This is what it boils down to. You want KZ2 to control more like Halo. KZ2 is not Halo. If you want to play Halo, guess what? Halo's still there, you can play it. If you can't live with the KZ2 controls, if you think that your years of experience with twin-stick shooters have made you intolerant of different control schemes, well, then don't buy the game. It's as simple as that. Otherwise, what are you trying to do? Convince people that KZ2's controls aren't good, despite people's experience to the contrary? What I'm hearing is 'You guys don't even know what good controls are, you're all noobs to twin-stick shooters, unlike me'.
Killzone 2 pre-release discussion thread
- Thread starter ihamoitc2005
- Start date
- Status
This is what it boils down to. You want KZ2 to control more like Halo. KZ2 is not Halo. If you want to play Halo, guess what? Halo's still there, you can play it. If you can't live with the KZ2 controls, if you think that your years of experience with twin-stick shooters have made you intolerant of different control schemes, well, then don't buy the game. It's as simple as that. Otherwise, what are you trying to do? Convince people that KZ2's controls aren't good, despite people's experience to the contrary? What I'm hearing is 'You guys don't even know what good controls are, you're all noobs to twin-stick shooters, unlike me'.
Personally, I'm not sure what's the big deal with KZ2's control/lag. Yes, you'll have to learn and re-adjust to it. For some, it's easier than others...depending on how entrenched you're with the standard control. Just like the QWERTY keyboard, people are used to it now...however there are better layout that supposedly allow faster typing or less stress on your wrists.
So would DELL or IBM come out with a new laptop based on a new keyboard layout? Probably, not because there's too huge pool of users that have been trained with QWERTY. However, I not sure if there's a huge enough pool of users that accustomed to Halo/CoD/etc controls to a point that KZ2 is unplayable.
My grip about SP and MP is not only to KZ2, but most games is the differences between SP and MP. WTF? It's the same freaking game. Let the SP and the MP be closely match as possible. Most other games fair better in this regard than KZ. At least in most other games the control isn't different, sure there's some feature not available (ie cover in KZ2 and GRAW).
Why should SP and MP match closely? Because skills you learn in SP should be able to carry over to MP. It shouldn't feel like a different game.
ShadowRunner
Veteran
Im sure the majority of people will get on fine with the controls, going by the opinions of those that have actually played through the game. If you dont like them dont play it.
While it is fair to criticise something you dont like is there any need to force opinions on other people and make sweeping generalizations in the process? We have covered already what issues people have with it and what people like, what more is there to talk about on the matter in that regard?
I think the fact the SP and MP have different aiming speaks volumes. The controls in SP are the way they are because the developers believe it is the optimal way for the experience they are trying to achieve. Until people play through the campaign any opinions on the controls are being made without seeing the full picture. How can an experience be judged without the required... um... experience!
EDIT:
Just a note about killzone controlls not being optimal. Of corse they are, they are 100% optimal for the experience(yes again
) the devs want to convey. To me the controls feel like they are designed around movement within a more narrow cone of fire than most games, if the SP levels are designed with a narrow cone of fire in mind it may explain why the controls as they are came to be.
While it is fair to criticise something you dont like is there any need to force opinions on other people and make sweeping generalizations in the process? We have covered already what issues people have with it and what people like, what more is there to talk about on the matter in that regard?
I think the fact the SP and MP have different aiming speaks volumes. The controls in SP are the way they are because the developers believe it is the optimal way for the experience they are trying to achieve. Until people play through the campaign any opinions on the controls are being made without seeing the full picture. How can an experience be judged without the required... um... experience!
EDIT:
Just a note about killzone controlls not being optimal. Of corse they are, they are 100% optimal for the experience(yes again
) the devs want to convey. To me the controls feel like they are designed around movement within a more narrow cone of fire than most games, if the SP levels are designed with a narrow cone of fire in mind it may explain why the controls as they are came to be.
Last edited by a moderator:
The layouts are the same. The differences are: You don't have the cover mechanics, and the response is quicker. It's because people don't play the SP and MP games the same way (Human enemies are faster and smarter naturally). I believe playtesting revealed that the MP cover mechanics didn't work as well (e.g., camping issues).
What experience to the contrary? most posters who are console shooter veterans, say KZ2's controls are suboptimal.
People who haven't played many console shooters (especially people who find COD4 controls too fast) will find the controls fine, as they say ignorance is bliss.
And it's not just Halo!, basically every other first or third person console shooter has better aiming mechanics.
It isn't about control schemes, I realise it has a different button layout to other gamers, I find the 'standard 1' setup fine, I'm not complaining about that.
I'm talking about the aiming mechanics, why tinker with something when it ain't broke?
