Support NeoGAF

[Zen]

Doubt it would have mattered, the reviews were still good and frankly KZ just never sold that amazingly well. KZ2 likely never even reached much more than 1.5 mil . Third game in the series was not going to magically turn the franchise around, and the shooter market just grows more and more saturated.

Killzone 2 had its chance at getting some mainstream appeal and, thanks to things like network lag, MP performance, balancing, but especially controls, failed. There was virtually no chance that Killzone 3 would perform any better, and for the reasons you stated, it would be a hard road to do just as well (although it's tracking close).

Atmosphere has little to do with writing. KZ2 simply lacked any real story line and what it had could have been written by anyone as it was one of the most straight forward storylines that it made COD seem complex with it's story telling. KZ2 lacked writing. KZ3 had bad writing. KZ2 simply had it's own unique style.

Atmosphere and writing have a lot in tandem, even in an FPS. How characters talk, and what is said helps to establish or reinforce the tone of the experience along with visual elements. Compare shindlers list to Inglorious Basterds and writting gives you a completely different tone. The problem with the writting and story in Killzone 2 was it wasn't fleshed out enough, but what was there was well writen, and much better than the writing in COD.

Compare the writing in the Killzone 2 intro, or the Death of Visari, or the gradual degredation of Rico's mental state and can you really think of anything aside from action clock in Call of Duty?

 

[Dibbz]

Just had a few games of GW. There is no way that I can play this game with a DS3 anymore. Move is just so easy. The only gun I'm afraid of using with Move is the shotgun and shotgun pistol because of their low rate of fire.

Medic is way better now for me, I'm reviving downed team mates all the time and having faster health regen is nice. So much fun.

 

[Mikey Jr.]

Irony that GG chased the COD crowd but KZ3 sales are slower than KZ2.

Fuck em.

GG had an great multiplayer concept on their hands with KZ2. Some things needed to be tweaked and changed, sure, but overall it was something you couldn't find anywhere else. It was original, and an expansion of it would have been amazing.

Then what do they do for KZ3? Make an MP thats like every single game out there. If I wanted to play Call of Duty, I would play Call of Duty.

Not only that, but a multitude of features that were present in KZ2 were stripped out in KZ3.

In my opinion, I hope they get a dose of harsh reality. Not because I want them to fail, but because I want them to realize what a gem they had with KZ2, and hopefully use that as a foundation for KZ4. Kinda like what Insomniac is doing with Resistance.

 

[patsu]

Just had a few games of GW. There is no way that I can play this game with a DS3 anymore. Move is just so easy. The only gun I'm afraid of using with Move is the shotgun and shotgun pistol because of their low rate of fire.

Medic is way better now for me, I'm reviving downed team mates all the time and having faster health regen is nice. So much fun.

Yap, easy to get revive points in Medics.

But I begin to like TSP points as Tacticians too. Rather satisfying to take away someone else's spawn points (Muahahaha !!! Now where are you going to spawn from ?).

 

[patsu]

In my opinion, I hope they get a dose of harsh reality. Not because I want them to fail, but because I want them to realize what a gem they had with KZ2, and hopefully use that as a foundation for KZ4. Kinda like what Insomniac is doing with Resistance.

From my perspective, I like KZ3 more than KZ2. I am actually glad that they went ahead to implement the over-powered classes and made them balance out.

RFOM had an unbalance mode too (Chimera rage mode vs Human), but Insomniac balanced the games out by having alternate rounds.

 

[Dibbz]

KZ3 was never going to sell as good as KZ2. Simple fact is that people were disappointed in KZ2 and because of that would never even give KZ3 a chance. Of course it didn't help that CoD turned the FPS crowed into a bunch of retards who can only play camera on a stick FPS's where KDR reigns supreme.

The only time GG are going to make grab a larger audience for KZ is on next gen hardware.

I'm not to arsed either way. KZ3 is great and as long as GG stick with this formula for MP I'd be happy.

 

[patsu]

Yap, I was ok with KZ2, and I am fine with KZ3.

If they want to stick to KZ2 formula, I think they should ditch all the advanced classes (Yap. no spawn grenades too). I remember the beginning experience of KZ2 MP was fantastic.

If they put in advanced classes, I prefer the KZ3 model where they are actually useful.

 

[Gvaz]

I think it has a lot to do with the change of writter. Maybe Killzone 2 had a campaign that slogged a bit (for some people), but in retrospect it was pretty well written, especially in the 'big moments' of the story arch. The feeling of opression in the campaign is very well realized, where as Killzone 3 feels like 'Kill the glowing eyed badguys!'. Although they did attempt to include decent moments, such as Narville trying to get Hooper to eat, but the script treatment did feel exactly what it was, namely a Hollywood writter who is not intimately familiar nor passionate about the source material, applying a Hollywood treatment to the Killzone universe

There's a phrase that fits here: "Michael Bay"

 

[ZephyrFate]

Fuck em.

