DeathCrawlerx wrote:
Everything Cod4 has takes NO SKILL. thats why i dont like it. killcams, airstrikes, helicopters that kill in 1 bullet, 1 hit kills with m16 in the leg, UAV radar, juggernaut, plus much more. i loved Kz1 and hated COD4. thats why when someone says "like Cod4!!! yaeh1!! " it ticks me off. i am here to play KZ2, not Call Of Duty: Killzone Edition
exactly. all cod4 is a nooby ass fragfest with ppl camping behind claymores and running around with juggernaut and a p90, not to mention all of the cheats that were made with the friggin game save file, i mean im no codemonkey or anything but all you had to do was copy paste save and load and your on your way and all you had to have was notepad. the only reason i still play it is cause there really isnt anything else unless you want to sit in lobbys all day
you guys are overly defensive
we KNOW that they are separate games, people just want to see some features being shared. You think halo 3 used anything new and revolutionary, no, but they did their research too wanted features from other games and made a great game.
Of course we don't want killzone 2 to be like halo, but we would like to see some features that work for past games. It's like learning from your ancestors and predecessors, you want to keep the good stuff and loose the bad stuff.
NO ONE IS COMPARING GAMES
we're just SUGGESTING features (that probably won't be added anyways) because we KNOW those features are good and could be implemented into Killzone 2
Axion wrote:you guys are overly defensive
we KNOW that they are separate games, people just want to see some features being shared. You think halo 3 used anything new and revolutionary, no, but they did their research too wanted features from other games and made a great game.
Of course we don't want killzone 2 to be like halo, but we would like to see some features that work for past games. It's like learning from your ancestors and predecessors, you want to keep the good stuff and loose the bad stuff.
NO ONE IS COMPARING GAMES
we're just SUGGESTING features (that probably won't be added anyways) because we KNOW those features are good and could be implemented into Killzone 2
Thank goodness someone understands what i'm saying...
Gamer*97 wrote:
Axion wrote:you guys are overly defensive
we KNOW that they are separate games, people just want to see some features being shared. You think halo 3 used anything new and revolutionary, no, but they did their research too wanted features from other games and made a great game.
Of course we don't want killzone 2 to be like halo, but we would like to see some features that work for past games. It's like learning from your ancestors and predecessors, you want to keep the good stuff and loose the bad stuff.
NO ONE IS COMPARING GAMES
we're just SUGGESTING features (that probably won't be added anyways) because we KNOW those features are good and could be implemented into Killzone 2
Thank goodness someone understands what i'm saying...
It ain't that no one understands you dude. Alot of people have given you clear answers and reasons as to why they don't like alot of people refferin back to CoD4. I agree with alot of them.
I'm personally disgusted by it. I'm more or less joking by that statement of course, but I still dislike the game to an extent.
After playing (in my opinion) far better modern era war games like Ghost Recon, it made me cringe to downgrade from heavy tactical gameplay and squad oriented mechanics to a more simplistic "point and click" shooter...simpler than most point and click shooters even, even Halo 3 for frak's sake!
And me, being a single player story junkie that I am (call me an old school gamer if you want, one who prefers the good old days before developers started relying upon multiplayer to save bad or mediocre games) I was heavily disappointed in IW's failure to match the epic-ness (is that even a word?) that was the campaign of Call of Duty 2.
From brutal urban warfare in the snowy streets of Stalingrad to the harsh wastelands of Africa fighting the Desert Fox's (Erwin Rommel for all those who slept in history class) forces as Britain's Desert Rats, to finally the walls of Fortress Europe in the D-Day landings and eventually into Germany itself when crossing the Rhine river it continually bled a feeling of patriotism for whichever side you fought for. In CoD 4 there was nothing like that...just kill some terrorists...that was it...that was frakking it!
And on top of all this, the really poor representation of how modern wars are fought, really bugged me. When I see more than 3 dozen US Force Recon Marines charge straight on in single file towards a fortified machinegun nest without taking cover, calling for air support, or even using grenades...well...we've got a problem. I get the feeling that IW poured all their heart and soul into making the two sniper missions in Prypiat, Ukraine (which even I will openly admit, were **bleep**ing awesome as hell, yes, I really loved those two levels) and just half assed the rest.
No intelligent squad AI, practically no enemy AI to speak of save for old WW-II era banzai charges with mass numbers, and some really questionable weapons at some points as well...say...a gunner in a moving helicopter knowing the exact moment I decide to quietly peak my head out from behind a barrel just so he can snipe me with a machinegun...did I say he was in a moving helicopter using a bloody machinegun?
