By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Killzone 2 is "barely mediocre"? (According to Surfer Girl it is...)

PooperScooper on 30 January 2008
ChronotriggerJM said:
Meh I think Killzone 2 is going to be friggin awesome, it's already a damn tech demo, and from what I've seen so far it will be more than adequate. Naysayer's should really learn to not give a crap lol.

QFE



Around the Network
tk1797 on 30 January 2008

Lets wait until the game is actually out. It'll be out this year right? So the wait isn't even that long.



 

makingmusic476 on 30 January 2008

Insomniac is an independent studio, so why would they resent Guerrilla for getting a large budget from Sony? Sony is in no position to give such funds to Insomniac, outside of advertising and publishing. It's not like Sony chose to give the money to Guerrilla instead of Insomniac. Insomniac has been in a position where Sony would gladly take them on as first party for years now, but they have refused, choosing their independence instead (while still receiving plenty of support from Sony via other means).

The only reason Insomniac would be jealous of Guerrilla is if they felt that Resistance 2 deserves more hype than KZ2 from gamers, and they feel that it is not getting near enough.

Either way, I call this BS.



Munkeh111 on 30 January 2008
Dallinor said:

ultraslick said:

But what it really seems to get alot of crap for was its sparse use of color. I thought that it looked very artistic and cool. parts of the game where the situation looked the bleakest seemed to have an almost black and white filter over it. I remember one level distinctly where fthe Hellghast are seemingly everywhere, it is black and white ish, then you come across a park.

No hellghast in sight,  and as you are going through this area, there are dogwood? trees everywhere. All of which are shedding the pink cotton into the air.

It was beautiful. A firefight ensues in this area, I think it has a heavy symbolism to the plot.. 


I remember that section well. It was probably the most memorable part of the whole game for me. The firefight amongst the peach blossom trees...beautiful really.

As for the quality of KZ2. PS3 fans can take some comfort in the knowledge that Killzone Liberations was a clear step up from it's predecessor.

From Wikipedia: "Unlike its predecessor, which received mediocre reviews, Liberation was received with overall positive reviews. It was said to be extremely difficult even on the easiest level of difficulty but still very enjoyable, if frustrating at times."

Also KZ2 won quite a few awards when publicly shown at E3, and garnered overall quite positive reviews from those that played the test demo.

I completely agree with you, I actually enjoyed the first game quite a bit, and I loved Liberation, it is just very hard, I completed the four chapters on the UMD on medium, but I tried the 5th chapter and died, and haven't got back to it, but it was a great game. I am really looking forward to KZ 2

 



sieanr on 31 January 2008
FOOD said:
sieanr said:
FOOD said:
sieanr said:
FOOD said: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.) But you didn't say that there were any real problems because of it, so how the hell do you think people would take what you said?

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..  So what do you attribute the games technical issues to? Thats all I'd really like to know.

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.) And my point is reviewers are far more qualified than most consumers, and that the general consensus is the games technical problems are something many people took issue with. Just because you didn't have a problem with it means others didn't, after all you can always find someone who thinks shit doesn't stink.

(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.) It was sure as hell rushed to market like no other. And Bioware has a history of producing buggy products even when given all the time in the world, and mass effect has plenty. The game is good, but bogged down by some serious technical issues so their developers definitely aren't the most capable., 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 this doesn't matter since you would have been amazed by KZ in 2000, right? 

(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?) Certainly. But you stated that the "technical limitations" held the game back form "AAA" status, despite the fact reviewers panned its substandard gameplay, meaning that they did try something beyond the hardware - or that what they come up for the PS2 was poorly realized. Like it or not, when you state that they ran into technical problems (I never stated that. Again, words & mouth.) Sorry, techincal limitations - more or less the same thing when you take into account the preceding "ran into" meaning that the hardware gave them trouble.  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.) Maybe not intentionally, but you have to understand that just about every statement implies things not mentioned in it - and this is definitly the case when you aren't very clear or explicit, as you were in the original post. 

This is in no way a theological conversation, so Poe's Law is completely irrelivant. Poes law in the internet sense. In this instance it means its impossibly to tell when you're being serious and when you're being facetious.

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.No it wasn't. The cover elements are not a major part of the game, and the developers themselves have stated that KZ was primarily a run and gun game, as KZ2 will be.