GG had an great multiplayer concept on their hands with KZ2. Some things needed to be tweaked and changed, sure, but overall it was something you couldn't find anywhere else. It was original, and an expansion of it would have been amazing.

Then what do they do for KZ3? Make an MP thats like every single game out there. If I wanted to play Call of Duty, I would play Call of Duty.

Not only that, but a multitude of features that were present in KZ2 were stripped out in KZ3.

In my opinion, I hope they get a dose of harsh reality. Not because I want them to fail, but because I want them to realize what a gem they had with KZ2, and hopefully use that as a foundation for KZ4. Kinda like what Insomniac is doing with Resistance.

Honestly, where are these people coming from? KZ3's multiplayer is NOTHING like Call of Duty's. AT ALL.

 

[H_Prestige]

Honestly, where are these people coming from? KZ3's multiplayer is NOTHING like Call of Duty's. AT ALL.

Exactly like? No. But it does have a heavy reliance on ADS, faster animations/reload, and players drop like flies. That's a big difference compared to KZ2.

 

[Thrakier]

Honestly, where are these people coming from? KZ3's multiplayer is NOTHING like Call of Duty's. AT ALL.

I don't know either. COD has a completly different feel to it. Sure, both are FPS, but other than that....

 

[Ilúvatar]

Exactly like? No. But it does have a heavy reliance on ADS, faster animations/reload, and players drop like flies. That's a big difference compared to KZ2.

KZ2 didn't have much health in multiplayer either

 

[user friendly]

Exactly like? No. But it does have a heavy reliance on ADS, faster animations/reload, and players drop like flies. That's a big difference compared to KZ2.

That's what people aren't understanding when other people say it's like CoD. It's more like CoD (even BFBC2) than KZ2 was. Can you have 1v1 mini 30 second battles in KZ3? No. Does crouching make much of a difference like it did in KZ2? No.

Is it a decent game, sure but it was a let down to a KZ2 addict.

 

[Mikey Jr.]

Honestly, where are these people coming from? KZ3's multiplayer is NOTHING like Call of Duty's. AT ALL.

-No spawn on squad system.
-No squad system at all
-Match making
-Close to worthless clan system
-Point unlock system where you have to spend points (just to get a basic pistol)
-Perks (increased bullet damage, faster ADS, faster reload)
-Numbers popping up right infront of your fucking face
-More reliance on iron sights than hip fire
-Health is significantly lower

I'm sure there is more, but of course its not exactly like cod. But fuck me if it isn't getting close. Its closer to cod than it is to kz2.

 

[ZephyrFate]

Exactly like? No. But it does have a heavy reliance on ADS, faster animations/reload, and players drop like flies. That's a big difference compared to KZ2.

But there's no floaty running, the ability to equip 4 game-breaking perks before the match, classes actually have variety a la Team Fortress, sentry bots instead of airstrikes that actually contribute to the strategy of a match...

Hell the fact that my vision and gun move when I fall down from somewhere is enough realism to blow CoD out of the park.

 

[Mooreberg]

Honestly, where are these people coming from? KZ3's multiplayer is NOTHING like Call of Duty's. AT ALL.

I agree it is quite different but the fact remains that behavior learned in one game can have a negative impact on another. A lot of that is not GG's fault at all, it is beyond their control. But I think they added some fuel to the fire with certain design decisions:

Scoring - KZ2 had a huge emphasis on winning to get the 1.5X multiplier at the end of the match. Very much needed for the long haul of leveling up. This meant that most people who were not 100K+ plus were actually trying to win the games they were in. In Killzone 3 you get a multiplier even for losing, and so many points are handed out just for killing people that a lot of people go into Warzone and don't do much in terms of objectives. This isn't quite as bad as objective modes in Black Ops and Reach where everybody is focusing on some contract/challenge (the fact that they did not do something like this in KZ3 is a major relief) but you still don't get good games as consistently as you did in KZ2.

Tactical Spawns - Continue to be an ultra clusterfuck. People from opposing teams still spawn in even while an area is being captured prior to being "neutralized" and in general they are a magnet for people who want to just throw grenades into a doorway or snipe on spawn areas in the open. The spawn smoke in KZ2 never worked perfectly because they were also a camping magnet but they didn't seem to distract half of the damn people in the game from playing the objective. I'd love to see this ditched in favor of just spawning on the tacticians themselves or bring back what worked in KZ2 - squad leader spawning.

Lack of Support play - I think this is a combination of not being able to earn the ability to mix and match class attributes and the fact that people camp on ammo caches like motherfuckers. A lot of engineers will put up their turrets but they don't repair the mounted ones and a lot of times nobody is getting ammo caches set up. On one hand I don't blame them for not doing it when some jackass on the other team is spending the whole match hovering by it. On the other hand, it has a hugely negative impact on the game. I'm glad you don't have to rely on health packs from a medic to get full health back anymore because it would never happen.

