Support NeoGAF

[Feindflug]

Again, I completely disagree.

I'd say the Radec Academy style levels were more Gears esque. As in, classical. Baroque like. Just not as organic. It's the rest of the "poorer" areas that are incredibly intricate and more layered. But to say this doesn't evoke artistic prowess despite being bleak in colour (these screens are from the BETA, they added more colour in the final versions), is imo criminal. Imo the art is so much more superior to that of the architecture in Gears (which imo felt like a continuation of architecture I'd seen before in other Unreal engine games).

I was always waiting for a game to do Midgar/Tekkonkreet style architecture and city scapes, and I think Killzone 2 is the only game that's successfully managed it. I think previously, the tech required to produce such intricate geometry just wasn't as evolved.

Well it's your opinion of course and I totally respect it but for example the Sinking Feeling, Displacement, The Best Plaid Plans and the Tenuous Footing chapters in Gears 2 were much more visually compelling than everything I've seen in Killzone 2.

 

[Awntawn]

Well it's your opinion of course and I totally respect it but for example the Sinking Feeling, Displacement, The Best Plaid Plans and the Tenuous Footing chapters in Gears 2 were much more visually compelling than everything I've seen in Killzone 2.

in your opinion of course and we totally respect it ;p

 

[HK-47]

in your opinion of course and we totally respect it ;p

I dont.

 

[zaidr]

Hmm, I guess I just don't get what N'Gai is trying to say, or wants to say but can't despite his impressive diction.

The thing is, "realism" isn't always beautiful, and to depict something meant to be realistic (in the case of GG's "Killzone" series, just 'war perfected', yes?) with blue skies or out-of-place colors cheapens or perhaps in some cases completely ruins the immersion of the game and, further, the intention of developers to show what they clearly want to show.

Consider, I guess, the film "Aliens" -- perhaps one of the most depressing films I've seen (Ebert shares a similar feeling, check out his review), and is almost physically draining in the same way that, perhaps, Silent Hill 2 is -- while sharing nothing in the way of content. I got a similar feeling with Killzone 2; it evokes an absolutely dreadful feeling, and realism simply seeps out of it. Is N'Gai trying to say that he doesn't like that absolutely spot-on rendering of a futile and depressing future war? If so, okay, but accept that it is an absolutely spot-on rendering, and that it's simply not to your liking. There are plenty of colorful games out there; certainly happier ones, that maintain some realism.

As for "beauty" -- well, Killzone 2 is a beautiful game, but only insofar as it nails the theme of war. I'm not alone in the world when I say terrible, terrible things can evoke a bizarre sense of beauty; a spider eating another spider, for example, is both disgusting but evokes a strange, intangible sense of order in nature which in and of itself is beautiful in a very primal sense. Killzone 2 is that kind of beautiful; it's ugly in every other sense, but in it's rendering of ugliness, it is no less than almost perfect -- for that, I can say, I do not understand N'Gai's point one bit.

But I like him. He's a cool cat.

Every discussion about games doesn't have to boil down to 'like' and 'dislike'. There are a range of emotions games can bring about, and to discuss them frankly is, I think, a better way to talk about games than to say something was to your liking. Even if you don't feel the same way, its good to get another perspective, would you not agree?

I always thought of it like this : John McClane gets shot, he dies -> Realism ; John McClane gets shot at but never gets hit -> Verisimilitude

It's a pretty damn useful word.

What the fuck is this shit? I mean, really? Is this a joke? We're still trying to understand the fucking word?

Read the sentence again please. The author is asking us to define what you believe to be realism. Is it defined as versimilitude, i.e. how close we get to reality?
What you just wrote is the complete opposite.

 

[BobsRevenge]

To be clear (and I don't mean to be offensive at all) verisimilitude is more about approximating reality in a medium, but not necessarily emulating it. It is like the lens flare in Killzone 2, the motion blue, the depth of field effects: these are all visual elements that come from film, and none of them besides perhaps depth of field are applicable to reality really. Games try to appeal to the reality that we see through our television, which is usually from film. So in that way it is verisimilar by emulating the verisimility of another medium, thereby shifting the idea of gaming versimilitude towards an even more cinematic style.

