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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Killzone 2 A little TOO overrated!

Kantor on 03 March 2009
terislb said:
Kantor said:
terislb said:
Rpruett said:
terislb said:
well the game is pretty much like any other shooter..in both the good and the bad things , maybe it does a few minor things better but doesent change the overall impression of having it all seen before ,so yes its overrated

 

I grow so tired of the 'lack of innovation'  or whatever lame reasoning that is.  What did Halo do that was NEVER before seen? What did COD do that was NEVER before seen?    It just gets tiresome to hear.   The truth is, very few games have really defined the genre and most games are just running some varied, improved version of that.

 

Kill Zone 2 is an excellent AAA game.  It's not Jesus re-incarnated.   It's all about expectations.  If you want to play a good game?  Kill Zone 2 is exactly that.  Just as advertised.   If you thought Kill Zone 2 was going to redefine every element of First Person Shooters and just blow your mind on every possible level,  you were setting yourself up for failure.   Since almost no games ever do that.

 

 

thats the point halo and cod are overrated aswell.. and if you have been playing fps since doom you can take the same concept only for so long .

the games are good but they are overrated because its the same concept in just another shallow empty shell

i got what i expected out of killzone 2. but take a look all those who advertise it as the best fps of this generation or a "masterpiece that is ahead of its time" you and me may say its a good game just like any other.. but they wont

thats also what pissed me off about the 9.0 score on gamespot there are games far more deserving of such scores

It's fully deserving of that nine. A game doesn't need o be innovative to be good. If every game was like Flower, I would quit gaming. We need refinements. New ideas are great, but improved old ideas are better. We'd have nothing but a bunch of great concepts with poor execution.

GameSpot hands out 9s like pamphlets, anyway. Resistance 2 got a 9 (which it didn't deserve), LBP got a 9, KZ2 got a 9, CoD4 got a 9, Gears 2 got a 9, hell, Assassin's Creed got a 9 (cough overrated).

Assassin's Creed was pretty innovative. It was also quite a mess. Fun to play (most of the time), but a mess. If CoD4 warrants a 9/10, so does KZ2.

Unless you're saying that CoD4 doesn't deserve that score. I would have to say that you were wrong. It did nothing massively new with the genre, but what was there it did so incredibly well, that it didn't matter.

You can have an innovative game that deserves a 9, but if you think, say, Mirror's Edge deserves a 9, and KZ2 doesn't, I may have to ask you to step outside

 

 

oh here we go again. let me put it this way... if a game gets a 9 ouf of 10 that should mean that this game is near perfect.. which none of those games are they are fun but they are far from perfect and thus should get the appriopriate score

lets say some new godly fps shows up that is better than even half life was and it gets a 10 ..the distinction to those other games is too slim because its "only" 1 digit better

you mention halo ,killzone ,cod and mirrors ege.. none of them are really that great you have to look beyond this generation . you will see how insignificant those games are to the genre

i cant say this oftem enough i donth think those games are bad im saying whoever is giving those games a 9 is either a philistine bastard or should simply play more fps games

as for that oversimplification that every game would be like flower if it was more innovative ...what im trying to say is if every shooter repeats the forumla over and over again that is one thing thats kinda part of the that particular genre... if it repeats the same stereotypic characters and story twists thats another  thing if wouldnt kill them to actually think of something new it that department   a game needs something to set it apart from the masses that should be the story an the enviroment  and not some gimmik as was the case in fracture for example

bottom line.. new gameplay mechanics in a shallow genre that is all about graphics that are top notch for 4 months..is hard to accomplish actually trying to make the game interesting is not it takes some effort and talent and thats what i expect of a game with a a 9

if you compare those games to say haflife  or the old medal of honour games for the psx you see how a 9er game should look like

A nine is not near-perfect. A 10 is near perfect. Let me explain the reviewing scale as it exists for GameSpot right now. The bold is my opinion.

10= Near perfection of the genre. Very few games have achieved this, in FPS. Perhaps Half Life 2.

9.5= Pinnacle of the genre For example, Halo Combat Evolved. Deus Ex (from what I've seen of it).

9.0= One of the best examples of quality in a genre. This is where KZ2 is, and where it deserves to be. Also CoD4, Halo 3.

8.5= Fine example of quality in a genre. Unreal Tournament III, Resistance 2

8.0= A very good game, as compared to others in the genre. Battlefield Bad Company.

7.5= Worth playing, for a fan of the genre. Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway.

4.0-7.0= A game which is topped by the majority of games in its genre. Haze.

1.0-3.5= A disgraceful attempt at a game. Nothing comes to mind, for FPS.

Notice how it gets closer together near the bottom. Also notice that GameSpot gave out two 9.5 scores in 2008. Two 10/10 scores, at least ten 9/10 scores.

GameSpot aren't as strict as you might think. They just aren't quick to hand out "pinnacle of the genre", while IGN are much more willing to do so. Or so you'd think, but in actual fact, the IGN scale is nothing like this. It changes from reviewer to reviewer. Then of course, GameSpot have their messups: Assassin's Creed is one of the best examples of quality in its genre, while Shadow of The Colossus is not...



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Around the Network
terislb on 03 March 2009

that was actually pretty good kantor.. im looking forward to your future posts if they are like this

they way you explained it makes sense.. its just too bad that people take those 9-10 games for the pinnacle of human archievement.. and yes igns scoring system is quite ..well yes they do hand out a lot of 9.0 you can actually take more interest in any ign review with a below 9.0 score in those cases the result might be accurate

as for gamespot i oftem disagree with their scores.. but thats why you dont buy a game just because one review said it was good ..in that matter you dont buy any game because a review is good its just something to back up or dispel the notion you had about that game ..and sometimes its even accurate



Sharky54 on 03 March 2009

thread tl;dr. But as far as a "million shots" to kill someone, you do know the bullets don't go right where you are aiming right? as the gun moves around from the recoil it effects where it will go. I am sure wind and gravity have an effect on this stuff also. Only time the bullet will go RIGHT where you aim it is. 1. you are sniping. 2 you are firing JUST one shot. 3 you aren't playing killzone2



im_sneaky on 03 March 2009

Those are dumb complaints. The only major problem with KZ2 is the control. Analog sticks =/= mouse.



