Support NeoGAF

[JonnyKtyler]

KZ2 at 60fps with full online support I would buy for $60

 

[twobear]

Well since you literally just listed all the things I think are shit about the series and called them all good (except move, haven't played 3), I guess we're done here?

 

[komorebi]

Well, it's baffling to me that anyone would call the KZ2 weapons boring, or not recognize the excellence of the AI, or think the enemies are bullet sponges, or not mention the amazing art direction. But what's really worse is how you think so much of yourself that anyone who has a different opinion must be a noob that doesn't play video games.

All of those things about KZ2 is great. Its the story, characters, and the way it all unfolds that makes the game overall 'meh' for me. I'm probably in the minority though as I really hate linear scripted modern FPS games. Wolfenstein TNO basically broke the camel's back for me, despite having awesome guns

Spoiler

that you need to re-collect every. single. fucking. level.

 

[ChronotriggerJM]

Well since you literally just listed all the things I think are shit about the series and called them all good (except move, haven't played 3), I guess we're done here?

Then sure. You apparently hate first person shooters. I'm glad we've established that.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

I've played 2 and Shadowfall, which I'm told are the best in the series.

Who called Shadowfall the best in the series?!!

This one seems to be the most hated by far.

 

[gogosox82]

Yes for Killzone 2. Probably not for Killzone 3.

 

[RMI]

absolutely not. I don't have a lot of money to waste buying re-releases of old games.

 

[FunkyPajamas]

Is this real life? Generic FPS mini-arenas spotted with cover that enemies filter into in groups, bullet sponge baddies that are a chore to kill, the most generic, boring weapon selection in an FPS game that I can think of, and a control scheme that mimicks realism by making you move like an arthritic sexagenarian.

Again, it is simply baffling to me that anybody who has played more than two or three FPSes thinks this is one of the best ever made. If I was being generous I'd call Killzone 2 'solid'.

I wouldn't use such strong words but I agree with the general idea.

Post's like this make it easy to tell when someone hasn't played the games >_>

Eh, I played through the entire game (I think I tried to do it twice but got bored on the second run and realized I was only doing it for the trophies so I dropped it) and I think he's not that far from the truth. I think enemies are a bit bullet sponge-y and the controls aren't that great (I do like the animations and the feel of weight but not the controls themselves). I do disagree on the weapons: not generic, I actually like the grounded-futuristic design/functionality.

When I talked about design I should have been more specific:

1. You can only carry two weapons and one of them is fixed to be a pistol. It's been a while so I may be wrong, but it had infinite ammo, right? I think this seriously limits your options for having a fun moment-to-moment sandbox gameplay where you can try different things with your enemies and instead must rely on two or three weapons which are almost always present and then the "story weapon" (a weapon you use in order to destroy a tank or kill a huge baddie, etc).

2. Enemies are smart enough but the level/encounter design doesn't really take advantage of this. There are certain places where you can flank and have some verticality to try new things but I seem to remember most of the time you had enemies pop in and out of cover while you tried to place headshots.

3. The vehicle sections are too slow and not really that fun. I remember Resistance 1's jeep sections and/or Halo CE Warthog sections as examples of good vehicular combat. (Halo 2 bridge, for example, is one section that I hate, when done with the tank instead of the 'hog).

That's just from the top of head. I want to make sure I'm clear on this though: I don't hate the game or anything like that. If Sony handed the remaster to someone other than Guerrilla or Cambridge and gave it for free on PS+ I'd surely play it. The game wasn't horrible or anything, it just was (for me) barely decent/fun, nowhere near my top 5. I was just answering the question posed by the OP.

 

[twobear]

[edit] Actually in the interest of civility and not wanting to get further protracted in mudslinging let me retract this.

 

[ChronotriggerJM]

I wouldn't use such strong words but I agree with the general idea.

Eh, I played through the entire game (I think I tried to do it twice but got bored on the second run and realized I was only doing it for the trophies so I dropped it) and I think he's not that far from the truth. I think enemies are a bit bullet sponge-y and the controls aren't that great (I do like the animations and the feel of weight but not the controls themselves). I do disagree on the weapons: not generic, I actually like the grounded-futuristic design/functionality.

When I talked about design I should have been more specific:

1. You can only carry two weapons and one of them is fixed to be a pistol. It's been a while so I may be wrong, but it had infinite ammo, right? I think this seriously limits your options for having a fun moment-to-moment sandbox gameplay where you can try different things with your enemies and instead must rely on two or three weapons which are almost always present and then the "story weapon" (a weapon you use in order to destroy a tank or kill a huge baddie, etc).

2. Enemies are smart enough but the level/encounter design doesn't really take advantage of this. There are certain places where you can flank and have some verticality to try new things but I seem to remember most of the time you had enemies pop in and out of cover while you tried to place headshots.

