Support NeoGAF

[Kun Aguero]

I agree with most of your post, but I totally disagree with the bold part.
We spent a lot of time in the multiplayer of both games and I can safely say K3 has a awesome multi. It's not unbalanced at all and the maps are better compared to K2 and the operations are a great addition. K2 is awesome, but people loved too much to spam with rocket launchers.
I don't talk because it's my preference, I respect any opinion and if people liked K2 more it's fine for me, but it's very unfair say K3 is a mess.

To be fair the Marksman class in KZ3 is a joke. Being invisible, while packing an assault rifle and staying of radar IS unbalanced.

Also the KZ3 matchmaking is bad a joke, it's got by far the worst matchmaking of any multiplayer game I've ever played. At least have lobbies and allow both teams to fill up before the game starts. I'm sick of seeing games of 4v8 12v7 etc, in fact I joined a game of ops the other night and it was me v 5, i just left the game and left them to it, try and have some fun when it's 0 v 5.

 

[Resilient]

Should I buy Killzone 2 pre-owned for 9 dollars?

 

[McLovin]

Should I buy Killzone 2 pre-owned for 9 dollars?

Sure, I wonder if the mp is still going?
Man that mp was so freaking epic in its day. I loved playing the medic, I would run in with explosions going on all around me, revive some guys and rush back out. Sometimes taking out a few enemies in the process.
My favorite thing to do was pick saboteur, plant c4 around a corner, and disguise myself as an enemy. I would wait in a bush or behind a wall for a group and run out in front of them and lead them to their death. Normally the enemy sees the c4 but if they have a team mate go around a corner and nothing happens to them they don't bother looking down. First time I did this I couldn't finish the match. If they could hear me all the would have heard was me laughing my ass off in to the mic

 

[archnemesis]

It's a great game even at full price.

 

[ChorusLindarr]

To be fair the Marksman class in KZ3 is a joke. Being invisible, while packing an assault rifle and staying of radar IS unbalanced.

Also the KZ3 matchmaking is bad a joke, it's got by far the worst matchmaking of any multiplayer game I've ever played. At least have lobbies and allow both teams to fill up before the game starts. I'm sick of seeing games of 4v8 12v7 etc, in fact I joined a game of ops the other night and it was me v 5, i just left the game and left them to it, try and have some fun when it's 0 v 5.

Probably less of a function of the matchmaking and more a function of the fact that there's barely anyone playing KZ3 online these days. The online just isn't as popular as its predecessor, and it became ever harder to retain a sizeable player base towards the end of the gen when you have annualised monsters like COD and BF soaking up all the players.

 

[IcyEyes]

To be fair the Marksman class in KZ3 is a joke. Being invisible, while packing an assault rifle and staying of radar IS unbalanced.

Also the KZ3 matchmaking is bad a joke, it's got by far the worst matchmaking of any multiplayer game I've ever played. At least have lobbies and allow both teams to fill up before the game starts. I'm sick of seeing games of 4v8 12v7 etc, in fact I joined a game of ops the other night and it was me v 5, i just left the game and left them to it, try and have some fun when it's 0 v 5.

The marksman complain it's the most common problem in K3, but I can safely say I've never had any problem against the marksman. Probably because my knowledge of the map is good and I can easily flank them.
I've some problem with the matchmaking too. It's not so frequent for me, but I agree with you.

Probably less of a function of the matchmaking and more a function of the fact that there's barely anyone playing KZ3 online these days. The online just isn't as popular as its predecessor, and it became ever harder to retain a sizeable player base towards the end of the gen when you have annualised monsters like COD and BF soaking up all the players.

Yes, CoD and BF soaking up a lot of player (included me), but when I jump in K3 I always find match full of players (Warzone match).

 

[AppleSmack]

The heavy feeling of the character made KZ2 and 3 unplayable for me. I would give them failing review if I had to review them. Unless they really add some CoD juice to the new KZ, I definitely won't be picking it up and it will maintain its rather unpopular status among consumers.

 

[Kopite]

Mediocre or at most 7.0-8.0 games.