Killzone 2 appears to be realistic, but it isn't at all. Verisimilitude like is how we see someone getting shot in the arm and having blood splurt out as they grasp their arm or whatever in Killzone 2. It isn't realistic at all, but when we see it we are like "Damn, look at how realistic it is!" When someone says "movie-realism" or "game-realism" they are referring to versimilitude, because they aren't the same thing. What is realistic and what people percieve as realistic in a medium are two different things.

Anyone tired of the word yet?

But, this is unless I'm still hazy on the definition.

 

[brain_stew]

You know I'd really like to know when so many people stopped playing videogames for entertainment? This is precisely why K2s environments are so unappealing to me, I play games for enjoyment, and seeing an ugly torn apart place doesn't particularly evoke much positive emotion or enjoyment from me. Sure as a bit of a geek I can appreciate and enjoy the technical achievement but then I get much more enjoyment when such technology is used to create pretty surroundings, just as they are in Crysis.

The artistic merit in games is really something right down on my list of priorities as to why I'd want to play a game and as such, its not something from which I eek enjoyment from. Seeing Outrun and Sega Rally's beautiful settings and blue skies does entertain me, it enhances my enjoyment of the game, Killzone's browns? Not so much.

 

[Kintaro]

You know I'd really like to know when so many people stopped playing videogames for entertainment? This is precisely why K2s environments are so unappealing to me, I play games for enjoyment, and seeing an ugly torn apart place doesn't particularly evoke much positive emotion or enjoyment from me. Sure as a bit of a geek I can appreciate and enjoy the technical achievement but then I get much more enjoyment when such technology is used to create pretty surroundings, just as they are in Crysis.

The artistic merit in games is really something right down on my list of priorities as to why I'd want to play a game and as such, its not something from which I eek enjoyment from. Seeing Outrun and Sega Rally's beautiful settings and blue skies does entertain me, it enhances my enjoyment of the game, Killzone's browns? Not so much.

So, you have a preference for happy, colorful games. That's cool. It's pretty naive to believe that people don't find just as much enjoyment, or more, out of different "darker" (?) games though. There's just as much artistic merit in these games as there is in the games you mentioned.

 

[Firewire]

N'Gai is all internet hype!

 

[brain_stew]

So, you have a preference for happy, colorful games. That's cool. It's pretty naive to believe that people don't find just as much enjoyment, or more, out of different "darker" (?) games though. There's just as much artistic merit in these games as there is in the games you mentioned.

I'm not claiming they don't, its just a somewhat strange concept to me is all. I play games for enjoyment, not "happy" games, but dull and ugly settings aren't something that give much visual appeal to my eye and I'm sure many others. Mirror's Edge is a very bleak setting, its really not a "happy" game at all yet it looks visually enticing and as such the visuals are entertaining. I just assumed most people played games for entertainment still is all, somewhere along the line that seemed to change.

The whole "artistic merit" angle kinda irks me as well, because whilst sure I can appreciate this, I sure in hell am not firing up a videogame because of its artistic genius. Videogames as a medium just haven't made that jump for me yet, there's far too much immaturity in the industry for me to really take a videogame seriously as a piece of art, so as such I still view them almost exclusively as entertainment products and therefore an entertainment product that does the very opposite of entertaining me is not something I'm going to be a fan of.

 

[Kintaro]

I'm not claiming they don't, its just a somewhat strange concept to me is all. I play games for enjoyment, not "happy" games, but dull and ugly settings aren't something that give much visual appeal to my eye and I'm sure many others. Mirror's Edge is a very bleak setting, its really not a "happy" game at all yet it looks visually enticing and as such the visuals are entertaining. I just assumed most people played games for entertainment still is all, somewhere along the line that seemed to change.

I guess I'm not seeing where you believe playing games for entertainment changed from within this thread. Unless you're talking about N'Gai himself, in which case, I have no clue. I doubt he manages or even cares to play through a game to completion before declaring things about it (GTA).

The only people who look at games as "art" are the hardcore (some found on forums like this one) and the industry types who like to take a different view which all but excludes them from the common gamer.

 

[brain_stew]

Oh I forgot to add, I'm basically an old school hardcore Sega junkie at heart, as such I tend to have a bias towards games with visual styles that hark back to Sega games of old. Perhaps I'm too stuck in my ways, I don't know but I'm always going to be excited about a visual style that has that certain sort of "Sega quality" to it.