3. The vehicle sections are too slow and not really that fun. I remember Resistance 1's jeep sections and/or Halo CE Warthog sections as examples of good vehicular combat. (Halo 2 bridge, for example, is one section that I hate, when done with the tank instead of the 'hog).

That's just from the top of head. I want to make sure I'm clear on this though: I don't hate the game or anything like that. If Sony handed the remaster to someone other than Guerrilla or Cambridge and gave it for free on PS+ I'd surely play it. The game wasn't horrible or anything, it just was (for me) barely decent/fun, nowhere near my top 5. I was just answering the question posed by the OP.

The game wasn't designed to be a sandbox though. It goes from choke points and heavy resistance, to more arena styled areas. The sections where you're pushing up with the tank and being flanked constantly only contribute to the fact that you're in enemy territory. The games A.I. is some of the best I've ever seen, but you can always find examples of good and bad A.I. regardless of the game. Needless to say, the systems in place for it are award winning. There's a level in particular towards the end of Killzone 2 where you're rushing the capital, and it was one of the most amazing moments I've ever encountered in a FPS game. Real white knuckles kind of material here.

The Vehicle sections in 3 were pretty great, given they were slightly misplaced. The mech controlled well, the land cruiser was entertaining, and the jetpack was just awesome. Maybe because I played with the move controller my opinion is skewed here.

I'll give you that the two weapon design is dated, but in the Killzone franchise, the secondary pistol has always been pretty great, and in the multi-player, for almost the first time ever in a FPS game, switching to your sidearm makes a lot more sense mid firefight than reloading your gun. It's tactical, and often feels pretty great. Opinion of course.

Luckily, the weapons are some of the best feeling in the industry, amazing audio engineering, and wicked recoil, reload animations, and ambient noise differences. Enemies are definitely NOT bullet spongy, a few are deigned to be so, sure, but in general the hit detection is wonderful.

I've always thought the killzone games played wonderfully. I've always loved the classed based multi-player, and I think the boss fights are rewarding in that they're usually very difficult. The story gets in the way of the game, but I can think of a million games like this.

[edit] Actually in the interest of civility and not wanting to get further protracted in mudslinging let me retract this.

I'm not going to get offended on a video game message board lol. Opinions are just that.

I just don't think your criticisms made any sense for this game, leading me to believe you haven't played them. It's like you grabbed your complaints from the uncharted thread and just stuck them here lol. Different games, different problems, and none of those are killzones problems.

 

[DrGonzo615]

Gosh I hate people's thirst for remasters.

I dont understand peoples hatred for those wanting remasters. Sure we all want something new but its nice to have an upgraded version of a beloved old game. Or more to the point, how is it harming you? If you dont like them, dont buy them.

 

[mave198]

Nah. They still look great today.

Gimme Fallout 3 and Deus Ex remastered instead.

 

[ryutaro's mama]

I still have unopened copies of both games for PS3.

Dat Pile O Shame backlog.

 

[BigTnaples]

Nah. They still look great today.

Gimme Fallout 3 and Deus Ex remastered instead.

What?

For one. Both of those are on PC.


For two, Fallout 3 looks like shit on consoles. 1080p and 60 FPS will do little for that. Muddy textures, tiny loading cells, etc.

Games like Uncharted 2-3, Killzone 2-3, GoW 3-A, etc are games that would benefit from remasters.

Console only games that are pushing the boundaries so hard, they could almost pass for current gen once boosted to 1080p.

MAYBE Skyrim would be a good candidate for a remaster... if they hit 60fps and upgraded the lighting and textures, bumped up the foliage.

 

[mave198]

What?

For one. Both of those are on PC.


For two, Fallout 3 looks like shit on consoles. 1080p and 60 FPS will do little for that. Muddy textures, tiny loading cells, etc.

Games like Uncharted 2-3, Killzone 2-3, GoW 3-A, etc are games that would benefit from remasters.

Console only games that are pushing the boundaries so hard, they could almost pass for current gen once boosted to 1080p.

MAYBE Skyrim would be a good candidate for a remaster... if they hit 60fps and upgraded the lighting and textures, bumped up the foliage.

Your post makes no sense. There's more to remastering than just 60fps and upping the res.

And what's your point mentioning a 7yr old and 15yr game is also on PC but then mention Skyrim.....

 

[FunkyPajamas]

The game wasn't designed to be a sandbox though. It goes from choke points and heavy resistance, to more arena styled areas.

