. award given to Killzone 2

http://www.1up.com/do/my1Up?publicUserId=5379799&pager.offset=6


But is it fair to pick Halo 3 because you guys actually got a chance to play it? Versus Killzone 2, which was only on demo, played by the developers.
Good question, but no...our previous hands-on experience with Halo 3 (for our last cover story) did not factor into the voting. Very few of us actually played single-player Halo 3 when we did our cover story, and when I voted, I kept that game time out of mind for these awards. I based my best/worst A.I. votes purely on what was shown to me at E3...and Halo 3 and Killzone 2 were both on equal grounds there. Both were not playable by us, only played for us by their respective developers, and based on those E3 demos and those demos alone, we voted the way we did. I saw excellent A.I. from Halo 3 specifically from the E3 demo, and I saw an extreme example of bad A.I. from Killzone 2 (see below)...also at E3. That's why I voted for those two games for those respective categories.

But there's gotta be some other, lesser-profile games with worse A.I. than Killzone 2.
Based on what we've seen and what we voted on, totally fairly, Killzone 2 nabbed the award. Part of the problem is, the Killzone 2 showed some very noticeable flaws. It wasn't like the enemies were just standing around. Like we mentioned in the write-up, the bad guys were actually jumping out of cover to get *in* the line of fire. It's like they wanted to get shot. That alone, unfortunately, made Killzone 2 look worse (A.I.-wise) than it probably is.

So you guys hate Killzone 2, huh?
Shut up, you stupid FAQ man. The write-up in EGM greatly compliments Killzone 2 as a whole. We're just making fun of one specific thing: that whole "jumping out of cover" business.

OK, then you must hate Sony.
Heh, check out how many good awards the company picked up in the same feature. Oh by the way--this should be obvious, but in case you didn't know, moneyhats are mutually exclusive. You can't accept one from Microsoft *AND* Sony at the same time. It's in the contracts.

Oh by the way again--this should be obvious, but in case you didn't know, I was joking just now.

Isn't it unfair to compare a game that's still months away from release (Killzone 2) to a game that's almost finished (Halo 3)?
Oh, for sure, but that's part of the problem for any E3 judging...all games are at different points in their development. But we still have E3 awards in EGM. We still have our annual E3 opinionated guide in EGM. The industry even has its own E3 awards. Are all of them fair? No...not if you look at how far along each individual title is in its development. But then again, yes...the companies are putting these products out for the media to see, and as we've done many times in the past, we'll judge them (knowing full well they're incomplete games). So in the context of these being E3 games and E3 demos, we're treating them all equally and as fairly as possible.