-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
KILLZONE!... its not really THAT bad
- Thread starter Templar Wizard
- Start date
dark10x said:
yeah..thats why battlefield 2 rapes halo2 badly
halo fanboys get me on the nerves,halo was a excellent fps,just that ,the fact that was a launch game with the xbox and the need of a OMYGOODBUYTHISGAME is making halo stuff of leyend for fanboys ( some of them never have played a fps before) pc players were playing breaktrough fps like deux ex some years before the halo phenomena and the desilusion on halo 2
Wow, you're ignorant...
Funny you'd mention those games, as they are two of my all time favorites. However, they both have abysmal combat systems.
Examples? I disagree completely.
The removal of items only works as a result of the shield system. Without the shield system, you're left with something entirely different.
Unfortunately, it actually requires some skill on the devleopers part. Far Cry used them in a terrible way and, when combined with the AWFUL gameplay mechanics, you were left with a frustrating experience.
Halo uses ALL of those features (in addition to the ones I quoted) together in a brilliant fashion. Simply picking individual pieces and saying "well game X did this" and "game Y did this" doesn't work. It is the marriage of all of these ideas and their refinement that makes it shine.
Funny you'd mention those games, as they are two of my all time favorites. However, they both have abysmal combat systems.
Examples? I disagree completely.
The removal of items only works as a result of the shield system. Without the shield system, you're left with something entirely different.
Unfortunately, it actually requires some skill on the devleopers part. Far Cry used them in a terrible way and, when combined with the AWFUL gameplay mechanics, you were left with a frustrating experience.
Halo uses ALL of those features (in addition to the ones I quoted) together in a brilliant fashion. Simply picking individual pieces and saying "well game X did this" and "game Y did this" doesn't work. It is the marriage of all of these ideas and their refinement that makes it shine.
NintendosBooger
Member
Something tells me that dark10x has either not played a lot of FPSs on PC or has limited experience of that PC genre to maybe one or two franchises.
Cerebral Palsy
Banned
No one cared about Killzone before. Since E3 everyone is making up excuses how it really isn't that bad of a game. Geez, wonder why?
LittleTokyo
Member
FiRez said:
That is the most pathetic list of "innovations" I've ever seen. None of those significantly effect gameplay, and vehicles may even make it worse. Control? Oh... okay... because mouse and keyboard is clearly not superior.
Good AI is not arguable, but it is also not an innovation. It should be a standard.
NintendosBooger
Member
Nerevar said:
I doubt it. Granted, Halo and Halo 2 have both excelled in certain areas that were traditionally weak or poorly implemented in some first-person shooters on PC, but to refer to these as innovative is something I, in my experience with FPSs, cannot force myself to agree with. His idea of innovation must differ from mine. Innovation, to me, is either creating an entirely new form of gameplay mechanics or dramatically improving a pre-existing one in such a way that it renders the former method obsolete in the eyes of a majority of developers and gamers.
SolidSnakex
Member
Foreign Jackass
Member
I'm not saying he hasn't played enough FPSs. I've played enough FPSs to know that he's saying bullshit, including Halo. The fact that he's impressed with Halo boggles my mind. The whole game left me cold. Character design was completely awful, the landscapes were horrendous, and I hate the colour palette. Weapons didn't feel that great to me. AI was admittedly great. The story and setting is boring generic sci-fi stuff, and that shield dynamic is incredibly overrated to me. It's better because it's different! No it's not.
The GameCube example was Metroid Prime, if you didn't get it. It has plenty of enemies who require specific patterns of attack and defense, and it hasn't been heralded by dumbasses as the second coming of FPS combat (plenty of things, but not FPS combat). Those mechanics have been applied to every fucking genre in existence. Oh, variety! Even Half-Life 1 had different attack patterns to adopt towards different enemies.
And, please, vehicles were there WAY before Halo.