This isn't quite the mindless bullshit that a lot of recent shooters have descended into but the game could be better with a few simple fixes. But even then the general audience seems to have taken a turn for the worse due to persistent stat tracking and freaking out over their K/D ratio.

Will be interested to see how much DICE can get console people into playing Battlefield 3 the way it is intended. I think they have an uphill battle.

 

[BattleMonkey]

Atmosphere and writing have a lot in tandem, even in an FPS. How characters talk, and what is said helps to establish or reinforce the tone of the experience along with visual elements. Compare shindlers list to Inglorious Basterds and writting gives you a completely different tone. The problem with the writting and story in Killzone 2 was it wasn't fleshed out enough, but what was there was well writen, and much better than the writing in COD.

Compare the writing in the Killzone 2 intro, or the Death of Visari, or the gradual degredation of Rico's mental state and can you really think of anything aside from action clock in Call of Duty?

I find it hard to judge actual writing based on simply two speeches in the game. As for dialogue, I'm sorry but KZ2 dialogue was just extremely cringe worthy and felt like it was obviously a European developed game that was trying to make the characters sound like macho american action flick characters. KZ2 was one of the more straight forward fps storylines in a long time, and writing a good speech has nothing to do with actual talent for writing good story.

KZ2 problem was not that it wasn't fleshed out, because there was nothing to flesh out due to how incredibly narrow it's focus was. Again KZ1 shows what some competent writing is with actual characters, well placed plotting, diversity, and some actual depth/intrigue. KZ2 was a very straight forward "go go go" military action game and it says alot when the only real memorable aspects were the two speeches in the start and end.

And really it's funny how people suddenly act like Rico's story was good when it was one of the most complained about aspect of KZ2 and there was so much rage for the character.

 

[patsu]

That's what people aren't understanding when other people say it's like CoD. It's more like CoD (even BFBC2) than KZ2 was. Can you have 1v1 mini 30 second battles in KZ3? No. Does crouching make much of a difference like it did in KZ2? No.

1v1 30 second battle is not a core gameplay mechanics though. It's pretty arbitrary to say Game A is like CoD if it's missing a KZ2 feature. KZ3 is different from KZ2, but it still share a lot of its roots with KZ2. In the end, KZ3 plays differently from KZ2 and CoD.

What's sad is like KZ3 should have better matchmaking than KZ2. But it does not. It should have custom games, but they can't make it at launch. So it's coming later.

Is it a decent game, sure but it was a let down to a KZ2 addict.

Sure, but in no way does that mean KZ2 is better for everyone. I stopped playing KZ2 long time ago. Loved MAG. KZ3 is somewhere in between. It's (much) easier to achieve the objectives compared to MAG. It's more tactical than KZ2.

I find that it's not uncommon to lead in KZ3 and then lost at the last few minutes or seconds because someone finally managed to breakthrough the ranks and files. The sense of loosing your grip at the final moment is both frustrating and humbling. I like that unpredictability.

 

[patsu]

-No spawn on squad system.
-No squad system at all
-Match making

Both KZ2 and KZ3 have bad matchmaking.

-Close to worthless clan system
-Point unlock system where you have to spend points (just to get a basic pistol)

You could only play basic soldier class in KZ2 at the beginning. You have to level up slowly while other more advanced players dominate the game (because of broken advanced classes and bad matchmaking also). KZ3 allows you to play any class you want from the get-go.

-Perks (increased bullet damage, faster ADS, faster reload)

KZ2 has ribbons too.

-Numbers popping up right infront of your fucking face
-More reliance on iron sights than hip fire

Not really. I fire from hip all the time. In KZ2, you need to use the "pew pew pew" pattern to manage your aim. You also have more weighted controls. In KZ3, the controls are more responsive. But I certainly don't rely on iron sight at all, except when using the sniper rifle.

-Health is significantly lower

It's balanced against the KZ3 weapons. I actually find that some are pretty resilient. If you want long health, play as Medic ! Infiltrators are pretty hardy when sprinting too.

I'm sure there is more, but of course its not exactly like cod. But fuck me if it isn't getting close. Its closer to cod than it is to kz2.

I think if you play KZ3 like you play CoD and KZ2, you will lose. They are all very different.

 

[Massa]

That's what people aren't understanding when other people say it's like CoD. It's more like CoD (even BFBC2) than KZ2 was. Can you have 1v1 mini 30 second battles in KZ3? No.

Actually, yes. I have those all the time.

In Killzone 3 with Armor you have about the same health as in KZ2. Of course, in KZ2 you didn't have health regen so you were actually more likely to die in the next encounter and all the extra health people clamor for didn't come into play.

Killzone 3 also has better hit detection for headshots so they require a lot more skill to pull off.

What Killzone 3 doesn't have is the network lag of KZ2. It also doesn't have controller lag. In that sense then yes, it's a lot easier to get kills.

