Support NeoGAF

[Dante]

Talking out your ass?

Classy as always. :lol

 

[Click]

but Click sounds incredibly bitter that the fanbase didn't pick up on R2...sorry dude, but KZ2 is way beyond R2 with the gunplay, graphics, handling...everything, almost. I couldn't get into R2 because it felt like uncompetitive garbage for casuals or something. like there wasn't any skill involved in any of it, just huge ass 60 player matches with little production values or thought gone into the actual gameplay.

LMAO!

Some of you are insane.
Where in the world did I ever "sound incredibly bitter that the fanbase didn't pick up on R2?" Or did you just make that shit up out of nowhere?

Other than a few comparisons I've made (along with SOCOM Confrontation, because they're both recent, first party, SCE-published, PS3 exclusives like KZ2), I have never mentioned R2 in this thread. Especially nothing in regards to the "fanbase" (more like certain GAF'fers).

Seriously, you guys need to stop making shit up about me just because you dislike my criticisms of KZ2. If you don't agree with my criticisms, then argue and discuss where my opinions are invalid. No need to resort to making crap up about things I never said or claimed or calling it "pretty sad" I'm here posting due to my "grudge" against Kittonwy's R2 trolling.

 

[Click]

Classy as always. :lol

When you falsely accuse me of taking my grudge against Kittonwy's R2 trolling "out on this thread," and calling me "pretty sad," I'm supposed to be classy towards you?

 

[Click]

His criticisms of R2 were very valid. His playtime is irrelevant to the discussion. I didn't play more than 3 hours of R2's multiplayer because it was awful, while I've put in over 100 hours into KZ2 despite its shortcomings. I find KZ2 to be a much more fun game to play even though it isn't structured in an ideal way.

Your criticisms of KZ2 are somewhat valid, but you exaggerate and blow shit up to a ridiculous degree. No, KZ2 isn't perfect (no game is), and yes it could use improvement. R2 could just use a WHOLE LOT MORE.

The difference between KZ2 and R2 is that while KZ2 can be made better by simple infrastructure patches, R2 CANNOT. It would require a complete revamping of almost everything other than the netcode and perhaps the infrastructure. The gameplay itself, however, is just plain BAD. It's like the opposite problem of KZ2 where the gameplay is a fuckload of fun but it's just a pain in the ass to get things organized. R2 would need significant development time devoted to the map designs, gun handling, weapon balance, and gameplay modes to make it fun. Might as well not even bother when it would cost so much. Just devote those resources to the next game.

Everything you're saying is your OPINION of R2. YOU think R2 is "awful," while many, many others would disagree with you and thinks it's a very fun and entertaining game. YOU think that KZ2 "can be made better by simple (LOL) infrastructure patches," while R2 cannot. Meanwhile, I've provided a long list of detailed observations that would prove your opinion to be faulty.

And before people start saying "Look look! You're talking about R2 in the KZ2 thread," YOU and Dante were the ones who brought it up in the first place. I'm just responding.

Oh, and playtime does matter. It matters A LOT when trying to criticize a game. If you want, make yet another R2 thread and title it "R2 vs. KZ2." I'd be more than happy to discuss, in detail, how the 2 games differ from each other. You can provide detailed reasons why you think it's "awful" in there, something you failed to do above, with your generalized criticisms of R2. I guarantee you cannot come up with many specific details to back up your opinion that R2 is "awful," (unless you read others' criticisms and make them your own), because 3 hours' worth of playtime is not enough to formulate a well-informed opinion of the game.

P.S. You should freelance for Eurogamer. I'm sure they'd be glad to pay you for your reviews of games where you only played 3 hours' worth.

 

[mr_nothin]

Umm... they haven't really patched single player at all. There are certain sections, specifically the end, where people die over and over and over. Their data mining didn't show this? People bitching on forums for weeks didn't show this? What about the fact that your AI partners die constantly, especially at higher difficulties. And what about endless spawning of enemies if you don't reach invisible checkpoints? No data on that either?

