Killzone 2 out now... [Archive] - Retrogaming Roundtable

Gamereviewgod

02-28-2009, 03:27 PM

Can't say I'm that into it. Controls feel very sluggish. It's apparently an attempt to make it more realistic, but it's a game where you're dropped onto an alien planet on a spaceship. I'm not looking for realism; I just want to shoot stuff. Even after tinkering with the controls it still feels like everything is under water or a quarter of a second behind.

What is does is present itself so well you almost don't notice. Visuals are unreal, and with a proper sound system, this is the best audio you'll ever hear from a game. Cinematics are spectacular. Sadly, it seems to be lacking "those" moments. It's very straighforward, blow up red barrels, shoot some more, and walk down hallways. Aside from initial impressions on the audio/visual side, I'm still waiting for a "wow!" moment. Still have four hours left though.

duo_r

02-28-2009, 03:32 PM

downloaded the demo, going to give this one a whirl.

Can't say I'm that into it. Controls feel very sluggish. It's apparently an attempt to make it more realistic, but it's a game where you're dropped onto an alien planet on a spaceship. I'm not looking for realism; I just want to shoot stuff. Even after tinkering with the controls it still feels like everything is under water or a quarter of a second behind.

What is does is present itself so well you almost don't notice. Visuals are unreal, and with a proper sound system, this is the best audio you'll ever hear from a game. Cinematics are spectacular. Sadly, it seems to be lacking "those" moments. It's very straighforward, blow up red barrels, shoot some more, and walk down hallways. Aside from initial impressions on the audio/visual side, I'm still waiting for a "wow!" moment. Still have four hours left though.

heybtbm

02-28-2009, 06:07 PM

I've played the first 4 single player missions and tried online for an hour or so last night. Quick review: Best (exclusive) shooter on the PS3. Pretty damn cool so far.

Videogamerdaryll

02-28-2009, 06:11 PM

I picked it up yesterday,used a GS Giftcard from Christmas.

Gamereviewgod

02-28-2009, 08:52 PM

parallelprophet

02-28-2009, 09:44 PM

I downloaded the demo last night and completed it......

AND THEN I WENT OUT AND BOUGHT IT TODAY.

I dare you to name a better FPS.

This game looks better, feels better, and sounds better than ANYTHING else out there. I remain simply amazed. (And I'm not a big FPS fan).

Gamereviewgod

02-28-2009, 10:33 PM

I dare you to name a better FPS.

Resistance 2. Call of Duty 4, World at War. Halo 3.

Need more?

I'm assuming you probably don't play a lot of shooters given you're not a fan of the genre. Take the time to look past the great visuals and audio. It doesn't do anything special. Low variety of enemies, level design is bland, and the majority of sections just keep enemies flowing to extend the games length.

I was like you. Loved the demo, and sadly that's the best part of the game. Nothing later can match the intensity of that opening sequence, from the bridge blowing up to the assault on the two tanks. Nothing special, just stairs and elevators in terms of design which is a crying shame.

parallelprophet

03-01-2009, 12:15 AM

Resistance 2. Call of Duty 4, World at War. Halo 3.

Resistance 2 (Yawn....)
COD4 (I have more time in Killzone 2 tonight than I do in CoD4 in over a year...thus this game is doing something right to keep my attention)
Halo 3 (Love the Halo series, but 3 was a letdown compared to the tremendous jump from Halo 1 to 2).

EDIT BY GAC: Fixed Quote formatting.

Half Japanese

03-01-2009, 01:19 AM

Just finished it and remain entirely underwhelmed. It reminds of "Toshinden syndrome." It looks and sounds amazing, but it's hiding incredibly bland level design and action. The best action games of the day have those moments that truly astound. Resistance 2 has the Chicago level, Gears 2 has the Brumak riding, Halo 3 has the dual scarab fight, Killzone 2 has... lot of steps, elevators, and exploding barrels.

