FOOD said:
sieanr said:
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" (where did I say anything about being over ambitious?) (Sorry you didn't get that I was using over ambitious as meaning the same as too ambiitious. Next time I'll refrain from expecting simple reasoning from you.)You still don't get it do you? I never said it was good to be too ambitious, I said some ambition can pay off (Grand Theft Auto, etc.) 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 (where did I say that?)(I made it blue in you're original post) I said there were hardware limitations--nothing more. I'm not blaming the hardware's limitations for technical issues. In fact, I never said anything about technical issues in my original post. Again, you're trying to read what you want to read, which is stuff that I never wrote.. 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. (As far as doing a "shitty job" on the system, maybe that's your opinion. I've seen shitty in the early 2000's, and back then I would have been glad to have seen Killzone. Regarding bugs, etc., all games have at least a minor bug in them.) (Except Killzone had an exceptionally large number of bugs. So many that reviewers actually took note of it and deducted the game accordingly. Graphical glitches are plentiful, scripting problems, ect. If KZ had come out in 2000 maybe it would've been passable... but it didn't. Reviewers are essentially critics. They write their opinions, not universal mandates for the gaming industry. My opinion, and I am a consumer, is that the game ran smooth for the most part. ) 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) (I clearly said the frame rate slowed down sometimes. I also didn't "ignore" any other issues. There's no need to exacerbate my statement. No, I'm not chalking anything up to the hardware.) (Ok. So if it isn't hardware, what is it? All along I've been arguing that it was due to an incompetent developer (Based on your logic, I'm guessing Mass Effect was developed by incompetent developers because of the game's minor frame rate issues too--regardless of the critically acclaimed aspects of the game.), which you haven't picked up on. Keep in mind that plenty of other developers had no problems making fine games on the PS2 hardware(Kudos to them).) 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. (How does this not make any sense to you? I'm simply stating it didn't get "AAA" status because their "visionaries"--if you will--couldn't get everything they wanted on the system, so consequently they came out with what they could. That's the main reason I also wrote on my original post that I'm glad to see that they are able to do what they want to do now that they are working on new hardware. I never said they exceeded what the system was capable of, so I'm not contradicting myself in any way. Again, you're making stuff up now.) (So they had a vision that couldn't be made on the PS2... yet they didn't exceed what the PS2 was capable of?(Is that not possible? Is it not possible for a vision to not be created on the PS2 and instead come out with something different?) Like it or not, when you state that they ran into technical problems (I never stated that. Again, words & mouth.)you imply that they hadn't foreseen those issues or just tried to do too much(I never implied anything beyond what I've written.). Thats not an unreasonable interpretation, and its something that should've been obvious to you when you wrote it. But again my point is that those technical issues Killzone had, framerate an otherwise, are due to GG being unable to program efficiently.) "Aw, I bought my PS2 in 2001, I need the slim PS2 model to run Killzone!" <--Never heard that. LOL no relevant It's poking fun of your argument with mockery. Poes Law - can't tell the difference between you being sincere and facetious This is in no way a theological conversation, so Poe's Law is completely irrelivant. 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. LOL you ignored this?? 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(You can't take cover as long as in Killzone. Some covers crumble after being shot so many times.). (Now you're just being inconsistent. What you should have said: KZ is not a cover and fire or a run and gun type of game, it comes down to the way you play it. :P) Not really. I could play Gears of War as a run and gun type of game, but its meant to be played as a run and cover game. You see, there is a distinction between how a game is designed to be played and how the player actually plays it. Maybe that division is a bit to subtle for you. In the context of this argument, Killzone was primarily designed to be a cover and fire game. Halo was designed to be a run and gun game. Nonetheless, anyone can play it the way they want--I'm not denying that. Just as a car can be designed for paved roads, it can still be used to drive on some dirt roads in mountains, but that doesn't mean it's considered an off-road vehicle all of the sudden. I could run and gun on Killzone all I want, but it will never change it from being what it was primarily designed to be. 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. Sweet, just ignore things you cant refute. (I wasn't planning on refuting anything in my original post. The only person who should be worrying about ignoring things to refute is you, for you are the one who is trying to argue for the sake of argument. And so far you've been doing a terrible job.) I guess its a good thing you don't argue for fun since you do an awfully shitty job by ignoring contradictory evidence. At least come up with a shell argument against this. Oh, and again you contradict you're original claim that KZ had problems because the PS2 hardware was weak (I said the PS2 was weak?) . So here it sounds like you agree with me, KZ had technical issues because the developer lacked talent. [1) I never said the PS2 hardware was weak. 2) Never said the developer lacked talent. Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I'm not even remotely insinuating these words either.] Again, you said there where technical limitations which mean a failing (No, this is terribly wrong. Using this logic, you're implying that all hardware with any limits whatsoever are failing hardware. I also never implied that the PS2 was weak. I simply said it had its limitations, just as any supercomputer in the known universe does.) on the hardware end, meaning its weak. Its not putting words in you're mouth, its twisting you're argument against you[Lol! You're doing a great job!(Sarcasm)]. You said that it wasn't due to inadequate hardware, so I extended you're argument to encompass a solution; bad developers. Sorry that you missed how that wasn't meant to be taken literally. I thought it was fairly clear what I was doing, but I guess I'll have to spell things out. (I'm taking things literally in this argument because I'm not planning to fall for your bad argument. You lost, deal with it.) 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. Hey, lookie here, another thing you just ignored. 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. [I managed to finish the game without being hindered due to technical issues, so it was a complete game to me. I'm guessing you must have played an unfinished beta copy.] You must use the definition of hindered loosely. Given the graphical problems and plethora of bugs, I'd say the unfinished beta is what ended up on store shelves. (You can consider "hindered" and "plethora of bugs" to be relative to the gamer. I consider being hindered due to technical issues to be a situation in which the game cannot be passed due to said technical issues. I consider a plethora of bugs to be as many bugs as the ones found in the Warhawk beta.) 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. I didn't disprove anything but your seriously flawed argument. You may want to work on your consistency for future arguments. And I suggest that you should work on the reading comprehension and understand what people are getting at. You can start with realizing that not everything is meant lterally. (But by taking things litterally I'm beating you at this argument.) |