I suppose their data mining capabilities also don't tell them how many people play certain classes compared to other classes. Because if it did and they cared, they'd see that Engineer and Assault, with Saboteur close behind, are proportionally overused compared to the other classes. They'd also see that many, many games/rooms ban the use of Assault and/or grenade/rocket launchers. If their data mining fails to show them these things, all they need to do is take a look at the game search results or forums to see that there's a major issue with class and weapon balance.




They (GG) listen to a few customers about a few issues and fixed a few things that they personally feel is a problem worth fixing. There are still tons of major problems with the game that are still left unpatched/unfixed 2+ months after release.



LOL, he somewhat flamed other consoles by making this comment. If GG was really concerned with not bothering to find the "lowest common denominator," they should have been a PC-only developer, instead of selling their company to Sony.

Come oonnnnn...it's the final boss and alot of the time that "dying over and over and over" is in the hard and elite modes. I'm pretty glad that the HARD and ELITE modes are actually HARD and for ELITE players...

 

[JoJo13]

3 hours worth of playtime is enough to experience all the different modes and weapons and how the gameplay feels in general. It's enough time. I purchased the game for crying out loud. If it had grabbed me like KZ2 grabbed me, I would have played a lot more of R2. Sadly, it didn't.

Honestly, you just confirm that you're bitter over R2. I want R2 to be a great game too, but that honestly can't happen unless they make it completely different.

 

[Irnbru]

Am I like the only person here with 200+ hours of gametime and still love the hell out of the game?

I mean, just play no rocket games or something if you find yourself complaining to much or w/e. I'm having a blast every time a gang up with my little clan. We get on 15-24 player matches and have an absolute blast. Dunno what you guys are all smokin here. ;P Anyway, viva la killzone!

Edit: To be exact, 166 hours ;P

 

[Click]

Come oonnnnn...it's the final boss and alot of the time that "dying over and over and over" is in the hard and elite modes. I'm pretty glad that the HARD and ELITE modes are actually HARD and for ELITE players...

It's bad game design, simple as that.

Several portions of the campaign mode is extremely frustrating and ridiculous. Yes, even the "ELITE" players have complained about it a lot. Certain sections of the game are dependent entirely on luck to beat. Plus, infinite respawn with invisible checkpoints is another game design flaw, similar to CoD4.

Again:

....if you find levels that have too many deaths in certain sections, you can kind of fix those during development but maybe also after development. We can also patch such things if we need to.

I was merely responding to their own statements of patching up single player after the game's release, if there are too many deaths in certain sections of the game.... because you know, they never made any patches for these areas. I'm not saying they should nerf harder areas to make it more n00b-friendly, but certain areas are flawed (especially in hard and elite modes) and needs to be patched.

 

[Mr YuYu]

does crouching make you invisible on the radar?

 

[PuppetMaster]

I think Elite is not hard enough.

The people still whining about it don't deserve to be taken seriously.

 

[Click]

3 hours worth of playtime is enough to experience all the different modes and weapons and how the gameplay feels in general. It's enough time. I purchased the game for crying out loud. If it had grabbed me like KZ2 grabbed me, I would have played a lot more of R2. Sadly, it didn't.

Honestly, you just confirm that you're bitter over R2. I want R2 to be a great game too, but that honestly can't happen unless they make it completely different.

You know, it's not even worth responding to you anymore. You're just constantly claiming I'm bitter over R2, when I'm not. Seriously, bitter over what? WTF are you talking about?

I played R2 A LOT, enjoyed the game, and moved on. I criticized it and complemented it back when I played, just like I did with KZ2. I'm not bitter about anything. I may have a grudge towards Kittonwy's consistent R2-bashing and trolling (heck, even the lovable Fersis does too), but it's not the reason why I'm still posting in here, like you and Dante claim it is.

