-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
me=owned... Killzone rocks!
- Thread starter DSN2K
- Start date
Funky Papa said:
It's the mods. Let's me explain the nowadays GAF law:
It's like this: "regardless of this board written rules, we will censor and ban only what we are personnally bored off, ashamed off or shocked by. When we found something funny, we leave it there. If you question the law, we are the law so you can go and find yourself another board to write on."
Feel free to take this and paste it in the forum rules by the way. It would be more accurate than what's there right now.
I don't post here very often, but I'd like to toss my two cents in if I may.
From the very beginning, the project has maintained a sense of momentum within the online community that I'm not certain will ever be matched. Mere moments after writing the article that essentially started this whole mess, our site was hammered by traffic the likes of which we hadn't experienced in ages. Guerrilla was still Lost Boys, and Killzone was known only as Kin. Follow-up interviews with both reps from both Guerrilla and SCEE resulted in similar traffic spikes, and made it pretty clear that people were desperate for a quality shooter on their PS2 and were determined to mine every possible nugget of information they could about it.
It's amusing then, how Sony took advantage of this pre-release hype and made quite a big deal out of an early morning August 2003 press release that did nothing more than repeat everything I had written in the months prior. The first screens however, were a sight to behold and finally put to rest the ridiculous speculative arguments surrounding "leaked" low-quality shots like those that floated around GA for quite some time thanks to "insiders" who got a kick out of teasing the public. The Killzone-dedicated websites announcing the game as "the greatest ever" began sprouting up alomst over night at that point, and things seemed to be getting out of hand.
Thanks to that early hype, Killzone became unfairly labeled as trash by sane gamers unwilling to put up with such pre-release buzz from people who hadn't even seen the game in motion. Fortunately, over time, the flow of information slowed, and actual hands-on reports were finally made available to certain media outlets, which allowed an honest opinion to be formed on whether or not the project was actually destined for something great.
Thankfully, the final product looks and plays wonderfully, despite what the recently released subpar playable public demo would have you believe. It's been a long and tumultuous ride for everyone involved, but it looks like wait will actually for once have been worth it.
Ok, I'm done now, hope that helps.
From the very beginning, the project has maintained a sense of momentum within the online community that I'm not certain will ever be matched. Mere moments after writing the article that essentially started this whole mess, our site was hammered by traffic the likes of which we hadn't experienced in ages. Guerrilla was still Lost Boys, and Killzone was known only as Kin. Follow-up interviews with both reps from both Guerrilla and SCEE resulted in similar traffic spikes, and made it pretty clear that people were desperate for a quality shooter on their PS2 and were determined to mine every possible nugget of information they could about it.
It's amusing then, how Sony took advantage of this pre-release hype and made quite a big deal out of an early morning August 2003 press release that did nothing more than repeat everything I had written in the months prior. The first screens however, were a sight to behold and finally put to rest the ridiculous speculative arguments surrounding "leaked" low-quality shots like those that floated around GA for quite some time thanks to "insiders" who got a kick out of teasing the public. The Killzone-dedicated websites announcing the game as "the greatest ever" began sprouting up alomst over night at that point, and things seemed to be getting out of hand.
Thanks to that early hype, Killzone became unfairly labeled as trash by sane gamers unwilling to put up with such pre-release buzz from people who hadn't even seen the game in motion. Fortunately, over time, the flow of information slowed, and actual hands-on reports were finally made available to certain media outlets, which allowed an honest opinion to be formed on whether or not the project was actually destined for something great.
Thankfully, the final product looks and plays wonderfully, despite what the recently released subpar playable public demo would have you believe. It's been a long and tumultuous ride for everyone involved, but it looks like wait will actually for once have been worth it.
Ok, I'm done now, hope that helps.
Go Go Ackman!
Banned
It always looked cool, and I've always had high hopes for it. Can't wait.
Pedigree Chum
Banned
steve said:
I've been trying to avoid the hype as much as possible. I still think Killzone looks cool, i'll check it out for sure...hopefully its as good as people are saying (about the final version).
Funky Papa said:
IAWTP
Im all for a bit of friendly console jousting but its just getting out of hand at the moment.
I take it the existance of this thread means the OPMUK mag with the killzone demo is out, sweet ill go look for that tomorrow.
Edit:
meh £6? fook that ill just wait for the game to come out.