 

[Kun Aguero]

Probably less of a function of the matchmaking and more a function of the fact that there's barely anyone playing KZ3 online these days. The online just isn't as popular as its predecessor, and it became ever harder to retain a sizeable player base towards the end of the gen when you have annualised monsters like COD and BF soaking up all the players.

I've had KZ3 since day one, I played the beta, and the matchmaking has always been poor in my experience. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy KZ3, but the matchmaking can make it a frustrating experience at times,

It can't be that difficult to make sure it's 12 v 12 or 8 v 8 before a game starts, I'm sure there's still enough players about to fill up games fairly quickly, saying that they won't change anything now, I just hope they have a better system in place for Shadow Fall, which I have on pre-order.

 

[Arnie]

I don't dislike Killzone, but I don't love it, either.

That's why I consider it a mediocre franchise. Killzone 2 was unique, and I enjoyed my time with it, but I wasn't ever itching to pick it back up. I reached the initial level cap, and when they raised it I had little need to go back and keep playing. I didn't find the combat loop to be all that special or addictive. I never felt the game was competitive enough from a mechanics perspective. I know there was a lot of teamwork involved in co-ordinating objectives and classes, but it was no less than any standard Battlefield game, all of which offer a more compelling foil to the experience.

Killzone 3 was an abomination, a complete step backwards from two, which was already just a solid game.

 

[Ol No Bones]

So Killzone 2's like this... awful mess of a shooter, that completely fails to encourage basic things like player mobility. Its FOV is obscenely narrow, and for some reason, the camera's kept really low. The controls lag--most games emulate gun weight through animation, but not Killzone, no, they do it through laggy controls.

Then you've got the AI and weaponry that don't really encourage movement, unlike Halo, where the entire game's basically dedicated to encouraging players to move around and dominate the motion of enemies in the space. Most of the time I played, it was like "hey, get into cover, okay, now wait for a wave of enemies to approach." And quite often, you're just in excessively narrow corridors (a one particularly awful bit comes before a huge open area with tanks, iirc--but that doesn't live up to the kind of big, open area you might see in a game like Crysis/Warhead).

It's just... there are so many better shooters out there. Yes, Halo's near the top in terms of quality, but it isn't because it's exclusive or anything of the sort (hey, I discovered the game on PC); the game's just got this brilliant use of AI/weaponry/level design/objective pacing/enemy visualization that creates this significantly replayable game; it's possible for each playthrough to be different in a game like Halo, which just wasn't the case with Killzone 2.

Can't speak for Killzone 3; only played the demo, hated the control lag.

As shooters go, Killzone 2 was the biggest reason I was looking forward to a PS3, and it was one of the worst--we're talking on par with Legendary or Darkest of Days, here--shooting experiences I have ever had the displeasure of having.

It's not mediocre, it's subpar.

i can't agree more. There are way too many shooters out there to settle for garbage with a nice coat of paint. Everything felt wrong about the gameplay. If people like it then great but I find it unsettling that Sony chooses to put a franchise with so little going for it as a flagship title. I would be more likely to give shadow fall a try if the name killzone was not there. They better have a really convincing demo. I will not be fooled again.

 

[SpartanN92]

Killzone has great graphics but bad art style and a LOUSY story. While not always told in the best way, Halo has a far more engaging story/Universe and also has a very pretty art style.

Halo has better gameplay too.

 

[Arnie]

Killzone has great graphics but bad art style and a LOUSY story. While not always told in the best way, Halo has a far more engaging story/Universe and also has a very pretty art style.

Halo has better gameplay too.

I agree with most of this, but I think Killzone has great art (albeit with a much darker tone), and the potential for a really good story.

The actual timeline of events in Killzone is very interesting, they did a huge website revamp in the buildup to Killzone 2 which made it easy to read through the backstory of the universe. But then the game begins and it's all poorly executed and shallow.

 

[velociraptor]

I disagree with the premise of the topic -- Killzone 2/3 have been well received critically.

Pretty much every single player FPS this gen has been throwaway, including the Halo's.