 

[alr1ght]

Both KZ2 and KZ3 have bad matchmaking.
No, KZ2 did not have any type of matchmaking. You could pick and choose what you wanted to play.


You could only play basic soldier class in KZ2 at the beginning. You have to level up slowly while other more advanced players dominate the game (because of broken advanced classes and bad matchmaking also). KZ3 allows you to play any class you want from the get-go.
It's better in KZ3 somewhat, but you don't learn all of the classes (like you did in KZ2) because you can choose to not play some of the classes. Really, I'm indifferent to the change. Both ways have positives and negatives.


KZ2 has ribbons too.
That didn't do anything, aside from unlock arbitrary secondary abilities. They were a good idea, but some of the ways to unlock them weren't well thought out (mostly having to do X action 8 times in one match. It would have been better if it was "do X action 8 times overall).


Not really. I fire from hip all the time. In KZ2, you need to use the "pew pew pew" pattern to manage your aim. You also have more weighted controls. In KZ3, the controls are more responsive. But I certainly don't rely on iron sight at all, except when using the sniper rifle.
There's so much sticky aim that it doesn't really matter. It's more sticky when ADS though.


It's balanced against the KZ3 weapons. I actually find that some are pretty resilient. If you want long health, play as Medic ! Infiltrators are pretty hardy when sprinting too.
It's way lower. Every character in KZ3 has the same health


I think if you play KZ3 like you play CoD and KZ2, you will lose. They are all very different.
Agreed. KZ3 is not a sequel that built on the previous game, but scrapped everything and did something else, for better or worse. Pissed off the previous game's fans and didn't do anything to pull in the COD crowd.

 

[Massa]

No, KZ2 did not have any type of matchmaking. You could pick and choose what you wanted to play.

Killzone 2 does have matchmaking, it just doesn't work nearly as well as in most other shooters.

That didn't do anything, aside from unlock arbitrary secondary abilities. They were a good idea, but some of the ways to unlock them weren't well thought out (mostly having to do X action 8 times in one match. It would have been better if it was "do X action 8 times overall).

Biggest problem there was being able to combine different abilities from different classes. Boost and bots dominated the game.

It's way lower. Every character in KZ3 has the same health

It's not way lower. It's in fact quite similar.

Agreed. KZ3 is not a sequel that built on the previous game, but scrapped everything and did something else, for better or worse. Pissed off the previous game's fans and didn't do anything to pull in the COD crowd.

You could say it scraped everything if it didn't have the same classes (but actually balanced in a way that they're all useful, and good riddance to Rifleman and Assault), the same game modes, the same weapons (with a bunch of new ones to add variety, of course), almost all of the same abilities, etc. You may not like where they took the game but that doesn't mean they scraped everything.

 

[BattleMonkey]

No, KZ2 did not have any type of matchmaking. You could pick and choose what you wanted to play.

The quick play option in KZ2 that found and put you in a game was basically matchmaking, it's the exact same thing the only thing was that KZ2 didn't have hardly any options. KZ3 features a more robust match making system that is actually called match making. KZ2 preferred method was obviously to use custom games browser, but it did have match making. Was a bit ghetto of course

 

[patsu]

Both KZ2 and KZ3 have bad matchmaking.

No, KZ2 did not have any type of matchmaking. You could pick and choose what you wanted to play.

The matchmaking in KZ2 didn't work because when my team was already understaffed, getting slaughtered and spawn camped. I invited 2 more friends to join us and they were assigned to the _opposing_ team. >_<

So yes, there was matchmaking and it's broken.

You could only play basic soldier class in KZ2 at the beginning. You have to level up slowly while other more advanced players dominate the game (because of broken advanced classes and bad matchmaking also). KZ3 allows you to play any class you want from the get-go.
It's better in KZ3 somewhat, but you don't learn all of the classes (like you did in KZ2) because you can choose to not play some of the classes. Really, I'm indifferent to the change. Both ways have positives and negatives.

It's better because you can pick your playing style. In KZ2, a newbie can be a sitting duck when the advanced classes show up, especially with the unbalanced match making. In KZ2, when your team size is small in a new warzone, you can get stuck with no Engineer, or no Tactician, or no Medic, etc. In KZ3, you can pick any role and set up your own warzone.

KZ2 has ribbons too.
That didn't do anything, aside from unlock arbitrary secondary abilities. They were a good idea, but some of the ways to unlock them weren't well thought out (mostly having to do X action 8 times in one match. It would have been better if it was "do X action 8 times overall).

Some ribbons give you higher starting ammo, and grenades.

Not really. I fire from hip all the time. In KZ2, you need to use the "pew pew pew" pattern to manage your aim. You also have more weighted controls. In KZ3, the controls are more responsive. But I certainly don't rely on iron sight at all, except when using the sniper rifle.
There's so much sticky aim that it doesn't really matter. It's more sticky when ADS though.