(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.)Yet you keep replying to this? Seems to me like you're just as much of a part as I am at keeping this thing going. Funny how you haven't addressed any points where you have been proven wrong, yet you try to refute other things.. all while not arguing.

(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.) Not quite. You said that the software was not at fault for the framerate and due to technical limitations. So ii the software is fine, it must mean that the hardware wasn't powerful enough to handle the game. Its not putting word in you're mouth, its taking what you stated and extending. 

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)].I thought you weren't arguing or addressing things not relevant to your original statement. Doesn't this fall under that? 

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.) I have coping issues 

 

(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.) So AI thats dumb as a rock is OK by you? That sort of thing doesn't get in your way when it comes to enjoying a game? Having a building five feet away have severe texture pop in is alright, since it doesn't stop you from finishing? I remember far more bugs in KZ than in the Warhawk beta.

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.) Except you miss the point entirely... 

"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.). Sorry. 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.). This pertains to what you've said entirely. You stated that GG has the potential to make KZ2 great, and has the resources to accomplish it. I'm only asking you why the developer will not fall into many of the same pitfalls they did last time, because most of this hype is unwarranted. 


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.Still ignoring this...

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.... Sill ignoring this whole line of reasoning. 

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.). You're skirting around the issue yet again. My point is the developer was an idiot to try things that the hardware couldn't handle - you've never replied to this.

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. No. You said that the game missed AAA due to the technical limitations of the PS2. I criticized that point, making note that a developer who tries something beyond the hardware is a bad one, aka one who is "too ambitious". I was never quoting you.

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. And my point has been that GG is a bad developer for trying something that the hardware couldn't handle. Saying thats its "technical limitations" is ignoring the developers part in things. Get it? 

 

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. If you say so, kid. Remember the part where you said KZ was developed for the PS2 from the start? Or how GG said they released the game before they were ready?

FOOD +2 (avoid working with scoreboards)

sieanr -3 (Don't be a lawyer.)


 


 


It boils down to this; Killzone was an average FPS dragged down to below average by a plethora of technical issues. You've addressed the framerate by calling it a "technical limitation" and have ignored the rest because you seem to be fine with a buggy, glitchy game - what a great argument.

My point has been this; If the reason KZ had problems is because the game couldn't be realized on the PS2, the whole technical limitations bit, then the developer is incompetent because they attempted something beyond the platform.

 

FOOD +2

Sieanr +9001 



Leo-j said: If a dvd for a pc game holds what? Crysis at 3000p or something, why in the world cant a blu-ray disc do the same?

ssj12 said: Player specific decoders are nothing more than specialized GPUs. Gran Turismo is the trust driving simulator of them all. 

"Why do they call it the xbox 360? Because when you see it, you'll turn 360 degrees and walk away" 

Around the Network
Gnizmo on 31 January 2008
Mars said:
Gnizmo said:
Mars said:
sieanr said:
 

"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.


Um maybe casue Killzone1 was a PC game untill half way through development it changed to PS2

K2 is PS3 only from the ground up right from the start.

 


A good developer can change platforms twice and still create a FPS that defines the genre for two generations at least.


 LMAO

 id bet iam not the only one that got a good laugh from that one.


 The truth is often very funny. Just ask Bungie. I hear they have a great sense of humor.



Starcraft 2 ID: Gnizmo 229

ckmlb on 31 January 2008
ClaudeLv250 said:
It's not really that much of a shock, I mean this is Killzone 2 we're talking about.

Oh so you've played the game?

Thanks to Blacksaber for the sig!

makingmusic476 on 31 January 2008
Gnizmo said:
Mars said:
Gnizmo said:
Mars said:
sieanr said:
 

"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.


Um maybe casue Killzone1 was a PC game untill half way through development it changed to PS2

K2 is PS3 only from the ground up right from the start.

 


A good developer can change platforms twice and still create a FPS that defines the genre for two generations at least.


LMAO

id bet iam not the only one that got a good laugh from that one.


The truth is often very funny. Just ask Bungie. I hear they have a great sense of humor.


Since when is Halo genre defining, let alone for 2+ generations?

Bungie's own Marathon series is more genre defining, as they were the first to implement dual weilding. 



ckmlb on 31 January 2008

@Making: genre defining for console FPS.



Thanks to Blacksaber for the sig!