I guess I don't appreciate that people were brought up with many different types of games, so I guess it only makes sense that other visual styles are going to have more sentimental value to them than me.

 

[McBradders]

The lesson here? Don't speak against Killzone 2 on GAF.

Bad things will happen.

SMH.

 

[Kintaro]

Oh I forgot to add, I'm basically an old school hardcore Sega junkie at heart, as such I tend to have a bias towards games with visual styles that hark back to Sega games of old. Perhaps I'm too stuck in my ways, I don't know but I'm always going to be excited about a visual style that has that certain sort of "Sega quality" to it.

I guess I don't appreciate that people were brought up with many different types of games, so I guess it only makes sense that other visual styles are going to have more sentimental value to them than me.

Well, that's cool. My favorite older games were Sega arcade games (DROOL).

I hate you for posting screens though. I need to order my video card. :lol

 

[Zombie James]

So, wait, he expected a war-torn, poluted planet to be beautiful and full of colour? I don't quite get the argument.

 

[jett]

Uh nib95, there's something wrong with your TV settings. The beta NEVER looked that monochromatic. You make it seem like it was in black and white.

 

[JonathanEx]

Until we reach the point of erosion and plastic degrading in gaming it'll never be realistic enough.

 

[infinityBCRT]

I guess, if you want to ignore the fact that Crysis thats place on an island and Killzone 2 take place in a war torn city.

So I guess war stops the sky from being blue?

 

[jett]

So I guess war stops the sky from being blue?

Killzone 2 takes place on ANOTHER PLANET. Wrap your mind around that, if you can.

 

[DenogginizerOS]

This past weekend I enjoyed Motorstorm: Pacific Rift, Uncharted, Flower, MLB 09 The Show, Cuboid, and Killzone 2 on my PS3. The visual feast (and audio feast as well) yielded many moments of colorful joy generated by the artistic skills of the respective developers and the graphical prowess of the PS3. This leads me to the conclusion that the PS3 and the games I listed meet all of my needs in the area of color (among other things). Having said all that, I have no idea what N'Gai is talking about nor do I care.

And one other note: I watched Wall-E on Blu ray this weekend and could make a pretty solid argument that for the Earth scenes, at least, the color pallete is pretty similar to KZ2 or Gears. Which is not surprising since it is a mostly lifeless representation of what the Earth would look like if the air was toxic and the ground was devoid of vegetation. In fact, the colors in games like KZ2 and Gears generate a general sense of dread and depression with only the splattering red blood interrupting the mostly bleak setting of war.

 

[infinityBCRT]

Killzone 2 takes place on ANOTHER PLANET. Wrap your mind around that, if you can.

Take it easy, was just kidding around. Anyway the guy I replied to was mentioning how a city being "war torn" makes it look the way it does.

 

[Flachmatuch]

At least now we know the word that brings out the really crappy aesthetic philosopher from GAF

 

[Stink]

:lol :lol

the gifs never stop for this game do they?

hell is being trapped on a forum with infinite killzone gifs.

 

[KZObsessed]

:lol :lol

the gifs never stop for this game do they?

hell is being trapped on a forum with infinite killzone gifs.

What gifs?

 

[Feindflug]

in your opinion of course and we totally respect it ;p

Of course it's my opinion...should I write that in every post?

BTW have you played Gears 2? If yes what's your opinion on these chapters? Don't you find them impressive? Killzone 2 looks great mainly because of the beautiful post-processing effects and the silky smooth animations but art-direction/level design wise is bland and uninspired in my opinion even though the geometry in the environments is impressive.

The lesson here? Don't speak against Killzone 2 on GAF.

Bad things will happen.

SMH.

QFT...Killzone zealots are so annoying that's not even worth anymore talking about graphics, they act as Killzone 2 hasn't any visual cons and it's something we can't speak against because it's "teh best-lookin' game evar" and of course because it's a PS3 exclusive. I'm curious to see what all these fanboys would've said if the game was multiplatform...