The ending sets up another sequel, after a boss fight that relies more on pouring ridiculous amounts of enemies from all corners. Weapons are bland, and the best only appear briefly like the electiricy gun. You're best bet are the machine guns and tons of grenades. It's a shame. There's a great game here, but it never pulls away from an incredibly generic shell of sloppy, sluggish controls and levels that fail to impress.

Don't let the visual power and audio fool you.

Based on my run through the demo, your impressions seem to be the closest to my own. It just feels generic, and that's a terrible thing to be in an already overcrowded genre.

I've always been far more impressed with multiplayer demos of FPS games anyway, because honestly that's where you spend the most time, and I can't remember the last time I've been impressed with the single player campaign in a FPS title (Resistance 2 is a good example; great multiplayer, boring campaign).

Gamereviewgod

03-01-2009, 10:34 AM

Resistance 2 (Yawn....)
COD4 (I have more time in Killzone 2 tonight than I do in CoD4 in over a year...thus this game is doing something right to keep my attention)
Halo 3 (Love the Halo series, but 3 was a letdown compared to the tremendous jump from Halo 1 to 2).

Wow. Halo 2 is probably the weakest entry in the series, at least from a single player standpoint, COD is the most widely played FPS at the moment (whether 4 or WaW), and I don't have any stats on Resistance 2, but the Chicago level brawl against the giant Chimera is something you don't forget. It also has the kick ass creepy level in the town that's been taken over with all of the eggs ready to hatch.

That's what Killzone 2 is missing. Obviously your FPS taste isn't the same and I respect that, but you're missing out on some fantastic experiences and gaming moments by letting Killzone 2 be the end all.

scooterb23

03-01-2009, 10:53 AM

I dare you to name a better FPS.

Doom, Doom 2, Wolfenstein 3D, Duke Nukem 3D.

Thank you, drive through.

gepeto

03-01-2009, 12:27 PM

swlovinist

03-01-2009, 02:17 PM

Everyone is going to like a current shooter game for different reasons. Some play just the singleplayer modes, some play mostly for multiplayer, some play both. Killzone 2 from playing the demo looks to be like a solid shooter. I have played most of the "big names" of the the genere on consoles for the last 10 years.

For me personally, I am going to have to play the multiplayer mode to reserve any judgement for what I think about this shooter. Since Halo 2, I really have not gave a crap about story mode and single player modes. While I have played many story modes of games, many have been tagged on or have disapponted me in terms of length or replay value(There are great single player shooter titles out there[Half Life 2]) Playing with others through a campain is completely different, hence that to me is not "single player" and I love it.

I play for the multiplayer. Multiplayer is going to have to be great to have a chance. As with the controls, they do feel a little stiff, but that may be just because I have been playing so much COD4/5, everything else just feels slow to me.

I think that it will be interesting on how this stands up to Resistance 2, COD4, COD5 on the PS3. It is great to see a decent polished exclusive on the system, I just wonder with all the other great choices people have to play if there is going to be a big WOW factor with this one.

I for one will definately be renting this one and will wait till it is used before buying it.

BHvrd

03-01-2009, 02:24 PM

I'm insterested on how challenging this is on tougher difficulties, anyone know?

I liked the first Halo and the thing that made it really great was the Legendary difficulty, really made the game shine. I also agree that Halo 2 was vastly inferior and overrated online and offline, then again I used to play the original Halo online on my Xbox through Gamespy Tunnel, so Halo online was nothing new to me at that time. :p

swlovinist

03-01-2009, 03:46 PM

To me Halo 2 represents a model for current shooters in general. Offline a brief story mode, Online modes galore. I played Halo 2 for years online. For people who preferred Halo 1(story mode was vastly superior), I can see why Halo 2 was a letdown. When Halo 3 came out for me, I was pretty disappointed online. It did not have the wow factor, as there were other shooters, namely CoD4 that took the genere to the next level(though they only can be loosely compared, different types of shooters). The bottom line is that there are some great choices for people to play a whole bunch of shooters right now of different types. I wonder is Killzone 2 is going to get lost in the shuffle.

parallelprophet

03-01-2009, 05:40 PM

Wow. Halo 2 is probably the weakest entry in the series, at least from a single player standpoint, COD is the most widely played FPS at the moment (whether 4 or WaW), and I don't have any stats on Resistance 2, but the Chicago level brawl against the giant Chimera is something you don't forget. It also has the kick ass creepy level in the town that's been taken over with all of the eggs ready to hatch.