FOOD on 31 January 2008
sieanr said:
FOOD said:
sieanr said:
FOOD said:
sieanr said:
But you didn't say that there were any real problems because of it, so how the hell do you think people would take what you said? I would expect people to read carefuly and not assume implications beyond what's being said. 

So what do you attribute the games technical issues to? Thats all I'd really like to know. I'm not attributing any technical issues to anyone or anything. That's not what the original post was about, so it's completely irrelivant. The fact that you've been picking an argument for something offtopic is what makes your argument completely stupid. If you wanted to know what I thought was responsible for any technical issues, you could have got a hold of me privately.

And my point is reviewers are far more qualified than most consumers, and that the general consensus is the games technical problems are something many people took issue with. Just because you didn't have a problem with it means others didn't, after all you can always find someone who thinks shit doesn't stink. Reviewers are more qualified to be consumers than consumers? Or do you mean that their opinions are more valid than the consumer's? Never heard this before. I thought reviewers were more qualified to review games, but I never thought their opinions were more valid than others. I know some other people took issue with some minor technical issues, but the fact of the matter is I never said no one didn't take issues with them.   

Certainly. But you stated that the "technical limitations" held the game back form "AAA" status, despite the fact reviewers panned its substandard gameplay, meaning that they did try something beyond the hardware - or that what they come up for the PS2 was poorly realized. To the best of my knowledge, there's no proof that they did infact actually try to come up with anything beyond the hardware's limitations or realized what they had created was poorly realized. They may have just came up with an idea, but never actually tried it, thus coming up with a different game. 

Sorry, techincal limitations - more or less the same thing when you take into account the preceding "ran into"(I certainly never said anything about running into anything)  meaning that the hardware gave them trouble. Technical limitations are different from technical issues, thus having different words being used to tell each other apart.

Maybe not intentionally, but you have to understand that just about every statement implies things not mentioned in it - and this is definitly the case when you aren't very clear or explicit, as you were in the original post. I didn't even imply anything unintentionally.  If you did have a problem with me not being clear or explicit, you could have simply said something allong the lines of, "FOOD, you're not clear or explicit. Can you ellaborate more? That way, if it turns out to be one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard, then I could argue with you."  You jumped the gun  about things  I  wasn't implying, and that's what makes your argument completely pointless.

Poes law in the internet sense. In this instance it means its impossibly to tell when you're being serious and when you're being facetious. Give me a link that shows that there is an internet sense to Poe's Law. Maybe then I'd believe you.

No it wasn't. The cover elements are not a major part of the game, and the developers themselves have stated that KZ was primarily a run and gun game, as KZ2 will be. We're both being partial on this one. Some characters are stealthy, like that one chick with the silenced weapon, and some characters are designed for the run and gun type of combat, as it's the case with Rico. So, the game was essentially designed for both. 

Yet you keep replying to this? Seems to me like you're just as much of a part as I am at keeping this thing going. Funny how you haven't addressed any points where you have been proven wrong, yet you try to refute other things.. all while not arguing. Of course I keep replying, I'm a part of this argument because you keep arguing with me. Of course I'm arguing with you. Would you have expected me to hang my head and say you're right about something you're clearly not? Of course I'm not going to address the points in which I'm wrong, because so far  I haven't been wrong in this argument. Maybe partially with the run and gun part, but nothing you weren't guilty of either. Besides, it would be pretty fallacious for you to shift the burden of proving myself wrong--you're the one who started this mess.

Not quite. You said that the software was not at fault for the framerate and due to technical limitations. So ii the software is fine, it must mean that the hardware wasn't powerful enough to handle the game. Its not putting word in you're mouth, its taking what you stated and extending. Taking something I didn't say and then extending it is basically putting words in my mouth. I can't believe you haven't realized it yet. I haven't blamed anything for the framerate. Do I have someone or something to blame? Yes, but I haven't sated who or what. So, youre putting words in my mouth, whether you realize it or not. 

I thought you weren't arguing or addressing things not relevant to your original statement. Doesn't this fall under that? Not quite.

I have coping issues :'(

So AI thats dumb as a rock is OK by you? That sort of thing doesn't get in your way when it comes to enjoying a game? Having a building five feet away have severe texture pop in is alright, since it doesn't stop you from finishing? I remember far more bugs in KZ than in the Warhawk beta. Maybe they were dumb as rock, but I clearly remember those dumbass rocks shooting me with futuristic weapons. lol I never saw a building with severe texture pop-in. What I didn't see didn't bother me.