 

[McBradders]

QFT...Killzone zealots are so annoying that's not even worth anymore talking about graphics, they act as Killzone 2 hasn't any visual cons and it's something we can't speak against because it's "teh best-lookin' game evar" and of course because it's a PS3 exclusive. I'm curious to see what all these fanboys would've said if the game was multiplatform...

Same thing with Crysis... to be honest, I don't think either of them look all that great. Technically, of course, both are incredibly impressive, but the art direction on both is kinda "meh". Oh, right, IN MY OPINION.

:lol GAF, never change.

 

[Kitschkraft]

What the fuck is this shit? I mean, really? Is this a joke? We're still trying to understand the fucking word?

Read the sentence again please. The author is asking us to define what you believe to be realism. Is it defined as versimilitude, i.e. how close we get to reality?
What you just wrote is the complete opposite.

Why be a dick about this?

----

I don't care how Croal used it, verisimilitude means exactly what I wrote.

It's the internal logic of a work of fiction.

Breaking verisimilitude is different then breaking reality. For another example, look at a James Bond movie. "Realistic" is the last word you would use to describe a Bond flick, but there is still certain, "make believe rules" if you will, that entails things like the fact that he can jump off a 30 foot building and not break his ankles, and the crazy technology that he has access to that even the best armies in the world don't really have.

Verisimilitude is important because it keeps everything honest. Everyone pretty much accepts that Bond has a laser watch, even if it's unrealistic. But when people were introduced to the invisible car, this went against the verisimilitude that audiences had become accustomed to, and people thought it was fucking dumb (Even though a laser watch is probably just a fake as an invisible car).

 

[proposition]

Why be a dick about this?

----

I don't care how Croal used it, verisimilitude means exactly what I wrote.

It's the internal logic of a work of fiction.

Breaking verisimilitude is different then breaking reality. For another example, look at a James Bond movie. "Realistic" is the last word you would use to describe a Bond flick, but there is still certain, "make believe rules" if you will, that entails things like the fact that he can jump off a 30 foot building and not break his ankles, and the crazy technology that he has access to that even the best armies in the world don't really have.

Verisimilitude is important because it keeps everything honest. Everyone pretty much accepts that Bond has a laser watch, even if it's unrealistic. But when people were introduced to the invisible car, this went against the verisimilitude that audiences had become accustomed to, and people thought it was fucking dumb (Even though a laser watch is probably just a fake as an invisible car).

Verisimilitude has a variety of uses. Ask a Philosopher what it means and they'll probably refer you to the work of Karl Popper, who advocated it as a way of rating competing scientific theories against each other. No theory is ever the truth (it's always a description, at best), so theories are evaulated in terms of their verisimilitude; their resemblance to the truth.

N'Gai's use of the word fits this definition, or indeed simply a non-technical definition (resemblance of the truth or of reality), better than a Lit Crit definition. This seems rather like saying that anyone who mentions logic outside of referring to first-order predicate logic is using the word wrong.

 

[Feindflug]

Same thing with Crysis... to be honest, I don't think either of them look all that great. Technically, of course, both are incredibly impressive, but the art direction on both is kinda "meh". Oh, right, IN MY OPINION.

:lol GAF, never change.

Of course all fanboys are annoying, same with all these PC "super AA/AF, 120fps,1080p-only" elitists who enter a thread only to remind us how much better is or will be the PC version on their high-end PC's.

<3 GAF.

 

[RSTEIN]

:lol :lol

the gifs never stop for this game do they?

hell is being trapped on a forum with infinite killzone gifs.

well, to be fair, this is a thread about Killzone's graphics and art direction. And vermicelli noodles (I think).

 

[Kintaro]

Of course all fanboys are annoying, same with all these PC "super AA/AF, 120fps,1080p-only" elitists who enter a thread only to remind us how much better is or will be the PC version on their high-end PC's.

Don't hate on the holy overlord, the PC.

I don't think it matters what the game was, it's that the complaint is pretty darn abstract. He's basically saying it's too good at what it does and denies him that bit of a wall between "realism" and "artificial". It's a weird sort of ding against a product to be sure which is why it ellicts this kind of response.

Would sound weird against any game. It's like saying MadWorld isn't black and white enough or that it's too black and white.

