Killzone Comments by Kristan Reed

Khab?

AFAIK, Halo 2 doesnt suffer from either atrocious AI, framerate problems, broken ragdoll, pathetic weapons, generic enemies or a crappy save-system?

Maybe by "a lot of the problems", you mean "repetetive level design"?

Halo2 feels more like an expansion pack for Halo rather than a new game. I was bored with it before the end of level 1.

I knew it...when Shellshock Nam was relased, I just knew gorilla was gonna fuck this up too...too bad, I kinda liked the graphical design from what I've seen from screenshots

Khab, I'd wholy disagree. Halo's AI is consistent through the difficulty setting (quite actually they don't change the AI, but change the hitpoints and damage, as well as spawned enemies). Gameplay is way more psiced up (vehicles, jacking, dual wielding, etc), online play is like the 2nd comming of christ... I could go on forever.

The only thing that Killzone and Halo 2 share is being repetitive... But godamn, while in Halo 2, being repeating can become tiring, yet the fights never stop being fun, in Killzone, being repetitive becomes boring and uninteresting.

Look the game was overhyped.. its distinctly 'meh'.
Please don't bother defending it theres too many real good games to play at the moment.
So all move along now, nothing to see.

Yup and i agree Shellshock Nam was a botch job too..
Gorilla have now seriously gone down in my developers fantasy league.
This was their only chance for redemption after past efforts.

pHage, I found the Halo 2 enemy design boring (one new enemy? And they're big bears that mindlessly run at you when they get mad? Ooooh...), the level design atrocious (I really thought Halo 2's levels were insanely boring, with the possible exception of the Earth level.), the amount of graphical pop-in and LOD problems quite disturbing, and the story generally unengaging.

There we have Enemies, Level Design and Graphics problems, right there. Add to that the fact that while multi sure has lots of options, you never get to play what you want because there's no server browser, well...

Anyway, I've played the preview code for Killzone (as I stated in my last post), and it was tremendous fun. Granted, I only played for an hour, but it really felt like fighting in a city, really gritty. I also prefer semi-probable enemies to big blue bears on a rampage. Anyway, all I'm saying is I want to play the game and see for myself. :)

If everybody liked the same thing the world would be a boring place indeed.

To ralphwolfenstein: incidentaly, I write reviews and I'm finnishing the REVIEW copy (so playing in excess of 10 hours, tried all characters and most weapons and locations). I usually don't comment on forums here as I mostly agree with what the guys write but in this case I'm really annoyed with the 5/10 so I decided to comment.
And no, Halo isn't "thoroughbred gamers' " FPS. Let's continue the comparison with PES-FIFA. PES simulates football quite accurately and that's why it's played by footy lovers. The same is with Killzone, but not Halo which just screams 'see my special effects'. (in FIFA case that would be 'see the Beckham's hairdo').

Care to tell us which publication/website you do reviews for? I want to make a mental note to avoid it.

I definitely agree with a lot of the points that are raised by the reviewer, but I also think he is being unnecessarily harsh. OK, the game doesn't deliver on the hype, but the backlash this game is experienting in most internetreviews is, IMO, unwarranted.

Having finished the game a few weeks ago (on NTSC release), I wholeheartedly agree with the fact that Killzone definitely isn't the halo killer it was touted to be. However, it also is a hell of a lot better than recent EA console shooters, especially on ps2 (say, James Bond games, Medal of Honor), or Red Faction II, or...

I think that in all fairness, and according to EG's own standards, this game should've gotten a 6, or maybe a 7. The score it has now doesn't do it justice at all, especially in comparison to other games. Actually, it seems to me that EG has just tried to please the Killzone-bashing crowd out there. I expected you to do better.

'thirty seconds of fun over and over'

Argh! I wish people would stop saying this every time Halo comes up! It doesn't *mean* anything! If it's true of Halo, how is it not true of every game ever? I don't care if a Bungie developer said it in the first place, it's bollocks. Developers are just as able to talk nonsense as any of us!

Gah!

/ Feels better

Played the demo and was thinking of getting this - but not now.

Must admit though it did seem a bit slow and I couldn't get used to the re-load animations where the perspective jars to the ground whilst your soldier looks at the weapon he's loading.

I know its probably meant to highten the realism, but arn't soldiers trained to be able to reload without looking at the gun they're holding ?

God, I'm glad I got out of SCEE before this released.

Completely unsurprised it's a 5. A year ago, it was something special, and if it had been released then, it might have been a 7 or even an 8, at a push.

BTW, the 'Halo-beater' quote? There's a long and convoluted history to that, but as far as I recall, C&VG said it first; then everyone else picked up on it. No-one at Guerrilla or SCE ever said it... at least not on the record.