By sandbox I meant each individual encounter arena. Basically the "sandbox" that you get when you encounter a few enemies and get to play with them in an enclosed area before moving on, what you're calling "arena styled areas", I think. I do seem to remember one like that (taking a plaza/square with a statue I think, and then at the end you get some dropships perhaps? That part was pretty fun). Every FPS has that "sandbox" concept (perhaps I'm not using the right word). You walk to an area, encounter some enemies and you dance with them. Then you move on. And I think what you're saying makes sense: since most of these areas are chokepoints then the game forces you to stay covered and pop enemies helmets off until you've killed either all of them or at least enough so that you can move out of "the trenches" and kill the rest. I guess liking or not liking that type of encounter design it's a subjective matter so I won't say it's bad. I just prefer Mercenary's approach where each encounter I've played so far allows me to flank and move around (or be flanked by enemies).

The sections where you're pushing up with the tank and being flanked constantly only contribute to the fact that you're in enemy territory.

I liked that about the game though to be honest most of the FPS games I've ever played... well... have you placed in enemy territory against overwhelming odds. I honestly can't think of one that doesn't. Perhaps some of the older Medal of Honor/Call of Duty games where you seemed to be a part of a huge invading force?

The Vehicle sections in 3 were pretty great, given they were slightly misplaced. The mech controlled well, the land cruiser was entertaining, and the jetpack was just awesome. Maybe because I played with the move controller my opinion is skewed here.

I never played through KZ3 so I can't honestly say anything about it, though I seem to remember either playing a demo (or at a friend's house) and there was a Mech, I think, in First Person mode? That was fun too. It controlled good enough and packed a punch with its weapons.

I'll give you that the two weapon design is dated, but in the Killzone franchise, the secondary pistol has always been pretty great, and in the multi-player, for almost the first time ever in a FPS game, switching to your sidearm makes a lot more sense mid firefight than reloading your gun. It's tactical, and often feels pretty great. Opinion of course.

It's not really that it's dated (I love Halo CE's two weapon approach), the issue for me that it's really ONE weapon you can switch and a forced pistol you can't change. Switching instead of reloading is also old-school (in a good sense): Rainbow Six (talking about PC version, not watered-down console version) did this too. Call of Duty (WWII games, not Modern Warfare) did that as well. Brothers in Arms. Etc. All did it before Killzone (this is not a criticism, I'm just stating a fact). So yeah, it's faster and it makes sense. Still doesn't explain why the pistol needs to be fixed. My problem with one switchable/one fixed weapon design is that you can't experiment as much as you'd like. Have a Shotgun for clearing rooms and a Sniper/Carbine/Assault Rifle for long/mid range. Have a Rocket Launcher to wreak havok but keep your Assault Rifle for close/mid range combat. Etc.

Luckily, the weapons are some of the best feeling in the industry, amazing audio engineering, and wicked recoil, reload animations, and ambient noise differences. Enemies are definitely NOT bullet spongy, a few are deigned to be so, sure, but in general the hit detection is wonderful.

Agreed on most, but I think the game was too in-love with the hit animations for the enemies and so they would take like just one or two shots more than strictly necessary to bring them down just so we could see the death dance. This is entirely subjective since I don't know the details of Helgan biology so I don't know how many licks it takes to get to the Helgan brain, but it just feels that way, you know? I'm open to just being told I'm wrong though. I don't have any complaints re: hit detection.

I've always thought the killzone games played wonderfully. I've always loved the classed based multi-player, and I think the boss fights are rewarding in that they're usually very difficult.

I didn't play multi that much (not a big fan of multiplayer games) but I do love that it's class and objective based (Enemy Territory being perhaps the only MP game I can play for a long amount of time).

Anyway, sorry for the wall of text. I should probably be working instead. Heh.

 

[Jeronimo Jones]

Nah, I'm good. I don't normally play through most games multiple times anyway and I've already played them.

 

[BigTnaples]

Your post makes no sense. There's more to remastering than just 60fps and upping the res.

And what's your point mentioning a 7yr old and 15yr game is also on PC but then mention Skyrim.....

Symantics.


Fallout 3 needs a remake not a remaster.

If they were to eliminate loading cells, increase NPC density, redo textures, implement a new lighting system, overhaul character models, etc then it would be worth it yes. But that would be too much work to be feasible for this type of game.

And I mention it's on PC because Fallout 3 can look very decent on PC with the right mods. And by default, you can get the 60fps 1080p without the need for a remaster. Skyrim is built on the new engine, (but gambryo!) and would hold up better with just a remaster treatment of 1080p@60.

Some games are more in need of worthy of remaster than others. Though I wouldn't complain if it released, it would be an odd choice.


Because even at 1080p 60fps, Fallout 3 looks and plays much the same as it did before.


Where as with graphical powerhouse games like TLoU, UC, Halo 4, GoW, GTAV, killzone 2-3 etc, the only thing really holding them back from looking great was IQ and FPS.

We have seen Uncharted 3 running at 1080p and 60fps. And it looks amazing. We have seen Fallout 3 running at 1080p and and 60fps. It looks... Well it looks like Fallout 3.

