A little late i know.
Halo3 online is the most fun youll ever have . Trust me .
| S.T.A.G.E. said: It's not hard to define innovation. It's the introduction of something novel...that is all. KZ2 doesn't do that; it's alright man. |
You need to read more dictionaries! True innovation is definitely not novelty.
Anyway OT KZ2 isn't massively innovative IMHO (much as I like it). Apart from the risk with player weight/movement and the peek FPS (which are certainly uncommon enough to feel innovative) the bulk of the game is a mix of established FPS standards given an extremely high polish. I'd also cite the changing round structure in KZ2 as mildly innovative.
Halo 3 is in some ways similar, mostly playing it safe while polishing the whole experience to a very high level and focusing on getting it right. Of course as number 3 in the most important franchise for MS it was never going to take risks as that could have backfired badly. However the replay/forge elements for MP are innovative while the stats are a case of taking something that's been around for a while and pushing it as far as they could.
I personally see both as different and more or less equally good. But they are both around 90% to 95% familiar standards polished until they shine (nothing wrong with that) with just enough new elements to give each a certain distinction.
BTW in my comments I'm only really thinking about FPS titles I've played on consoles. With mods, full level editors, etc. I still see PC FPS as responsible for pretty much all the standards we see console FPS embracing. However for the moment the big push for FPS currently seems to be console specific rather than PC, so hopefully we'll see less copy cat FPS titles trying to make money offering more of the same and some more risk taking - not that I'll be holding my breath on this.
Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...
Halo 3 and i have both halo is just a lot more fun there a reason that halo is still this popular but i think Resistance 2 is the best to be honest
| uber said: after reading through the responses, the one thing i am convinced of is that people don't seem to know the definition of innovation. my post should have been simple to understand. the killzone level of realism and immersion has never been done before, so to do it is by definition innovation. Evolution =/= Innovation. Doing something better is not the same as doing something new. battlefield bad company was awesome, but its chief innovation was due to environmental damage. its controls were pretty much the same as cod4 in feel. in fact, one can successfully play both games the same way. i know becaue i do. killzone is a unique game in that to play it requires a completely style of play. as far as the AI, i recall the baddies on halo3 jumping from side to side to avoid incoming fire. wolfenstein 3d anyone? real sharp AI there. If you think that's the extent to which the enemies are intelligent in Halo 3 then you are just showing that you don't know Halo 3 at all. as for there rest of what i included, i still cannot tell whether you are being obtuse on purpose or not. you show in what you responded to really not know killzone at all, but more than that you seem to have a paucity of knowledge of what would be considered innovative. for you to say that a repackaged halo2 is mega-innovative, but a game which does something in spirit which has never been done before in generic and blah blah blah. so much of what's coming from you reads like what xbots were saying on gamespots user reviews when they were trying to lower the score. pathetic. and more people like immersion that you seem to think. all my halo friends dumped it for cod4 because of the immersion, and now they love killzone. you represent the voice of a militant group of gamers who think fps evolution peaked with halo. well i got news for you....twitch shooters are a thing of the past. now that consoles have the power to pursue total immersion that is where the future will be. Saying total immersion is the future is just fanboy talking points. Halo 3 is not going anywhere because Killzone 2 came out, and in fact a few weeks ago (http://vgchartz.com/weekly.php?date=39922) more new people opted to purchase Halo 3 than Killzone 2. Clearly it's all about the immersion factor. In the same vein, people will not stop playing Mario Kart when GT5 comes out, in fact I bet Mario Kart will have better legs, just like Halo is outlegging Killzone. Teh vast majority of people play games because they think they are fun, not because they think the pretty graphics make them more "immersive." one last thing, i completely agree that halo3 will live on with many people...but for the exact same reason that bret michaels still has a music career. Wrong, it will live on because of its fun and addicting gameplay. You seem to like CoD4 a lot, well guess what - more people play Halo 3 every week on Live than play CoD4, and it's an older game. Try to explain that away with talking points like "it only sold because of M$ marketing," or "it's a repackaged Halo 2." I'd love to see what you can come up with. |
Responses in blue.
De85 said:
Responses in blue. |
well i guess i was right. you do not know the definition of innovation. now moving on...
if you saw my post on the play of halo3 you would have seen i gave up on it after 15 minutes due to boredom. so you are right, i don't have a ton of experience with the sp.
your last couple of points don't really address my point at all. fps of old were all twitch shooters. halo is a finely tuned twitch shooter. this gen has shown that shooters can also set new standards and directions in immersion. at this point i am just repeating myself. i really don't understand why halo fans have such a hard time conceding this. they just want to throw numbers and sales around....as if that means anything. all it shows is that there is a huge market for twitch shooters...which is good to know given that that's how shooters got so popular to begin with.
the fact that you want to speak of mario kart and gran turismo 5 in the same sentence really shows that the subtlety of this point is beyond you. good day.
art is the excrement of culture
I love Kz2 its my number one shooter of all time. Espacially Multiplayer is great. But if i had a Xbox i would buy them both 100%.
| uber said:
well i guess i was right. you do not know the definition of innovation. now moving on...
if you saw my post on the play of halo3 you would have seen i gave up on it after 15 minutes due to boredom. so you are right, i don't have a ton of experience with the sp.
your last couple of points don't really address my point at all. fps of old were all twitch shooters. halo is a finely tuned twitch shooter. this gen has shown that shooters can also set new standards and directions in immersion. at this point i am just repeating myself. i really don't understand why halo fans have such a hard time conceding this. they just want to throw numbers and sales around....as if that means anything. all it shows is that there is a huge market for twitch shooters...which is good to know given that that's how shooters got so popular to begin with. the fact that you want to speak of mario kart and gran turismo 5 in the same sentence really shows that the subtlety of this point is beyond you. good day. |
The point of the Mario Kart to GT5 comparison was to show that even if we accept the premise that realistic = immersive (which I don't even fully believe) that it still doesn't equate to fun, which is the point of video games.