I didn't notice the stickiness.
In KZ3, you have a fair chance of close contact combat and picking off far enemies. You have to be prepared to melee people close to you at all times. That's why I don't use iron sight at all.

It's balanced against the KZ3 weapons. I actually find that some are pretty resilient. If you want long health, play as Medic ! Infiltrators are pretty hardy when sprinting too.
It's way lower. Every character in KZ3 has the same health

Not if you use the increased armor. Medic has auto-heal as secondary ability.

I think if you play KZ3 like you play CoD and KZ2, you will lose. They are all very different.
Agreed. KZ3 is not a sequel that built on the previous game, but scrapped everything and did something else, for better or worse. Pissed off the previous game's fans and didn't do anything to pull in the COD crowd.

It didn't scrap everything though. Basic ingredients remain the same. Most of the classes stay intact but get more fleshed out. The weapons are largely the same. What get's changed is the play style. The gameplay becomes more complex because the clusterf*cks are gone now and people can execute their plans better. That means you need to have a plan first.

 

[Zen]

I find it hard to judge actual writing based on simply two speeches in the game. As for dialogue, I'm sorry but KZ2 dialogue was just extremely cringe worthy and felt like it was obviously a European developed game that was trying to make the characters sound like macho american action flick characters. KZ2 was one of the more straight forward fps storylines in a long time, and writing a good speech has nothing to do with actual talent for writing good story.

KZ2 problem was not that it wasn't fleshed out, because there was nothing to flesh out due to how incredibly narrow it's focus was. Again KZ1 shows what some competent writing is with actual characters, well placed plotting, diversity, and some actual depth/intrigue. KZ2 was a very straight forward "go go go" military action game and it says alot when the only real memorable aspects were the two speeches in the start and end.

You don't actually need to judge it only on two speeches, that's sort of the point of my post, and having had friends who served in the army I can tell you that the kind of swearing in Killzone 2 isn't exactly unrealistic, if it bothered you or not is beside the point. It felt overdone because we aren't use to seeing it turned up to that level in a war FPS, but the type of things they were saying? Hardly a stretch.

Killzone 2 had tons to flesh out, and saying otherwise is outright laughable. If it didn't you wouldn't have seen calls to expand the story within the scope of the story of Killzone 2; there were plenty of request to broaden the scope of the story through incidental dialogue (people liked the lines that talked about how Helghan use to supply power to half the colonies, for instance). Things like that could be done, and done well, without dramatically expanding the scope and throwing in sloppy '6 months later' transitions. People wanted to encounter legitimate Helghast Civilian stragglers in the city of Killzone 2, and that would have helped tremendously in adding context to Helghan civilization without expanding the scope of the story, all while keeping it focused on the experiences of Sev in the war.

Within the narrow focus of Killzone 2 it was still perfectly possible to include more details about Helghan life (something the still ignored in Killzone 3), and the logistics of the situation. Something a special team like Sevs would have been familiar with from the get go.

Killzone 1 didn't have good pacing, but remember that I'm talking about Killzone 2 versus Killzone 3, I'm not broaching Killzone 1 here dude.

And really it's funny how people suddenly act like Rico's story was good when it was one of the most complained about aspect of KZ2 and there was so much rage for the character.

No, Rico as a character was one of the most complained about aspects of Killzone 2, there's a difference. He wasn't a schizophrenic asshole, but he did become a grating asshole, and that was more of the culmination of various elements that were separate from the narrative, although what ultimately happens played a big part in pushing people over the edge to outright loathing him.

Killzone 2 dialogue had more texture to it than the dialogue in Killzone 3, which was very on the nose generic action stuff in comparison.

 

[alr1ght]

The quick play option in KZ2 that found and put you in a game was basically matchmaking, it's the exact same thing the only thing was that KZ2 didn't have hardly any options. KZ3 features a more robust match making system that is actually called match making. KZ2 preferred method was obviously to use custom games browser, but it did have match making. Was a bit ghetto of course

shows how much I used it (never). 200+ hours played and never noticed it.

 

[H_Prestige]

There's a quick play option in KZ2? Never seen it.

At any rate, server browsing + matchmaking > matchmaking

What game breaking ability does KZ2 have other than boost? Everything else is just support. That's why in KZ2 you can choose the basic soldier and ISA rifle and still kill as easily as any other class.

It seems almost every ability and in game perk in KZ3 is designed to turn you into a super soldier.

 

[.GqueB.]

The fuck are you guys still arguing about?

 

[patsu]

There's a quick play option in KZ2? Never seen it.

At any rate, server browsing + matchmaking > matchmaking

What game breaking ability does KZ2 have other than boost? Everything else is just support. That's why in KZ2 you can choose the basic soldier and ISA rifle and still kill as easily as any other class.

Not if you're fighting against the squad leader because more can come to his support magically.

Not against boosted players, and the assault class.

Different design choices have consequences even in KZ2.