The GameCube example was Metroid Prime, if you didn't get it. It has plenty of enemies who require specific patterns of attack and defense, and it hasn't been heralded by dumbasses as the second coming of FPS combat (plenty of things, but not FPS combat). Those mechanics have been applied to every fucking genre in existence. Oh, variety! Even Half-Life 1 had different attack patterns to adopt towards different enemies.
And, please, vehicles were there WAY before Halo.
Foreign Jackass
Member
He's the one who said Halo was a thinking man FPS. :lolFiRez said:
LittleTokyo
Member
dark10x said:
Well for starters it needs to be faster than the "action" in Halo. Note how I never said Halo was a bad game though. I just said it doesn't do anything special, and has a crappy online interface. I personally found most of it's so called "innovations" to be setbacks.
Halo was a good game among crap in the XBOX launch area.
Purple Drank
I'mma grip n sip
Foreign Jackass said:
I do not know, and probably never will, why people just can't see HALO combines the cream of the crop in FPS game mechanics across the HISTORY of the genre, and blends it seamlessly in one package. Thus, the game is great. Just live with it people.
FASTER?! Is that all you could muster?LittleTokyo said:
The slow speed is a major part of Halo. You can't just whirl around at any second and blast everything in sight. You have to be more aware of your environment in Halo than something like Unreal as a result. That's part of where planning comes in. Choosing the right tools for the moment and being able to use them effectively.
Now, besides speed...
That is exactly right. It takes all of these elements and polishes each one of them. The core game mechanics are a whole. Taking pieces out of them and comparing those pieces to other games means nothing. Everything must be taken together.
LittleTokyo
Member
Besides speed, like I said... how about enjoyable online multiplayer? How about a single player campaign that isn't repetitive as all hell? Is it so much to asked for a polished game as well? The game was filled with graphical glitches galore which imo ruins its presentation considerably.
Whatever you say about the slow pacing of the gameplay, it completely sucks for multiplayer. I personally play FPS for multiplayer, and after playing UT2004 it is hard to even stomach the suckfest that was Halo 2.
Whatever you say about the slow pacing of the gameplay, it completely sucks for multiplayer. I personally play FPS for multiplayer, and after playing UT2004 it is hard to even stomach the suckfest that was Halo 2.
SantaC
Member
FiRez said:
?
Some counter-strike stats. So people what makes it still so popular after all these years?
http://www.steampowered.com/status/game_stats.html
Ash Housewares
The Mountain Jew
jman2050 said:
what the fuck is this thread about?
anyways, Killzone
the game isn't THAT bad, but it isn't THAT good either
I sold it off, I might buy it again down the road if it's cheap, it had it's moments but it was nothing special and there are too many better games, this one was something of a mess
Those are NOT gameplay elements, but I will still address them...
Online multiplayer is enjoyable, but not for everyone. I recognize CounterStrike a good game, for instance (and have given it a fair shake), but I hate it.
Halo 2's campaign is not repetitive at all. I've discussed gameplay variety and visual variety before. Unlike Halo 1, though, Halo 2 does not suffer from a lack of visual variety most of the time. Both games offer a lot of gameplay variety, though. Each segment between checkpoints is essentially a mini-scenario and they are not repetitive.
Polish, though? POLISH!?! Halo 2 is one of the most polished FPS games ever released. From the beautiful menu system with perfect transitions through everything (including the loading screen, which is integrated beautifully) to the actual game and its amazing usage of musical cues and timing. The ONLY flaw (and the one you are referring to) in Halo 2 is the texture pop-in, which is a limitation of the XBOX and is the result of removing any load screens once you are in the game.
Did that bother you so much? I would have taken that in a heart beat over the constant stu...stu...stuttering and nonstop loading of HL2. Everything else about the presentation is tops. No silent "bitmap" loadscreens, no awful cuts between different areas of the game, and a great overall design. Halo 2 is a much more polished game than Half-Life 2 was. There is no question.
Now, could you please start discussing actual gameplay mechanics. I'm starting to believe that you really don't understand them...