You have been trying to equate innovation to something that can't even be properly defined like immersion, while failing to recognize that different people find different things immersive, it just doesn't work. I was pretty immersed in a game of Castle Crashers last night, does that mean that Castle Crashers is innovative?
Also, get over yourself. You're treating everyone who disagrees with you like idiots, and only making yourself look like a huge ass.
De85 said:
The point of the Mario Kart to GT5 comparison was to show that even if we accept the premise that realistic = immersive (which I don't even fully believe) that it still doesn't equate to fun, which is the point of video games. You have been trying to equate innovation to something that can't even be properly defined like immersion, while failing to recognize that different people find different things immersive, it just doesn't work. I was pretty immersed in a game of Castle Crashers last night, does that mean that Castle Crashers is innovative? Also, get over yourself. You're treating everyone who disagrees with you like idiots, and only making yourself look like a huge ass. |
it is not my intention to come off as pompous. i apologize for taking the thread in a personal direction. when i get frustrated with people not seeing my point i tend to forget about the topic and just mock them instead.
you mentioned that video games should be fun. that's true. the issue lies in the fact that i have been playing games for over 25 years, and my interest in video games has changed drastically. mario was great in the 80's, but if i never see mario in another game again that would be just fine with me. the point is it takes more than simple fun for me to want to play a game. it has to offer me something. nowadays that something is escapism and fantasy. i want my games to let me simulate and experience things i would normally never get a chance to, and games have to be realistic for that to happen.
i played all sorts of games when i was younger, but now i pretty much just play shooters on account of the fact that the perspective allows me to immerse myself in a reality that would normally never exist. before cod4 came out, there was only so far that shooters could go in that, and so i thought halo was pretty fun. i didn't really like the weapons or art design, but i liked the community aspect of it...specifically being able to hook up several systems and tv's and have huge halo parties all night. now it's all different. i really liked resistance 1 when it came out, but after cod4 i hung it up and haven't touched it since. i even bought unreal tournament and resistance 2...and i barely played either of them. to play them feels like such a step backwards. the way characters move and play shatter any attempt to lose myself in the world it creates when i know so much more is possible.
killzone is that next step. for the aforementioned reasons it allows me to lose myself that much more in its world. that seems to be innovation to me.
halo is tons of fun i'm sure, but for where i am in my life it just doesn't do it for me anymore. one of my best friends was a total halo freak...he even has a bust of master chief. but he now plays games for the same reason i do, and after cod4 came out the illusion was shattered for him.
from sales numbers it is clear that people don't all feel this way. how else can one explain the sustained popularity of mario games? surely not all of its fans are prepubescent. for most people, halo 1 and 2 are still fun, so naturally halo3 will be more fun. this was why i asked the OP what kind of fps he is in to. yet halo fans seem to take it as some sort of slight to admit that killzone has more immersion to it...like that somehow diminishes halo's value. fans of halo have plenty to be happy about, but to label killzone as generic and forgettable really shows how closed minded halo fans can be.
art is the excrement of culture
@uber
It's cool, the internet is serious business after all.
I guess it just boils down to agreeing to disagree. For me Halo is still the more enjoyable experience for the enormous variety of options it offers, but I still do intend to finish Killzone someday on my roommate's PS3.
uber said:
you mentioned that video games should be fun. that's true. the issue lies in the fact that i have been playing games for over 25 years, and my interest in video games has changed drastically... killzone is that next step. for the aforementioned reasons it allows me to lose myself that much more in its world. that seems to be innovation to me. |
@Uber,@De85
I was reading your conversation (I'm also a gamer with more than 20 years of "experience")... and honeslty...I don't see any inovation in KillZone 2 than a couple of graphical special effects.
Now I don't think that FPS genre peaked with the Halo Series. IMO Halo 3 consolidated the genre to what it should be. But nobody pretends that it has given something new to the community...
The immense popularity of Halo comes from its multiplayer, not its graphics, nor the campaing or wathever... the vast majority of players never played the single campaign and yet the game will sell more than 10 millions.
IMO, Killzone 2 is an excellent game but...where is the innovation you are refering to ? What does it brings on the long run ? We don't know yet... but personaly I believe I was over-hyped about this game (and a bit disapointed..) ....
I believe that this kind of comparaison can only fall (again) into a fanboyish debate..where all of the facts will be drowned within a soup of foolish (and biased) theories.
I bought Halo 3 because everybody else was doing it -> I'm playing it because I'm enjoying the multiplayer content
I bought Killzone 2, also because everybody is doing it -> I'm playing it because I like the artwork and settings.
No need to ask an individual what he prefers, because his answer, based on his personnal preferneces, will always be based on irrational standards... 
Evan Wells (Uncharted 2): I think the differences that you see between any two games has much more to do with the developer than whether it’s on the Xbox or PS3.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
