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

Forums - Sony - What is so special about Killzone 2?

makingmusic476 on 08 February 2009
The_vagabond7 said:
makingmusic476 said:
The_vagabond7 said:

This man speaks with reason.

 

This topic scares me, I must go now.

 

 

Outside of Twingo and maybe Skeeuk, I'm not seeing too many "rabid fanboys" "hammering" the OP.  I don't see what's so scary.

Honestly, this thread seems to be full of three types of people:

1. People defending the game (or simply stating why the enjoyed it).

2. People going "OMG the fanboys are attacking anybody who doesn't like the game!" (This is slightly exaggerated, of course, but their comments seem to be greatly exaggerating the contents of the thread.)

3. People not really adding anything to the thread, like those saying nothing more than "I agree" or "ANOTHER thread about the demo!?"

 

Alright, hold that thought...

 

"Fear 2?  Surely you're joking right.  I play Fear 2 and I feel like it's an N64 game.  The textures are absolutely atrocious.  The gameplay is bland and boring.   Honestly,  you must not be a big shooter fan if you honestly enjoyed Fear 2's demo more than KZ2. 

I just don't see how anyone could remotely have that opinion."

"Opinions are so stupid. We should just agree with you instead."

 

"I just think it's a horrible opinion.  When a big reasoning for your discontent with a game is "Kill Zone's graphics are 'okay'" and Fear 2 leaves you with a good impression?  Please.  Any objective person clearly would say Kill Zone 2 blows Fear 2's graphics out of the water. "

 

Yep, no over exagerated fanboy rage here... (keep in mind, the guy he was talking to never said Fear 2 had better graphics, merely that he like the demo better). Carry on.

 

Those posts happened after my post...

:P



Around the Network
Rpruett on 08 February 2009
The_vagabond7 said:
makingmusic476 said:
The_vagabond7 said:

This man speaks with reason.

 

This topic scares me, I must go now.

 

 

Outside of Twingo and maybe Skeeuk, I'm not seeing too many "rabid fanboys" "hammering" the OP.  I don't see what's so scary.

Honestly, this thread seems to be full of three types of people:

1. People defending the game (or simply stating why the enjoyed it).

2. People going "OMG the fanboys are attacking anybody who doesn't like the game!" (This is slightly exaggerated, of course, but their comments seem to be greatly exaggerating the contents of the thread.)

3. People not really adding anything to the thread, like those saying nothing more than "I agree" or "ANOTHER thread about the demo!?"

 

Alright, hold that thought...

 

"Fear 2?  Surely you're joking right.  I play Fear 2 and I feel like it's an N64 game.  The textures are absolutely atrocious.  The gameplay is bland and boring.   Honestly,  you must not be a big shooter fan if you honestly enjoyed Fear 2's demo more than KZ2. 

I just don't see how anyone could remotely have that opinion."

"Opinions are so stupid. We should just agree with you instead."

 

"I just think it's a horrible opinion.  When a big reasoning for your discontent with a game is "Kill Zone's graphics are 'okay'" and Fear 2 leaves you with a good impression?  Please.  Any objective person clearly would say Kill Zone 2 blows Fear 2's graphics out of the water. "

 

Yep, no over exagerated fanboy rage here... (keep in mind, the guy he was talking to never said Fear 2 had better graphics, merely that he like the demo better). Carry on.

 

 

 

Speaking of fanboy rage.  Is that you in several posts crying about Kill Zone 2 being involved in them?  Ah yes.  Spare me your BS.

 

I don't care if he doesn't like Kill Zone 2.  That is his opinion.  I just think it's a horrible one to have.   No opinion is wrong or right,  although you can have certainly an odd opinion.    For example,  I could say Haze is just a better game graphically and fun wise compared to Gears of War 2.    Certainly most people would disagree with me and it would be a very unpopular opinion to hold.

 

The point about the graphics is simple.  If you think Kill Zone 2 has "Okay" Graphics.  Define what you believe has "Good" Graphics on a console.  I'm very interested.   And if Graphics are a criteria for Kill Zone 2 and his enjoyment of it,   shouldn't they be for Fear 2?  (Which btw has horrendous graphics). 

 

Carry on.  I know you have some issue you're trying to prove.  I'll be eagerly awaiting your next literary turd.

 



kn on 08 February 2009
psrock said:
kn said:
Wow, I go off to a meeting and find so much hate and vitriol.