 

 

bluegrayz on 03 March 2009
star_city said:
JoHnNyFr3sC0 said:

Yes I might get flammed alot for this but I got Killzone 2 on thursday and I dont see the big fuzz surrounding the game....mind you I only own a Ps3 so I am in NO WAY a 360 or Wii Fanboy sooooooo....I pop the game in and of course the first thing that hits me are what? The games beautiful graphics....I start playing the game however and my impressions change...after about 3 hours of just playing the single player campaign and another 8 hours or so online...I have come up with a list of things I like and dislike about the game....

Likes:

Graphics...of course best I have ever seen! Even online in Multiplayer...

The Single Player Campaign even though it is relatively on the short side...

The guns look awesome and the player physics and animations when you shoot and kill them are realistic...

Multiplayer has alot of people playing and it also rewards you ALOT...with medals and ribbons...which helps you unlock various weapons, classes, and "perks"

Dislikes:

The controls are ok not great...I guess since it's suppose to be "realistic"...I switched the default controls to Alternative 2(Its Like COD)...and I still find them a bit sluggish...The covering system is not the best...at times I just get stuck behind cover without being able to shoot for some weird reason...I would peak out but aiming and shooting alot harder while trying to keep in cover...

The Single Players campaign story SUCKS...like wow Im not even finished with the game and I still dont understand whats going on or our purpose for being in this planet...it doesnt have me attached to the story as COD 4 did...

The game lacks weapons...seriously!!!! You get your basic guns machine gun, pistol, shotgun, assault rifle, sniper rifle, flame thrower...etc but I feel this game should have had alot more guns like Halo or Cod...especially online! in which you are force to unlock them...

The games Multiplayer has really failed to impress me...While it has some modes like your basic team deathmatch, capture a "flag", search and destroy and etc....everyone online is usually never paying mind to the objectives and are just out shooting eachother like it's a deathmatch only...

When playing team Deathmatch the game ends way too fast...especially if their are 32 players playing!

Aiming in multiplayer is horrible! people move way faster than you can aim....maybe you can fix this with the aim sensitivity!

The worst part about multiplayer online is.....It takes like A MILLION SHOTS to kill someone WHY? I always thought COD WAW was too fake....but this is worst! especially a game which wants to be so realistic!

Last when in Multiplayer sometimes when you kill someone you dont really know you have killed them unless...1) you hear the noise that pops up letting you know that you did...or 2) you see the guy you were shooting at die....problem is sometimes the animation takes too long to actually show you that you killed them...only after you have died you seen that you actually killed him too!

These are my likes and dislikes about this game...I think all the hype that surrounded the game...made me higher my expectations for it...it has failed me in sooooo many ways...while I still enjoyed the game I was searching for a out of this world experience that I have never felt before...and this game just did'nt do it for me...the worst part is that I am Playing Fear 2 and I love this game more than Killzone 2....I guess the Graphics and Realistic movement and animations just did'nt cut it for me :(

This is just my opinion there are people who love this game obviously...I just wanted to share my thoughts with you guys! Thanks for reading...Sorry I know it was long :p

1. did you play the first one to know the story?

2. you been comparing cod to killzone and in cod you still have to unlock weapons..and there is ALOT of weapons ALOT...

3. everyone? seriously everyone?...in ANY GAME there is always a group that ingnores the objective...not the games fault..

4. cough:

5. yes you can easily fix it with the sensitivity

6. it takes alot more shots to kill someone in Halo and Gears...alot more

7. yea your right

 

there in order of highlighted....yea your expectations didnt allow you to enjoy it that much....its like a girl you like for a long time and you thought she was the best....till you started dating her and you realize lil small things you wouldnt notice with other girls just b/c you expected more from her.....get it?

 

 Why should people new to the series have to know the plot of the previous game? While some games the story can unfold over a lot of games, they should at least make it understandable to newbies



Around the Network
KLucifer on 03 March 2009

wow i'm not going to go in details...but alot of complaint sounds like a whine of nubs...can't hit....takes a million hits to kill someone....aiming need patch....etc...etc..etc...none which are legitmate game flaws...but merely lack of skills from players

@windbane

i agree with u....i feel like i'm playing cs all over again....it even as some cs feel to it on some missions...like the defending/planting the explosive areas....



BTFeather55 on 03 March 2009

It might be a bit overrated. However, if it is overrated then, Gears 1 and 2 and Halo 3 are by far the three most overrated games of this gen.



Heavens to Murgatoids.

kirby007 on 03 March 2009
BTFeather55 said:
It might be a bit overrated. However, if it is overrated then, MGS4 and LBP and Halo 3 are by far the three most overrated games of this gen.

fixed

 



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

KLucifer on 03 March 2009
bluegrayz said:

 Why should people new to the series have to know the plot of the previous game? While some games the story can unfold over a lot of games, they should at least make it understandable to newbies

 

this is why killzone.com has a section called storyline...if you really really really have to know the back story...it's all there...i never played the first one...but after reading it...it all makes sense to me...



BTFeather55 on 03 March 2009

MGS4 isn't overrated. It is the closest thing that gaming has to The Watchmen or The Dark Knight Returns.



Heavens to Murgatoids.