Hmm, well I hope the final game turns out to be something special...
I really did like the way the demo felt, but there were simply too many problems present. If those really are cleaned up, I'll be thrilled.
Steve, I have to ask you... has the framerate seen a major boost from the demo? It simply ran much too poorly for my tastes, but if it were bumped to a near constant 30 fps, my interest would perk up quite a bit.
I really did like the way the demo felt, but there were simply too many problems present. If those really are cleaned up, I'll be thrilled.
Steve, I have to ask you... has the framerate seen a major boost from the demo? It simply ran much too poorly for my tastes, but if it were bumped to a near constant 30 fps, my interest would perk up quite a bit.
Axsider said:
What? Now YOU owned yourself, dude! Graphics are horrible?? Ok, Halo-Fanboy or simply a SONY-hater ('cause it is a SONY game)? What is it, buddy?
And now, go to your toilet and......:
Poor guy. Go look at ANY other recent FPS. Halo 2, Half Life 2, Riddick, MP2, UT2004, Doom 3, Farcry. If you look at the worst pictures from those games they look ten times better than that. Are we looking at the same pictures? It looks very low poly and low resolution... Bah! I give up. It seems like you are the fanboy not me.
ToyMachine228
Member
Wario64 said:
I think I'll warrant it a purchase. But like I said, it's not the "Halo killer" simply because it doesn't play a thing like Halo. But I may try it out.
How's Killzone's multiplayer, for anyone who was in on the beta?
MrparisSM said:
its a PS2 game, I think its a little wrong to be comparing it to PC games and games designed around the xbox when it comes to visuals.
Killzone is extremly impressive when you compare it to other PS2 titles.
for example Medal of Honour, Timesplitters, Redfaction etc... Killzone has certainly raised the bar for PS2 FPSs.
Axsider said:
Nah, I just want games that are good. Killzone played like shit at E3, and so did the original Halo. I think Killzone will be a solid 7.5-8 type game, nothing special. I'm interested to see how the game (which looks great in screenshots) performs in motion. PS2 games look great all the time in screenshots and then slow down and get shady (Zone of the Enders II -- which I love, but it sputters too often).
Though, I doubt Killzone will be better than Halo 2
Comparing this to Halo is not only unwarranted, but ridiculous as well. It plays nothing like Bungie's masterpiece, and the only real similarity is the fact that it plays out in the first-person perspective.
That said, Killzone stands on its own as a quality piece of software despite its one glaring weakness, which is its linearity. While this wouldn't have been an issue earlier this generation, game design has evolved to the point where almost every title worth playing incorporates some form of open-ended gameplay. Killzone however, does try its best to cater to this by allowing the game to be played through via multiple characters whom offer differing experiences. The game is easily at its strongest when playing through a level a second time, using an alternate character and encountering fresh new situations you didn't experience the first time 'round.
Online is potentially where it will truly shine though, with a ton of gameplay modes in the mix designed to keep gamers playing for months on end without getting bored. Only Socom has accomplished this on PS2 thus far, so hopefully Killzone can follow suit. I haven't had the chance to try out any online stuff yet though, so it's tough to say how well it has turned out. But from talking with those who have, it sounds as though Guerrilla is making good on their promises.
As for the framerate, I'm no technical expert by any means, but it holds steady the majority of the time during intense firefights. Visually, the game is a stunner, anyone judging it based on the grainy screens and recent demo will be doing themselves a disservice.
That said, Killzone stands on its own as a quality piece of software despite its one glaring weakness, which is its linearity. While this wouldn't have been an issue earlier this generation, game design has evolved to the point where almost every title worth playing incorporates some form of open-ended gameplay. Killzone however, does try its best to cater to this by allowing the game to be played through via multiple characters whom offer differing experiences. The game is easily at its strongest when playing through a level a second time, using an alternate character and encountering fresh new situations you didn't experience the first time 'round.
Online is potentially where it will truly shine though, with a ton of gameplay modes in the mix designed to keep gamers playing for months on end without getting bored. Only Socom has accomplished this on PS2 thus far, so hopefully Killzone can follow suit. I haven't had the chance to try out any online stuff yet though, so it's tough to say how well it has turned out. But from talking with those who have, it sounds as though Guerrilla is making good on their promises.