That's what Killzone 2 is missing. Obviously your FPS taste isn't the same and I respect that, but you're missing out on some fantastic experiences and gaming moments by letting Killzone 2 be the end all.

LOL....well, I do get a little carried away when new games come out. KZ2 is a good game tho.

parallelprophet

03-01-2009, 05:41 PM

Doom, Doom 2, Wolfenstein 3D, Duke Nukem 3D.

Thank you, drive through.

haha....yeah, I would probably agree. Can't name a better one on PS3 tho!

jupitersj

03-01-2009, 05:57 PM

Just finished it and remain entirely underwhelmed. It reminds of "Toshinden syndrome." It looks and sounds amazing, but it's hiding incredibly bland level design and action. The best action games of the day have those moments that truly astound. Resistance 2 has the Chicago level, Gears 2 has the Brumak riding, Halo 3 has the dual scarab fight, Killzone 2 has... lot of steps, elevators, and exploding barrels.

The ending sets up another sequel, after a boss fight that relies more on pouring ridiculous amounts of enemies from all corners. Weapons are bland, and the best only appear briefly like the electiricy gun. You're best bet are the machine guns and tons of grenades. It's a shame. There's a great game here, but it never pulls away from an incredibly generic shell of sloppy, sluggish controls and levels that fail to impress.

Don't let the visual power and audio fool you.

I agree. I was chilling at a friends house tonight who picked it up and I just could not get into it. We were playing the level where you have to hide from snipers(your partner keeps saying to stay away from the red lasers)...and the level with the white canisters on the ground that are volatile. The controls are sluggish and do NOT feel "life-like". I realize I need to play more before I make an end judgement but I'd really really like for another great game for my PS3. I buy 99% of multiplatform on my 360 so I'm killing for some great exclusives or better programmed multiplats for PS3(5 games vs. 47 on 360).

I guess it's time to finish up Valkyria Chronicles ^^;

scooterb23

03-01-2009, 06:32 PM

haha....yeah, I would probably agree. Can't name a better one on PS3 tho!

Heh, ok you have me there. 1, I don't own a PS3... 2, I'm not actually a FPS fan... and 3, It's not hard to be the best out of what? 5 titles ;)

Please, before the PS3 fanboys get their panties in a bunch...the last one was a joke. Go suck on your Motorstorm water bottle and chill out.

lazyhoboguy

03-01-2009, 08:01 PM

I have kz2 coming in the mail. I havent played the demo yet, as I want to experience the game in its entirety. I am very optimistic about the game because of its high reviews across the board, but I need to play for myself before I can truly say how it is. And for the controls, I remember killzone 1 had controls that were "floaty" and I liked it. It made it feel more realistic to me. I think people complaining about controls in kz2 are just too used to the last shooter they played. For example. I played cod4 online for like a year and this week just got rainbow six vegas. I have played it for like 5 hours and still find myself thinking I am playing with cod4 controls. Like, I hit the l1 button for zoom like on cod4 when zoom is r3 on this game.

Sudo

03-01-2009, 09:15 PM

I picked up the game and I also agree. There is something off with the controls. Also to me having to use the p3 button to run seems cumbersome. I felt like the guy was moving in sand.

And the aiming was a litle floaty. Killzone 1 had similar aiming issues.

I know the ps2/3 can do it right because cold winters aiming and resistance was pretty good. Are the graphics preventing the controls from being fluid?
The game is not a twitch shooter, it was designed to be slower-paced. You actually feel like you're controlling a human wearing armor and carrying a huge gun, unlike a camera on a stick in most FPS.