It seems almost every ability and in game perk in KZ3 is designed to turn you into a super soldier.

Yes, it's one supersoldier against the other -- as opposed to Assault Class vs you, or a whole squad against you.

EDIT:

The fuck are you guys still arguing about?

Relax, it's just minor clarifications.

 

[Grinchy]

I'm still early on in SP and MP, playing the whole time with the sharpshooter, and I'm just not as upset with this game as most people seem to be. I'm not saying anyone is wrong, because I definitely haven't had enough play time yet. I could end up in this thread in the near future bitching about it too.

All I know is that as far as shooters go, I seem to like this one so far. I enjoyed KZ2 as well, but playing this one with Move makes it feel so different and fun. It really is rewarding to pull the trigger on the sharpshooter, the gun "recoils" from the vibration, and you see that head pop off from your STA shot.

 

[the_prime_mover]

Not if you're fighting against the squad leader because more can come to his support magically.

Not against boosted players, and the assault class.

Different design choices have consequences even in KZ2.

I am guessing you haven't played KZ2 in a while. A large number of people use only the Soldier class in order to get the LMGs - which destroy Assault. Boosting is an issue, but only with lag and rockets. Everyone can have boost so the issue more or less balances itself out in most cases.

Spawn on squad leader is a very beneficial additon to KZ2's warzone gameplay and the lack of spawn invincibility results in very real risks to using the option. The few encounters where you will suddenly be facing 2 or 3 people instead of 1 are annoying but a worthwhile trade for the system. IF GG had tweaked it to be like Reach where you can't spawn on an engaged squad-mate then perhaps it would have been near perfect.Plus, warzone (in KZ2) is an attempt at creating a team based game that focuses on fostering actual team play. Part of this means that squads stuck together and move as a single unit. The counter to this is forming your own squad and sticking together. 1v2(3)(4) should only happen because you aren't playing with your team (or your team isn't playing with you - damn randoms).

The only severely flawed imbalances in KZ2 are the shotgun due to autoaim sweeping, boost due to lag, and the medipac healing Assault armor back to 150%. The inability to destroy spawn grenades and the ability to destroy HQ turrets are problems as well, but there are balances to these in the lack of invincibility and various spawn options.

 

[Onion_Relish]

The inability to destroy spawn grenades and the ability to destroy HQ turrets are problems as well

I'm not really following this thread, but both of these points are simply wrong. You can camp spawn grenades for insanely easy kills and HQ turrets are only an impediment to spawn camping and nothing else. I can see no objective reason to include destroyed HQ turrets. As for destroying grenades, yes that would be useful especially on maps like Radec where you can throw a grenade right beside the bomb room in order to gain an advantage, but once again, camp with a shotgun or lmg and all you hear is "bleep bleep bleep"

 

[the_prime_mover]

I'm not really following this thread, but both of these points are simply wrong. You can camp spawn grenades for insanely easy kills and HQ turrets are only an impediment to spawn camping and nothing else. I can see no objective reason to include destroyed HQ turrets. As for destroying grenades, yes that would be useful especially on maps like Radec where you can throw a grenade right beside the bomb room in order to gain an advantage, but once again, camp with a shotgun or lmg and all you hear is "bleep bleep bleep"

Umm - I meant the ability to destroy HQ turrets would allow the other team to camp your spawn. GG removed all spawn invincibility which meant that a dominant team could get into your spawn and camp you very effectively. On some maps it would be almost impossible to get out of your spawn. Making the HQ turrets invincible and much more damaging in KZ3 was a good idea and something they should (could) have patched into KZ2.

As for spawn grenades - invincibility was removed because spawn grenade spam was such an effective strategy when the game was initially released. if GG had instead opted to provide a method for destroying the grenade (like reverse deploying a turret or repairing ammo crates) then this may have curbed the spam somewhat - likewise they could have implemented safe spawn grenade deployment zones (removed from objectives). Furthermore, allowing teammates to disable spawn grenades would have perhaps allowed for more strategy (like being able to destroy turrets if they are ill placed). A poorly placed spawn point (once invincibility was removed) was a death sentence in many cases and would result in having to wait for the grenade to time out before getting something better in place. This wasn't an imbalance, but it was a problem with respect to the flow of the game.

 

[patsu]

I am guessing you haven't played KZ2 in a while. A large number of people use only the Soldier class in order to get the LMGs - which destroy Assault. Boosting is an issue, but only with lag and rockets. Everyone can have boost so the issue more or less balances itself out in most cases.

It means people getting used to the system, or find their own ways to counter/workaround it. The problem is still there. The same can be said for some KZ3 shortfalls.

