[PS3] Killzone 2

[Scott_Arm]

But is it broken? That's also part of the debate. What the CoD defenders are saying is: 'not like CoD=broken', even if they're not aware of that. It's a ridiculous stance to take, because not every game plays like CoD. In fact, most don't -- CoD plays like CoD. The defense is that KZ2 plays differently from CoD -- why should it control identically?

It definitely isn't broken. It just doesn't feel very good. The first thing I notice when I pick up a game is the controls.

Yeah, KZ2 plays differently from CoD and that's fine. Different controls would be fine too, if I felt there was a good reason for it, or it enhanced the game in some way. Otherwise I just feel like I'm playing a game that has controls that could be better. The last thing you want is for people to pick up your game and feel like they're fighting the controls. The demo was incredibly easy. It's not like I couldn't aim, it just didn't feel good. The controls just seem clumsy for fine aiming and I had to correct myself more than I normally would. It didn't register with me as realism, or anything that would benefit the game. It just felt worse than the majority of shooters I've played.

 

[Scott_Arm]

I know what you're saying, but if we're after some amount of realism, an awkward weapon is more realistic than drawing a bead and missing because of unseen physics handled by some formula of your running speed, etc.

IMHO a good compromise would be snappier controls when prone (kneeling) and lighter weapons with controls getting slower (sloppier) with speed and weapon weight. So if I'm looking down the site from a prone position I should have quicker response than if I'm running and shooting - and this for the "putting my crosshairs" on the enemy.

That's actually a pretty cool idea. I know some people complain about the "randomness" of modern shooters, but there are usually visual indicators to tell you when your accuracy is reduced, like expanding reticles and weapon swap. I mean, anyone with common sense should know you can't snipe head shots with a rifle at sixty feet while running sideways unless you're really really lucky. Your idea of messing with the aim during certain movement conditions and providing fine control during optimal conditions is pretty cool, because the control is still in the hands of the user and it encourages them to move/behave in a manner that is realistic.

This is a perfect example of a control experiment I could live with, because there is a purposeful approach that is attached to some form of realism.

 

[obonicus]

It definitely isn't broken. It just doesn't feel very good. The first thing I notice when I pick up a game is the controls.

Yeah, KZ2 plays differently from CoD and that's fine. Different controls would be fine too, if I felt there was a good reason for it, or it enhanced the game in some way. Otherwise I just feel like I'm playing a game that has controls that could be better. The last thing you want is for people to pick up your game and feel like they're fighting the controls. The demo was incredibly easy. It's not like I couldn't aim, it just didn't feel good. The controls just seem clumsy for fine aiming and I had to correct myself more than I normally would. It didn't register with me as realism, or anything that would benefit the game. It just felt worse than the majority of shooters I've played.

It's really a pity that you don't enjoy it. I've noticed the overshoot, but I didn't find it hard to get used to, but I stopped playing CoD4 and Halo sometime in 2007, the only other FPS I play with any regularity is BF:BC, which doesn't have the same acceleration as KZ2, but also has guns that are much more inaccurate, so it's a wash for me.

 

[Delta9]

COD controls are probably the reason I hate it so much.It's just so easy that leads to constant kills for even the worst player ever.

 

[Mize]

That's actually a pretty cool idea. I know some people complain about the "randomness" of modern shooters, but there are usually visual indicators to tell you when your accuracy is reduced, like expanding reticles and weapon swap. I mean, anyone with common sense should know you can't snipe head shots with a rifle at sixty feet while running sideways unless you're really really lucky. Your idea of messing with the aim during certain movement conditions and providing fine control during optimal conditions is pretty cool, because the control is still in the hands of the user and it encourages them to move/behave in a manner that is realistic.

This is a perfect example of a control experiment I could live with, because there is a purposeful approach that is attached to some form of realism.

Did I mention I patented it?

 

[RobertR1]

COD controls are probably the reason I hate it so much.It's just so easy that leads to constant kills for even the worst player ever.

This is an amazing mis conception.