A few important points for those that seemed to only read the negative parts of my post and none of the positives.

A) I didn't compare it to Halo on the 360.

B) I said the graphics are top notch.

C) I stated that it has a lock on realism this gen from a physics perspective.

D) I said the graphics overall were about the same as the two current "top games" in the graphics category -- Gears 2 and MGS 4. Both are quite solid graphically and this most certainly shouldn't be interpreted as an insult. If I've compared it to MGS 4, Sony die-hards should be thrilled given how great everyone thinks it is... How is that negative?

E) I even added that it looks like a polished Call of Duty. Isn't that a compliment in saying that is is graphically better than one of the best shooters to have come out this generation? (I was specifically talking about the last two iterations, but I'm more familiar with COD4)

F) I stated "Demo AI" and "Based on the demo", and "I'm going to wait for the full game to come out and read more reviews". What part of me clearly talking about basing my impressions on the demo is hard to understand?

i dont mind you expecting so much from a FPS, you know. But what other reviews are you waiting for? I am kind of  curious. 100 isnt enough for you. 

 

 

The problem is, the reviews don't seem to match up with what I've experienced in the demo.  I'm not into multiplayer so I don't care about that part.  I should have posted that in my original post.  I only care about the campaign which is what the demo models most closely.

As far as reviews I'm waiting on?  The reviews that come after the "afterglow".  Everyone is currently experiencing the afterglow from an intense orgasm, just as they did with GTAIV.  Then the general public and second tier reviewers get their copy and we get reviews from people that took time to really look at the game carefully and weren't subject to an agreement to get the game early in order to review it...



I hate trolls.

Systems I currently own:  360, PS3, Wii, DS Lite (2)
Systems I've owned: PS2, PS1, Dreamcast, Saturn, 3DO, Genesis, Gamecube, N64, SNES, NES, GBA, GB, C64, Amiga, Atari 2600 and 5200, Sega Game Gear, Vectrex, Intellivision, Pong.  Yes, Pong.

psrock on 08 February 2009
kn said:
psrock said:
kn said:
Wow, I go off to a meeting and find so much hate and vitriol.

A few important points for those that seemed to only read the negative parts of my post and none of the positives.

A) I didn't compare it to Halo on the 360.

B) I said the graphics are top notch.

C) I stated that it has a lock on realism this gen from a physics perspective.

D) I said the graphics overall were about the same as the two current "top games" in the graphics category -- Gears 2 and MGS 4. Both are quite solid graphically and this most certainly shouldn't be interpreted as an insult. If I've compared it to MGS 4, Sony die-hards should be thrilled given how great everyone thinks it is... How is that negative?

E) I even added that it looks like a polished Call of Duty. Isn't that a compliment in saying that is is graphically better than one of the best shooters to have come out this generation? (I was specifically talking about the last two iterations, but I'm more familiar with COD4)

F) I stated "Demo AI" and "Based on the demo", and "I'm going to wait for the full game to come out and read more reviews". What part of me clearly talking about basing my impressions on the demo is hard to understand?

i dont mind you expecting so much from a FPS, you know. But what other reviews are you waiting for? I am kind of  curious. 100 isnt enough for you. 

 

 

The problem is, the reviews don't seem to match up with what I've experienced in the demo.  I'm not into multiplayer so I don't care about that part.  I should have posted that in my original post.  I only care about the campaign which is what the demo models most closely.

As far as reviews I'm waiting on?  The reviews that come after the "afterglow".  Everyone is currently experiencing the afterglow from an intense orgasm, just as they did with GTAIV.  Then the general public and second tier reviewers get their copy and we get reviews from people that took time to really look at the game carefully and weren't subject to an agreement to get the game early in order to review it...

we have reviews for the demo? where?

 

they reviewed the GAME, for an experienced gamer, you should know 5 minute of gameplay doesnt add up to a whole game experience.

 



 Next Gen 

11/20/09 04:25 makingmusic476 Warning Other (Your avatar is borderline NSFW. Please keep it for as long as possible.)
The_vagabond7 on 08 February 2009
Rpruett said:
The_vagabond7 said:
makingmusic476 said:
The_vagabond7 said:

This man speaks with reason.

 

This topic scares me, I must go now.

 

 

Outside of Twingo and maybe Skeeuk, I'm not seeing too many "rabid fanboys" "hammering" the OP.  I don't see what's so scary.