Killzone is a good roller coaster ride just like Gears. Nothing exceptional, extremely linear, great looking with solid mechanics.

A lot of first person shooters fail to get those right. The single player campaign in KZ is significantly better than the drek you'll find in CoD or BF.

What's more important IMHO is the multiplayer. Killzone 2 was absolutely phenomenal. I'm bound to say it was the best multiplayer this gen hands down that focused strongly on team work. Killzone 3 was an unpolished, unbalanced mess in comparison.

My expectations of KZ:SF is that it will once again be a fairly well received game critically, look beautiful, and have a few improvements to open up the gameplay and bring it to the next level. It'll never be acclaimed similarly to The Last of Us, but if it has solid multiplayer it doesn't need to.

The game's quality will ultimately depend on the strength of its multiplayer.

Great post.

 

[IcyEyes]

Killzone has great graphics but bad art style and a LOUSY story. While not always told in the best way, Halo has a far more engaging story/Universe and also has a very pretty art style.

Halo has better gameplay too.

Bad art style ?
From an Halo fan this sound like a compliment.

Halo is better for you ?
I'm happy for you.

Have you ever played any Killzone game ?

 

[Bombadil]

Bad art style ?
From an Halo fan this sound like a compliment.

Halo is better for you ?
I'm happy for you.

Have you ever played any Killzone game ?

I've played both.

Halo has a style.

Killzone is rubble and dark corners; even the supposed colorful jungle scenes hardly break that mold. That's a style, but one that doesn't require much thinking.

 

[digoutyoursoul]

I like Killzone 3, never understood the intense dislike for it. Looking forward to shadow fall

 

[Crisium]

I've put 50 hours into Killzone 3 multiplayer so I don't get the hate.

Well, I do actually. Yes, it's a step back from KZ2 multiplayer. But why do I play it?

Playstation Move. I hope they bring it to Shadow Fall. Killzone 2 is like playing under water. KZ3 is sort of too, but the Move alleviates this. I'd play KZ2 still if it supported Move.

 

[KageMaru]

I'm surprised this thread is still going. I actually liked the controls in KZ2 and it gave the game a unique feel. GRAW also had controls with a weighty feel and I don't remember it bothering as many people.

 

[Zimbardo]

(imo) the multiplayer in Killzone2 absolutely destroyed any multiplayer that i tried out in the Halo series. murder in the first.

never really played much Killzone3 multiplayer, so i don't really know how good or bad that one is.

 

[IcyEyes]

I've played both.

Halo has a style.

Killzone is rubble and dark corners; even the supposed colorful jungle scenes hardly break that mold. That's a style, but one that doesn't require much thinking.

No, no sorry.
Halo has its own style just as Killzone, but the bold part I quoted, it's pretty incorrect.
If you are an art director (or any other art related expert), maybe you care to explain your statement.

Ps Destiny has a style.

 

[IcyEyes]

I like Killzone 3, never understood the intense dislike for it. Looking forward to shadow fall

In threads like this you may find a lot of dislike, but I know more people who love this game.

You may open a new thread with this title:
"Why *game* is good, but not a masterpiece"
or
"I think *game* it's overrated, here my reasons"

... and you will see the same situation we have in this thread.

 

[IcyEyes]

I'm surprised this thread is still going. I actually liked the controls in KZ2 and it gave the game a unique feel. GRAW also had controls with a weighty feel and I don't remember it bothering as many people.

I agree with you, but there is a good amount of player who prefer more linear and simpler controls.
I friend of mine initially really disliked K2's controls, but after a bit of time he started to love them and after playing it, he always complains about other FPS games that look and feel like you move "on the wheels".

 

[Seventy_X_Seven]

Never played the first Killzone, but Killzone 2 is one of my all time favorite games. People dislike the lack of colors, but Killzone 2 took darkness and made it really artistic (one of the very few games to do such). People dislike the weightiness, but that made it more unique. People think the characters aren't strong, yet everyone seems to have a strong opinion towards Rico. People dislike the story in general, but it's nice to have a story where you play from the perspective of just another squad in a much larger war where you don't always have all the details (which can be found online if you are big into lore). Made the game feel a bit more realistic as far as story telling goes.