Spawn on squad leader is a very beneficial additon to KZ2's warzone gameplay and the lack of spawn invincibility results in very real risks to using the option. The few encounters where you will suddenly be facing 2 or 3 people instead of 1 are annoying but a worthwhile trade for the system. IF GG had tweaked it to be like Reach where you can't spawn on an engaged squad-mate then perhaps it would have been near perfect.Plus, warzone (in KZ2) is an attempt at creating a team based game that focuses on fostering actual team play. Part of this means that squads stuck together and move as a single unit. The counter to this is forming your own squad and sticking together. 1v2(3)(4) should only happen because you aren't playing with your team (or your team isn't playing with you - damn randoms).

Blaming on playing with randoms is not going to make the issue go away. Many people play with randoms (I actually don't mind playing with randoms in KZ3). The problem may stack too (e.g., squad spawn + boost).

If you can't squad spawn, you can spawn on the nearest TSP you can find. If you're playing with a team, you would need to share the responsibility to coordinate the capture of the right TSPs. If you're playing alone, then you play as a Tactician if it's important to you. I play by ear and switch roles all the time. It's "hardwork" because the other teams may recapture the TSPs, but it's diverting their resources too. Playing with a squad doesn't necessarily mean everyone has to stick together at the same time. It may mean divided responsibility too.

Even playing with randoms in KZ3, I have seen people detaching from team to grab TSP, or to pre-empt the next objectives, or to defend the drop-off, or to escort the speaker carrier, etc.

The only severely flawed imbalances in KZ2 are the shotgun due to autoaim sweeping, boost due to lag, and the medipac healing Assault armor back to 150%. The inability to destroy spawn grenades and the ability to destroy HQ turrets are problems as well, but there are balances to these in the lack of invincibility and various spawn options.

I think it would depend on your playstyle and whether you play alone or have a regular team. The last time I played with GAF (I didn't play often with GAF in KZ2), I witnessed GAF spawn camping other folks until they couldn't come out of their camp at all. We totally destroyed them. I felt no fun at all and left forever. From their perspective, I think they would find more flaws with KZ2 -- along with the controls that some can't get used to.

KZ2 is not a perfect game. Neither is KZ3. But they are both different from CoD. And yes, people can have fun with both or either of them.

 

[cnizzle06]

As much as I detest all the bitching in this thread...

Where the fuck is the patch to fix this fuckin game?

 

[subversus]

ok, so how is multiplayer in this game? (KZ2 vets are free not to answer).

Is it rife with cheaters? Do people capture spawnpoints? Will it be hard to find a match?

 

[StealthGoblin]

Patch is out on Wednesday.

 

[shantyman]

ok, so how is multiplayer in this game? (KZ2 vets are free not to answer).

Is it rife with cheaters? Do people capture spawnpoints? Will it be hard to find a match?

I enjoy it a lot. My only serious issue is with the map cycling issue.

 

[Massa]

ok, so how is multiplayer in this game? (KZ2 vets are free not to answer).

Is it rife with cheaters? Do people capture spawnpoints? Will it be hard to find a match?

Like any game of its kind, Killzone 3 is amazing at its highs (balanced teams, people playing different roles, working towards objectives) and rage inducing at its lows (people not playing as tactician that grab a jetpack as soon as the match starts in Turbine have caused me to empty my powerless rifle at their faces a few times now). Thankfully the lows seem to happen very rarely for me nowadays.

I started out by playing Tactician-only, to capture spawn points. These days I find it much more fun to play Medic (reviving a couple of tacts can make all the difference to control an area) or Marksman (radar jamming is very helpful if the other team is full of tacts) since there are usually at least 3 or 4 people playing as tacts. If your team is being overwhelmed for instance it can be much more useful to provide good support to your tacts than simply being another one.

The biggest thing to keep in mind (and also the biggest change from KZ2) is that the game doesn't revolve around people spawning next to the objectives. In KZ3 you have to take control of an area by clearing out the enemies there and then defending it until the objective is complete. That's why I mostly play Medic now, it's pretty exhilarating when you manage to keep your team alive and win the objective. You can't just have people spawning in to protect an armed bomb for example, you have to use every ability (turrets, medics, radar jamming, mines, recon, etc) to stay alive and do that.

Anyway, you already seem to realize there are people here who don't like the changes made from KZ2 and I certainly don't want to start those discussions again, but for my part I'll say this: if you thought KZ2 was a potentially good game you should most definitely check out KZ3.

Operations is also a pretty cool mode. It's a shame it didn't catch on with the community though, it was hard to find matches in the beta already and it can still be difficult at times. Warzone and GW are always well populated as you'd expect.

 

[JB1981]

When is the custom game patch coming LOL

 

[Uno Venova]

When is the custom game patch coming LOL

I actually thought that as coming soon after launch, lol. But even if it comes it's still not public, will probably end up selling this bad boy back to Amazon for 35 dollars credit.

 

[Facism]

I actually thought that as coming soon after launch, lol. But even if it comes it's still not public, will probably end up selling this bad boy back to Amazon for 35 dollars credit.

Already confirmed to be private, so essentially useless unless you play with a group of people.