The fact of the matter is this: KZ2 would be significantly easier if it the aiming was like COD4. I do not like artificial handicaps that add nothing in terms of realism or gameplay.
Last edited by a moderator:
Please link to the numbers from a objective and scientific study. What is an optimal control anyway ?
UT3, R1 and R2 have similar control layout and fast responses. But they play REALLY differently because of other mechanics and overall experiences.
Btw, what is your opinion on Socom controls ?
I'll be able to tell you more after I completed the game.
RenegadeRocks
Legend
Well, my friend , it is the limitations that make a game interesting, otherwise everything will be the same.
Will Silent hill be Silent hill if the we did not have tight cameras and weak combat?(I think we already have the answer with SH5) It isn't a flaw of Silent Hill, its a feature to create tension and fear. Would RE4 be the same tense and frightening if you could run like a Sprint racer when the chainsaw man was around. Its the limitation that u can't run like hell, can't move while shooting that gave RE4 the charm abd feel, otherwise if it controlled the same as , say COD4 or HALO, very twitchy very fast, then it wouldn't be RE4 at all. Then it would be another Wannabe !
There was even an interview with a Uncharted Dev who said that its the limitations that make a game, total freedom would just be as mundane as reality. The trick is to get that one thing limited, so that suddenly the rules of the game change.
Its like saying, go grab that object, but you can't use ur hands. Suddenly its fun, and you have to "Adjust" to the mechanic to enjoy it, as it was created that way. You can still say "It would be so much easier if they just let me use my hands", Its a forced handicap that adds nothing interms of realism. But instead if you play by the rules, you might have a very fun game at hand.
To play devils advocat, maybe look at from a different angle:
Which other FPS received so much of praise (visuals, overall package) and so much of critics (controls) at the same time? I can't remember a single game in 10+ years of FPS gaming that has received so much of critics for its controls. Doesn't that say enough already?
I'm not in favor of changing the rules of the game. Imagine a car racing game which in MP would give the slower (human) car a little extra boost to keep the game more entertaining (much like Daytona), but in SP it doesn't do that.
So, is KZ2 a more *realistic* or a twitcher shooter? Maybe, for MP, they shouldn't limited themselves to just a shooter...and create a car racer instead? Okay, going from a shooter in SP to a racer in MP is a little extreme, but my point is it seems like KZ2 has an identity crisis.
If the game designer feels that a more *realistic* is what they're aiming for, then shouldn't MP have the same characteristic at the core?
If I trained myself in SP so that I can timed my turn, adjust my ability to strafe in perfect circle and know to dodge a field of gun fire, and yet I can't use that exact skill on MP...? I have to relearn all the timing again as if it was a different game?
Mind you that KZ2 isn't the only game guilty of making SP and MP different. However, we shouldn't accept it creative/artistic freedom. It's not. It's basically game mechanics that aren't fully flushed out.
Have you heard of GTA3. The combat controls for that game were reviled.
It may be case-by-case. I don't really think there is a one-size-fits-all solution. In your car example, it may depend on the level design and the car interactions (e.g., can they fight each other ?) to find the ideal control scheme. If they play the same, why do you want to change the controls ?
In KZ2, the MP and SP games are well defined and separate. What matters most to me is the funness. If the cover mechanics is less fun in MP, removing it is no big deal for me. The control scheme changes according to the gameplay as a result.
Don't understand the car race analogy. KZ2's identify is pretty clear: It's an atmospheric shooter. As long as it's fun, does it matter what to call KZ2 ? If the game is released now, you won't even see me posting here. No matter what the criteria are, someone can always fall in the middle. The answer is not always 1 or 0.
From my experiences, once I completed the SP game, my skills will be tuned towards the MP game. In R2, we play 3 different modes (SP, Co-op and Competitive). The weapon balance and aiming tactics are different within R2 too, not to mention its departure from R1. I don't have a problem switching between the R2 modes once I mastered the MP controls. I had more problem between R1 and R2 because I was trying to use R1 tactics in R2, and also I was really familiar with the R1 gunplay.
In KZ2, the cover mechanics is absent in MP. There is no chance of using these SP tactics in MP.
I think you may be underestimating human's adaptability. Using Resistance as an example, besides the game modes, I also use different weapons (My 3 favourites: Marksman, Auger, or FarEye). They all have different characteristics.
In fact, I also noticed that I tuned my MP gunplay based on the perceived lag too (e.g., shooting ahead of the enemy). The tunings and experiments happen all the time. So the timing is already different from SP even if the controls may stay the same.
I disagree. The mechanics may be fleshed out based on the different game modes. It is not wrong to keep the same exact controls. It is not wrong to optimize them for different modes too.