Then there's other things that Killzone 2 did great. The animations are outstanding, especially when an enemy is getting shot. Combine this with the fact that KZ2 strongly encourages hip fire over ADS and the battles get very intense. The AI are also the smartest I've seen in an FPS, they understand when to take cover, when to move, when to retreat, when to flank, how to take advantages of their surroundings. And then you have a ton of guns which just feel great to use, especially more exotic ones like say the nail gun or electric gun. Not to mention the flame animations for the flamethrower are again top notch. The end boss is the most memorable for me in any FPS.

Killzone 3 isn't that bad but it made a few mistakes. It over saturated everything making the environments just look awkward. It followed the story of what was essentially a super soldier. The weight was gone and it feels like you're in an arcade. All the guns were given a scope (even the shotgun) and many a silencer. The ending was the stupidest thing to ever even be considered for an FPS.

And none of this touches the multiplayer discussion which is a whole different story. I think a lot of the problem though is Killzone has yet to identify what Killzone means. After playing 2 and 3 and looking at SF they all seem so very distant from eachother, not many common characteristics. I'm still holding out hope for Shadow Fall though as it looks more similar to 2 than 3.

 

[Figboy79]

When the media dubbed it "The Halo Killer," it's fate was set. I actually owned the Official PlayStation Magazine with "Killzone: The Halo Killer?" blasted across the cover.

I love the series, and think it's not even close to mediocre.

I also feel that it didn't need to copy Halo to be quality. It was very, very different from the other shooters, even back then, and had its own identity that set it apart.

I also loved the original Halo, and didn't need Killzone to "kill" anything. Both were very different, and I loved them both, although I played KZ long after Halo.

 

[Rogue_Ledr]

IMO Killzone 2 was awesome.

Killzone 3 was somewhat of a let down though.

I'm glad to see them moving in a new direction for the PS4 game.

 

[AngelsDontBurn]

I always thought the art direction of the games were pretty mediocre. I felt that the Helghast were the strongest part. Aside from that there was nothing. I thought the multiplayer in KZ2 was pretty awesome, but I couldn't really get into the campaign. I just remember it being SO much better than the first. I never touched KZ3 cause I guess I was over it, the gameplay didn't look much different than 2.

 

[Apath]

Killzone 2 was great at the time and its multiplayer was really fun and felt very different from other FPS games. My biggest issue with the multiplayer was that the player count was too high and classes made it too hectic. I felt multiplayer was best around when the game first came out and everyone was a regular soldier with some medics and the occasional engineer.

I only played the multiplayer demo for 3 and felt that it wasn't for me (even though the 3D was nice).

 

[chrominance]

I wonder how much of Killzone's lack of resonance (and Resistance, to toss in another Sony franchise) has to do with a certain lack of coherence in the games. I haven't played the first Killzone, only watched a bunch of its cutscenes, but there seems to be a drastic shift in tone between the two games. KZ2 is a lot grittier, obviously, but there's also more nuance to the Helghast (owing to the fact that one of them is in your squad), and the whole concept of multiple endings would be ridiculous in the second game. But more to the point, the only characters that carry over between the two games, as far as I can tell, are Templar and Rico. Templar gets sidelined for all of KZ2 and Rico is widely disliked as kind of a dick, especially in the second game.

Killzone 3 feels very disconnected from its predecessor despite starting immediately after the final moments of KZ2. Whereas that game's story was about fighting a war where victory seemed assured, only to find the exact opposite, Killzone 3 feels more like a madcap adventure. The significant moment in Killzone 2 is Rico's final murder; not half an hour after that, Sev and Rico are busy driving an APC off a cliff like it's Magnum P.I. Sev essentially has no personality, Rico is still as hateful as ever, and none of the new characters leave any impact except for Stahl, who's such an over-the-top caricature that he doesn't feel like part of the same universe that spawned the unrelentingly grim second game.