SantaCruZer said:
No, I don't. Doom 3's play mechanics are very good and it is very polished, but it is flawed in a number of other ways and doesn't present itself as well.
I put it on about the same level as Half-Life 2, but for entirely different reasons. HL2 is an amazing piece of art and presents so many appealing scenarios along with a compelling story, but it's gunplay is extremely average (if not less so). It provides a very good experience, but is lacking on the gameplay front.
Doom 3's world is nowhere near as gripping, but the actual gunplay is so much better.
LittleTokyo
Member
I don't understand how being slow-paced and featuring repetitive level designs are not assoiciated with gameplay? How about the regenerating health? In my opinion this is not a good gameplay element. While it may define Halo as a game, it does not add to the gameplay. It merely means we hide for a bit instead of searching for health. Personally, I don't like it, and while I can see someone liking the system, I see it more as an alternative, and not an upgrade. Besides, it's been done before in online FPSs. The AI is good for a console game, but that is a standard that we should demand, not an innovation that should be rewarded. Other than that, the control was standard for a console FPS. Being able to loft grenades from out of no where adds little to play, and personally, I think it really destroys online play even further. No point in shooting with accuracy when I can simply and unskillfully loft grenades galore at them.
LittleTokyo
Member
No, I thought melee sucked. It's a FPS, not a boxing game. 
I like Halo 2 just as much as I like System Shock 2 and Deux Ex. They are different games, only the first person perspective is common among them in my opinion.
Half Life 2's AI was an abomination. Great game, but seriously. Barney was as smart or smarter. They didn't even have a David Cross guy that I could give a sniper rifle to. They need to steal some AI for Half Life 3 or the expansion.
Half Life 2's AI was an abomination. Great game, but seriously. Barney was as smart or smarter. They didn't even have a David Cross guy that I could give a sniper rifle to. They need to steal some AI for Half Life 3 or the expansion.
NintendosBooger
Member
dark10x said:
So if you agree that Halo 2 borrows key components from other FPSs, merges these elements together into one title, and adds a final polish, then how in the world do you construe the game as an example of innovation?
Ash Housewares
The Mountain Jew
LittleTokyo said:No, I thought melee sucked. It's a FPS, not a boxing game.
Halo 2 combined my love of shooting with my love of stabbing
Purple Drank
I'mma grip n sip
NintendosBooger said:
Because it has never been done before. Never in one game. Because all these elements have never been included in any fps to the sucess it has in Halo, it is evolution at its zenith, and certainly revolutionary for a console fps. At this stage in the game, just about EVERYTHING a fps can do has been done before in one way or another. And just because a FPS has a truly innovative element, or even two or three does not mean the gameplay will be superior to Halo. It is not necessarily enough to be innovative, you have to blend that innovation into balanced, intuitive, perfectly nuanced gameplay. Again, which is why Halo is so great. Really, the people who deny this are normally pc fanboys, ps2 fanboys, or have irrational bill gates/MS hatred. Is it so hard to live with the undeniable fact of HALO's greatness? Really?? I HATE the GTA series, but I am not about to deny its greatness.
LittleTokyo said:No, I thought melee sucked. It's a FPS, not a boxing game.
Almost every other FPS before H:CE has a dedicated melee weapon, H:CE was the first one to make some sense to use it in every weapon when you were close enough ,ran out of bullets or simply when you simple wanted to do it.
NintendosBooger said:
I've played just about every FPS I could get my hands on since Wolfenstein. As far as I'm concerned, dark10x is 100% correct. Halo changed the genre infinitely for the better. I have no idea what obscure PC FPS games with fantastic AI and strategic weapon choice you people were playing pre-2001, but I'd love to hear about them. Too bad the Halo haters can only scream "Nuh-uh!" really loud instead of actually addressing dark10x's points with examples and counterpoints.
(And yeah, Halo 2 didn't invent dual-wielding, but since a Bungie game was the first FPS to feature dual-wielding, they can tout it as a cool feature if they want.)
