Killzone Comments by Kristan Reed

I beg to differ... when Pat was in charge, the gaming press (especially the online people) quaked in fear at what he was going to turn up next.

Very flattering, thank you. I could tell you lot a few stories... :)

Pat

I almost died laughing-ress cor

why must u tease us GOD? u should have finished the job. :)

this comment section is better than both GTA:SA and the both halo 1 & 2

got hyped way beyond what it ever could be, and because it flew past its halo 2 competitor release date, pointless waste of hype.

oh my :)

probably not fair to play this game after both halo 2 and half-life 2 :)
I wonder how it would have made without those games...

Kris, look: "You can't even write!" I wish you'd learn... ;)

Pat

I know. How I get away with it is amazing. ;)

Did someone write that post for you?

Digiz, are you real? Halo2 has by far the best FPS graphics on a console to date. The pop up is an issue, granted, but just look at the detail in the game.

And I've not seen the AI fuck up at all. Admittedly it doesn't have the scope to work with like it did in a lot of the places in Halo1, but still...

ps2 just can't seem to do it. MOH, Bond and the many others just have crappy AI where they just stand prone shooting at you till you gun them down, maybe ducking sometimes.

BTW: Those games are just as bad on all the other systems.

‘Metal Arms: Glitch in the system’ has Halo’ish AI IMO and large open battle environments that shows it off. Half Life also available on PS2 is another that springs to mind.

I think most games don't have "good AI" Halo just happens to be one of the very few that does and it happens to be on Xbox. The differences between the XBox hardware and the PS2 has little to do with it IMO and I bet if Bungie wrote an FPS for PS2 the AI would be ok.

The AI would obviously be better on the PS2 - Emotion Engine, anyone? :o

EDIT: Damn typos.

Les, if you shoot your team mates in single player mode they do react - they moan at you and move out of the firing line - or die.

Les: If you shoot a marine he'll moan at you, as it's probably as accident. Try shooting about half of a squad of marine on purpose... The others should return fire then.

Well, that's what it did in Halo1.

Guys, try this game, it is pretty good! The gameplay sort of reminds me of Doom:

- Difficult to survive
- You cant just save the game anywhere, like in real life
- Mind your ammo at alle times, it actually takes time to reload and you have to reload manually
- You cant just storm into a room and kill everything you see, you actually have to plan your moves.

But, just to make things clear:

KillZone is not a shiny movie-like well directed first-person game like HalfLife, Halo etc. Its sort of different. Simple design and repetetive action. So, If you are spoiled with a great PC and all the best PC FPS titles, KillZone has few or little surprises for you. But, I would definitely say it is worth a rental.

It is nice online too, although its just the old formula of deathmatch. But, it IS different in many aspects.

I am pretty sure this title will sell very well on the PS2. To understand why, consider this:

The average PS2 owner is not spoiled with the latest PC-technology. He does not have a top notch PC with the latest graphics card. He has a TV and a black box where he put the games. He does not know about XBox or Halo. He will be thrilled with this game!

That said, he is not on these forums either, none of you reading these posts are the average PS2 owner :)

I would like to add that mr. Reed, who wrote this review sort of lost is credibility after giving KillZone 5 of 10. Im not saying its a 9 or 10, but
as a Playstation2 title, KillZone is worth a 7 or 8 definitely.

Isnt that how reviews are supposed to work? When a new game appears, a considerable amount of rating should amount from what already exists on a platform. Not from what already exists on other systems. Most console owners only has a PS2!

Mr. Reed, I think your review is a result of bitter/moaning dissapointment regarding the supposed(proved?) hype of Sony mixed with a your mind being spoiled by the great FPS blockbuster semi-movies on PC.

Dont take this personally Reed, take it to your boss and ask him wether reviews of a game on a particular platform should be compared with what exists on other platforms

Hmmm...

Agreed with the points on the control system, but I really, really, really, loved this game. Thought it was bloody splendid for a PS2. Don't think it's very fair to compare Killzone with PC or X-Box FPSs like Halo cos you're bound to be able to push more with those types of machines.

However, for a PS2 I thought it was great. Graphically, the only thing missing was real-time shadows. The physics wasn't real-time either - those water canisters in the mall were set-piece anims, not physics. But frankly, who cares. It looked great, the atmosphere was cool, and the bad guys with the glowing orange eyes were ace.