Again, you should freelance for Eurogamer. They'd be happy to accept reviews from people that play online portions of games for less than 3 hours. Is 3 hours enough time to determine if you like a game or not? Sure it is. But it's not nearly enough time to make well-informed, valid criticisms of games.

P.S. It seems like YOU are the one who's bitter. Bitter that you bought R2 and it didn't "grab" you like KZ2 did. Bitter that you only got less than 3 hours' worth of playtime out of it.

 

[Rolf NB]

does crouching make you invisible on the radar?

No.
There are a few options that control how the radar behaves for people setting up matches. I think the default is to show all enemies that are either visible to any team mate and/or currently firing. Enemies that had the spot&mark ability used on them also show up on the radar.

The settings can be changed to only show firing enemies or to not show enemies.

Crouching affects your visibility, so you might occasionally avoid being on the radar indirectly, if you're hiding behind cover. But in general, no, crouching does not remove you from the radar.

 

[Click]

Crouching also "steadies" your crosshairs, narrowing the bullet trajectory, and lessening bullet spread.
For guns like the HGH LMG, crouching is pretty much required if you want to be more accurate.

 

[Bearillusion]

Corey Haim and Corey Feldman are probably good at KZ2.

 

[Kittonwy]

Wow, this thread has died! What the hell!

I didn't play last night cuz I was playing (still playing) Red Alert 3, will play more this afternoon.

 

[Inanna]

i'm the same way.

I played a shitload of KZ2 and I'm kind of burned out on it. I need a break.

The multiplayer is absolutely fantastic, but like other top tier shooters, it has its issues that eventually prevent me from playing for it constantly for years. I'll come back to it of course, but the game needs some tweaks to add longevity (being able to play with your friends easier, party system, personal rank system so you have something to achieve by playing it besides XP, instant clan matchmaking w/ valor betting, auto-matching maps with certain maximum player counts for optimal play, etc). Still, the game is probably the best mp shooter I've played this gen even with all of its infrastructure flaws.

but Click sounds incredibly bitter that the fanbase didn't pick up on R2...sorry dude, but KZ2 is way beyond R2 with the gunplay, graphics, handling...everything, almost. I couldn't get into R2 because it felt like uncompetitive garbage for casuals or something. like there wasn't any skill involved in any of it, just huge ass 60 player matches with little production values or thought gone into the actual gameplay.

but yeah! InFamous for the next month or so, then the Uncharted 2 beta shortly thereafter

then Fat Princess

then Heavy Rain

then the new Ratchet

then MAG

then Uncharted 2

then Gran Turismo 5

then God of War 3

for fuck's sake, how am I going to have enough time to play KZ2 inbetween all that? I'll find a way periodically, but Sony's pipeline is STACKED every single month or two for the next year it seems. Hit after hit after hit. Hopefully we get KZ3 by Fall 2010 (probably not, but would be nice!)

Agree with every single thing you said.

 

[-viper-]

D: Too many games coming out. I got a huge backlog to complete...

Dead Space, GTA4, Wipeout HD, DMC4, Ratchet and Clank, LBP, Midnight Club.

 

[Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew]

i'm the same way.

I played a shitload of KZ2 and I'm kind of burned out on it. I need a break.

The multiplayer is absolutely fantastic, but like other top tier shooters, it has its issues that eventually prevent me from playing for it constantly for years. I'll come back to it of course, but the game needs some tweaks to add longevity (being able to play with your friends easier, party system, personal rank system so you have something to achieve by playing it besides XP, instant clan matchmaking w/ valor betting, auto-matching maps with certain maximum player counts for optimal play, etc). Still, the game is probably the best mp shooter I've played this gen even with all of its infrastructure flaws.

but Click sounds incredibly bitter that the fanbase didn't pick up on R2...sorry dude, but KZ2 is way beyond R2 with the gunplay, graphics, handling...everything, almost. I couldn't get into R2 because it felt like uncompetitive garbage for casuals or something. like there wasn't any skill involved in any of it, just huge ass 60 player matches with little production values or thought gone into the actual gameplay.