Contrast this with Halo and Gears of War, both of whom keep the focus on a central character or relationship throughout the series: Master Chief and Cortana, Marcus and Dom, etc. Whatever each series' other flaws (and oh man do I hate Halo's story, an overly complex mishmash of sci-fi mythology I can barely relate to), they're very good at showing you who you should care about and why--at least, compared to Killzone, whose broader themes of Helghan/ISA civil war have always been more compelling despite never being more than a footnote in the actual games.

 

[Big_Al]

The problem I have with Killzone is that the politics/world building outside the game is pretty damn cool. The backstory is really fun to read and there's so much potential. Then you play the games and from a purely story perspective they are fuckin awful. After Killzone 2 I never wanted to play as the ISA again, I absolutely cannot stand playing as them. This is not something that I usually give a toss about in any FPS, I love FPS and as long as the mechanics are good that trumps over everything for me. But some reason playing as and with these ISA fuckwits is just really annoying. I feel sorry for the Helghast and I want to fight for them. I really wish Guerilla would stop making us play as the ISA and let me play as the Helghast, I want to personally hear Rico scream as I plunge the knife into his throat.

From a gameplay perspective I just found Killzone 2 far too heavy for my liking, I don't mind weight in a shooter but Killzone 2s weight felt more like lag to me. Killzone 3 is much better in this regard controlwise. The shooting itself in both games feels REALLY good, the weapons are very nice indeed. Good sound effects, good feedback and I love the melee animations. I really appreciate those. The levels are far too cramped though, from what I could see the AI seemed to be pretty decent but I'd like to see them let that AI shine in more open levels. Maybe we'll get that with Shadow Fall.

I don't think the Killzone series is overall terrible though. Each game has their flaws but generally the core combat can be good fun but there's so much room for improvement.

I tried the multiplayer but never really took to it. For Killzone 2 the controls killed it for me and with Killzone 3 I just got bored of it eventually. I can be fussy with the multiplayer games I take to though so it's not really a good indicator of anything.

 

[Naked Lunch]

All graphics. No gameplay.
Simple.

 

[NullPointer]

All graphics. No gameplay.
Simple.

Calling bullshit on this. It has more *gameplay* than COD or Battlefield or Medal of Honor campaigns if only because the AI is actually pretty decent. It also has an optional first person cover element not shared in any of those games.

 

[nib95]

All graphics. No gameplay.
Simple.

The best thing about Killzone is the gunplay and AI, not the graphics.

 

[Poke]

The first Killzone was hyped to hell as a Halo killer and it wasn't even close but that hyping I think made people give it more of a negative reaction than it deserved. For me it wasn't very fun. Killzone 2 was hyped graphically for so long. Hell, I still think that game is gorgeous and also surprisingly fun. I've spent way too much time playing it. It was only recently that I played Killzone 3 and I can't quite pinpoint what it was but the game isn't in the same leauge to me as Killzone 2. It was OK at best and way too short but again had some fun multiplayer. Basically out of a franchise of three main entries only one was really good and they weren't successful in carrying that on to its sequel thus Killzone is looked upon as a meh series.

 

[Naked Lunch]

Calling bullshit on this. It has more *gameplay* than COD or Battlefield or Medal of Honor campaigns if only because the AI is actually pretty decent. It also has an optional first person cover element not shared in any of those games.

Using "AI", "campaign", and "Battlefield" in the same sentence.
Hilarious.

 

[Seventy_X_Seven]

The problem I have with Killzone is that the politics/world building outside the game is pretty damn cool. The backstory is really fun to read and there's so much potential. Then you play the games and from a purely story perspective they are fuckin awful. After Killzone 2 I never wanted to play as the ISA again, I absolutely cannot stand playing as them. This is not something that I usually give a toss about in any FPS, I love FPS and as long as the mechanics are good that trumps over everything for me. But some reason playing as and with these ISA fuckwits is just really annoying. I feel sorry for the Helghast and I want to fight for them. I really wish Guerilla would stop making us play as the ISA and let me play as the Helghast, I want to personally hear Rico scream as I plunge the knife into his throat.