And please, for the love of God and all things sacred, do NOT give me this "oh but the multiplayer's the main part of the game" excuse. I'm sick of hearing that. It's an excuse, that's all it is, an excuse to hide a mediocre to piss poor campaign and what I dare say is laziness from a developer that has previously done so well.
Great...now this rant has gone and left a bitter taste in my mouth. Better boot up Dawn of War and murder me some Orkz. ^_^
501st_Legion wrote:I'm personally disgusted by it. I'm more or less joking by that statement of course, but I still dislike the game to an extent.
After playing (in my opinion) far better modern era war games like Ghost Recon, it made me cringe to downgrade from heavy tactical gameplay and squad oriented mechanics to a more simplistic "point and click" shooter...simpler than most point and click shooters even, even Halo 3 for frak's sake!
And me, being a single player story junkie that I am (call me an old school gamer if you want, one who prefers the good old days before developers started relying upon multiplayer to save bad or mediocre games) I was heavily disappointed in IW's failure to match the epic-ness (is that even a word?) that was the campaign of Call of Duty 2.
From brutal urban warfare in the snowy streets of Stalingrad to the harsh wastelands of Africa fighting the Desert Fox's (Erwin Rommel for all those who slept in history class) forces as Britain's Desert Rats, to finally the walls of Fortress Europe in the D-Day landings and eventually into Germany itself when crossing the Rhine river it continually bled a feeling of patriotism for whichever side you fought for. In CoD 4 there was nothing like that...just kill some terrorists...that was it...that was frakking it!
And on top of all this, the really poor representation of how modern wars are fought, really bugged me. When I see more than 3 dozen US Force Recon Marines charge straight on in single file towards a fortified machinegun nest without taking cover, calling for air support, or even using grenades...well...we've got a problem. I get the feeling that IW poured all their heart and soul into making the two sniper missions in Prypiat, Ukraine (which even I will openly admit, were **bleep**ing awesome as hell, yes, I really loved those two levels) and just half assed the rest.
No intelligent squad AI, practically no enemy AI to speak of save for old WW-II era banzai charges with mass numbers, and some really questionable weapons at some points as well...say...a gunner in a moving helicopter knowing the exact moment I decide to quietly peak my head out from behind a barrel just so he can snipe me with a machinegun...did I say he was in a moving helicopter using a bloody machinegun?
And please, for the love of God and all things sacred, do NOT give me this "oh but the multiplayer's the main part of the game" excuse. I'm sick of hearing that. It's an excuse, that's all it is, an excuse to hide a mediocre to piss poor campaign and what I dare say is laziness from a developer that has previously done so well.
Great...now this rant has gone and left a bitter taste in my mouth. Better boot up Dawn of War and murder me some Orkz. ^_^
They did get one thing right, they some what showed the causalities of war, by killing off the whole squad minus you and maybe captain price.
Seriously the helicopter machine gun guy was a complete **bleep**, but I'm guessing you were playing vetran like I was and what do you expect from the hardest setting.
But dude the multiplayer is the main part of the game, you need to recognize that for sure. The campaign wasn't the main focus obviously, by the poor job they did by your standards. The campagin was like 5 hours long you really can't deny that multiplayer was their main focus.
Axion wrote:They did get one thing right, they some what showed the causalities of war, by killing off the whole squad minus you and maybe captain price.
Seriously the helicopter machine gun guy was a complete **bleep**, but I'm guessing you were playing vetran like I was and what do you expect from the hardest setting.
But dude the multiplayer is the main part of the game, you need to recognize that for sure. The campaign wasn't the main focus obviously, by the poor job they did by your standards. The campagin was like 5 hours long you really can't deny that multiplayer was their main focus.
I can't deny nor argue with your first point, I didn't really expect that too happen. Plus the final segment with you and the pistol was pretty nifty as well...not to mention satisfying.
And yes, Veteran, beat it fully once and vowed never to return. Still shouldn't be humanly possible to do that...I mean, it's like they decided that Veteran should be some soulless, heartless and merciless little **bleep** that kept yanking victory from your grasp every time you get close. Among the chopper machinegun sniper was the mission "No fighting in the war room"...you know, where you have to stop the missile countdown...with a hundred guys from all angles shooting you...and you have 5 minutes...
About that last part, assuming it was their main focus, I would have to despise them for that decision. Infinity Ward was one of the few remaining developers who seemed to really give a damn about making a decent to incredible single player experience right there among Guerilla, Bungie, Insomniac, Ubisoft with their Tom Clancy titles, and two or three others. And for a brief instant, with the sniper missions, I thought the game would have a massive turnaround and go full on epic...nope. Maybe with their next game they'll regain their title in my eyes, who's to say? But for now, I'm really disappointed with them.
Support
Corporate
Community