but yeah! InFamous for the next month or so, then the Uncharted 2 beta shortly thereafter

then Fat Princess

then Heavy Rain

then the new Ratchet

then MAG

then Uncharted 2

then Gran Turismo 5

then God of War 3

for fuck's sake, how am I going to have enough time to play KZ2 inbetween all that? I'll find a way periodically, but Sony's pipeline is STACKED every single month or two for the next year it seems. Hit after hit after hit. Hopefully we get KZ3 by Fall 2010 (probably not, but would be nice!)

You're COMPLAINING at the fact that we are getting a hit after a hit? :lol

Good God. Be grateful that we are getting awesome games, unlike certain platforms which has ONE hit game a year (and it's usually sequel to the same shit).

 

[-viper-]

You're COMPLAINING at the fact that we are getting a hit after a hit? :lol

Good God. Be grateful that we are getting awesome games, unlike certain platforms which has ONE hit game a year (and it's usually sequel to the same shit).

Let's be honest... those are TOO MANY GAMES.

They should delay either GOW3 and MAG to 2010

 

[Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew]

Let's be honest... those are TOO MANY GAMES.

They should delay either GOW3 and MAG to 2010

err... MAG and GOW3 ARE 2010. No way they are making it this year. MAG will be February and GOW3 will be March. Also, delay Heavy rain to early january.

Er... also delay GT5 to mid 2010. Ain't making it this year...


So you are left with InFamous, Fat Princess (a downloadable game), new Ratchet and Uncharted 2 for 2009. That's not alot. Another game that i'll add to the list is Twisted Metal (hopefully by Fall 2009, if not then end of spring 2010).

 

[KZObsessed]

MAG is this year, or at least is supposed to be. GOW will be 2010 of course.

 

[-viper-]

err... MAG and GOW3 ARE 2010. No way they are making it this year. MAG will be February and GOW3 will be March. Also, delay Heavy rain to early january.

Er... also delay GT5 to mid 2010. Ain't making it this year...


So you are left with InFamous, Fat Princess (a downloadable game), new Ratchet and Uncharted 2 for 2009. That's not alot. Another game that i'll add to the list is Twisted Metal (hopefully by Fall 2009, if not then end of spring 2010).

GT5, Winter 09 or BUST. Anyway, I don't really care for MAG.

I'll just get Infamous, Ratchet, Uncharted and HOPEFULLY GT5. The only games I'll need.

 

[JardeL]

Am I like the only person here with 200+ hours of gametime and still love the hell out of the game?

No , you're not alone ...

 

[-viper-]

No , you're not alone ...

I love KZ2 when played with GAFers. Random games are boring.

KZ2 needs a party system ASAP.

 

[TrAcEr_x90]

wow, i missed alot in this thread.....

Well i can say i agree with both sides, theres some stuff that killed killzone 2 for me and stuff that killed resistance 2. the BIG difference for me between the two is that with killzone i can play and totally lose track of time, i cant tell you how many hours ive put in, but i can say i never ever really look because im having fun. Whereas in resistance 2I was constantly looking to see how many kills i had in the menu, mostly for that damn trophy. But the thing that saved resistance was the co op, i played the shit out of that!!! I beat resistance 2 twice, which says alot, i just recently beat killzone 2, and i really wanted to get a platinum but that last level was ridiculous, really bad game design. LOOOOVED the sp until the last part. They force you into a moving forward all the time design, never having to look behind, and the controls work for that style, then the end you have to be worrying about people behind you and you cant turn quick enough to get a shot off, just really really stupid. Both are high quality games, but i can sayy killzone 2s multiplayer will just keep me sooooo enertained. have had some really fun games with GAF!!

 

[Lince]

I love KZ2 when played with GAFers. Random games are boring.