 

[TrAcEr_x90]

ok, so how is multiplayer in this game? (KZ2 vets are free not to answer).

Is it rife with cheaters? Do people capture spawnpoints? Will it be hard to find a match?

I've gotten my second wind with killzone 3. Almost done with single player and have been playing multi non stop. I wouldn't touch warzone when I first got the game because of a full team of not knowing what the hell is going on. These past two weeks Ive hardly had to play saluman market and finally get into all the other maps. Warzone players now seem to be more of the hardcore killzone fans so everyone is using mics and using teamwork. I'm having a blast again. I think I am going to beat single player on hard than try out the move controls. That should give me a third wind with this game!

 

[Dibbz]

The biggest thing to keep in mind (and also the biggest change from KZ2) is that the game doesn't revolve around people spawning next to the objectives. In KZ3 you have to take control of an area by clearing out the enemies there and then defending it until the objective is complete. That's why I mostly play Medic now, it's pretty exhilarating when you manage to keep your team alive and win the objective. You can't just have people spawning in to protect an armed bomb for example, you have to use every ability (turrets, medics, radar jamming, mines, recon, etc) to stay alive and do that.

THIS THIS THIS.

Game was on Frozen Dam and our team just (Helghast) had the middle TSP because we had just finished attacking their base. Next round was defend our base but our team was playing such a high line trying to pin the ISA back into their own base. It worked for like 4 minutes with one or two ISA getting through but we cleaned them up.

I got sucked in with the rest of my team and next thing I know is the ISA are behind us and were planting. They overrun our base by getting a tact and a few others behind our line stole the TSP near our base and won the round in the last minute.

It's as if there is an invisible line that you have to hold when you are defending an objective. It's hard to explain. If we had fallen back and watched the bottlenecks from the middle we would have won but our team was so far into the ISA base they were able to counter attack us.

I'm not sure if I explained that properly but I've never experienced this kind of gameplay in an FPS. It totally blew my mind today.

EDIT: Gonna try and draw a diagram to show what I mean.

 

[Dibbz]

Red line is the invisible line I was on about, green square is the objective, blue are TSP's.

When defending our team should have fallen back to the red line and held the middle area. Instead my team (Helghast) pushed up to the yellow line because we had both TSP's near the ISA base. This in turn allowed the ISA to undo us by attacking with a small group along the left of the map.

The game is a lot less about just spawning in the objective room and brute forcing an attack or defence but about your team using the map to it's advantage.

 

[Teknoman]

I've gotten my second wind with killzone 3. Almost done with single player and have been playing multi non stop. I wouldn't touch warzone when I first got the game because of a full team of not knowing what the hell is going on. These past two weeks Ive hardly had to play saluman market and finally get into all the other maps. Warzone players now seem to be more of the hardcore killzone fans so everyone is using mics and using teamwork. I'm having a blast again. I think I am going to beat single player on hard than try out the move controls. That should give me a third wind with this game!

Really really good to hear.

 

[patsu]

THIS THIS THIS.

Game was on Frozen Dam and our team just (Helghast) had the middle TSP because we had just finished attacking their base. Next round was defend our base but our team was playing such a high line trying to pin the ISA back into their own base. It worked for like 4 minutes with one or two ISA getting through but we cleaned them up.

I got sucked in with the rest of my team and next thing I know is the ISA are behind us and were planting. They overrun our base by getting a tact and a few others behind our line stole the TSP near our base and won the round in the last minute.

It's as if there is an invisible line that you have to hold when you are defending an objective. It's hard to explain. If we had fallen back and watched the bottlenecks from the middle we would have won but our team was so far into the ISA base they were able to counter attack us.

I'm not sure if I explained that properly but I've never experienced this kind of gameplay in an FPS. It totally blew my mind today.

EDIT: Gonna try and draw a diagram to show what I mean.

Yeah, have to spread out sometimes. Even if you win a defense round (Assassination or S&D), you may lose the next attack round or even all your TSPs because the team is too concentrated in one spot.

I played Operations for the first time today. Very interesting and dynamic. I think it's more intense and less headache inducing than Warzone (i.e., kill less brain cells). The game seems to be more about gunfight since the map size is managed by the game, and you don't have to worry about spawn point. Just keep moving forward !

 

[see5harp]

3D in this game is not good. It's weird it seems like draw distance is dropped to about 5 feet in front of your player. Even going in and out of doorways will trigger lighting changes and shadows.

 

[Dr. Malik]

Rejoice EU PS+ members

http://blog.eu.playstation.com/2011/04/05/bring-the-rain-steel-rain-dlc-coming-tomorrow/

 

[StealthGoblin]

Rejoice EU PS+ members

http://blog.eu.playstation.com/2011/04/05/bring-the-rain-steel-rain-dlc-coming-tomorrow/

Good enough for me. Sadly I'm an Operations guy so I gain very little. At least when I pop on for the occasional Warzone match I'll have a new map to play on.