Fact is, a good player will kill a lesser player routinely. They will have better tactics, map control and placement. Not just better aim. Halo3 has even more aim assist than CoD yet a high level halo3 player will kill your repeatedly (I'm learning that now as I'm play H3 more with the B3D guys ) At the end of the day, ALL shooters will have randomness to them. It's the nature of bullets being fired. A "noob" can spray and pray and will get random kills here and there on any popular game but a good player will still be at top by a long stretch.

Good players in CoD wouldn't have 10, 15, 20+ kill streaks routinely if it was such as "noobfest" that anyone could jump in and do well and get "constant kills."

If you suck at CoD and are getting "constant kills" then it's because you're playing people who suck at your level or worse. In a way, you're complimenting their matchmaking I suppose.

 

[tha_con]

Well as soon as gaf goes back up I'm out of here, not sure why you keep acting like this place is so much better than gaf

I wasn't aware that I did. I just sai dthat it explains a lot.

so much of the gaming news actually comes from gaf

Lurking get's me all the news from GAF I need.

it's still THE place to talk about games and not shaders or cascade shadowing.

This is odd, coming from the guy who's biggest complaint with Resistance 2 were, believe it or not, shaders and lighting.

Don't forget far better maps in Killzone 2 and a better soundtrack, and better gameplay.

I think unlike R2, the testers really like how it plays, and basically Guerilla Games went with that, and it has worked well for most. I think just like R2, if you don't like the way the game plays, just don't play it, I've basically stopped playing R2 and likely won't go back to it or post much in R2 threads. Not every game is everybody's cup of tea.

I think I'll just avoid all of this completely, this isn't a versus thread, and it's quite obvious you'll overlook any flaw in Killzone 2, but hold everything about Resistance 2 in the spotlight. You have your opinion, I have mine, debating is pointless.

 

[rabidrabbit]

All I can say I'm glad I haven't played COD, so I really don't know what's supposed to be so broken in KZ2 controls
I have no problems aiming whatsoever, nor with other controls.
The're naturally not exactly the same as some other fps games, but then again basically every game has a bit different control scheme and speed. If you're a gamer who plays many games, I can't see why is it so difficult to adapt to KZ2 controls They're not that different.

Amazing game, I'm constantly awed by the visual and aural presentation.
Single player gameplay is awesome too, multiplayer fps games I generally really don't care that much because I'm not very good agaisnt the more seasoned players.

 

[Delta9]

This is an amazing mis conception.

Fact is, a good player will kill a lesser player routinely. They will have better tactics, map control and placement. Not just better aim. Halo3 has even more aim assist than CoD yet a high level halo3 player will kill your repeatedly (I'm learning that now as I'm play H3 more with the B3D guys ) At the end of the day, ALL shooters will have randomness to them. It's the nature of bullets being fired. A "noob" can spray and pray and will get random kills here and there on any popular game but a good player will still be at top by a long stretch.

Good players in CoD wouldn't have 10, 15, 20+ kill streaks routinely if it was such as "noobfest" that anyone could jump in and do well and get "constant kills."

If you suck at CoD and are getting "constant kills" then it's because you're playing people who suck at your level or worse. In a way, you're complimenting their matchmaking I suppose.

Sorry I'm not complimenting them. Constant kills come from the simple play with barely any recoil.

 

[Arwin]

Well as soon as gaf goes back up I'm out of here, not sure why you keep acting like this place is so much better than gaf when so much of the gaming news actually comes from gaf, it's still THE place to talk about games and not shaders or cascade shadowing.

It's great if they let you in. There's a lot of high-profile gamers out there, some awesome game dedicated ("official") threads, and so on. For whatever reason though, I've never been able to sign on. I've tried a few times over the last two years. But hey, this is a pretty good place to be as well, imho.

 

[Kittonwy]

This is an amazing mis conception.

Fact is, a good player will kill a lesser player routinely. They will have better tactics, map control and placement. Not just better aim. Halo3 has even more aim assist than CoD yet a high level halo3 player will kill your repeatedly (I'm learning that now as I'm play H3 more with the B3D guys ) At the end of the day, ALL shooters will have randomness to them. It's the nature of bullets being fired. A "noob" can spray and pray and will get random kills here and there on any popular game but a good player will still be at top by a long stretch.