As for the framerate, I'm no technical expert by any means, but it holds steady the majority of the time during intense firefights. Visually, the game is a stunner, anyone judging it based on the grainy screens and recent demo will be doing themselves a disservice.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
That's... good, I guess. They never seemed to be thrilled about it to begin with.
Do you know the other scores in the mag?
Kanbee-san
Member
DSN2K said:
Its not wrong at all. Its ok to compare games, as long as the comparison takes into account the different platforms strengths and weakneses.
mashoutposse
Ante Up
Halo was shitted on pretty heavily after E3 2001. Then it came out.
Let's see how this one does.
Let's see how this one does.
ScientificNinja
Member
Some of my own impressions after playing the final code (have to go back to play after this, actually...)
It plays nothing like Halo. It's more like Chronicles of Riddick, particularly with the way movement is weighted against each stride you take.
You can't jump, which is terribly frustrating when you can't walk through a kerb that's sticking no more than 4 inches above the ground.
AI isn't very impressive. There are some interesting animations but their tactics consist of standing there and taking hot lead.
Played a few levels in - it's very linear thus far. Despite the large-ish environments, you're constantly being pushed in an obvious direction towards the next object/item/person to trigger the next part of the level.
It's pretty damned good for a PS2 game, no doubt about that. Probably the best FPS on the console. Compared to the rest of the field, though - particularly PC and Xbox - it's very passe, predictable and, at best, average. The cinematics make it look a lot better than it actually is.
6/10 for my money.
It plays nothing like Halo. It's more like Chronicles of Riddick, particularly with the way movement is weighted against each stride you take.
You can't jump, which is terribly frustrating when you can't walk through a kerb that's sticking no more than 4 inches above the ground.
AI isn't very impressive. There are some interesting animations but their tactics consist of standing there and taking hot lead.
Played a few levels in - it's very linear thus far. Despite the large-ish environments, you're constantly being pushed in an obvious direction towards the next object/item/person to trigger the next part of the level.
It's pretty damned good for a PS2 game, no doubt about that. Probably the best FPS on the console. Compared to the rest of the field, though - particularly PC and Xbox - it's very passe, predictable and, at best, average. The cinematics make it look a lot better than it actually is.
6/10 for my money.
ScientificNinja said:
I watched a video of this game and it is just so unrealistic and bland. Even the muzzle flashes looked Meh. And everyone has the same exact death animation no matter what he's been shot with or where he was shot. They all just fall the same way. Instead of trying to rush it out, they should take more time to refine those things and also add a Co-op mode.
ScientificNinja
Member
Style of play is pretty flexible - some set-pieces call for taking cover at strategic positions, laying down supressing fire etc; others are manic free-for-alls. In that sense it's pretty balanced and steadily paced. I did notice that a lot of the sound effects - especially when someone's screaming to death - get repeated a lot. About as annoying as not being able to jump. Also hate having to search around for the next level trigger.
Guns N' Poops
Banned
Wario64 said:
I think it differs by who of the 4 heroes you play. For example there is one with heavy weapons and much armor, but he moves slow and there is this spy with no armor at all who can climb, make stealth kills, hide etc.
Guns N' Poops
Banned
Wario64 said:
As far as I know you can choose anytime between the 4 and each of them is supposed to play different. Don't hit me if not true. Watch the videos on that www.killzonegame.com website.
By the way, are the framerate issues ironed out in the final product?
Each level allows you to choose which character you'd like to use before you begin. However, this is misleading in many respects, in that the enemy placement and interaction is dependant on which character you choose.
For instance, if you choose a heavy weapons expert, you'll be walking down hallway A and all of a sudden Helghast will swarm out from the opposite end and attack you, allowing you to make full use of your character's strengths.
However, if you choose the stealth-specific character for the very same level, walking down that very same hallway A will result in a lone Helghast standing with his back to you, almost asking to be crept up on from behind and have his throat slit, one of your stealth specialties. The aforementioned Helghast swarm simply won't happen as the game recognizes your character isn't properly equipped for that sort of situation.
So essentially, the game doesn't allow you to decide a course of action in the same situation over and over, it adapts the situation based on your choice of character at the beginning of the level, which makes it feel as though it's leading you by the hand a bit too much.
This is where the linearity factor really hurts the gameplay. I would much rather be given the choice to take on that swarm with my stealth character and see what happens.