Haters be damned. Killzone looked good and played well for a console FPS. I've been gaming for nearly 30 years now, and this is one of my favorite games ever.
The atmosphere is amazing - it plunges you right into the game's war-torn environs. The weapons work very well, and some are fun as hell to use.
Sound, music, scripted events, check. Maybe the frame rate ISN'T the fastest in the world, but I did OK with it.
And online? The best times I've had with a console, period.
The atmosphere is amazing - it plunges you right into the game's war-torn environs. The weapons work very well, and some are fun as hell to use.
Sound, music, scripted events, check. Maybe the frame rate ISN'T the fastest in the world, but I did OK with it.
And online? The best times I've had with a console, period.
KillZone was really constrained by the crap framerate. It had so much potential....but so did many other average FPSs...
Firefight -> run and wait for heal -> firefight? There was nothing complex about H1 or H2, on any difficulty (not saying it wasn't hard, just not complex).dark10x said:
The Take Out Bandit
Member
Killzone is good fun for Paul Verhoeven fans.
I look forward, hesitantly because it's a console FPS, to what Guerilla has in store for the PS3.
I look forward, hesitantly because it's a console FPS, to what Guerilla has in store for the PS3.
Templar Wizard
Member
holy dogshit. what a thread derailment.
and some gems in there too, a 'weekly Killzone viral marketing campaign'.
lol, you fucking morons
half-life2 vs Halo! pfffttttttt are you insane?
i assume my forthcoming Cold Winter thread will be classed as a Rogue-Agent-apprechiation-trojan-horse.
seriously fanbois, you really need to get out more, or just play some games and try to enjoy them. other games than Halo2.
point in question: im playing a game of halo2 last night and the highest level player (31) asks us where we are all from, to which one player replies: Ontario.
'where is that?' enquires the 31 (19, from west virgina)
some of you guys, like the 31, need to open your minds a bit more and understand that one GAME is not the end all and be all.
so to recap: Killzone isnt that bad after all...if you buy for very cheap in this summer drought, when you dont have many other AAA fps games to play.
and some gems in there too, a 'weekly Killzone viral marketing campaign'.
lol, you fucking morons
half-life2 vs Halo! pfffttttttt are you insane?
i assume my forthcoming Cold Winter thread will be classed as a Rogue-Agent-apprechiation-trojan-horse.
seriously fanbois, you really need to get out more, or just play some games and try to enjoy them. other games than Halo2.
point in question: im playing a game of halo2 last night and the highest level player (31) asks us where we are all from, to which one player replies: Ontario.
'where is that?' enquires the 31 (19, from west virgina)
some of you guys, like the 31, need to open your minds a bit more and understand that one GAME is not the end all and be all.
so to recap: Killzone isnt that bad after all...if you buy for very cheap in this summer drought, when you dont have many other AAA fps games to play.
It should. And yet it is not. And there is no excuse for that, especially for PC FPS AI. You'd think that with the vast amounts of extra processing power that a GAMING pc would have, more would be dedicated to a more robust AI. But no, we end up having to deal with the same type of enemies who do the same thing, except they deal more damage. And when the enemies are too dumb find you and trap you in a corner to mete out said extra damage, what's the point? It's sad that in all this time, a game on vastly inferior hardware is the only one doing the FPS AI any justice nowadays.
So for AI, it's not innovation, it's just that everybody else really really REALLY sucks at it. Maybe next gen we'll see some contenders in that area.
DJ Brannon said:
Steve Polge's bot AI for the UT series is still far and away the best AI I've seen in the FPS genre to date, and that includes anything in Halo or Halo 2. So I daresay that Epic doesn't 'really really REALLY' suck at it, especially when the guys at Bungie claim it's impossible to code multiplayer bots that put up a satisfying fight, while Epic's been doing it since '99 (as UT fans will attest). Halo and Halo 2 have excellent AI for console games, but to say that they're they the only titles on any platform that do FPS AI justice is a little ridiculous.
Similar threads
- Locked