Killzone

[Kynan]

Sony, or whoever, has released a video of this self-styled Halo killer in motion. Apparently the latest DivX codec is required in order to watch it, and also apparently, there are some great graphics on display alongside some not-so-great AI (understandable for a game still in development). Can someone post some screencaps for me since I can't watch the video?

[Robot Monkey]

No screen caps yet, let me see what I can do.

 

I watched the video, and meh. The taped-together magazines on the player's 16 is a nice touch, but that's about it. The video rez was too low for me to appreciate the graphics, good or bad. The beginning of the video is strangely reminiscent of the Halo 2 E3 trailer.

 

It's still early, though, and it's pretty hard to distinguish your game as not just another FPS in only a minute. I hope it shapes up, though. Halo is a pretty decent yardstick for console FPS's and when titles vie for being the best, we win.

 

-j

[Camp]

The beginning of the video is strangely reminiscent of the Halo 2 E3 trailer.

 

Wow. You're not kidding. Very similar.

 

The AI is looking pretty stupid. They just stand there. There's a part where the player unloads almost a full clip into an enemy at point blank range, reloads, and then continues shooting until the enemy dies.

 

Not bad overall though. I appreciate the link.

[Romier S]

IGN has posted thier official review for Killzone:

 

Killzone gets a 7.5

 

What's interesting to me is that IGN gave the game a 7.5 but the review reads nothing like that. They practically crapped all over the game and pretty much said the only saving grace is the art style and high quality visuals (of which they described the framerate as "disastrous" to the point of comprimising gameplay.) Don't quite understand how the game even got to a 7.5 considering the lambasting they gave it.

[Camp]

Interesting review.

I've been all over the board in anticipation of Killzone. I was infatuated by it until I had the opportunity to play it in split screen multiplayer. The frame rate in split screen is 100% unplayable. To the point that I had to wonder why they would bother including a mode highlighting the severe limitations of the PS2.

I filed Killzone away in my 3rd tier of "games to try" this holiday season. Then they released the single player demo. It was fun. It was playable. I liked it enough to consider that my earlier experience must have been with a early build and that things would be alright in the end.

Now this review...it points out a lot of things I noticed in both experiences. I'm still interested but I think it'll remain a 3rd tier title for me (especially considering the quality of games this year).

[Calvin]

I'd tend to agree.

Having played in the beta testing phase a month back - I really wasn't all that impressed with the game overall. I didn't think that it compared that well with Halo 1,never mind anything else.

 

The framerate was not smooth,seemed like there was too much of a delay in firing your gun. Like Camp said though - the single player demo was somewhat better - but with the other quality shooting games on the way - this will get a pass.

 

Too many games & not enough time...

[JoeyN]

Yeah i know know . Some IGN reviews are spot on and then others are way off

 

capt

[Jordan_E]

I was bored to death as a beta tester for this game. The game felt clunky, the grenades were virtually useless as were half the weapons, and except for the sorta cool setting I wouldn't even rent it when it came out unless the single player game (which the beta didn't have) kicked some ass.

[dogbert]

I filed Killzone away in my 3rd tier of "games to try" this holiday season. Then they released the single player demo. It was fun. It was playable. I liked it enough to consider that my earlier experience must have been with a early build and that things would be alright in the end.

 

I had the opposite experience with the demo - it completely turned me off it. Too scripted, didn't like the weapons or aiming, didn't like the weapon reload anims etc. Reminded me too much of the Medal of Honour games on the consoles, which isn't a good thing

[Jeff W]

Wow, I've had this reserved for some time and was anxiously anticipating picking it up on Tuesday, now you guys are giving me second thoughts.

[Camp]

I had the opposite experience with the demo - it completely turned me off it. Too scripted, didn't like the weapons or aiming, didn't like the weapon reload anims etc. Reminded me too much of the Medal of Honour games on the consoles, which isn't a good thing

 

I totally agree with those observations. The reload animations are far too slow and ruin the pacing and using scripting as a substitute for AI is never a good thing. I guess I was just *hoping* the full game would be better.

[Romier S]

I was also considering picking up Killzone but had heard some less than desireable things about the beta and single player demo. A good friend just gave me a multi-month tryout certificate for Gamefly. I think I'll add Killzone to my list of renters.