KZ2 needs a party system ASAP.

it's coming, codename Uncharted 2 / MAG

 

[Shurs]

If you want, make yet another R2 thread and title it "R2 vs. KZ2." I'd be more than happy to discuss, in detail, how the 2 games differ from each other.

Honestly that does sound like it would be an awesome thread. Please make it. It'd be interesting to compare the two games, what they got right, what they got wrong, etc.

 

[DuckRacer]

err... MAG and GOW3 ARE 2010. No way they are making it this year. MAG will be February and GOW3 will be March. Also, delay Heavy rain to early january.

Er... also delay GT5 to mid 2010. Ain't making it this year...


So you are left with InFamous, Fat Princess (a downloadable game), new Ratchet and Uncharted 2 for 2009. That's not alot. Another game that i'll add to the list is Twisted Metal (hopefully by Fall 2009, if not then end of spring 2010).

Zipper's seems pretty adamant about a fall '09 release for MAG, though I could see a delay. Heavy Rain from what I've heard is a lock for this fall, but I could be wrong. And GT5 is either this December or March 2010.

 

[MickeyKnox]

Honestly that does sound like it would be an awesome thread. Please make it. It'd be interesting to compare the two games, what they got right, what they got wrong, etc.

Except R2 got NOTHING right, and is one of the worst games I've ever had the displeasure of suffering through.

Most definitely not thread worthy.

 

[Shurs]

Except R2 got NOTHING right, and is one of the worst games I've ever had the displeasure of suffering through.

Most definitely not thread worthy.

I'd like to hear Click's take on the two games, as well as GAF's, but don't want to gum up the official thread.

 

[Atrus]

I don't know how this thread devolved into an R2 vs. KZ2 thread, but frankly anybody that puts R2 MP on any measurable level as KZ2's mp is talking nonsense.

Granted, I haven't played R2 after the patch but frankly the MP sucked so much I don't know why I would attempt to torture myself again by the utter stupidity behind the game design.

 

[Madman]

The R2 trolling is so extreme. Some of you are such cynics.

 

[Atrus]

The R2 trolling is reasonably justified. Some of you are such pragmatists.

Fixed.

 

[TheFatOne]

Fuck GG I can't play tonight guys because for some unknown reason I can't get online for Killzone 2. I keep getting an error. I'm just really fucking pissed off right now so I will play with you guys some other night.

 

[lunlunqq]

fucking Aj and his turrets... i swear he can put down 100 turrets all by himself... now i don't get killed by his turrets as much as i did before. but i just can't get to where i want without encounter 1000 turrets....

 

[aj2good4you2]

fucking Aj and his turrets... i swear he can put down 100 turrets all by himself... now i don't get killed by his turrets as much as i did before. but i just can't get to where i want without encounter 1000 turrets....

my turrets are set to specifically kill you on sight

 

[TheFatOne]

my turrets are set to specifically kill you on sight

To all of GAFA you can all suck on my rockets

 

[Iain Howe]

It's bad game design, simple as that.

Always nice to hear from an industry expert.

Several portions of the campaign mode is extremely frustrating and ridiculous. Yes, even the "ELITE" players have complained about it a lot. Certain sections of the game are dependent entirely on luck to beat. Plus, infinite respawn with invisible checkpoints is another game design flaw, similar to CoD4.

Except I believe that COD4 does this all over the place and literally sends troops to stand in the footprints of their dispatched predecessors and Killzone 2 has a bunch of places with spawn counters that feed a finite number of troops into the area. Did Tempy say something about a bug that resulted in one or two infinite feeds by mistake? I can't remember. I know that infinite respawning was generally avoided. As for the invisible checkpoints 'flaw' I'd dearly love you to find me a recent FPS game that doesn't use collision volumes to trigger sequences.