FxMercenary

03-01-2009, 11:31 PM

Sudo

03-01-2009, 11:51 PM

the slow movement was the first thing i noticed, i went to go adjust them, then realized i couldnt, then turned it off. Try playing it on hard mode and you will figure out why.

Resistance 1 & 2 blew this game out of the water. I wish they would tell you things about games before you buy em. Oh well, at least I get the costumes in PS Home from Amazon hehe

Um, they did. Did you completely ignore all previews and reviews of the game? Guerrilla has stated from the beginning of the game's development that it would be a slower paced game with no aim-assist, unlike nearly every other console FPS. The first game was like that as well, it's your fault for not making informed purchases. You can actually adjust the sensitivity in the options by the way, how did you miss that?

ProgrammingAce

03-02-2009, 04:37 AM

Um, they did. Did you completely ignore all previews and reviews of the game? Guerrilla has stated from the beginning of the game's development that it would be a slower paced game with no aim-assist, unlike nearly every other console FPS.

There's a reason every console FPS since 1997 has had aim assist. Not including it is a failure in their design philosophy, not an error on the player's part.

I look at it this way, even if a developer intentionally designs a game with a poor control scheme, i'm going to knock them for poor controls. Intentionally designing poor controls is as bad as intentionally designing poor graphics or a poor story. Just 'cause you do it on purpose doesn't mean i have to praise you for it.

When you design a game, you want to make things as intuitive as possible for the users. You don't want to make something the player has to fight throughout the entire game. If you want to make your game challenging, gimping the controls is a poor way of doing it.

heybtbm

03-02-2009, 08:14 AM

I finished up the game last night. VERY short. My total play time was under 7 hours...and 1+ hours of that was just the last "boss" stage.

I'm not sure what the "gimped" control scheme is supposed to be. I adjusted the X and Y axes several times until it felt comfortable and had no problems online or single player. The default scheme does feel a little sluggish, but like I said...just change the sensitivity and you'll be fine. Of course, I play more FPS than 99% of the people on the DP forums...so maybe my hands can adjust faster. Who knows?

Multiplayer is chaos. I'm not sure if I like it yet. There doesn't seem to be any "great" players...in that no one seems to dominate. You're just as likely to kill the top scorers as they are to kill you. It seemed like no one had any idea of what was going on. Like I said...chaos. It reminds me of Resistance (without the crazy jumps) in a way. Right now it's just a spawn/die/spawn/die fragfest. I've always preferred a slightly slower paced online FPS.

swlovinist

03-02-2009, 09:54 AM

what different modes are there in multiplayer? What is the max total supported on a map?

Gamereviewgod

03-02-2009, 11:09 AM

The game is not a twitch shooter, it was designed to be slower-paced. You actually feel like you're controlling a human wearing armor and carrying a huge gun, unlike a camera on a stick in most FPS.

Then don't make it a twitch shooter. Design the levels around more methodical, more spaced out battles. But no, Killzone 2 wants to be this epic shooter with hundreds of Helghast pouring down on you constantly. Being ambushed or trapped in an area became tiresome.

The best level in K2 was the slowest paced one, in the windswept desert. Battles were spaced and small in scale, allowing the player to flank and take down foes in their own time actually worked. Sadly, that was only one level, and it still poured on elevators and steps.

heybtbm

03-02-2009, 11:14 AM

what different modes are there in multiplayer? What is the max total supported on a map?

32 players max (16 per side).

The modes are actually combined into 1 "session". Where you'll finish one objective, then without cutting to the menu, you'll receive a new "mode" or objective. One minute you're running around in a team deathmatch, the next minute the announcer directs you to blow up an objective, the next you're taking over territories and defending them. Like I said, it's chaotic and hard to tell what you should be doing at any particular moment. I think once I figure that out, it'll get a lot more fun.

