It's showing 10 posts per page (same as vgchartz default).

Um...there are definitely not 119 pages, there are 119 replies.

Oh, and put it on 50. Less clicking, more scrolling.

Um...there are definitely not 119 pages, there are 119 replies.

Oh, and put it on 50. Less clicking, more scrolling.

I guess we're looking at different threads. I am looking at this one:

http://boardsus.playstation.com/playstation/board/message?board.id=killzone2&thread.id=143456

And here is page #119:

http://boardsus.playstation.com/playstation/board/message?board.id=killzone2&thread.id=143456&view=by_date_ascending&page=119

If it is server based, it really does not need a party system. On a server based online system, you would just look for available servers, join one, send an invite to your friends, hope the server does not fill up, and then game on. Then, once the match is over, depending on how they implemented it, the teams would be randomized, and you would hope your friends are on your team.

The party system is only really necessary if there is a matchmaking system. Matchmaking takes you and your party and matches you against other different parties after every match, and base the match ups on a ranking system. This is what Halo 2 implemented and M$ thought it was so great that they embedded it directly into Live's backbone. This is much easier to implement with a p2p system.

It is mainly a preference over these two systems as to whether parties are necessary. I have not played KZ2 so I do not know if it is server based or matchmaking based.

This should have ended the thread.

As long as you can invite firends to your game, a party system doesn't matter.

The controls have been discussed to death.

the control is about lag, this video will illustrate it clearly

and ps3 controller used in this video are connected via usb,
it is the lag. and sometimes it doesn't respond

Controller lag test in Killzone 2 demo

A whole 0.167 seconds? How the hell did he survive! That's plain awful! The game deserves a 2!

5 frames? Seriously? That's nothing. If you can't survive 0.167 seconds without pressing the trigger, you're probably not as good at shooters as you think you are.

And as for the not responding...sigh. Who does that? Flicks the stick? He probably put aiming sensitivity on minimum, for one.

I think the problem is that people have spent years getting good at "The FPS", and as a game comes with a different strategy, they can't bear all of their time going to waste. If it's that bad, why doesn't everyone hate it? Why does it get so much love, from reviewers and gamers alike?

I wish people would stop whining.

By the way, dejelek, I don't have you down as the least biased person on this site...weren't you the one who posted those horrible low res screenshots of Killzone 2 and the bullshots of Halo 3, and said Halo 3 looked better?

Actually, "nothing" would be 0 frames of lag.

" If you can't survive 0.167 seconds without pressing the trigger."

Did you watch the video, read the comment, or use your common sense at all? I am not even sure what you are referring to. The fact is that you push the trigger button, and five frames later the screen indicates it has received your command. That is way too long. How is that realistic, anyways? Have you ever fired a gun? Is there a .167 second delay in reality?

I know you wish people would stop whining. I wish people would stop blindly defending a game that has noticeable lag and claim that lagged aiming = realism. Halo 3, Resistance 2, the Call of Duty games, and even games like Half-life 2 and Crysis manage to have widely differing experiences and still have fun, crisp aiming and firing of weapons. Why mess with a winning mechanic that is fundamentally essential, that is, the screen does what I tell it to do when I tell it to do it.