So there. ;o)

Krudster, if I really enjoyed the demo would I like like this ? or was the demo not a true reflection of the final game.

"You cant just save the game anywhere, like in real life"-vivid

like i said before, please don't bring real life situations into a game.
if you want the game to be realistic, then you should only be able to die once. and once you die, the dvd self-destructs and your never allowed to play again.

"I personally think that there are maybe 20 console titles with better graphics than Halo 2."-digiz

name them.

seriously, you can't make a claim like that without backing it up. i want to see the list of 20 games on all consoles.

The only game that I would say is on the same par, graphically, as Halo2, is Chronicles of Riddick.

Completely subject I agree, but FFX?! Are you KIDDING me?

this is the lowest review from any site I have seen, so the score is probably unfair

Sorry to break it to you KZ fans, but we review *games* not platforms, and as such scores have to be judged not in terms of whether it's "good for a PS2" or such like, but in the context of other games. I'm sure movie reviewers don't upscale their ratings because it looks good on their 14" portable versus the multiplex cinema.

A game is a game is a game. We're platform agnostic and really have no bias or favouritism to one or the other, no matter what anybody might think. We're gaming fans and if something like HL2 comes out and redefines the benchmark then the also rans suffer proportionately. Yep, 6 months ago this might have been a six or seven, but I was so bored playing it that even though I could see that technically it was "good for a PS2" and looked like a six or seven but the boredom and tedium factor chipped away at the score until we hit 5. The more you play this game the less you like it. I actually thought it was great for about 10 minutes. But then you do literally the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over. Usually in copy/paste levels....BEGONE! We deserve better!

Fair point about it being ultimately about the game, and rightly so. It's the graphical arguments that get me. Like Riddick for example. True, it looks lovely, but it's the lighting, the bump maps, the shadows etc which make it look lovely - things which can be done on a PC and XBox easily, but much harder (or impossible) to do on PS2. It's those kind of comparisons which are unfair. Graphically, I thought Killzone did a hell of a job, but rightly graphics alone should never mean a high score.

But I did enjoy the set pieces. And I didn't get bored after 10 mins. But that's the subjective bit.

:o)

The graphics are great but you have to take into account the louse framerate, the texture pop-ups and the repetitive level design - As Krudster said many times they look like copy-paste.

But in the end it's the boring gameplay that ruins the game, so who cares about the pretty graphics?

It got an average of 74% in GamesRankings so most reviews go along the same lines...

So if I understand you correctly, krudster, Halo 2 would have received at least a point less, had it been released after Half-Life 2 ? ;-)

"Well, you asked for it. 20 console games I think are more pleasing to the eye."

where do u start.
i can't argue with you, simply becuase you used the "subjective" card on me. and it is near impossible to argue with another persons opinion.

however, we are not talking about art direction here. we are talking about overall graphics. some of those games you listed thier, you pust them thier simply based on your preferance to the art direction (F-X anyone?)

"So if I understand you correctly, krudster, Halo 2 would have received at least a point less, had it been released after Half-Life 2 ? ;-)"

possibly.
but then again, HL2 has come before a game in the future that will most definately be better than HL2. Does that mean HL2 should be marked down now?

face the facts. killzone is a poor mans H2/HL2.

The vast majority of negative comments on this review come from people who havent played the game, dont have ps2 online and quite frankly dont know what theyre talking about.
As for the review, Im a bit surprised. I dont mind harsh reviews but this is not a 5/10 game unless you take away a point out of 10 every time a loading screen appears.
Call me insane, but I during this weekend have had the opportunity to play Half-Life 2 on a savage PC or the above game. I've been playing both, but believe it or not I've been playing this more!
This is a fairly meaty multiplayer FPS that works very well and I dont know what everyone has against it - even taking into consideration the other popular FPS choices.
It may not be a long-standing classic, but it without a doubt merits at least 6/10.
IMO

"however, we are not talking about art direction here. we are talking about overall graphics. some of those games you listed thier, you pust them thier simply based on your preferance to the art direction (F-X anyone?)"

I think art direction is the most important part of overall graphics. You can have a model of a million polygons in high-res, but if the model is ugly, I don't care how many polygons are in it.