"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. This is completely out of context. Don't extend the argument beyond what it was originally. Hardly. You said that GG will make KZ2 everything that KZ1 was not(Never said that. Fallacy.). If they overextended themselves before, then what is to stop them from doing the same again? Again you just ignore an argument you don't have a good answer to (I'm ignoring arguments about things that don't pertain to what I've stated. If you want to argue, go to a philosophical forum. I'm pretty sure there's plenty of people there who'd love to argue about issues.). |
Point out where I said anything about being "over ambitious." I said something about ambition, but no where did I state anything about being over ambitious. So you argue over schematics when you just didn't understand something. Cool. I did not state anyting about Killzone getting "bad scores" due to technical issues. I did, however, state that there were console limitations. So in what way was I stating that there were technical issues? A technical issue in the context of this argument would be the game not running, or running at a horrible frame rate like DOOM 3 in 1996 would. No. Technical issues are any technical problem; framerate, graphical glitches, AI, ect. You did mention framerate, which you implied was due to the console not being powerful enough when you said it was a technical limitation. Really, it shouldn't be hard for you to understand why someone would interpret what you said that way since you never made that reasoning clear. Then again, my entire point was that the developer couldn't optimize the game properly and not any sort of technical limitation, something you still haven't properly addressed. Get it? I did understand your stupid DOOM 3 analogy. That analogy is half of what makes your argument completely pointless. Killzone runs on the PS2 smoothly, so what's your point about Guerilla making a game that doesn't run on the hardware? It was designed and built for the PS2 alone, and it would be just plain retarded if it didn't run on the PS2. Actually it started off as a PC project and GG did release their other, concurrent PC game on that platform. The fact of the matter is the game does not run smoothly, as you mention framerates, and there are technical issues galore. And again you contradict yourself by stating that the game runs smoothly here, but mentioning framerates earlier. Since you don't like the doom argument, heres a better one; Using you're logic Trespasser is a brilliant game. I never stated that the console was the cause of the game running poorly. Again, I stated that the console had limitations. You're basically putting words in my mouth, and I'm not even insinuating anything beyond what I've been saying. Your whole argument is completely flawed--especially when you put words in my mouth. If you want to argue for the sake of argument, go to a philosophy forum and try to debunk a treatise of some sort. Oh please You said that poor framerate was due to hardware limitation, yet you expect people to understand that the games technical problems weren't due to hardware? Then you make things even more baffling by claiming that the developer wasn't at fault... meaning that you haven't come up with any reason for why the game ran poorly. To make matters worse you contend that the "technical limitation" wasn't due to weak hardware and just turn it into some ill defined generality that allows you to marginalize the games problems and appoint the blame to what is essentially nothing. Talk about brilliant reasoning. But I digress. Once again you miss the point entirely. What I've been saying all along is that these technical problems are rampant in the game because GG just didn't have the talent to pull off what they were going for, such as finding a way around those "technical limitations" that cause the framerate troubles. For some reason you haven't addressed this.... Let's recap for future reference here. My first post's summary by paragraph: 1) I questioned Surfer Girl's credibility and experience with Killzone 2 and Resistance 2 because neither of the games have been released. 2) Praised Insomniac and saying it's too early for Surfer Girl to be making irrational statements. 3) Expressed my opinion that Killzone 1 was a good game. Didn't think it got AAA status because of hardware limitations (never stated there were technical issues because of the PS2). So what the hell caused those technical issues? Gremlins? When you say there where technical limitations you imply that its the hardware unless you specify otherwise (No when I say there were technical limitations, I'm implying not everything can be done with the hardware. That is in no way implying anything about technical issues.). Said Guerilla never called their own game the "Halo killer" and that it was someone else. Said Halo and Killzone where both FPS's, but had different aspects in gameplay. Said it's essentially like comparing CoD4 to Bioshock. 4) Praised Guerilla's art direction and visionaries. Stated that the programmers have the potential to make a great game. Expressed my relief of how smoothly KZ2 is running so far from what has been seen. 5) Said that KZ2's massive budge might pay off in the long run. 6) Started to think the blog was just slandering. Now, read my first post and point out where I said anything about "over ambitious." Again, just read over what I wrote and try to comprehend what I said. In no way did I ever claim you said it was over ambitious in you're original post. I brought up that the game was, and you tried to refute that in you're second post, which is what I responded to. you seem confused about this for no real reason.(You were criticising my argument based on too much ambition. That's why i had to point out I never said anything about too much ambition whatsoever.) I didn't even use the word ambition in any tense. Read all of my posts and point out where I blamed anything for KZ's technical issues. Thats the root of the problem, you never specify where those problems come from because they sure as hell didn't appear out of thin air (My job isn't to specify any technical issues. My original post had nothing to do with pointing out specific technical issues. Talk to the developers for that). All I stated was that the console had limitations. That's all, nothing more, nothing less, and no insinuations. Your argument is just completely hostile, inconsistent, and seriously fallacious when you put words in my mouth. You're just punching air now, and there's no need for you to continue. FOOD + 1 sieanr -2 Hahaha I guess you don't count the things you were wrong about or just ignore against you. Wrong again.
FOOD +2 sieanr -3 (Don't be a lawyer.) |