Sudo

03-02-2009, 03:29 PM

There's a reason every console FPS since 1997 has had aim assist. Not including it is a failure in their design philosophy, not an error on the player's part.

I look at it this way, even if a developer intentionally designs a game with a poor control scheme, i'm going to knock them for poor controls. Intentionally designing poor controls is as bad as intentionally designing poor graphics or a poor story. Just 'cause you do it on purpose doesn't mean i have to praise you for it.

When you design a game, you want to make things as intuitive as possible for the users. You don't want to make something the player has to fight throughout the entire game. If you want to make your game challenging, gimping the controls is a poor way of doing it.
How is it a failure if I (and most others) can pull off headshots and play through the game just fine? The people complaining about the controls are a vocal minority.

ProgrammingAce

03-02-2009, 04:32 PM

The people complaining about the controls are a vocal minority.

Vocal minorities change the world.

Sudo

03-02-2009, 04:45 PM

Vocal minorities change the world.

That may be true in some cases, but the game is already out. It had over a million pre-orders in the US alone, so I don't think Sony and GG have much reason to care at this point. The game has already made its budget back and then some.

ProgrammingAce

03-02-2009, 06:06 PM

That may be true in some cases, but the game is already out. It had over a million pre-orders in the US alone, so I don't think Sony and GG have much reason to care at this point. The game has already made its budget back and then some.

Let's go crazy here and say that the game sold 1.25 million copies in the first month. The developer will end up making roughly $20 per copy. That puts them at $25,000,000. That probably doesn't break them even yet, considering how long the game has been in development and how much you need to pay programmers and engineers of the caliber to produce a game such as this.

After the first month, the sales always diminish quickly, but the game will probably break even within the first 4-6 months. Hardly the system seller that Sony needed it to be.

The "vocal minority" has already convinced me that this game is good, but not great. Worth buying, but there are enough nits to pick that you should probably wait for a price drop or two. For Gorilla's and especially Sony's sake, hope they don't convince too many more people.

I might have an xbox logo in my avatar, but i have Nintendo and Sony tattoos. I'd like nothing more then to see all three companies do well.

Sudo

03-02-2009, 09:14 PM

Let's go crazy here and say that the game sold 1.25 million copies in the first month. The developer will end up making roughly $20 per copy. That puts them at $25,000,000. That probably doesn't break them even yet, considering how long the game has been in development and how much you need to pay programmers and engineers of the caliber to produce a game such as this.

After the first month, the sales always diminish quickly, but the game will probably break even within the first 4-6 months. Hardly the system seller that Sony needed it to be.

The "vocal minority" has already convinced me that this game is good, but not great. Worth buying, but there are enough nits to pick that you should probably wait for a price drop or two. For Gorilla's and especially Sony's sake, hope they don't convince too many more people.

I might have an xbox logo in my avatar, but i have Nintendo and Sony tattoos. I'd like nothing more then to see all three companies do well.

I've seen numbers that suggest 3 million copies pre-ordered worldwide, but that remains to be seen. I don't know that it was ever going to be a system seller regardless of its quality, simply because it lacks brand recognition. The first Killzone on PS2 sold pretty well, but nowhere near as much as the Halo games. I think KZ2 will go on to sell really well overall, and that's the best that can be realistically hoped for IMO.

Gamereviewgod

03-02-2009, 10:38 PM

That may be true in some cases, but the game is already out. It had over a million pre-orders in the US alone, so I don't think Sony and GG have much reason to care at this point. The game has already made its budget back and then some.

Not sure what pre-orders have to do with the controls... You still need to keep people happy with the end product for the eventual sequel to sell well.

Anyway, the forums on the game's official site have a note from the developer:

*"Controller Issues
We have not stopped looking into the complaints and will see what we can do about it. Any possible changes will have to be carefully implemented and tested before being deployed though. Any potential changes would not be sweeping and we’d do our best to ensure they do not negatively affect anyone not having problems."