I do not like the style of Halo (or Halo 2) with all the colors, plastic look and the model of Master Chief (probably the dumbest name for a video game character outside of the Megaman games) and so it's hard to enjoy the thousands of polygons the game-engine is moving each second.

I do like the style of Killzone though. The screenshots are beautiful: dark and realistic. But if it's really not very playable because of the glitches, then it's not much of a game.

Where did bero go - "back to the jungle"?

"You have to be fucking joking me. Eurogamer.net just lost all of its credibility. This site is now officially a joke".

Nownow - that 5 might a be a bit on the high side, but surely that is no reason for such an outburst...

> Best thing about Killzone is the lifesize plastic Helghast soldier i've just seen standing in the window of Game!! cool

Helghast soldiers often stand motionless in the actual game too. ;-)

I think 5/10 is harsh. Comparing it to MoH rather than the almighty Halo puts a different spin on it.

heh - I'm likely to be the subject of ridicule for saying this, but I'm really enjoying it.

Think of it as the missing link between Medal of Honor and Halo - in structure and style it's closest to the former, but the intensity of the fights recalls Halo's greatness. The environments are the best thing about it - I find them incredibly atmospheric and well-constructed, although they're not immune from cut'n'paste (Kristan rightly points the finger at the dock level for this). In this respect I think they actually out-do Halo 2, whose environments (imho) are often quite bland and unconvincing.

You do need a tolerance for a dodgy frame-rates (although it's hardly worse than GTA:SA), and it needs more restart points. There ARE different types of enemy, but they just don't have the variety of behaviour that makes Halo's combat so compelling. And don't get me started on the extremely limited range of voice samples - sometimes you can hear the same sample four or five times in a row...

But in spite of all this, it's kept me playing. The slow-burning intensity of the fire-fights has a unique character, and I've enjoyed both this and Halo equally - Halo is obviously the more polished and solid product, but I've been more gripped by Killzone's atmosphere and drama. IGN's 7.5 score seems about right to me.

Tiddles: can you show your technique of argument and pursuasion to all the people who are saying "KZ is gud so ther!!!!1!" please?

Well I was almost put off this game after reading this review, but I enjoyed the demo so bought it anyway. Glad I did as it's rather good. Tiddles post above sums up the pros and cons perfectly and I agree with him/her that despite it's obvious flaws it's still great fun. 7/10 or 8/10 if you only own the PS2.

Off topic, but EG's reviews seem very inconsistent. How can KZ get 5/10 and in the same week the far more generic Call of Duty get 7/10 ? Maybe it's time EG adopted Edge's policy of reviewing games as 'Edge' (EG in this case) rather than having individual named reviewers ? It would improve reviewing consistency across the site.

SteveB: Erm, no it wouldn't. It'd improve the shallowest illusion of consistency, but it wouldn't actually affect it at all, if you actually think about it.

On a side-note, it's already been pointed out here that to rate a game higher because, 'well, it's on the PS2, and if that's all you have then it's good' is preposterous. A game is a game, regardless of the platform. It's akin to saying 'Wolfenstein 3D is better than Half-Life 2 because it was released twelve years earlier.' It's sheer irrelevance.

Big Bad Blonde: What, so because a few people disagree, Kristan should just conveniently change his mind? So if he pretends to like it, will that make you happy? Because that's all that matters, isn't it. ¬_¬

On a side-note, it's already been pointed out here that to rate a game higher because, 'well, it's on the PS2, and if that's all you have then it's good' is preposterous. A game is a game, regardless of the platform. It's akin to saying 'Wolfenstein 3D is better than Half-Life 2 because it was released twelve years earlier.' It's sheer irrelevance.

It wouldn't be irrelevant if all you had was a PS2 though, would it? EG is a multiformat site, so yes they should be comparing games across formats, but it's also true that a lot of people out only own PS2s and don't have Xboxes (or Cubes).

I don't think EG should have to take this account when scoring games, but I do think many people who hadn't played or didn't have access to Halo would be more than satisfied by Killzone... It's not as good as Halo, but it does have at least some of the elements that make Halo great - much more so than Medal Of Honor, for example.

Tiddles is quite right...