For instance, if you choose a heavy weapons expert, you'll be walking down hallway A and all of a sudden Helghast will swarm out from the opposite end and attack you, allowing you to make full use of your character's strengths.
However, if you choose the stealth-specific character for the very same level, walking down that very same hallway A will result in a lone Helghast standing with his back to you, almost asking to be crept up on from behind and have his throat slit, one of your stealth specialties. The aforementioned Helghast swarm simply won't happen as the game recognizes your character isn't properly equipped for that sort of situation.
So essentially, the game doesn't allow you to decide a course of action in the same situation over and over, it adapts the situation based on your choice of character at the beginning of the level, which makes it feel as though it's leading you by the hand a bit too much.
This is where the linearity factor really hurts the gameplay. I would much rather be given the choice to take on that swarm with my stealth character and see what happens.
Killzone does have potential. I've been praising up the demo myself. Not perfect, but lots to commend it - particularly the atmosphere and the weapon animations. But it isn't a Halo killer. It was C&VG who coined that phrase. And its a phrase that does the game no service whatsoever.Tea Master said:
MrparisSM said:
If you want high resolution textures, the PS2 is usually not the place to look. Beautiful games are possible however without high res textures. Can the pS2 compete with the latest PC with the latest graphics card for graphics if your criteria are technical? Your definition of great graphics seems slanted. Graphically Killzone has great atmosphere, think Ico goes to war - then again there are some people who will tell you how bad Ico's graphics are
.Lord Error
Insane For Sony
I doubt this still holds true, as they've added ragdoll physics to dying bodies. I've seen several recent videos where hit enemies fly or fall all over the place.
So, in your opinion, no game for PS2, regardless of what it is, deserves more than 6/10?
That's the magic of internet - extreme opinions are a dime a dozen. There's people that will go to great lenghts explaining how bad Doom3 graphics are etc. and tendency is that the higher profile the game, the more of these detractors you will find for it.gmoran said:then again there are some people who will tell you how bad Ico's graphics are
Even the guy you replied to goes on to criticise lowpoly and lowres texture aspect of Killzone and then lists Doom3 as one of the counter examples, which is something of a self contradiction.
ArcadeStickMonk
Member
Wario64 said:
ArcadeStickMonk
Member
I think that Dark10x could end the "Why is Halo special?" debate once and for all.
He didn't think the game was anything past a decent single player FPS experience for years, until i made hims tart playing the multiplayer. Now he's going to be in a parking lot with me at midnight, waiting for Halo 2. My theory is that more exposure to the game allowed him to realize all the little game mechanics naunces that make Halo something unique, and he's an open minded guy anyway.
Now, in his own words. Dark?
He didn't think the game was anything past a decent single player FPS experience for years, until i made hims tart playing the multiplayer. Now he's going to be in a parking lot with me at midnight, waiting for Halo 2. My theory is that more exposure to the game allowed him to realize all the little game mechanics naunces that make Halo something unique, and he's an open minded guy anyway.
Now, in his own words. Dark?
DaCocoBrova
Finally bought a new PSP, but then pushed the demon onto someone else. Jesus.
Cuz like most hyped XBOX games, it isn't that good.
Bingo!
How different is the final version from what is on the Jampack? I was not highly impressed by that demo. But if it was the same as what people played at E3 that might explain it.
Half-Life 2 will kill everything anyway, might as well get over it.
Half-Life 2 will kill everything anyway, might as well get over it.
DaCocoBrova
Finally bought a new PSP, but then pushed the demon onto someone else. Jesus.
Two good games in the same genre on different platforms can co-exist... Halo 2 has nothing to do w/ Kill Zone. I could understand if the platform was the same... But it isn't.
WARNING: Lots of typos ahead cos I'm rushing this out of my fingers. I'm quite busy at the momnent. <-- see?
The game is "good". Just completed it. Yes it's linear, but that's true for about 80% of the FPS out there so that was not a prob with me. Different paths / thing to do depending on the character you choose. Rico is the bets one. I can complete three whole levels in the same amout of time it takes me to complete just one with Luger (the stealth character). AI is good. It's the reaction time (call them reflexes if you wish) that's really bad. Luckly the game discurages a heads down approach killing you if you rush into firefights, but say there is just one Helghast around and you can almost play trick to him running around and things like tahe. The irony is that Guerrilla tried to adress this issue allowing the helghast to shoot around them without actually pointing the gun around. Lemme explain. Say you are on the left side of a Helghast. In theory he should turn as soon as possible in order to point the gun towards you and shoot. Well, sometimes you see bullets coming from their guns diagonally like they have some magic properties that allow them to do hard 45° turns the moment they leave the gun.
