ShinmenTakezo said:
I don't agree with you on KZ, but that is your opinion. I'm just confused because there is no doubt that Battlefield's sp is more of the same. Military shooters are a dime a dozen, but sci-fi shooters aren't as abundant. Other than art and design, what else makes something sci-fi? Anything that is tech driven and isn't based in reality is sci-fi. KZ has intergalactic space wars, robots and plenty of other tech that doesn't exist. It is all sci-fi. It can't be anything else. I don't see how something can be dressed as sci-fi. Either it is sci-fi or it isn't. Now it might not be the type of sci-fi you enjoy, but it is sci-fi. |
The key thinsgs that drew me o BF4 is the characters, brilliant scripting and quality of performances shown in the 15min reveal demo. I personally was gripped to story sections, military FPSs are not my thing but strong stories are, having the visual WOW factor helps too. Its same reason why I love Uncharted despite the fact that the gameplay at its core looks mediocre.
Comparatively KZ appears souless to me, nothing about it seems human at the moment. Its just a game where you shoot bad guys. I don't think it looks bad, BF4 just looks more interesting.
Gameplay wise I'm sure BF4 will be predictable but hopefully it'll be extremely well executed. The pacing looks great, destructable environments look fun ( I know its limited in SP) and the multiple looks super impressive.
With the Sci Fi comment, I personally deem good sci-fi to be experiences where the science is explored, where its crutial to the plot and where the world has been well thought out with its own concepts of science. Essentially good sci-fi equates to more than just an artstyle. I haven't played the previous KZ games (or the previous BF games), but I'm just going off what I've seen so far.