Good players in CoD wouldn't have 10, 15, 20+ kill streaks routinely if it was such as "noobfest" that anyone could jump in and do well and get "constant kills."

If you suck at CoD and are getting "constant kills" then it's because you're playing people who suck at your level or worse. In a way, you're complimenting their matchmaking I suppose.

Socom is very skill-based and it's VERY hard to get 10, 15, 20+ kill streaks. It just depends on the way the game is designed. I think a smart and skilled player in Killzone 2 can have great success, I don't see a lot of random kills in Killzone 2 through the 6 weeks in the beta or now, probably because it relies on outflanking and a good steady shot alot more.

 

[Delta9]

It's great if they let you in. There's a lot of high-profile gamers out there, some awesome game dedicated ("official") threads, and so on. For whatever reason though, I've never been able to sign on. I've tried a few times over the last two years. But hey, this is a pretty good place to be as well, imho.

Maybe try a different email and will work.

 

[Kittonwy]

I wasn't aware that I did. I just sai dthat it explains a lot.

Lurking get's me all the news from GAF I need.

I guess that's a testament to how informative the gaf is.

This is odd, coming from the guy who's biggest complaint with Resistance 2 were, believe it or not, shaders and lighting.

My biggest criticism of the game is how it plays, especially the map designs, granted Resistance 2's mishandling of the lighting and shadowing system drew a lot of criticisms from me as well, and rightfully so, given RFOM's least competitive aspect was graphics and Insomniac did little to address that. And despite the addition of co-op the MP competitive took a huge step back in terms of ditching player-driven tactical depth in favor of spoon-fed accessibility.

I think I'll just avoid all of this completely, this isn't a versus thread, and it's quite obvious you'll overlook any flaw in Killzone 2, but hold everything about Resistance 2 in the spotlight. You have your opinion, I have mine, debating is pointless.

You should avoid this because you will never win in a versus argument. While Killzone 2 isn't perfect (assault class having a bit too much health and saboteur can be a bit annoying when seen from the receiving end), it's still the best shooter on the PS3 by far.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

This is an amazing mis conception.

Fact is, a good player will kill a lesser player routinely. They will have better tactics, map control and placement. Not just better aim. Halo3 has even more aim assist than CoD yet a high level halo3 player will kill your repeatedly (I'm learning that now as I'm play H3 more with the B3D guys ) At the end of the day, ALL shooters will have randomness to them. It's the nature of bullets being fired. A "noob" can spray and pray and will get random kills here and there on any popular game but a good player will still be at top by a long stretch.

Good players in CoD wouldn't have 10, 15, 20+ kill streaks routinely if it was such as "noobfest" that anyone could jump in and do well and get "constant kills."

If you suck at CoD and are getting "constant kills" then it's because you're playing people who suck at your level or worse. In a way, you're complimenting their matchmaking I suppose.

Good post. People who complain about randomness and noobishness in shooters are generally players that completely suck themselves.

While a bad player may occationally kill a good player, the better player will allways come out on top in the long run.

I don't see a lot of random kills in Killzone 2 through the 6 weeks in the beta or now, probably because it relies on outflanking and a good steady shot alot more.

Really? My experience so far have been that KZ2 mp kills are fairly random, but then again i have noticed severe lag in most of the games. I can shoot people seemingly in the head, and a second later i turn up dead while that guy is still standing. I still finish atleast top 3 in most matches, but i feel that a lot of the time i end up dead in an completely unexplainable way.

I dont know why i died, and the other guy was left standing at all. I think this is netcode related, as the whole feel so far feels very "p2p", and combined with ping correction, this is usually the end result. (Guy on screen might allready be shooting at you on his screen, since shots\movement is not confirmed first by server, its impossible to actually know if you got the first shot in. )
(Much like PD:Z actually).

In other shooters, unless the game is really laggy, 99% of the time i die i know exactly why i died.

Looking forward to friday, as i will move my ps3 to another location with a really great internet connection, and i will run some test. Im going to first play some matches and just see if there is any less lag. Then i will add lag to my connection by powering up a torrent program. If it really does have a p2p netcode with ping correction, having the most lag can actually give you an advantage. Soon i will have the answer

 

[tirminyl]

It's great if they let you in. There's a lot of high-profile gamers out there, some awesome game dedicated ("official") threads, and so on. For whatever reason though, I've never been able to sign on. I've tried a few times over the last two years. But hey, this is a pretty good place to be as well, imho.