It would have served him a bit better to just say that the game could have been just a bit "too much" for him. It's possible that a work, game/movie/etc is just overbearing in what it presents. For example, the anime show Shigurui (or Grave of the Fireflies is another example) is like this. It's visuals, tone and mood is like a weight on your shoulder that gets heavier as the show moves along. It never lets up right up until the end. It's possible to deserve a break from that sort of feeling, but if your aim is to never let up, and you accomplish that while being a compelling product, it's a great acheivement (though you may never play it again).

 

[BobsRevenge]

Don't hate on the holy overlord, the PC.

I don't think it matters what the game was, it's that the complaint is pretty darn abstract. He's basically saying it's too good at what it does and denies him that bit of a wall between "realism" and "artificial". It's a weird sort of ding against a product to be sure which is why it ellicts this kind of response.

Would sound weird against any game. It's like saying MadWorld isn't black and white enough or that it's too black and white.

It would have served him a bit better to just say that the game could have been just a bit "too much" for him. It's possible that a work, game/movie/etc is just overbearing in what it presents. For example, the anime show Shigurui (or Grave of the Fireflies is another example) is like this. It's visuals, tone and mood is like a weight on your shoulder that gets heavier as the show moves along. It never lets up right up until the end. It's possible to deserve a break from that sort of feeling, but if your aim is to never let up, and you accomplish that while being a compelling product, it's a great acheivement (though you may never play it again).

Yeah. Killzone 2 just isn't that depressing though. The visuals might be, but I never got a personal feeling of depression or anything from it. Its obvious that that is what the aesthetic is, and I find it appealing, but any impression it left on me was purely superficial. The characters, story, and dialogue are all bad, so its not like the visuals had anything with depth to fall back on.

The entirety of KZ2's visual experience is artificial. It isn't, and shouldn't, feel realistic at all. It is entirely based on cinematic realism, which was then carried to an extreme and even further removed from reality for the game.

KZ2, to me, largely succeeded at making a visually appealing experience regardless of what lack of beauty exists in it. There are still some really bland sections, but I think N'Gai bringing CoD4 into it destroys any argument relating to it being too bland. CoD4 is far more bland. There is nothing especially appealing about the visuals.

 

[Doubledex]

Poor guy. The KZ2-effect. It's so good, they have to talk trash even after a lot of superb reviews

Spoiler

Sorry, but the art-direction of KZ2 is totally awesome

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

Isn't it obvious? One has some sunshine in it lol. Honestly though, I kind of get what he's saying. Basically Killzone 2 is TOO oppressive. I disagree though. The opening beach level, Suljeva Village (the desert), the gunship cloud segment and the final fiery red level (with the mushroom cloud). All rather beautiful (in a more typical sense).

Killzone 2 has me "wow"ing more than any other console game I've played to date. So while it may have been showing off a primarily harsh world, it still did so with tremendous visual and artistic potency.

It did so many segments better than any video game before it imo. For example, imo it does...

Space station
War torn city/buildings
Post apocalyptic city
Cloud battle
Baron wasteland
Desert
Warehouse
Refinery
Train

Better than any other video game I've played. It's not as bleak as people are making out.

And even when it is...It does it so damn well.

YES!
Bout time Nib where the hell have these been I have been waiting for you to take some screens.

 

[Kintaro]

Okay, I'm renting this game this weekend. Those screens are damned impressive. hopefully the game holds up.

 

[tfur]

Some thoughts...

I do not really have a problem with what Croal is trying to convey.

Killzone 2 is an incredibly beautiful and brutal visual piece. The Helgan world is a mix of a historical fusion of fascist/communist architecture, blended with ruin and dust. The feeling of oppression and dereliction was perfectly represented. It felt like an exploited world, ruled by a totalitarian.

There is however a disconnect... The story. I realize that games are made for kids and young adults primarily, and that there are conventions to be held in FPS game design, but I wish Guerrilla Games would of spent more time showing the story/history of what we, as the player, experienced. For the most part, GG left the back story and history out of the game.

The experience would have better context if reflections of the history was shown. Of course this would require more cut scenes, and dialogue. Visuals of ISA members thinking about their home world, or Helgan flashbacks to a better time, before they were oppressed and sick. I would love for games to have flash back sequences, that actually require game play interaction as well. Although, I am sure such story development and cut scenes would of been criticized by the "media"; as was the case with MGS4.