I was merely responding to their own statements of patching up single player after the game's release, if there are too many deaths in certain sections of the game.... because you know, they never made any patches for these areas. I'm not saying they should nerf harder areas to make it more n00b-friendly, but certain areas are flawed (especially in hard and elite modes) and needs to be patched.

I've also heard people say that they've had playthroughs in Elite where they just 'clicked' and didn't die once beating Radec. Personally I think it's a little over the top, but you act like it crashes to desktop and sets fire to your hard drive.

I don't know. Maybe I've just come in at the end of this, but next thing you'll hear people lambasting Killzone 2 for using 'rendering trickery to create false-3D instead of the real thing". It's a game. It has game-type stuff in it. It has First Person Shooter conventions in it. It doesn't cure your cancer.

 

[Rolf NB]

I'd like to hear Click's take on the two games, as well as GAF's, but don't want to gum up the official thread.

Personally I'd like to have all the self-indulgent fps-legend-by-conviction whining collected in one convenient place for me to never visit, but I guess that means I'm on your side in this case.

 

[DoomGyver]

Click you need to chill, brah.

 

[mr_nothin]

It's bad game design, simple as that.

Several portions of the campaign mode is extremely frustrating and ridiculous. Yes, even the "ELITE" players have complained about it a lot. Certain sections of the game are dependent entirely on luck to beat. Plus, infinite respawn with invisible checkpoints is another game design flaw, similar to CoD4.

Again:

I was merely responding to their own statements of patching up single player after the game's release, if there are too many deaths in certain sections of the game.... because you know, they never made any patches for these areas. I'm not saying they should nerf harder areas to make it more n00b-friendly, but certain areas are flawed (especially in hard and elite modes) and needs to be patched.

Well Im glad they took it back to the old NES/SNES/Genesis days

And like Iain said, it's a game. It has counters and spawns and invisible triggers just as every single other game does. If it didnt, it wouldnt be a game...There's no way to make a game w/o having the things that makes it a game. Being hard is bad game design now? I know there's a such thing as being impossibly hard but most people seem to beat the game if they are persistent. I remember the days when gamers loved a good challenge! Yea it might be frustrating but aren't Hard/Elite modes suppose to be kind of frustrating? If you dont want that frustration, then stick to Easy/Normal mode. Simple as that.

Nowadays, being TOO easy is a "design flaw" to me.
I cant play games on normal any more. Doesn't really matter what game it is. Hell I played through MGS4 on the hardest difficulty (forgot the name but its the extreme mode you get when you beat the game) on my 1st playthrough. I played it after a friend beat it. Not to say that, that game is super hard or anything though.

 

[Lince]

http://boardsus.playstation.com/playstation/board/message?board.id=killzone2&thread.id=327925

patch 1.27 incoming, exciting features?

Patch 1.27 is well under way and will be released a little later this month. It is a pretty sizable patch with some excing features. More on that later on when we get closer to releasing it. There is also a lot of server related maintenance coming with that and a lot of other things still in the works. (DLC 2 anyone?) But more on that later.

Seb

edit: hope it's not the jetpack class

 

[Click]

Always nice to hear from an industry expert.

Because you have to be one to have your opinions matter on this forum?
Good one. Nice to hear from an ex-Guerrilla employee acting all smug, like he's an "industry expert."

Except I believe that COD4 does this all over the place and literally sends troops to stand in the footprints of their dispatched predecessors and Killzone 2 has a bunch of places with spawn counters that feed a finite number of troops into the area. Did Tempy say something about a bug that resulted in one or two infinite feeds by mistake? I can't remember. I know that infinite respawning was generally avoided. As for the invisible checkpoints 'flaw' I'd dearly love you to find me a recent FPS game that doesn't use collision volumes to trigger sequences.

CoD4's campaign mode suffered from infinite respawn to a much worse degree than KZ2 did. That's quite obvious. It's why most people didn't even bother with CoD4's single player mode at all.

