Dgc1808 said: ^^^ The pistol's really weak. The Revolver on the other hand What colors? D= You mean gray, orange, black and blue with some green thrown in? I like those colors! D=

You forgot red. I compare the colors of all games to Viva Pinata. Killzone came up way short >.>

Damage controle... no the aiming was not good and they made a silly attempt to claim it was meant to be like that ...

Aside from that, the only issue I had was the poor story (>< incredible arts and env).

it's not noob friendly.
but now i can pick up any FPS and rock on them.

i have great k ratio in most of my games 2-1 now, except for kz2 that its 0.90

Oh, and forgot to mention the boss fights. While the general action wasn't bad and sometimes even almost fun the boss fights and one off events were terrible.

The three that stick out in my head-- the one where you're in the chair shooting missiles, the last boss fight, and the one where you're on the roof against the helicopter.

For the one in the chair shooting missiles, I experienced a game crashing bug three times. I have no idea what I was doing wrong there, but I had to play it four times in order to finally get past it. It wouldn't be so horrible if that part was fun, but it was pretty boring.

The final boss fight just wasn't fun. I guess that was the one were you're supposed to use sound? Well, I didn't hear anything special and just spent most of my time huddled in a corner because as soon as I peaked my head out I was destroyed. Also, it was just an incredibly long unfair fight with no checkpoints so you would finally almost kill the invisible guy only to get cheap shotted and have to start all over. Bull. Shit.

The winner of the crap award though was the fight on the roof against the helicopter (or jet, whatever it was). You come out on the roof and you only see a pillar and a rocket launcher. From that, you just assume shoot the jet, use the pillar as cover but NOOOOOOOOOOOOO. That's not what you're supposed to do. I spent more than an hour trying that before I finally got fed up and quit. A day or so later I read a FAQ on it and apparently you're supposed to jump onto the ledge of the building you can't see and shoot the coils. Well fuck, they did a horrible job at showing you that. What a shitty shitty fight.

Simply put : it's not fun.

It is quite a bit of fun online once you get used to it

call of duty fanbase ruined the online by too much whining.

Also the story had a major plothole :p.. And the backstory wasn't explained properly. Other than that the game is amongst the best.

I agree that the weakest point of the game was its story and the character development. The screenplay was awful too with all the profanities.

However technically this game is one of the very best. If you look at the following:

* physics

* the character modeling

* Particle/explosion effects

* animation

* fantastic AI

* realistic gun mechanics/physics

All of these elements are top notch and actually create great gameplay (The are not just pretty graphics).

One common complaint against this game is "its not innovative" or it "plays the same/not fun enough" well to that I say that anybody having those complains haven't just played this game long enough.

With the above technical excellence Killzone 2 has actually created incredibly innovative gameplay and yes I have a rational to back up my statement.

* Animation: Animation creates a unique gameplay. For example throwing a grenade does not simply mean 'popping' one instantly. Throwing grenades actually start a half-second animation during which you are completely vulnerable to enemy fire. This is true for real life and it means that you actually have to 'learn' to throw grenades. Same goes for other animations like gun reloading or using a sationary turret.

* Character modelling: Great character modelling means you can see your opponent that much better. Seriously after playing Killzone 2 when I went back to other FPSs, I would feel like I was playing a 2d game. I would see an indistinct figure and would somehow aim and hope I hit.

* Particle effects: When a grenade went off, you can actually get disoriented, your aim would be shaken and you would be blinded with smoke. This creates unique gameplay tactics like use grenades not as offensive weapons but something to disorient your opponents or drive them out to a more vulnerable position.

* Realistic gun mechanics/physics: Games like COD4 require you to aim down ALWAYS. Even at assault distance of a few feet, people are aiming down sights. That frankly is not real. In Killzone 2 you can only aim down effectively from distance. At CQC you always fire from hip and hope you hit target. The closer the distance some weapons gain tremendous advantage. The shotgun is unbeatable at extreme close range. Weapons with high rate of fire but lower accuracy is also effective. At medium distance, assault rifles rule and you can't beat a sniper or a long range rifle at long distance. In short the superlative implementation of the gun mechanics introduce endless tactics in which to play the game.

In light of the above observations I cannot disagree more with the contention "it did not innovate" which is really the only negative thing that gets said about this game. And really there are tons of other innovations that I can spell out but I don't have all day.

Killzone 2 did not sell as many as Halo or COD only because of the lower popularity, bad Sony marketing and steeper learning curve. However we have a thriving and loyal community of players and clans that have stuck with this game even during the MW2 release week. And every week more and more new players are starting to play.

This is going to come across as offensive when I really, really don't want it to but:

a) you really aren't that smart if you couldn't work out that the coils had some significance in an hour of playing that same boss - I mean, you had to shoot the petrusite coils in an earlier mission (which you must have realised to have got to the ATAC fight), so I'm stunned that you didn't even consider doing the same thing in the hour you spent failing to kill the ATAC.

b) you're not "supposed to jump" onto any ledge that you "can't see" - that's an outright lie; you can shoot the coils from pretty much anywhere in that battle.

I guess the controls. Having played KZ2 and Call of Duty 2, 4, WAW, and MW2 in the last 6 month the controls were very tight and fluid. KZ2 had some lag and some "unnaturalness" that didn't flow. KZ2 didn't really cover new ground in FPS but graphically very nice. I'm just speaking about the single player campaign. KZ2 did have some very nice voice acting though. Story was good but not compelling.