There are A LOT of complaints about the controls. Those pre-orders obviously aren't happy. It simply doesn't handle well. I finally did adjust towards the end, but still never felt like I had accurate weapons.

Sudo

03-02-2009, 11:54 PM

Not sure what pre-orders have to do with the controls... You still need to keep people happy with the end product for the eventual sequel to sell well.

Anyway, the forums on the game's official site have a note from the developer:

*"Controller Issues
We have not stopped looking into the complaints and will see what we can do about it. Any possible changes will have to be carefully implemented and tested before being deployed though. Any potential changes would not be sweeping and we�d do our best to ensure they do not negatively affect anyone not having problems."

There are A LOT of complaints about the controls. Those pre-orders obviously aren't happy. It simply doesn't handle well. I finally did adjust towards the end, but still never felt like I had accurate weapons.

It would be absolutely pointless to change the controls, because it'd then play just like every other FPS. People craving the same game over and over is what kills innovation and makes rehashes like Call of Duty: World at War and the Guitar Hero games sell millions. Killzone 2 controls fine, I actually prefer its controls to nearly every other console FPS.

Gamereviewgod

03-03-2009, 12:46 AM

It would be absolutely pointless to change the controls, because it'd then play just like every other FPS. People craving the same game over and over is what kills innovation and makes rehashes like Call of Duty: World at War and the Guitar Hero games sell millions. Killzone 2 controls fine, I actually prefer its controls to nearly every other console FPS.

But Killzone 2 isn't innovative. In fact, aside from the controls (which hardly make it innovative), it's one of the most generic shooters on the market. I don't want the same experience, I want to be able to hit my enemies with bullets. If the audience wants tighter, responsive controls, that's what they need to be given. Put in an option, at the very least for single player, to select which style you prefer. Everyone is happy, although it wouldn't do much to change my thoughts on the game as a whole.

Sudo

03-03-2009, 01:55 AM

But Killzone 2 isn't innovative. In fact, aside from the controls (which hardly make it innovative), it's one of the most generic shooters on the market. I don't want the same experience, I want to be able to hit my enemies with bullets. If the audience wants tighter, responsive controls, that's what they need to be given. Put in an option, at the very least for single player, to select which style you prefer. Everyone is happy, although it wouldn't do much to change my thoughts on the game as a whole.
I'm not having any problems hitting enemies, and I'm pretty bad at most FPS which is why I don't play many of them. If they changed the controls, they'd have to pretty much change how the whole game plays, which isn't really feasible. There's a sensitivity option for a reason. As for the game not being innovative, I'll disagree there. The first-person cover system has never been done this well, and the physics are better than any other FPS out there. It's not genre-redefining or anything, but it's better than the majority of FPS in recent memory.

scooterb23

03-03-2009, 03:28 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foathMPLpqw

Killzone 2: Sony's crippling deathblow to the 360

lol

ProgrammingAce

03-03-2009, 03:51 AM

It would be absolutely pointless to change the controls, because it'd then play just like every other FPS.

As for the game not being innovative, I'll disagree there... It's not genre-redefining or anything, but it's better than the majority of FPS in recent memory.

So if they were to make the controls better, it'd be just like every other FPS? And that's what makes it better then anything else out there? Glad you cleared that up...

I'm pretty bad at most FPS which is why I don't play many of them.

Oh, now i get it.

heybtbm

03-03-2009, 07:18 AM

If they're going to change the controls, they should at least add an aiming feature. Similar to the Call of Duty's or Bad Company...where you "look down the sights" by pressing the LB (or L1 in the PS3's case) button.

The main issue I had (online and single player) was spraying bullets inaccurately whenever I came upon an enemy up close. An aiming feature would take care of that. Other than that...I don't understand what people could be complaining about.

sonicteam

03-03-2009, 08:30 AM

If they're going to change the controls, they should at least add an aiming feature. Similar to the Call of Duty's or Bad Company...where you "look down the sights" by pressing the LB (or L1 in the PS3's case) button.
.

under the options , there is an alternate 2 mode for controls which is exactly like you said L1 to look down the sites, that's what i'm using and i find it to make gameplay much easier

Solertia

03-03-2009, 09:29 AM

I feel like I'm the only person with a PS3 who doesn't care about this game.