Honestly, this thread seems to be full of three types of people:

1. People defending the game (or simply stating why the enjoyed it).

2. People going "OMG the fanboys are attacking anybody who doesn't like the game!" (This is slightly exaggerated, of course, but their comments seem to be greatly exaggerating the contents of the thread.)

3. People not really adding anything to the thread, like those saying nothing more than "I agree" or "ANOTHER thread about the demo!?"

 

Alright, hold that thought...

 

"Fear 2?  Surely you're joking right.  I play Fear 2 and I feel like it's an N64 game.  The textures are absolutely atrocious.  The gameplay is bland and boring.   Honestly,  you must not be a big shooter fan if you honestly enjoyed Fear 2's demo more than KZ2. 

I just don't see how anyone could remotely have that opinion."

"Opinions are so stupid. We should just agree with you instead."

 

"I just think it's a horrible opinion.  When a big reasoning for your discontent with a game is "Kill Zone's graphics are 'okay'" and Fear 2 leaves you with a good impression?  Please.  Any objective person clearly would say Kill Zone 2 blows Fear 2's graphics out of the water. "

 

Yep, no over exagerated fanboy rage here... (keep in mind, the guy he was talking to never said Fear 2 had better graphics, merely that he like the demo better). Carry on.

 

 

 

Speaking of fanboy rage.  Is that you in several posts crying about Kill Zone 2 being involved in them?  Ah yes.  Spare me your BS.

 

I don't care if he doesn't like Kill Zone 2.  That is his opinion.  I just think it's a horrible one to have.   No opinion is wrong or right,  although you can have certainly an odd opinion.    For example,  I could say Haze is just a better game graphically and fun wise compared to Gears of War 2.    Certainly most people would disagree with me and it would be a very unpopular opinion to hold.

 

The point about the graphics is simple.  If you think Kill Zone 2 has "Okay" Graphics.  Define what you believe has "Good" Graphics on a console.  I'm very interested.   And if Graphics are a criteria for Kill Zone 2 and his enjoyment of it,   shouldn't they be for Fear 2?  (Which btw has horrendous graphics). 

 

Carry on.  I know you have some issue you're trying to prove.  I'll be eagerly awaiting your next literary turd.

 

 

 

This is why I complain about the Killzone invasion. This is disgusting.

 



You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.

Around the Network
kn on 08 February 2009
psrock said:
kn said:
psrock said:
kn said:
Wow, I go off to a meeting and find so much hate and vitriol.

A few important points for those that seemed to only read the negative parts of my post and none of the positives.

A) I didn't compare it to Halo on the 360.

B) I said the graphics are top notch.

C) I stated that it has a lock on realism this gen from a physics perspective.

D) I said the graphics overall were about the same as the two current "top games" in the graphics category -- Gears 2 and MGS 4. Both are quite solid graphically and this most certainly shouldn't be interpreted as an insult. If I've compared it to MGS 4, Sony die-hards should be thrilled given how great everyone thinks it is... How is that negative?

E) I even added that it looks like a polished Call of Duty. Isn't that a compliment in saying that is is graphically better than one of the best shooters to have come out this generation? (I was specifically talking about the last two iterations, but I'm more familiar with COD4)

F) I stated "Demo AI" and "Based on the demo", and "I'm going to wait for the full game to come out and read more reviews". What part of me clearly talking about basing my impressions on the demo is hard to understand?

i dont mind you expecting so much from a FPS, you know. But what other reviews are you waiting for? I am kind of  curious. 100 isnt enough for you. 

 

 

The problem is, the reviews don't seem to match up with what I've experienced in the demo.  I'm not into multiplayer so I don't care about that part.  I should have posted that in my original post.  I only care about the campaign which is what the demo models most closely.

As far as reviews I'm waiting on?  The reviews that come after the "afterglow".  Everyone is currently experiencing the afterglow from an intense orgasm, just as they did with GTAIV.  Then the general public and second tier reviewers get their copy and we get reviews from people that took time to really look at the game carefully and weren't subject to an agreement to get the game early in order to review it...

we have reviews for the demo? where?

 

they reviewed the GAME, for an experienced gamer, you should know 5 minute of gameplay doesnt add up to a whole game experience.

 

Lol, I expected more from you, Rock.  Nice try, though.

 



I hate trolls.