If Killzone 2 was given such story related visual content, and included the actual back story that does exist, Croal would probably be telling a different tale. The context would be one of harsh realities, with the mix of history and hope. Killzone 2 is mainly the hardcore harsh realities. A game that is beautiful art, as opposed to art that is a beautiful game.

I still love the game.

 

[Flavius]

Yep. That's a blog post alright!

 

[Madman]

I guess I understand what N'gai is saying, although it is more or less him stating he prefers lively art styles. Although I can see where he is coming from, I find it odd that it seems he thinks that the game shouldn't have gone with the art style it did. You can be against an art style, but that doesn't mean that it isn't fitting or done correctly. You could prefer the art style of Vice City to GTA3, but that doesn't mean that 3 should have looked more like Vice City.

Also, I am surprised N'gai puts the launch of the 360 as the standard for graphics at the time. I would figure that Newsweek could pay enough to afford a good PC.

 

[BobsRevenge]

Also, I am surprised N'gai puts the launch of the 360 as the standard for graphics at the time. I would figure that Newsweek could pay enough to afford a good PC.

:lol :lol :lol

That's what I was thinking too.

 

[Flavius]

I guess I understand what N'gai is saying, although it is more or less him stating he prefers lively art styles.

Pretty much.

Only problem here are the knuckleheads who can't grasp that without an "I think that..." popped on the front or back end.

I await more pointless jpegs and animated gifs...

 

[Haunted]

Killzone 2 has great graphics.

 

[Nafai1123]

No, because it would be a jackhammer approach to explaining things, and would inevitably do absolutely nothing to affect the course of this debate. I'm confused too, because I can not for the life of me understand what is so difficult about this argument. No one is ripping on Guerrilla, let alone its artists and designers. They did a great job crafting a hostile environment, an industrial nightmare landscape, whatever the hell you want to call a world devoid of decoration and artistic efforts in excess of any object's specific purpose. But if that is somehow not appealing, then nothing in the game will be appealing. That's the cost and reward of an accomplished mission.

You are defining the beauty in the game as solely architectural. The entirety of the game does not take place in a militaristic industrial city, and if N'Gai had played more of it he would have seen that once outside the city, the natural landscape is visually appealing in the same way that this

is. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live there, but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate the natural beauty. Arguing that there is nothing visually appealing in the game based purely on the architectural style of it's inhabitants is just semantics. There is also the world around the industrial landscape that, while hostile, is also visually appealing.

 

[Valtor]

Pretty much.

Only problem here are the knuckleheads who can't grasp that without an "I think that..." popped on the front or back end.

I await more pointless jpegs and animated gifs...

Why did it take like 200 posts of arguing about "verisimilitude" to finally get to the core of the article this I do not know....

 

[Nirolak]

This article strikes me as a little self centered.

N'Gai doesn't like gloomy settings because he finds them kind of depressing to play in. When a gloomy setting is especially well realized, such as in Killzone 2, he finds it all the more depressing, and it makes him not want to play it as much. I can totally understand and respect that, but shouldn't he consider that some other people might actually like these settings?

It's really his last sentence that gets me. "But if wanting a little more beauty in my games is wrong, I don’t want to be right." Personally, I don't like country music, but I don't go out of my way to say that country music should have more rock put into it because I prefer rock. There are a lot of fans of country music out there, and their wants should be fulfilled just as much as mine. I mean, there are thousands of rock songs I can listen to, so why should all country songs be made more like rock?

I think putting in a stronger acknowledgment of the opposing viewpoint and adding a well made concession toward them would make his argument seem much more informed and his opinion much less inflammatory than it is now. A little bit of perspective and consideration would go a long way to making games journalism much better than it is today.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

You are defining the beauty in the game as solely architectural. The entirety of the game does not take place in a militaristic industrial city, and if N'Gai had played more of it he would have seen that once outside the city, the natural landscape is visually appealing in the same way that this

is. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live there, but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate the natural beauty. Arguing that there is nothing visually appealing in the game based purely on the architectural style of it's inhabitants is just semantics. There is also the world around the industrial landscape that, while hostile, is also visually appealing.