Sudo

03-03-2009, 02:02 PM

So if they were to make the controls better, it'd be just like every other FPS? And that's what makes it better then anything else out there? Glad you cleared that up...

Oh, now i get it.

Changing them to be like every other FPS wouldn't make them better. Good job misinterpreting what I was trying to say. As far as my "not playing many of them" comment goes, I do play most of the big games. I've played both Resistances, Bioshock, CoD 4, etc. What I meant is that I don't play the crappy B-level ones and I don't bother playing online since I'm not good enough. The point is that if I can manage to play Killzone 2 more efficiently than most FPS despite it being more difficult than them (and me not being very good at the genre), the controls can't be that bad. And with that I am done with this thread, since I'm not going to continue this pointless argument when it's obvious we're not going to agree on anything.

scooterb23

03-03-2009, 03:38 PM

So now that's done...

Is it safe to put this on the pile of "games that just don't quite meet the hype?"

Because except for one person...the consensus seems to be good, but not great.

heybtbm

03-03-2009, 03:49 PM

So now that's done...

Is it safe to put this on the pile of "games that just don't quite meet the hype?"

Because except for one person...the consensus seems to be good, but not great.

I don't know...I'd say this one still qualifies as "great" (with a few issues).

scooterb23

03-03-2009, 04:26 PM

91/100 great? That's what the metacritic score says, but you know how those things go...

I'm really just trying to figure out where this game lives in the PS3 hierarchy.

realdeal

03-05-2009, 10:10 PM

haha i was just talking about this awesome game on another board though it does seem to be really popular right now and lots of people cant wait to get there hands on it lol so the only problem is i wish i had more details

i need to do a little bit more research i guess http://photosnag.com/img/3012/y09w0131xdtc/82(2).gif

Lord_Magus

03-06-2009, 05:32 AM

I played the demo of KZ2 the other day and wasn't underwhelmed, but wasn't really impressed either. Like most other big names out there at the moment, it just seems like another PC/FPS game that just doesn't feel quite at home on a console.

Furthermore, everything about the game just felt generic and uninspired. Personally, I found the FEAR 2 demo I tried far more enjoyable, and will probably be picking that up instead.

lazyhoboguy

03-06-2009, 08:35 AM

I finished single player now and have played several hours of multiplayer. The online controls are different than singleplayers and work great. So everyone bitching about the controls really should just shut up. The single player controls were weird but worked fine with the game. If they were the same in multiplayer then people would have a valid reason to complain, but they're not the same in multiplayer.

Also, I felt like single player was good graphically, but like others have said didnt really do too much new things overall. Like it was good but not revolutionary or anything. But the multiplayer is really really good so that makes up for it. I would give the single player like an 8 out of 10 and multiplayer like a 9.5.

BHvrd

05-02-2010, 01:55 AM

Just recently picked this game up and it kicks some pretty serious ass.

It really picks up in act 2 and the action gets pretty intense. I really like that the game is designed in a way that charging into battle is somewhat encouraged. I really like that as Halo 1 had the same opportunities to decide how to play, you don't feel limited. The graphics are great! Really polished and a GREAT pace!

This beats Resistance, Warhawk, Metal Gear Online, CoD and honestly any other shooter out there atm imo "though Battlefield is pretty good too :p". It feels more next gen and pushes the envelope ever so slightly to raise above the heap yet stay true to the genre.

If I had to relate it to any other FPS's out there it would be like if you took Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Gears of War and threw in some Halo with a light sprinkle of CoD. It's a nice little experience, i'm very glad I picked it up. Actually should have tried to get it at launch.

Btw, start on hard difficulty!