Imagine:

PS2 Owner: Yes, I think I get Killzone.
Website Review: Don't bother, it sucks.
PS2 Owner: Really? I looked in a magazine and they said it was great, plus the graphics on the back of the box look good.
Website Review: Yes well, I am telling you don't do it - play Halo instead.
PS2 Owner: Oh right, haven't really heard of that, in fact haven't seen it in the shops.
Website Review: Well, you need to look in the Xbox section.
PS2 Owner: But I don't have one of those, what else can I play instead?
Website Review: Half-Life 2 is excellent, even better than Halo.
PS2 Owner: Right. Is that available on Playstation then?
Website Review: Er.. No. You need a PC for that.
PS2 Owner: Look, I have a PS2 - what is the best FPS for it?
Website Review: Erm.. Killzone it is then.

Comparing games over different formats for the majority of gamers out there is irrelevant.

Brutal!

But the verdict sounds fair to me.
Shame though, was kinda hoping it would be good.

I always wonder what happens to the playtesters for this kind of game...

"So what's your impression Bill?".
"Erm... it is kinda repetetive,".
"Get them out of here, take care of him, prepare for pre-release hype purgatory,".

HL2 gets 10 and this gets 5? In two strokes of utter insanity EG has alienated me completely from their scoring capabilities. Good god.

hmm 5/10 i realy dont get it,thats just fucking stupid.

I have the game and ive recently finished it and overall i felt quite pleased with it.The graphics are realy nice and the game play aint too bad,if i was reviewing it id give it a 8 or 9 but 5,thats realy stupid.

Oh and am i right in saying that officail PS2 mag gave this 9/10?

oh by the way the ending went there will proably be a Killzone 2

hl2 10
halo2 9
killzone 5

having played them I have to almost agree (well an 8 to halo 2 for me but the killzone score is fair and its not just because its slower on the ps2)... just got killzone yesterday and started playing and by god what is with the controls?

did they really think it was a good idea to let the aim behave like in counterstrike where you have a mouse... I almost killed someone... (which if I was trying to be funny could be taken to mean I couldnt hit stuff because of the bad controls)

MaChao an official magazine giving a much hyped game a high score is nothing to be proud about. They would have given Killzone a 9 even if it was the worst game ever. Just like the official Xbox mag would have given Halo 2 a 10 no matter how good or bad it was.

Saying an official mag gave this game a high score is like looking out the window, seeing rain and saying "it's raining".

"Saying an official mag gave this game a high score is like looking out the window, seeing rain and saying "it's raining".

Ha ha top comment ! Check the oscars for that pile of shite Titanic and wonder why...

/Mr cynic mode off

5/10 is an average score, for a game which is clearly better than average, just not realy a great one

Ok you got a good point,

But 5/10 abit harsh. look at all the other games that got 5/10,killzone is way better then them.

It's not bad at all. Hampered a bit by the PS2 and perhaps a bit too hard on it's default difficulty but playing it through on easy is quite fun.

"But 5/10 abit harsh. look at all the other games that got 5/10,killzone is way better then them."

Exactly!

That's the insaneness of it.

So this doesn't tickle your post Half Life 2 banana? Apparently Halo 2 doesn't either. (which regardless is a fantastic shooter that people will keep coming back to years from now for the single player/AI combat and story alone, judging by Halo 1) Even so, on PS2 Killzone is the undeniable winner among shooters, and even holds appeal for someone like me who've played HL2 and Halo 2 through.

This isn't even an opinion matter, KZ deserves more than 5/10 on its gameplay and art direction merits alone.

"IMHO, Killzone is the best FPS on the PS2."

Touche, the game has it's problems but it is also enjoyable at the same time. I look forward to future installments, two are already in the pipeline as Sony have registered the domains.

Killzone 2 PS2, PSP or PS3? I hope it's for the PS3.


Killzone 3 - defintely on PS3

http://www.register.com/

killzone2game.com
killzone3game.com

I loved it. For some reason I've enjoyed it more than Halo 2, which just gathers dust after one meh inspired run through. The tactical play of hide, shoot, sprint is perfectly executed in KillZone, and I sincerely hope more people check it out. It's got a terrific atmosphere and some stunning set pieces. Fighting troops up stream and descending on Fire bases has been great fun, plenty of variation and action. Fingers crossed for a sequel.