But that doesn't mean it's OK for KZ2 to make the same mistake. One of the many examples is during the bridge section in KZ2. No matter how many enemies you pick off and kill, they'll just keep respawning. I think someone said somewhere that there's a limit to the waves of mobs that keep coming (something like 4 waves or something), but it sure didn't seem like it when I spent over half an hour in that section, running out of ammo, before I realized "Oh, you just gotta run to the end of the bridge to make them stop respawning!"

Obviously invisible checkpoints are used in most FPSs. But when you COMBINE it with infinite respawn, it is bad game design. If you don't cross a certain invisible area, you just need to keep on fighting waves and waves of enemies. Once you cross that checkpoint, voila! No more enemies (respawns)! Sounds like a great game design decision, eh?

I've also heard people say that they've had playthroughs in Elite where they just 'clicked' and didn't die once beating Radec. Personally I think it's a little over the top, but you act like it crashes to desktop and sets fire to your hard drive.

Yup, I "acted" exactly like that...

I don't know. Maybe I've just come in at the end of this, but next thing you'll hear people lambasting Killzone 2 for using 'rendering trickery to create false-3D instead of the real thing". It's a game. It has game-type stuff in it. It has First Person Shooter conventions in it. It doesn't cure your cancer.

How about you talk out your ass even more?
Seriously.

You just sound like a defensive moron because you dislike the fact that there are people who actually point out KZ2's flaws. I know KZ2 is a game. I know no game is perfect. I know KZ2 doesn't cure cancer. No need for an "industry expert" to tell me these things. If you want to actually discuss where you think my opinions are flawed, I'm all for it. But please, don't act like a defensive jackass, posting nonsense, trying to stick up for your previous employer.

 

[Click]

Click you need to chill, brah.

I am "chill."
Maybe you should tell all the other uptight posters here, attacking me, to chill.

 

[Fersis]

I don't know. Maybe I've just come in at the end of this, but next thing you'll hear people lambasting Killzone 2 for using 'rendering trickery to create false-3D instead of the real thing". It's a game. It has game-type stuff in it. It has First Person Shooter conventions in it. It doesn't cure your cancer.

Yeah that was one of the most crazy articles i ever read.

Also this thread is getting scary :/

 

[Click]

Well Im glad they took it back to the old NES/SNES/Genesis days

And like Iain said, it's a game. It has counters and spawns and invisible triggers just as every single other game does. If it didnt, it wouldnt be a game...There's no way to make a game w/o having the things that makes it a game. Being hard is bad game design now? I know there's a such thing as being impossibly hard but most people seem to beat the game if they are persistent. I remember the days when gamers loved a good challenge! Yea it might be frustrating but aren't Hard/Elite modes suppose to be kind of frustrating? If you dont want that frustration, then stick to Easy/Normal mode. Simple as that.

Nowadays, being TOO easy is a "design flaw" to me.
I cant play games on normal any more. Doesn't really matter what game it is. Hell I played through MGS4 on the hardest difficulty (forgot the name but its the extreme mode you get when you beat the game) on my 1st playthrough. I played it after a friend beat it. Not to say that, that game is super hard or anything though.

No, I never claimed "being hard is bad game design." I prefer to play games that are "hard." Being a hard or difficult game is one thing. But being a frustrating game is another.

No, Hard/Elite modes aren't supposed to be "kind of frustrating." They're supposed to be more CHALLENGING.

Easy/Normal modes are for newbies to the FPS genre and n00bs that can't aim/use their head. The more difficult modes are meant to be played by veterans of the FPS genre, good players, and/or people looking for more of a challenge.... not more frustration. Simple as that.

 

[DoomGyver]

ATTENTION EVERYONE, CHILL

lol

 

[JB1981]

OH MY GOD STOP FUCKING POSTING. PLEASE.

 

[Fersis]

Think on Happles guys ,there is no reason to fight. ;___;

 

[mr_nothin]

Because you have to be one to have your opinions matter on this forum?
Good one. Nice to hear from an ex-Guerrilla employee acting all smug, like he's an "industry expert."