Well, I went ahead and pre-ordered the game on play - it's only 38,99 Euro there anyway, including delivery. There's always a risk with Play.com that I get the order a tad late (overseas) but I can wait and the price seems right, and I bought Unreal Tournament III as well (23,49 Euro) as the upcoming update for PS3 (and PC) looks to make that game really worth the money.
Oh deary me, going to continue insulting me? If you struggle at KZ2 you suck at shooters. end.
There is no problem with aiming - aiming itself is responsive and accurate. But there is a WEIGHTINESS to movements - that in itself is the realism.
Yes, how can a "noob to dual sticks" be BETTER at KZ2 than they can? Because I'm magically amazing at playing with apparent more difficult controls!? What kind of reasoning do these people have?
It isn't different, it actually makes the move to MP easier.
No most people who haven't played the game and troll PS3 games say the controls aren't optimal.
Most people who have played the game and don't troll, think the controls are just fine - including all of the reviewers (none have complained about the controls) even EDGE who gave the game a 7/10 said the controls were "tight." You are all arguing way off base.
I don't get headshots in COD4 and KZ2 through magic - I am skilled and know what I'm doing. The aiming works and is responsive.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ahem, I finished the demo without dying the first time I played it, and have gone through using only the pistol (and not blowing up explosive barrels or dying either).
The problem is very much so with the 'aiming' the slowness can be ignored, the acceleration, lag etc can't.
Claiming that it is 'responsive and accurate' is a joke, you obviously haven't played many console shooters either.
With regards to me sucking at shooters, I did finish COD4 on Veteran (and not on PC either, where you can lean out of cover).
And I can tell that if COD4 handled aiming the same way KZ2 did, it would be pretty much impossible to complete even on normal.
They are different games vanquish, so that final comment is irrelevant. I have played many console shooters. It's basically my job.
The controls are responsive and accurate for the game, they aren't the same as COD, they are different - but they don't suffer or make the game less enjoyable. They might not even make the game more enjoyable - it's just a different experience. But your enjoyment of the game should not suffer, because you won't struggle. I've been playing the game for near 20 hours.
The thing is, it's always hard to adapt. I struggled to adapt to Warhawk ground combat, until I mastered it and it was a revelation. I then couldn't go back to Resistance. I've then moved to other shooters and adapted to them - and I now can't play Warhawk. Is it Warhawk's fault? No, it's that I've lost the nack with that control system.
Who exactly are these people? I owned an Xbox, I played Halo 1 when it came out. I think all console FPS controls are suboptimal and I think anyone who's complaining about KZ2's control is just a crybaby. I'm not even that crazy about KZ2, I'm just tired of these absolutely worthless posts that don't say anything other than 'your liking KZ2 controls is wrong because you suck'.
See, this is the same nonsense I'm talking about. You're telling people they can't evaluate the controls, that your opinion is more valid than anyone else's because you've given yourself some ridiculous 'console FPS veteran' badge.
You like other games better, fine. Go play those games. Haven't you gotten it yet? People have played the demo, they've played the MP beta. They've liked these. You don't like the controls? Fine. Show GG you're serious and don't buy the game. Don't come in with ridiculous claims that 'people like it because they don't know any better' because that's just offensive.
DuckThor Evil
Legend
UK sure has good prices these days. I preorded Killzone 2 Limited Steel tin edition from blahdvd.com, and it was 36.95£ including shipping, that's about 42€. Usually that version is about 45£+ shipping.
ShadowRunner
Veteran
Do people want FPSs to control exactly like COD4 for the rest of time? If you are not willing to adapt to control on a game by game basis your future as a gamer will be short. The whole control interface is likely to change sooner rather than later.
The contol/aiming in killzone is its gameplay. If you dont like the gameplay in killzone then it is simply not for you, COD5/6/7... is always there. For others a difference in feel is welcome and i personally greet freshness with open arms.
The funny thing is people used to complain at how similar to COD4 killzone looked, now it is here people are complaining it is not like it enough.
When i first got LBP i didnt like the floaty jumping, couldnt understand why they wouldnt make it control like mario games. After playing through it i wouldnt have it any other way. Because one way for a style of game works well doesnt mean another way cant work equally as well if its given a chance.
The contol/aiming in killzone is its gameplay. If you dont like the gameplay in killzone then it is simply not for you, COD5/6/7... is always there. For others a difference in feel is welcome and i personally greet freshness with open arms.
The funny thing is people used to complain at how similar to COD4 killzone looked, now it is here people are complaining it is not like it enough.
When i first got LBP i didnt like the floaty jumping, couldnt understand why they wouldnt make it control like mario games. After playing through it i wouldnt have it any other way. Because one way for a style of game works well doesnt mean another way cant work equally as well if its given a chance.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
Similar threads
