KILLZONE Shadow Fall [PS4]
- Thread starter RenegadeRocks
- Start date
Billy Idol
Legend
It costs money?!? How much?
Prophecy2k
Veteran
Well, I would politely disagree with the latter statement. Resistance 3's SP campaign was one of the most enjoyable SP FPS campaigns of PS3 IMHO. Defintely an underrated gem. In terms of the MP for R3, I didn't even play it so can't comment there, however I'm well aware that it was still very different from Resistance 1 MP (which many loved as I understand it). It's funny though how Insomniac seemed to fix one mode and botch another with each successive release of Resistance, i.e.
R1 - Competitive MP mode is incredible (all others mostly average)
R2 - Co-op 4 player mission is incredible (all other modes mostly average)
R3 - SP campaign is incredible (all other modes mostly average)
Had they had the comp. MP of R1, the Co-op of R2 and R3 SP all in the same game, then it would have been the PS3's Halo last gen imho.
As for Killzone, yeah. Guerilla basically didn't understand what made KZ2 so legendary.
Lets not exagerate here. The heaviness wasn't the issue - it was the lag and perhaps because the control mechanism was accelerative and not constant making it a difficult to play compared to an easy-to-get-into CoD. The later update in KZ2 solved much of this and KZ3 shipped with much better controls.
I still think most of what put people off KZ2 was not the "weight" in the controls but the lag (perhaps due to lots of post-processing taking up valuable frames). The MP gameplay however was gold.
I still think most of what put people off KZ2 was not the "weight" in the controls but the lag (perhaps due to lots of post-processing taking up valuable frames). The MP gameplay however was gold.
Billy Idol
Legend
But that is exactly what I meant: they never iterated on the existing concepts and kept the things that worked, but they changed everything in each iteration. Hence we have exactly what you describe above.
If they know why those parts were good, the process would have been:
R1 - Competitive Mode is great (keep it)
R2 - keeps MP mode, introduces great Co-op 4 player mode (was so good and fun!!)
R3 - keeps MP mode, keeps Co-op mode and ads the great campaign . This would have resulted in a high caliber AAA release.
Also, I think they did not understand why 4player Co-op mode in R2 was fun...hence we got Fuse as an attempt for 4 player co-op gaming - which was just not as good (although they kept the one nice ingredient: asymmetric co-op game playing, but totally wrecked everything else for me). .
I think that GG has the same problem. I really loved KZ2 MP. But they didn't understand what people liked it for imo and hence KZ3 MP totally bombed. Also, MP in KZ: SF is not my cup of tea. But the same goes for graphics: I also have the feeling that they don't really know what made KZ2 visuals so special (at least to me) and as a result I don't like the visuals of KZ3 and KZ:SF that much, except for the KZ2-esque parts in KZ: SF which really looked great to me again.
Well I can only talk for myself.
And IMO, KZ2 was still some of the best multiplayer. I probably played more of CoD due to friends playing that more often, but KZ2 had a sense of team-play among strangers that I haven't really encountered since.As for the controls - I do remember some youtube videos of people trying to pin-point what was "off" in KZ2. My main gripe was the lag. Everything else, I kind of got used to. I think once they added an option in the game for better controls (Don't remember what the option was called), it played a lot better.
IMO. KZ3 was even better. Less controller/screen lag, but I never really got into the map design and the different gameplay. Sadly enough - I also never really played much of Shadow Fall MP. Either BF4 just has me too hooked or it isn't mine. From what I can tell, they never really made it back to what made KZ2 such a good MP game.
RenegadeRocks
Legend
^KZSF MP is very very fn. feels just like KZ2 MP. and yes, I agree with the team-play with randomns observation. The MP was just fab, th emaps were out of this world. KZSF also has that same DNA of map design. Wish more ppl would play KZSF MP, a friend tells me that its mostly dead now.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
I totally agree with you. And it's such a shame too, since what I loved so much about KZ2 was the deeply dark and depressing tone, as well as the feel of being in a planetary invading force against a force of ruthless space-nazis. KZ2 SP culminated for me in the fight that led up to Vizari's palace. One of my most memorable moments in a video of all games last gen. MP of KZ2 just nailed it too. It was just so darned spot on and enjoyable.
I remember getting in to the private beta for KZ2, being able to see the rediculous visuals for the first time, it was pure gaming bliss.
Also thanks for the info. too RenegadeRocks. I've been meaning to try KZ:SF MP. Will try and get into it as soon as I'm done with Black Flag.
One of the main reasons GG screwed up KZ3 was they mined the user forums for feedback. I posted on/read them for about a year or two, and nearly every single change I saw in KZ3 was something that had previously had lots of threads about it in the forums. The only exception was the removal of the server browser and custom games, which no one asked for.