CoD4's campaign mode suffered from infinite respawn to a much worse degree than KZ2 did. That's quite obvious. It's why most people didn't even bother with CoD4's single player mode at all.

But that doesn't mean it's OK for KZ2 to make the same mistake. One of the many examples is during the bridge section in KZ2. No matter how many enemies you pick off and kill, they'll just keep respawning. I think someone said somewhere that there's a limit to the waves of mobs that keep coming (something like 4 waves or something), but it sure didn't seem like it when I spent over half an hour in that section, running out of ammo, before I realized "Oh, you just gotta run to the end of the bridge to make them stop respawning!"

Obviously invisible checkpoints are used in most FPSs. But when you COMBINE it with infinite respawn, it is bad game design. If you don't cross a certain invisible area, you just need to keep on fighting waves and waves of enemies. Once you cross that checkpoint, voila! No more enemies (respawns)! Sounds like a great game design decision, eh?



Yup, I "acted" exactly like that...



How about you talk out your ass even more?
Seriously.

You just sound like a defensive moron because there are people who actually point out KZ2's flaws. I know KZ2 is a game. I know no game is perfect. I know KZ2 doesn't cure cancer. No need for an "industry expert" to tell me these things. If you want to actually discuss where you think my opinions are flawed, I'm all for it. But please, don't act like a defensive jackass, posting nonsense, trying to stick up for your previous employer.

You're completely wrong about the bridge section. I think it was Gametrailers that had a video (was it the video review) that proved that you could clear out all of the enemies and have them stop spawning.

About this "infinite respawn" business. It's kind of like magic. When you find out how the trick is done and how it works then it seems cheap. If you were oblivious to it then it wouldnt seem cheap at all. In the context of the game (WAR) it would make sense to have enemies keep coming and coming and coming. Now, if you dont know about the invisible trigger that will make them stop coming then it works but if you do know about it, it just seems cheesy/corny/cheap.

It's not bad game design at all. It's been done for decades and it's been working so far w/o too many problems. I dont get why "infinite enemy spawns" is such a big deal to "hardcore" gamers. I dont see anything wrong with it, when used correctly.

No, I never claimed "being hard is bad game design." I prefer to play games that are "hard." Being a hard or difficult game is one thing. But being a frustrating game is another.

No, Hard/Elite modes aren't supposed to be "kind of frustrating." They're supposed to be more CHALLENGING.

Easy/Normal modes are for newbies to the FPS genre and n00bs that can't aim/use their head. The more difficult modes are meant to be played by veterans of the FPS genre, good players, and/or people looking for more of a challenge.... not more frustration. Simple as that.

Ummm, frustration usually tags along with challenge. When you cant beat that final boss or get past a certain wave of enemies...people tend to get more frustrated. I'm not really trying to say that they're supposed to be frustrating. It's just what usually happens when you ramp up the difficulty. When going from Easy/Normal to Hard/Elite, you should know what you're getting into. You know you're probably going to die more, have less ammo, have to shoot more bullets to kill enemies, etc etc. I think frustration is only natural when you add those elements.

You're going to get SOMEWHAT frustrated on Hard/Elite in just about any game. Halo 3/COD 4/Devil May Cry 3/MGS4/etc etc. When you choose those top difficulties...then know what you're getting into. You cant label a game as FRUSTRATING when there's 4 different difficulty levels. The fact that you have preconceived ideas about what people should use Easy/Normal modes is your own mistake. Just because you think "noobs" and "people that cant aim/use their head" should stick to easy/normal and "good players/veterans" should play on hard/elite...doesnt give you the right (for lack of a better phrase) to label a game frustrating. Apparently you're one of the people that should stick to normal. Just lower the difficulty and enjoy the game then.

PS: I know you can play KZ2 well, i've read what others said about you in MP.