I found B3D because of Gaf I've been a "registered member" there for over two years now, so all I can do is "lurk"

Tonight I will give SP a break and hop online and try to rank up!

 

[specwarGP2]

But it still might break the game. Let's suppose that the SMG is far weaker than the AR in both single-shot and sustained fire, but has a much quicker aiming speed. If you buff turn-speed all around, all of a sudden the SMG's advantage may become insignificant -- there's no reason to take it. You can't just suppose that because something seems like a small change, or an 'equal' change that it actually is.

Your example doesn't work because all weapons respond exactly the same. A small pistol has the same unresponsiveness as a heavy rocket launcher.

The situations are extremely different, though. Lair was critically panned, and KZ2 has been reviewed extremely well. Lair was a flop, while Killzone 2 has done quite well so far -- which is important because I see Lair's control-scheme change as a last-ditch effort to try and draw interest to the game. Also, the dislike for KZ2's controls is nowhere near as universal hate for Lair's controls.

Lair's control scheme was a major factor as to why the game was reviewed so poorly! I agree the hate for KZ2's controls are nowhere near as bad as Lair's, but when was the last time any shooter had any significant criticism for its controls?

 

[tha_con]

I guess that's a testament to how informative the gaf is.



My biggest criticism of the game is how it plays, especially the map designs, granted Resistance 2's mishandling of the lighting and shadowing system drew a lot of criticisms from me as well, and rightfully so, given RFOM's least competitive aspect was graphics and Insomniac did little to address that. And despite the addition of co-op the MP competitive took a huge step back in terms of ditching player-driven tactical depth in favor of spoon-fed accessibility.



You should avoid this because you will never win in a versus argument. While Killzone 2 isn't perfect (assault class having a bit too much health and saboteur can be a bit annoying when seen from the receiving end), it's still the best shooter on the PS3 by far.

*sigh*

You're right, your arguement skills are far more elite than my own. I stand in your shadow.

*back on topic*

So, question time! For those of you who have played online a decent amount, what is your experience thus far with the community? I played in the beta, and have had limited time to play online since I've got it. What I mean by that is, does the community consist of the typical shooter community, or does it seem to be pretty level headed? Not that I particularly mind, but given my crazy schedule in the Army, it's hard for me to get online with friends regularly, so playing with random folks seems to be the norm for me

 

[Kittonwy]

Your example doesn't work because all weapons respond exactly the same. A small pistol has the same unresponsiveness as a heavy rocket launcher.

Lair's control scheme was a major factor as to why the game was reviewed so poorly! I agree the hate for KZ2's controls are nowhere near as bad as Lair's, but when was the last time any shooter had any significant criticism for its controls?

Not sure why you would blame the bad reviews on the controls, the gameplay was the same repetitive RS garbage, it was horrible since RS, heck that kind of crap was bad since x-wing but then it wasn't factor 5's fault since factor 5 didn't make x-wing.

 

[Scott_Arm]

So, question time! For those of you who have played online a decent amount, what is your experience thus far with the community? I played in the beta, and have had limited time to play online since I've got it. What I mean by that is, does the community consist of the typical shooter community, or does it seem to be pretty level headed? Not that I particularly mind, but given my crazy schedule in the Army, it's hard for me to get online with friends regularly, so playing with random folks seems to be the norm for me

This is one area where I hope it is entirely different than Call of Duty ... the kids on Live, especially in military games, are loud mouthed jerks.

 

[tha_con]

This is one area where I hope it is entirely different than Call of Duty ... the kids on Live, especially in military games, are loud mouthed jerks.

Yea, that's why I'm hoping it's really good.

Certain titles have spoiled me with the ease of creating a party and just enjoying the game with a few friends, so hopefully KZ2 will have a good community since it lacks a good party system.

Though, as is with any popular game, the Community is bound to turn into crap, spend about 6 months in a really bad state, and then, a year after it's release, it turns into gold.