[Jeff W]

Picked this up today, haven't really had a lot of time to get into it but what I did get to play I liked. Have yet to see any of the problems mentioned in the reviews but I was kind of immersed in the game at the time, definitely impressed with the graphics though, especially coming from the PS2.

[Romier S]

IGN's reviewer, Ivan, has apparently been taking his share of commentary on his review for Killzone. I find the entire mailbag for this month to be pretty damn funny in general. You can take a read of it here:

 

http://ps2.ign.com/mail/2004-11-01.html

 

A sample:

 

You reviewers disgust me. Did Microsoft pay a hefty amount of dinero to give Killzone a horrible grade? Not that you would tell me...Well my personal advice to you guys is, pull your heads out of your asses and re-read the final comments you entered in the review summary section. You'll be too embarssed to walk among the public; being terrified of gamers who, as soon as they'd see you, would point their fingers at your face and laugh at your idiotic, irrational, and coruupted review. You people disgust me...

 

-- Hector

 

 

I'm sorry we disgust you, but I'll try and address some of your concerns anyway.

 

1) Microsoft didn't pay us anything.

 

2) Why would I be embarrassed about my closing comments? Did you actually read my closing comments? I see nothing wrong with them...

 

"You're reading about a straightforward shooter limited by technology. All the hype built up to a decent game presented in an intriguing universe and with a stunning sense of style. Ironically though, it's the audio and visual qualities (however faulted they may sometimes be) that save the actual underwhelming gameplay of this one from utter mediocrity.

Now even though playing Killzone is to be bombarded by bugs and glitches and technological inadequacies, the whole experience is definitely worth playing. Before you purchase it expecting Halo to spontaneously combust, just remember the profound words of our ratings guide and its 7.0 descriptor, 'Killzone is a good game that has some obvious flaws.'"

 

In any event, we'll let the game speak for itself. After it releases, check out a site like GameStats.com or GameRankings.com and then we'll see who has made the more accurate judgment of Killzone.

 

-- Ivan

 

[Camp]

I've read reports that IGN admitted to the Killzone review being from a beta version of the game. Is there any truth to this? Or is this just upset PS2 fans spreading hate?

[Romier S]

Is there any truth to this?

 

If you go by the reviewers comments above Camp, there is no truth to it. Ivan maintains the version he reviewed was a Sony approved reviewable copy.

 

Also gamespot posted thier review of Killzone:

 

Killzone gets a 6.9 from Gamespot

 

Two beta copies out there on two different sites?

 

Regardless of the reviews I bought the game yesterday (despite my better judgement.). Not taking much of a chance really since I have the ability to return it if need be . I haven't yet had the chance to sit down with Killzone as I also picked up the Lord of the Rings The Third Age and was suprisingly engulfed by the game for almost four and a half hours last night! I do plan to spend some time with it tonight though (right after getting too and defeating the Balrog of Moria). If I'm not too tired after playing I'll post some preliminary thoughts on it.

[Jordan_E]

So, I'm going through the demo and still don't like it. The movement has a "sliding on ice" feel that I don't care for, and the reloading of weapons still stinks, IMO. I still may rent it today, if only to appreciate my Halo 2 just that much more when I get my hands on it.

[dogbert]

If you go by the reviewers comments above Camp, there is no truth to it. Ivan maintains the version he reviewed was a Sony approved reviewable copy.

 

Beta & "approved by Sony" aren't mutually exclusive. A large percentage of reviews, particularly the big websites & early mag reviews, are from builds that aren't from the final gold master - it's just not possible timewise. So what happens instead is that as a game hits beta & starts making release candidate builds to ship off to Sony for QA approval etc, the publisher & the developer decide on a build that's "close enough" & solid enough to ship off to reviewers.

 

So, if one person is saying IGN reviewed a beta build, and another is saying it was Sony Approved, that doesn't necessarily mean either person is lying or wrong.

[Romier S]

So, if one person is saying IGN reviewer a beta build, and another is saying it was Sony Approved, that doesn't necessarily mean either person is lying or wrong.

