
11-24-2010 02:35 PM
11-24-2010 07:07 PM
Adapting..... lowering your standards, it's all the same thing.
11-26-2010 06:56 AM
CHEEZITS-CHRIST wrote:Adapting..... lowering your standards, it's all the same thing.
no. no it is not. you better check your understanding of the words meaning.
11-26-2010 05:51 PM
bigdaddytim wrote:
CHEEZITS-CHRIST wrote:Adapting..... lowering your standards, it's all the same thing.
no. no it is not. you better check your understanding of the words meaning.
..so what you're saying is that yes, inserting auto-aim that broke the game, increasing the speed, and crippling the aiming mechanic, along with tweaking bots until they laid waste to anything that didn't lag at two frames per second - was something you approved of wholeheartedly, and think improved Killzone 2. Actually, you would go as far as saying it raised the standard of the game, and objectively improved it so it became a better game.
Can you use your great understanding of words to explain why that is, specifically - rather than simply rest on your ego and status, to declare it against any sort of observation by people who actually have played the game?
Or do you think that is not necessary, since your opinion is more worth?
07-01-2012 12:43 AM - edited 07-01-2012 01:18 AM
Bumping a classic thread from the beta period that predicted all the shortcomings of Killzone 3 and proved anyone who uses the "it's just a beta" argument should just keep their mouths shut.
I was a KZ2 vet with 100s of hours put into the game and played the final release of KZ3 for about 2 days before realizing it was terrible and would never be fixed, went back to playing MAG and never picked KZ3 back up again.

07-16-2012 07:47 AM
Same, KZ3 was a joke, downgraded for some kids.
07-17-2012 12:01 AM
As much as I hate to admit it kz3 did suck. I loved kz2 so much and I still play it today. kz3 had so much potential but it just didn't deliver. It felt like a game used to attract the cod audience. That's what it was cod in space.
11-10-2012 10:07 AM