But the real problem that bothers me is the frame rate. I really hate his inconsistence and the way it ruins all those "memorable moments" dropping frames the moment they happen. Look! Dropships are coming! Wow cool, let's see. Well, the only way to appreciate those moments is to stand still and never shoot in order to keep the frame rate steady. Some stages are less choppy then others depending on the complexity of the environs, but overall I think the frame rate hurst the impressive graphics on display (which they are indeed). And I've just noticed this actually depends on the AI running in the background. Start a multyplayer game with 14 bots and it's like 18-20fps *even if there is no one other than your gun on the screen*. Run the same map with no bots at all, and it's Halo-level smooth. The irony. A lacking AI which is only good at aggravating the graphic engine.
Sound is great (gunfire and explosions). FX are impressive (expecially BIG explosions). I don't like those tiny white lines that spur from heavy machinegun installations pretending to be trackers (if you know what I mean). Looks like you are shooting pins. But thats probably a placeholder in my review copy? I hope so cos a simple handgun looks more mean tha a 4 barrels deathbringer as big as a pickup. Oh, I hate helghast voices. They are so fucking repetitive you want to kill them just to shut them up.
What else... hmmm... I'd say the game gets better the more you get into it and, yeah, it's a good game afterall. I'd give it an EDGE style 7 out of 10. Guerrilla just needs to adress a couple of thing (IA reaction times and frame rate) and make a really astonishing sequel.
The game is "good". Just completed it. Yes it's linear, but that's true for about 80% of the FPS out there so that was not a prob with me. Different paths / thing to do depending on the character you choose. Rico is the bets one. I can complete three whole levels in the same amout of time it takes me to complete just one with Luger (the stealth character). AI is good. It's the reaction time (call them reflexes if you wish) that's really bad. Luckly the game discurages a heads down approach killing you if you rush into firefights, but say there is just one Helghast around and you can almost play trick to him running around and things like tahe. The irony is that Guerrilla tried to adress this issue allowing the helghast to shoot around them without actually pointing the gun around. Lemme explain. Say you are on the left side of a Helghast. In theory he should turn as soon as possible in order to point the gun towards you and shoot. Well, sometimes you see bullets coming from their guns diagonally like they have some magic properties that allow them to do hard 45° turns the moment they leave the gun.
But the real problem that bothers me is the frame rate. I really hate his inconsistence and the way it ruins all those "memorable moments" dropping frames the moment they happen. Look! Dropships are coming! Wow cool, let's see. Well, the only way to appreciate those moments is to stand still and never shoot in order to keep the frame rate steady. Some stages are less choppy then others depending on the complexity of the environs, but overall I think the frame rate hurst the impressive graphics on display (which they are indeed). And I've just noticed this actually depends on the AI running in the background. Start a multyplayer game with 14 bots and it's like 18-20fps *even if there is no one other than your gun on the screen*. Run the same map with no bots at all, and it's Halo-level smooth. The irony. A lacking AI which is only good at aggravating the graphic engine.
Sound is great (gunfire and explosions). FX are impressive (expecially BIG explosions). I don't like those tiny white lines that spur from heavy machinegun installations pretending to be trackers (if you know what I mean). Looks like you are shooting pins. But thats probably a placeholder in my review copy? I hope so cos a simple handgun looks more mean tha a 4 barrels deathbringer as big as a pickup. Oh, I hate helghast voices. They are so fucking repetitive you want to kill them just to shut them up.
What else... hmmm... I'd say the game gets better the more you get into it and, yeah, it's a good game afterall. I'd give it an EDGE style 7 out of 10. Guerrilla just needs to adress a couple of thing (IA reaction times and frame rate) and make a really astonishing sequel.
ArcadeStickMonk said:
Upon completing Halo for the very first time, I reflected upon my experience as I plucked the disc from the tray of my recently purchased XBOX...
I had purchased the game alongside this machine just one week prior and, despite the fact that I had enjoyed the experience immensely, the disc I now held in my hands was about to return to its neon green prison where it would remain for months on end. I realized that Halo was a good game, but still I harbored numerous complaints against the title. At that point, I simply did not forsee myself ever truly digging into the game again...