From a gameplay perspective I just found Killzone 2 far too heavy for my liking, I don't mind weight in a shooter but Killzone 2s weight felt more like lag to me. Killzone 3 is much better in this regard controlwise. The shooting itself in both games feels REALLY good, the weapons are very nice indeed. Good sound effects, good feedback and I love the melee animations. I really appreciate those. The levels are far too cramped though, from what I could see the AI seemed to be pretty decent but I'd like to see them let that AI shine in more open levels. Maybe we'll get that with Shadow Fall.

I don't think the Killzone series is overall terrible though. Each game has their flaws but generally the core combat can be good fun but there's so much room for improvement.

I tried the multiplayer but never really took to it. For Killzone 2 the controls killed it for me and with Killzone 3 I just got bored of it eventually. I can be fussy with the multiplayer games I take to though so it's not really a good indicator of anything.

As a Killzone fan I absolutely despise this line of thought. Especially going as far as calling the ISA "fuckwits." And for the most part its all because one of your squad mates has a temper problem.

The Helghasts launched the first attack in this war. They believe in a master race, and set their goals to wipe out the rest of humanity. They even killed their own who disagreed with their agenda. All of this, yet so many people think of Helghans as the completely innocent victim. I guess Visari is too good of an orator.

 

[The Albatross]

It's not mediocre, but for a first party game, it's very uninspired. It always has been. It's always felt like a "me too" shooter, from the name (Kill Zone? Seriously?) to the tacked on story, to the tacked on "let's actually write a story" from KZ2, to everything else. I still enjoy it but it just seems so "me too" it kills me.

 

[Big_Al]

As a Killzone fan I absolutely despise this line of thought. Especially going as far as calling the ISA "fuckwits." And for the most part its all because one of your squad mates has a temper problem.

The Helghasts launched the first attack in this war. They believe in a master race, and set their goals to wipe out the rest of humanity. They even killed their own who disagreed with their agenda. All of this, yet so many people think of Helghans as the completely innocent victim. I guess Visari is too good of an orator.

I don't think the Helghast are any better at all, in all honesty they are as bad as each other but I just find the Helghast much more interesting and I would love to see things more from their perspective. I'm not just talking about one ISA person btw, the writing is generally pretty damn bad and most of them come across as uninteresting meatheads. I never once cared about the ISA or their plight in terms of the games. Now would this change as playing as the Helghast ? Maybe, maybe not but they haven't exactly made playing as the ISA compelling, at least not to me anyway.

I do find Shadow Fall interesting though since you are playing as essentially a 'Peacekeeper' which could be good. I'm just not sure if Guerilla are actually capable of making it as interesting as it sounds.

 

[ebullientprism]

Played 2 and 3. Couldnt be bothered to finish either. I got through about 70% of 2 and half of 3 before I gave up. Nothing grabbed me about either game. It lacks the setpeice style of CoD. Lacks the combat depth of Halo. There is just no personality to it. Nothing that screams "THIS is Killzone. This is what the game is about". It felt soulless.

Mediocre is upselling it.

Purely speaking of SP. Havent tried the multi though.

Edit : 3D was nice in 3 though. The only thing I can recommend about it. And even that was done better in Black Ops 2.

 

[nib95]

Using "AI", "campaign", and "Battlefield" in the same sentence.
Hilarious.

Why? Killzone has some of the, if not the best AI in the business. Killzone, FEAR, Halo and Last of Us all excel in this area. Note, I am talking about enemy AI. Friendly Ai is a very different story lol.

 

[andregnreis]

I started playing Killzone 3 and couldnt get past the first hour. Looks like your typical first person shooter. The first 15 minutes is a tutorial in a shooting gallery to teach you how to... shoot. Then you take control of your character and do stealth kills. Then the char tells you to take control of a turret for a turret sequence. Seriously, what a boring start...

 

[Sobriquet]

I totally understand that. I just think there's a bit more of an objective truth in how much of that pie is MP and SP; it's definitely not split right down the middle. I mean, can you picture Gaf slagging off Battlefield 3 to this extent? It's more or less directly analogous. Boring, uninspired SP component / brilliantly executed MP component with considerable legs.