 

It's not a matter of lying to be honest. Looking at it from the perspective you noted Brian, you are right, there is some truth to the beta comments. However it's the connotation in which people use the "beta" accusation that bothers me more than anything. You and I both know the criticism against IGN here is that the reviewer was wrong in giving the game the score he did. So then the rumors start that the review copy was a beta build and the reviewer didn't give the game a fair shake. That accusation just doesn't sit well with me if indeed Ivan reviewed a build approved by the games publisher. If you take a look at the link I posted to the IGN mailbag the reviewer in question notes a few things about the build they received:

 

We received a build of Killzone dated September 30th. The build and accompanying press materials indicated that this was a review copy fit for immediate review. Further contact with Sony confirmed this. Sony in fact agreed and endorsed the posting of our Killzone review on Friday, October 29.

 

In the accompanying press materials that came with the build, there were listed out three potential bugs. These were preceded by the vague disclaimer that, "...any bugs you might encounter are being addressed." The three bugs listed included cinematics not properly displaying the Killzone logo, a debug screen that would turn the screen blue, pink, or green, and an online mode that required we first conduct a DNS redirect before playing. None of these issues affected the final score Killzone received in any way.

 

I'll take that as having more truth than someone making accusations about the veracity of the review in question.

[Jordan_E]

I just rented this game and will give it some serious play this weekend.

[Jeff W]

I've been into it for 3 days now, it does have it's problems but I think that's all related to the limitations of the hardware, so far I've only had 1 instance where something actually affected gameplay so I noticed it. This game could have really owned on the xbox and Live.

[JFo]

You know, I love how gamers have absolutely zero tolerance for differing opinions on games, especially with magazines or websites. If this guy at IGN doesn't like Killzone, then he was obviously bought off by Microsoft and is therefore teh bias or the copy he used to in writing the review wasn't legitimate.

 

It can't be that the guy didn't like the game and had some legitimate gripes. If it's supposed to be good based on the previews, then it's supposed to get a good review, and it's supposed to get a good review from everyone out there no matter what.

 

Sorry about the mini-rant, but stuff like this bugs the hell out of me.

[Jordan_E]

Okay, 2 days into this game and I have to admit that I'm enjoying it more than I expected. I am starting to really dig the ruins fighting. But a couple of thing still bug the hell out of me. The reloads, the fact that you have to empty virtually half a freaking clip into a guy before he falls, and the same yelling from the other side throughtout the game. But now I give it at least a solid rental passing grade.

[JFo]

Since it recently dropped to a mere $20, I decided to pick up Killzone. I enjoyed the demo enough that I figured a purchase at a bargain price would be worth it.

 

I hate to say I was wrong, but I do find myself walking away from this title more annoyed than anything. I honestly do believe that a really great first-person shooter can be found somewhere in there. Unfortunately, any chance that this game had of being genuinely fun is blown to hell thanks to a choppy frame rate and repetitive gameplay. On a system that can push games that look as good as God of War, Shadow of the Colossus, and the upcoming port of Resident Evil 4, there's no excuse for allowing a title with this poor a frame rate out the door. Perhaps a couple more months of optimizing to get it all running would have been in order.

 

Then there's the repetitive nature of the gameplay. Being that this is a shooter, I fully expect to spend most of my time running around blasting new corn holes in my enemies. However, it would be nice to have a little variety in my foes. The fact that almost every single enemy is simply a variation of some humanoid with different armor or weapons makes every play exactly the same. At least with something like Halo, you had a collection of enemies with different abilities and characteristics. Not so here. If you've seen one Helghast, you've seen them all.

 

Other things I didn't like:

 

• The way your head would move when reloading weapons. I understand the developer's desire to give the game a cinematic feeling, but this was really more disorienting than anything.
  
• The repetitive dialog during battles from both the Helghast and your squad. If I have to hear Rico say, "Whoa, that's messy, man!" one more time, I'm going to punch a hole through my TV.
  
• Why oh why does it take so many hits to kill a Helghast? Yes, I also like my enemies tough, but these guys required a ridiculous number of hits to bring down.
  
• Hey, Guerrilla, have you ever heard of a fucking checkpoint? You could have used a few more of them on a few of the levels.

 

So, yeah, rent this one. Don't buy it. If you do buy it, make sure that you get it for real cheap. This one might be going back to Game Stop this next week.

 

In the meantime, I hope Guerrilla can make something of this franchise for the PS3. Like I said, there's a great shooter waiting to be played with this series. They just need to overcome the technical and design hurdles to make it happen.

[The Daisy]

Good to know. I was really debating this one at Greatest Hits prices, but I'll probably hold off now.

 

Thanks,

 

Glen