 

[AlStrong]

I'd like to see Killzone Mercenary.

 

[ChronotriggerJM]

snip.

In killzone Mercenary and Parts of shadows fall, you're purposed as an infiltrator. Usually in a small team, and the goal is to go in undetected, and get shit done. In killzone 2 and 3, it's mostly implied that you're screwed, and you need to get out safely, as opposed to having the upper hand. I believe Guerrilla handled both play styles very well.

Side note, I believe GG was the first to implement gyro aiming with the sniper rifle in KZ2 no? Man what a great enhancement. I don't know why more FPS games on the playstation platform don't do this.

 

[FunkyPajamas]

In killzone Mercenary and Parts of shadows fall, you're purposed as an infiltrator. Usually in a small team, and the goal is to go in undetected, and get shit done. In killzone 2 and 3, it's mostly implied that you're screwed, and you need to get out safely, as opposed to having the upper hand. I believe Guerrilla handled both play styles very well.

Ah, I see what you mean.

 

[mave198]

Symantics.


Fallout 3 needs a remake not a remaster.

If they were to eliminate loading cells, increase NPC density, redo textures, implement a new lighting system, overhaul character models, etc then it would be worth it yes. But that would be too much work to be feasible for this type of game.

And I mention it's on PC because Fallout 3 can look very decent on PC with the right mods. And by default, you can get the 60fps 1080p without the need for a remaster. Skyrim is built on the new engine, (but gambryo!) and would hold up better with just a remaster treatment of 1080p@60.

Some games are more in need of worthy of remaster than others. Though I wouldn't complain if it released, it would be an odd choice.


Because even at 1080p 60fps, Fallout 3 looks and plays much the same as it did before.


Where as with graphical powerhouse games like TLoU, UC, Halo 4, GoW, GTAV, killzone 2-3 etc, the only thing really holding them back from looking great was IQ and FPS.

We have seen Uncharted 3 running at 1080p and 60fps. And it looks amazing. We have seen Fallout 3 running at 1080p and and 60fps. It looks... Well it looks like Fallout 3.

I'll agree Deus Ex is more remake territory but I disagree FO3 couldn't benefit from a remaster using current gen hardware and bumping up the lighting and textures a bit. Definitely not a total retooling in term of in game assets (though that would be great).

Even if its just for the console crowd.

 

[TheRealTalker]

In killzone Mercenary and Parts of shadows fall, you're purposed as an infiltrator. Usually in a small team, and the goal is to go in undetected, and get shit done. In killzone 2 and 3, it's mostly implied that you're screwed, and you need to get out safely, as opposed to having the upper hand. I believe Guerrilla handled both play styles very well.

Side note, I believe GG was the first to implement gyro aiming with the sniper rifle in KZ2 no? Man what a great enhancement. I don't know why more FPS games on the playstation platform don't do this.

and those where the best parts of those games (of course Mercenary was great thorough out compared to SF's single player)

SF's condo level, forest level, ISA ship level, etc... where highlights for me but the story lacked heavily especially since the villains form both the ISA and Helghast front where so lukewarm compared to the greatness of someone like Radec in KZ2

 

[ChronotriggerJM]

and those where the best parts of those games (of course Mercenary was great thorough out compared to SF's single player)

SF's condo level, forest level, ISA ship level, etc... where highlights for me but the story lacked heavily especially since the villains form both the ISA and Helghast front where so lukewarm compared to the greatness of someone like Radec in KZ2

Yeah they are awesome. But I think the frontal assaults are incredible as well because the a.i is brilliant. It's just variance in game design. Some people are more attracted to stealth elements, and others just want heavy pressure, white knuckles palm sweat. That's why I feel GG is a massively under appreciated developer. They've got amazing talent, and people just rag on the story lol.

 

[Jacir]

KZ3 disappointingly lowered the OBMB to almost imperceptible levels. Making some things that looked like CGI, look horrible in comparison in KZ3.


For instance ISA dropships landing and taking off in KZ2 vs KZ3 is like night and day. Looks so much better in 2.


I hoped for a patch for the longest time, but it never came.

What does this 'OBMB' stand for?

Huge killzone fan and I would like a total remake(yes, a remake) of each game into one huge ass game. From KZ1-KZL-KZ2-KZ3-KZM-KZSF. Make it a primarily an adventure game with both first and third perspectives and maybe add in some over the top view elements from Liberation. Would be interesting if they go the episodic route or copy KZ1 by roleplaying different characters or even just both. This is what I want. I expect if this was all in one package or one game, it would cost about $80M to 140M. Comparing the budgets of 2 and 3, being around $20M each, I think if done right and on the dime, it will be great in many ways.

 

[Sjefen]

Yes a huge Killzone fan, spent alot of hours in mp....