Except you miss the point entirely... I understand your point, and it didn't have anything to do what I've said.

Sorry. I'ts okay. 

This pertains to what you've said entirely. You stated that GG has the potential to make KZ2 great, and has the resources to accomplish it. I'm only asking you why the developer will not fall into many of the same pitfalls they did last time, because most of this hype is unwarranted. 

I haven't played the PS3 version, so I wouldn't know what pitfalls they will or will not fall into. All I'm saying is that they have the potential to make a great game.  


Actually it started off as a PC project and GG did release their other, concurrent PC game on that platform. Source, and maybe then I'll believe you. 

The fact of the matter is the game does not run smoothly, as you mention framerates, and there are technical issues galore. I also stated that they didn't hinder me up to the point where I couldn't pass it, and I ended up enjoying the game. 

And again you contradict yourself by stating that the game runs smoothly here, but mentioning framerates earlier. No, I said it ran smooth for me for the most part, not completely. 

Since you don't like the doom argument, heres a better one; Using you're logic Trespasser is a brilliant game. Still ignoring this... You didn't paint it with a pretty color and I missed it. Anyway, I've never played Trespasser, so I don't know what to tell you there. 

You said that poor framerate was due to hardware limitation(Didn't say this), 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 (Didn't claim this) that the developer wasn't at fault... meaning that you haven't come up with any reason for why the game ran poorly (I simply haven't come up with any reason because the game didn't run "poorly" for me. Even if it did, I'm not in the position to point out what went wrong because I don't know. I do, however, have an idea as to who or what to blame, but I havent said who or what yet.). To make matters worse you contend that the "technical limitation" wasn't due to weak (Never called the hardware "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 (I didn't blame anything because my post wasn't about blaming things.). 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 (Maybe they just didn't have the budget to do it? Are you truly in a position to say that they didn't have talent? I mean, there could be numerous factors other than talent.), such as finding a way around those "technical limitations" that cause the framerate troubles. For some reason you haven't addressed this.... Sill ignoring this whole line of reasoning. Again, you didn't color it, so I missed it.  

You're skirting around the issue yet again.(Because I said nothing about your issues in my original post. That's whave I've been pointing for a long time.) My point is the developer was an idiot to try things that the hardware couldn't handle (Do you have proof that they did try something the hardware couldn't handle?) - you've never replied to this.

No. You said that the game missed AAA due to the technical limitations of the PS2. I criticized that point (Using arguments that didn't pertain to anything that I said.), making note that a developer who tries something beyond the hardware is a bad one, aka one who is "too ambitious". I was never quoting you.

And my point has been that GG is a bad developer for trying something that the hardware couldn't handle. Saying thats its "technical limitations" is ignoring the developers part in things. Get it? Wrong, I wasn't ignoring the developers, I simply didn't mention them. All I said is that there were hardware limitations. Just like I haven't mentioned my dog at any point, but that doesn't mean I've been ignoring him. I just didn't mention him. Get it?

If you say so, kid. Remember the part where you said KZ was developed for the PS2 from the start? Or how GG said they released the game before they were ready? (You still haven't proven either of those. I need sources.) 



 


 


It boils down to this; Killzone was an average FPS dragged down to below average by a plethora of technical issues. You've addressed the framerate by calling it a "technical limitation" (There you go again. No, I didn't address the framerate by calling it a technical limitation.) and have ignored the rest because you seem to be fine with a buggy, glitchy game - what a great argument (What else can I say? I like the game and it played smooth on my PS2--therefore, I'm okay with it.).

My point has been this; If the reason KZ had problems is because the game couldn't be realized on the PS2, the whole technical limitations bit, then the developer is incompetent because they attempted something beyond the platform. (Thats your opinion, and I'm not going to touch that. My point has been this; you've been using your opinion to argue with my original post, which had nothing to do with your argument. In your arguments, you've constantly declared I stated things I didn't even say, and then tried to capitalize on those things I didn't say. That's what makes your argument stupid. I'm not critisicing your opinion--you're entitled to it--but I am critisicing your argument. All I did was post some  little post about Surfer Girl slandering, and then you tried to twist it into something comletely different.) 

FOOD +2

Sieanr (Disqualified) 


 



zeitgeistmovie.com

PS3 Trophies