Don't let your customers design your products. You'll end up pleasing no one.
Don't let your customers design your products. You'll end up pleasing no one.
hesido
Regular
Also, I don't think anybody asked them to remove their excellent Clan system.
When making changes, they changed the essence of the game. They tried to re-invent the brand after KZ2, changing brand defining features and gameplay elements. They also forgoet that people also like more of the same. There's no harm in providing similar experiences, the worst you'd get is a few whiny reviews, but it won't lower your sales.
Resistance have done similar things. e.g. Completely changing narrative style for the second game. Game being narrated by a voice-over was a brand defining feature for me, one of the things that stood out. They axed that completely for the second.
There is a ton of pressure in any industry to be like the market leader. KZ2 sold well, but COD sold ten times as well, so no doubt there was a lot more pressure to do things the way COD did. COD didn't have a server browser, custom games, or clans, so someone upstairs probably ruled those a waste of dev effort. The problem is that in entertainment, "We're like the leader, but slightly different" never takes you to the top.
KZ3 was so directionless, torn in pieces by letting 15-year-old forum posters dictate the features and halfway aping COD. It made me sad.
KZ3 was so directionless, torn in pieces by letting 15-year-old forum posters dictate the features and halfway aping COD. It made me sad.
RenegadeRocks
Legend
^Don't make so much sense. It might spread bring the end of the world !
but, yes, KZ2 was so damn good and its sad to see where it went instead of turning into the next God Of War for PS.
!but, yes, KZ2 was so damn good and its sad to see where it went instead of turning into the next God Of War for PS.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
I think language like this can be problematic in the broader view of looking at the development process that actually produces the games that we play.
When a developer develops a game for a platform and then makes a sequel, they very very rarely will start with the previous game code and start making changes and swapping out assets in order to transmogrify the first title into its sequel. When you use language like "this feature was removed" or "that feature was changed" it sort of implies such.
This is especially true when a dev like GG moves from one platform archetecture to the next like with moving from KZ3 to KZ:SF. Things like a clan system wouldn't have been removed, as for the newest build of GG's game engine and dev toolset, upon which they were building KZ:SF, those features which may have existed in a previosu game didn't exist. It is far more likely that these features are "missing" (and I hate to use the term) because the dev had a limited scope within which to build not only a game but an entirely retooled engine for a new platform. Of course there will be some concessions in scope, because GG would have had a fixed budget and a very tight dev schedule considering they were making a launch title that needed to be ready on dayone of the PS4's launch. This premise is evidenced further by the fact that they are adding an entirely new coop mode post-release, which I think is very easy to imagine would have probably been part of their original scope for the game but they realised late in development that there was just no time to add it.
The narrator in Resistance 1 was by far the worst part of the game for me. It was horrible, completely removing you from the game world and disconnecting you from any of the characters or any personal identification with the plot. It made me care nothing fro Nathan Hale, nor any of the other characters. It just felt lazy and rushed to me. I hated it in R1, and I thought it ruined Castlvania Lord of the Shadows to me too. It's sort of like reading a book without any dialogue and thus character development... just awful in my opinion.
A narrator can be done right as game plot driver, see the GOW series. But R1 and C:LOS was terribad IMHO.
Well, I got a PS4 and this game a couple days ago. I haven't touched the multi yet, so here are my impressions:
-The SP campaign is good, much better than KZ3. As good as KZ2? Hard to say. Better than 1, but not better than 1 would have been if the PS2 had been up to GG's ambitions.
-This game has made a friend I used to argue with over these things a true believer in diminishing returns. The game looks good, no doubt. The benefits of 1080p with AA are undeniable. It's a good thing that COD won't have to drop to sub-HD to run at 60 fps. It's certainly nice to not have to choose between physically accurate HDR and layers upon layers of lighting effects. I'm glad BF4 now has a full 64 players. But to put it simply, the leap is not breathtaking this time, owing in large part to just how lifelike and detailed graphics already were on the PS3. And I'm not going to chalk it up to it being a launch title, either. Going from Star Fox (late SNES with FX chip) to Shadows of the Empire was a mind-blowing experience. The first time I played Rogue Leader, I just flew around Bespin over and over, looking at the graphics. Resistance 3 and COD2 didn't quite have that effect on me, though they were impressive. And now KZ:SF doesn't really "do" anything for me.
I suspect that this generation, you will need a rather enormous budget to generate enough assets to really push the machines to meaningful limits.
-The SP campaign is good, much better than KZ3. As good as KZ2? Hard to say. Better than 1, but not better than 1 would have been if the PS2 had been up to GG's ambitions.