It's completely subjective, and the pie split would depend on the person, their expectations, and the game. I would buy Killzone strictly for single player and Battlefield strictly for multiplayer. Then again, I buy COD and Halo predominantly for the single player. Multi is just a bonus. And what about Uncharted 2? I had fun in the multiplayer beta, but never played multi after I actually bought the game. That's not to say that it's bad, just that I had no interest in playing it. Much like Killzone.

 

[H_Prestige]

Killzone 2 was great at the time and its multiplayer was really fun and felt very different from other FPS games. My biggest issue with the multiplayer was that the player count was too high and classes made it too hectic. I felt multiplayer was best around when the game first came out and everyone was a regular soldier with some medics and the occasional engineer.

I only played the multiplayer demo for 3 and felt that it wasn't for me (even though the 3D was nice).

The great thing about KZ2 is that if you want you can set up a room with only basic soldiers allowed.

 

[Seventy_X_Seven]

It's not mediocre, but for a first party game, it's very uninspired. It always has been. It's always felt like a "me too" shooter, from the name (Kill Zone? Seriously?) to the tacked on story, to the tacked on "let's actually write a story" from KZ2, to everything else. I still enjoy it but it just seems so "me too" it kills me.

Killzone always had a well explained story behind it,
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=517012

It also made dark and gritty feel artistic

It had some of the best animations around

And had the best villian duo in any FPS that mirror'd a Vader/Emperor relationship

You can call it "Me too" if you want, after all any shooter can be considered "Me too." But what Killzone does it does well.

 

[NullPointer]

Using "AI", "campaign", and "Battlefield" in the same sentence.
Hilarious.

I know, but I'm grading on a curve here

What else am I supposed to compare it to? Its a console FPS and it compares favorably to almost all of them. The weapons sound good, there's great feedback on your shots, environments allow multiple avenues of attack and the enemy AI isn't braindead.

Its also incredibly detailed, epic in scale and beautiful at times.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

Killzone one sucked, I liked 2 and 3 bored me to tears. Thats why I'm not so excited about the franchise. No interest in multiplayer by the way.

 

[Apath]

The best thing about Killzone is the gunplay and AI, not the graphics.

What was great about the AI?

The great thing about KZ2 is that if you want you can set up a room with only basic soldiers allowed.

Haha, yeah. The only problem was that it was very difficult to get a minimal class, 16 player count game going. I always waited a long time and no one would join. So guess that means I'm pretty alone on my preference.

 

[Tom Penny]

Graphics don't make a game great and the gameplay was mediocre. The new one appears to have more freedom. We will see.

 

[Seventy_X_Seven]

What was great about the AI?

Have you played Killzone 2? The AI are incredibly smart. They are aware of their environment and dynamically changing surroundings. They understand when to stay in cover and when to move, when to flank and when to retreat, how to properly respond to you firing at them or one of their nearby AI teammates firing at you. I may not be the best at describing it, but pop in KZ2 if you have it and go to a scene and replay it a few times with different approaches to test the AI's intelligence and see how uniquely they respond. It's really quite amazing especially when you compare it to the AI we see in games like COD and Battlefield.

 

[nib95]

What was great about the AI?

Just very intelligent, and made for constant unique and difficult encounters.

KZ's AI has...

- Procedural dynamic tactics
- Position picking
- Position evaluation (based on squad location, enemy fire, damage taken, destruction to cover etc)
- Tactical path finding
- Suppressive fire
- Understanding of environmental dynamics
- Flanking, squad tactics, cover system, hiding capabilities, retreating, spreading out or combing efforts, over head or around the corner shooting (whilst behind cover and taking suppressing fire), changing cover position whilst remaining hidden behind cover (when their location is compromised or they are at a tactical disadvantage), crawling, rolling out of cover to cover etc

They're fully dynamic and highly intelligent. They also adapt to the environment and carry out more actions and manoeuvres than the AI in other shooters. Running away or flanking these days is the bare basics.