Systems I currently own:  360, PS3, Wii, DS Lite (2)
Systems I've owned: PS2, PS1, Dreamcast, Saturn, 3DO, Genesis, Gamecube, N64, SNES, NES, GBA, GB, C64, Amiga, Atari 2600 and 5200, Sega Game Gear, Vectrex, Intellivision, Pong.  Yes, Pong.

coolestguyever on 08 February 2009
EL_PATRAS said:
its dificult to innovaate in the fps genre

 

 I definately agree its difficult but definately not impossible. Most recently Call of Duty 4 had some serious innovations and thats why its still in the top 4 or 5 most played games on XBL. More people still play CoD4 then Gears 2 online as of a couple weeks ago.



Cueil on 08 February 2009
CGI-Quality said:
@ OkeyDokey

A GOD in the making = Okey :D
Agreed bro!

 

 Now he knows how his girlfriend feels :p

On a note against that... wtf?  You do know what a demo is for right?  It's to draw people into buying your game... if they have 5 mins to do that and they picked a shitty five minutes then that will hurt them... don't give excuses for a shitty demo. 



 
Get your Portable ID!

psrock on 08 February 2009
kn said:
psrock said:
kn said:
psrock said:
kn said:
Wow, I go off to a meeting and find so much hate and vitriol.

A few important points for those that seemed to only read the negative parts of my post and none of the positives.

A) I didn't compare it to Halo on the 360.

B) I said the graphics are top notch.

C) I stated that it has a lock on realism this gen from a physics perspective.

D) I said the graphics overall were about the same as the two current "top games" in the graphics category -- Gears 2 and MGS 4. Both are quite solid graphically and this most certainly shouldn't be interpreted as an insult. If I've compared it to MGS 4, Sony die-hards should be thrilled given how great everyone thinks it is... How is that negative?

E) I even added that it looks like a polished Call of Duty. Isn't that a compliment in saying that is is graphically better than one of the best shooters to have come out this generation? (I was specifically talking about the last two iterations, but I'm more familiar with COD4)

F) I stated "Demo AI" and "Based on the demo", and "I'm going to wait for the full game to come out and read more reviews". What part of me clearly talking about basing my impressions on the demo is hard to understand?

i dont mind you expecting so much from a FPS, you know. But what other reviews are you waiting for? I am kind of  curious. 100 isnt enough for you. 

 

 

The problem is, the reviews don't seem to match up with what I've experienced in the demo.  I'm not into multiplayer so I don't care about that part.  I should have posted that in my original post.  I only care about the campaign which is what the demo models most closely.

As far as reviews I'm waiting on?  The reviews that come after the "afterglow".  Everyone is currently experiencing the afterglow from an intense orgasm, just as they did with GTAIV.  Then the general public and second tier reviewers get their copy and we get reviews from people that took time to really look at the game carefully and weren't subject to an agreement to get the game early in order to review it...

we have reviews for the demo? where?

 

they reviewed the GAME, for an experienced gamer, you should know 5 minute of gameplay doesnt add up to a whole game experience.

 

Lol, I expected more from you, Rock.  Nice try, though.

 

do you mean reviews from us fans, then yes. Have you looked at the reviews for GTA4, the PS3 version is still the 2nd highest rated game ever. 

i hated the first resistance's demo yet after playong the actual, i really ended up liking it. 

 



 Next Gen 

11/20/09 04:25 makingmusic476 Warning Other (Your avatar is borderline NSFW. Please keep it for as long as possible.)
Rpruett on 08 February 2009
The_vagabond7 said:

 

 

This is why I complain about the Killzone invasion. This is disgusting.

 

 

From the guy that is buying Fear 2 on day one and complaining about Kill Zone 2 just being hype.  (Let's set aside calling my opinions "fanboy".).

Most people that posted in your Fear 2 thread, weren't impressed with the demo at all.  And while you certainly can enjoy Fear 2, many people see it as an average title and certainly not of the same caliber as Kill Zone 2.  

 

Early reviews are saying the same thing. 

 

So while it's surely okay to "enjoy" Fear 2 more than Kill Zone 2.  I believe it's a bit ludicrous to say that Kill Zone has "Okay" graphics  (And say it as a negative for the game)   but make no mention of Fear 2's very mediocre graphics or it's effect on your enjoyment of the game.

 

 

I liked the Kill Zone 2 demo (Like most people).  I absolutely thought the Fear 2 demo was an average shooter (Like many people).

 

 

For the bias you want to claim I have with Kill Zone 2.  You started a thread on buying Fear 2 on day one.   You are hardly some beacon for neutrality.