-This game has made a friend I used to argue with over these things a true believer in diminishing returns. The game looks good, no doubt. The benefits of 1080p with AA are undeniable. It's a good thing that COD won't have to drop to sub-HD to run at 60 fps. It's certainly nice to not have to choose between physically accurate HDR and layers upon layers of lighting effects. I'm glad BF4 now has a full 64 players. But to put it simply, the leap is not breathtaking this time, owing in large part to just how lifelike and detailed graphics already were on the PS3. And I'm not going to chalk it up to it being a launch title, either. Going from Star Fox (late SNES with FX chip) to Shadows of the Empire was a mind-blowing experience. The first time I played Rogue Leader, I just flew around Bespin over and over, looking at the graphics. Resistance 3 and COD2 didn't quite have that effect on me, though they were impressive. And now KZ:SF doesn't really "do" anything for me.
I suspect that this generation, you will need a rather enormous budget to generate enough assets to really push the machines to meaningful limits.
hesido
Regular
The clan system was removed in KZ3, though. I wouldn't have mentioned it in a similar fashion if they removed it on the new platform. They already had a superb system in place for KZ2 which was completely canned on KZ3.
The reason for the narration was probably indeed rushing to meet the launch, if I had to take a guess, but I liked the voiceless Nathan Hale more. It made me not care for him, but identify with him instead, filling his shoes. When they gave him a voice and removed narration for a different type of story telling, he was just an unbelievably generic character, that's not more likable than the standard enemies I shot at.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
But this was my original point, hesido. Unless you have first hand information from the developer about the nature of their dev process from going from KZ2 to KZ3, you cannot conclusively say that a feature was removed between sequels.
Did KZ3 ship with a clan mode, which was later removed in a patch? Not that I'm aware of. Hence, the feature wasn't "removed" from KZ3, its simply "wasn't included". Guerilla Games could have branched their engine between KZ2 and KZ3, and overhauled their entire netcode back-end, requiring a re-write of many of their competitive MP systems like the clan system for their newest engine build and KZ3. It's more likely that they just did not have enough time to re-write this system for the new game, hence the feature's omission in KZ3. Devs have a fixed budget and tight schedules. They have to prioritse features that they believe are most important for the game they are making. They also have usage stats and data to back up their decisions, and its even possible that they considered the clan system in KZ3 a waste of resources as sufficiently few players actually made use of it in the previous game... it sucks, but it happens.
I would that here is likely the point at which our personal tastes diverge. As I'm one of those gamers who dislikes faceless, silent protagonists in stories and games, as I prefer to feel as if I'm an external observer follwoing the journey and character growth of a protagonist with his/her own personality. I suppose you're probably one of those people who prefers to role-play, immersing yourself in the role of the game's central character, as if it were your own personal journey. Both are legitimate forms of story-telling, but the former aligns more with my own personal tastes.
Resistance 1 on the other hand, I don't consider bad because Nathan Hale was a silent protagonist. Rather I consider the narrative and storytelling bad because every other character in the game was reduced to being a silent faceless entity outside of the narrator. It's the fundamental method of story telling that I disliked, basically reading to me the player about the events and interactions of the time entirely in the past tense. I found it horribly trite. Whereas, R2 and R3 for me were much superior in terms of the SP campaign because everything was in the present tense, and I the player was being taken on the journey with Nathan Hale and his band of resistance fighters, despite Hale himself being an awfully generic character.
Well, I got a PS4 and this game a couple days ago. I haven't touched the multi yet, so here are my impressions:
-The SP campaign is good, much better than KZ3. As good as KZ2? Hard to say. Better than 1, but not better than 1 would have been if the PS2 had been up to GG's ambitions.
-This game has made a friend I used to argue with over these things a true believer in diminishing returns. The game looks good, no doubt. The benefits of 1080p with AA are undeniable. It's a good thing that COD won't have to drop to sub-HD to run at 60 fps. It's certainly nice to not have to choose between physically accurate HDR and layers upon layers of lighting effects. I'm glad BF4 now has a full 64 players. But to put it simply, the leap is not breathtaking this time, owing in large part to just how lifelike and detailed graphics already were on the PS3. And I'm not going to chalk it up to it being a launch title, either. Going from Star Fox (late SNES with FX chip) to Shadows of the Empire was a mind-blowing experience. The first time I played Rogue Leader, I just flew around Bespin over and over, looking at the graphics. Resistance 3 and COD2 didn't quite have that effect on me, though they were impressive. And now KZ:SF doesn't really "do" anything for me.
I suspect that this generation, you will need a rather enormous budget to generate enough assets to really push the machines to meaningful limits.
I think I feel very similarly to you. The game is gorgeous, technically it's marvellous and I'm probably missing some of the more technical subtleties, but if I'm completely honest, the feel of the game is not really connecting with me, and I'm very close to the end.
It just doesn't touch me the way I like to be touched. If that makes sense.
Prophecy2k
Veteran