Looking back on those complaints, I realize that many of them are of the same variety that Halo fans battle with today. I have, at one time, shared and agreed with many of the complaints aimed Halo. So you think it's an overrated, somewhat conventional FPS? Hey, so did I!
It wasn't until I was ushered into a room with a projector and an XBOX that I started to realize that there was much more to this game than I had ever expected. ASM sat there in a chair looking all reserved (or was he fiddling with his X-Arcade, wondering why the damn cable wasn't working? I dunno...). Regardless, there were just three of us playing the game that day and, to be quite honest, I had some strange notion that I would be able to just waltz right in there and kick everybody's ass.
Several matches and hundreds of curse words later, I realized that I had been completely, totally owned. Baffled, I sat in my chair wondering just what the hell had gone wrong.
From that point forward, we started playing the game a bit more often and I started to see this layer of complexity below the surface of the game that I never imagined existed. I was big into Unreal Tournament and all of the other typical PC titles, but the type of strategy and complexity present here was just so incredibly different. I dominated ASM and a couple others when we hooked up for our first UT2003 game. Despite wasting an entire afternoon getting our damn PCs to work well together on the network, we were back to Halo after just a couple hours. The maps were so incredibly boring looking, the weapons seemed so "standard", and the framerate was 30...yet it was so much more interesting to play.
Halo is NOT a conventional shooter. I'd go so far as to say that the actual play mechanics fall in line with the basic ideals laid out by Yu Suzuki and his crew when they created the Virtua Fighter series.
I'm not here to delve into the mechanics of the game, but if you find yourself wondering just what makes the game so special...you should try digging in a bit further before passing final judgement. The game SEEMS conventional on the outside, but when you really spend time with it...you discover that there is so much more.
The experience I had when I first played through the campaign on normal and the experience I had when I later replayed it on Legendary (after having learned so much more about the game) were entirely different. I found myself thinking very differently this second time through. I was looking for counters to every type of attack and found myself developing strategies in order to finish specific segments. The brilliance of the checkpoint and shield systems really started to hit me right about then as well. I was playing Halo in a fashion that was unlike any other FPS I had ever experienced. Each individual enemy was a specific challenge, not simple cannon fodder, and each area between a checkpoint was a scenario which demanded mastery.
When you get right down to it, the scenarios were somewhat akin the type of challenge you face in shooters like Contra and Metal Slug while the actual combat required knowledge similar to that of a (somewhat simple) fighting game.
Halo's core gameplay is, in my opinion, the absolute best we've ever seen in the history the FPS genre. That's why I've argued that one needs to realize that there is a massive difference between VISUAL variety and GAMEPLAY variety. Despite the fact that many rooms do indeed look very much like each other, the actual physical design of each specific room is entirely different.
I'd rather not get into it right now, but it has me questioning the reasons why people play first person shooters. What is it about the genre that people enjoy? Is it really the gameplay? I'm starting to wonder...
OK, Where was I? Ah yes, back to Halo...
For all of those who continue to bash the game and fail to understand why people enjoy it so much, I urge you to take a second look at the game. Of course, you gotta keep in mind that opinions will always vary and there is a chance that the content buried within just isn't going to appeal to everyone. Still, if you're sitting arounnd like sohka88 there, wondering just what made the game special...you really need to give it another chance.
Regardless of whether it appeals to you or not, you can't deny the fact that the game is anything but a conventional shooter. If you don't enjoy it, that's fine, but the flood of baseless comments needs to come to an end.
ArcadeStickMonk
Member
Dark10x = Rocket Whoredark10x said:
ScientificNinja
Member
Marconelly said:
No, I'm scoring it relative to every other first-person shooter on the planet. It's good for a PS2 game, but it doesn't quite cut the mustard on other formats, particularly PC and Xbox.
I'm a bit annoyed by the heavy reliance on scripting. Often, before the dust has even settled after you've cleared the area of Helghast (and you're still scanning around for more) you'll hear a voice say "over hear, this way" or something like that to motion you to the next area. Problem is, without positional sound effects, I've got no idea where that voice came from. It's usually some guy sitting at a door or hiding in a corner somewhere and it's a pain in the ass to hunt down.
Noticed the massive frame drops during the "big moments", too. Spoils the atmosphere a bit... not sure I cared, though.