If N'Gai had played more of the game, he would have seen that even the natural environments, of which there are very few, do not stray from the general theme. It's not a matter of being good or bad, it's just a matter of whether or not you find this very well crafted atmosphere appealing.

 

[Kintaro]

If Killzone 2 was given such story related visual content, and included the actual back story that does exist, Croal would probably be telling a different tale. The context would be one of harsh realities, with the mix of history and hope. Killzone 2 is mainly the hardcore harsh realities. A game that is beautiful art, as opposed to art that is a beautiful game.

I still love the game.

You would have a good point if N'Gai was talking about the story at all. However, he wasn't. It's purely visual.

 

[proposition]

This article strikes me as a little self centered.

N'Gai doesn't like gloomy settings because he finds them kind of depressing to play in. When a gloomy setting is especially well realized, such as in Killzone 2, he finds it all the more depressing, and it makes him not want to play it as much. I can totally understand and respect that, but shouldn't he consider that some other people might actually like these settings?

It's really his last sentence that gets me. "But if wanting a little more beauty in my games is wrong, I don’t want to be right." Personally, I don't like country music, but I don't go out of my way to say that country music should have more rock put into it because I prefer rock. There are a lot of fans of country music out there, and their wants should be fulfilled just as much as mine. I mean, there are thousands of rock songs I can listen to, so why should all country songs be made more like rock?

I think putting in a stronger acknowledgment of the opposing viewpoint and adding a well made concession toward them would make his argument seem much more informed and his opinion much less inflammatory than it is now. A little bit of perspective and consideration would go a long way to making games journalism much better than it is today.

It's an opinion piece on N'Gai's blog, not a PhD thesis.

 

[Nirolak]

It's an opinion piece on N'Gai's blog, not a PhD thesis.

I'm not saying that N'Gai should write all his opinion pieces as Rogerian arguments, but you can still write an editorial while acknowledging the other side. Doing so is a perfectly common occurrence and it only served to help legitimize the point you're making as it shows you truly understand the issue.

Is this really too much to ask?

 

[proposition]

I'm not saying that N'Gai should write all his opinion pieces as Rogerian arguments, but you can still write an editorial while acknowledging the other side. Doing so is a perfectly common occurrence and it only served to help legitimize the point you're making at it shows you truly understand the issue.

Is this really too much to ask?

It's an opinion piece. It states an opinion. Why does he have to make concessions someone else's opinion? 'Some people might not like death metal, but I like death metal' doesn't really state anything more than 'I like death metal'.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

This article strikes me as a little self centered.

N'Gai doesn't like gloomy settings because he finds them kind of depressing to play in. When a gloomy setting is especially well realized, such as in Killzone 2, he finds it all the more depressing, and it makes him not want to play it as much. I can totally understand and respect that, but shouldn't he consider that some other people might actually like these settings?

Why can't it be self centered? What's so respectable about castrating your own opinion in the interest of coming through as non-inflammatory? It's not even a review, just a little article on something that he, based on his experience with this and other games, found worth writing about.

And it's not the attack on Guerrilla and KZ2 that some people seem eager to make it out to be. If anything, it's a sign of a mission accomplished.

I'm not saying that N'Gai should write all his opinion pieces as Rogerian arguments, but you can still write an editorial while acknowledging the other side. Doing so is a perfectly common occurrence and it only served to help legitimize the point you're making as it shows you truly understand the issue.

The other side doesn't need acknowledgment (nor does it deserve acknowledgment, judging by the knee-jerk responses in this thread). There's an awful lot of people here who seem to have serious issues accepting this alternative view of the theme of the game, so perhaps your advise on betterment is a bit misdirected.

 

[Nirolak]

It's an opinion piece. It states an opinion. Why does he have to make concessions someone else's opinion? 'Some people might not like death metal, but I like death metal' doesn't really state anything more than 'I like death metal'.

Do you seriously believe that showing an understanding of the opposing opinion adds nothing to the author's credibility or their understanding of the issue at hand? I'm not saying he should spend his whole article focusing on the other side. Obviously he should spend the majority of his opinion piece speaking about his own opinion. However, this doesn't mean he shouldn't include a concession to the other side within his article, because otherwise it can come off as a one side that lacks perspective.