Of course, the phrase 'Halo-beater' was being attached to every FPS in development at one point in (about) 2002.

Actually why am I even speculating - we have Mr C&VG here at Eurogamer now - Pat, why not end speculation? :)

CG: 'thirty seconds of fun over and over'

'Argh! I wish people would stop saying this every time Halo comes up! It doesn't *mean* anything!'

It's a good way to contrast with other shooters (HL2 is the current shining example) which try to offer variety of experience: more enemies or more puzzles or more jumping or more weapons or more scripted sequences or more environments... Halo (and I assume H2, haven't played, read reviews) just try to do one thing very very well.

How much variety was there in Halo? remarkably little, but because the combat was exceptionally well implemented and because variety doesn't always imply quality, it really didn't matter. Except in the library levels, which were like karma for the rest of the game being too much fun.

' how is it not true of every game ever'

I'm assuming you mean every *shooter* ever. :) Unless there's a crazy ultra-fast-paced way of playing Civ or KOTOR that I missed.

we have Mr C&VG here at Eurogamer now - Pat, why not end speculation?

Pat worked at C&VG?! :-D

Ha ha!

/points

Khab wrote
Anyway, I've played the preview code for Killzone (as I stated in my last post), and it was tremendous fun. Granted, I only played for an hour, but it really felt like fighting in a city, really gritty. I also prefer semi-probable enemies to big blue bears on a rampage. Anyway, all I'm saying is I want to play the game and see for myself. :)

Speaks volumes that! You liked this but didn't like Halo2.
Played the demo a good while ago and unless they have made vast improvements in the AI, environments, and controls. Then this yoke couldn't hold a candle to Halo2. Different strokes I guess.

"people always take sides when it comes to different consoles"

Oh I don't think they do so much on this site, at least not the regulars. The console issue is irrelevant here, if Killzone was on Xbox and was billed as a 'Halo beater' (as Mace Griffin and Riddick both were at various points) the comaprisons would still be made.

The fact that Killzone is on PS2 adds a degree of politics to it, as the press (particularly the single format) know thay have to keep these perceived rivalries alive (and champion their own format in the case of the latter, as their sales rely on their readers not thinking there's a better console out there and juming ship) to entertain the youngsters...

Ultimately the game was hyped, Sony never said 'Oh, don't say that please!' and the vultures move in when Killzone predictably falls far short of a pretty mediocre benchmark, let alone Halo 2's...

And Bero's review for 'Horse and Hound' aside, the press have been rightly quick to stick the knives in

"And in a heated firefight there's no possible way to aim your gun with pin-point precision. You just spray. Trust me."

shut up. you don't know what the hell your talking about. just please, shut up.

"Yes, many's the time I've switched on the news to see soldiers jumping around Iraq, n00b :P"

call me crazy, but i'm sure soldiers have the ability to step over a plank of wood, or step up on a pavement?

why people are defending this crap is beyond me. as gamers, we have H2, HL2, MGS3, MP2, PP: warrior within, amongst other titles to play.
why should people punish themselves defending a crap title?

i'm sure sony regret buying guerilla now....

"How much variety was there in Halo? remarkably little, but because the combat was exceptionally well implemented and because variety doesn't always imply quality, it really didn't matter. Except in the library levels, which were like karma for the rest of the game being too much fun."

So which of my 30 seconds in Halo are we talking about? My beach assault into woods with two squads of marines at my side? My desperate race to escape the flood? The time I spent in a tank engaged in combat with Covenant air force? My time as a sniper protecting a base from dropped Covenant troops? My (entirely insane) warthog race through ancient ruins? My tooth-and-nails fight over a bridge, struggling for every foot of ground, while forces on an adjacent bridge kept up a hail of fire? Banshee dogfighting in the snow?

I just can't see how "30 seconds of fun applies".

:) = Smiley, to ensure everyone's clear this is still good-natured debate.

"I'm assuming you mean every *shooter* ever. :) Unless there's a crazy ultra-fast-paced way of playing Civ or KOTOR that I missed."

Nope, I meant every game. After all, Civ is always clicking on build cues and looking at city stats, and KOTOR is always going from NPC A to NPC B and back, and clicking on the same combat moves and force powers each fight.

My point is that, if the statement's true for Halo (and I don't think it is) then it's true for every other game too.

They just keep coming don't they!

Let it go... stop defending Killzone!!!!

I was wondering when someone would mention the mythical 'Black'. It could be the Psyclapse and Bandersnatch of this generation.

What, will you need a 64K RAM pack to play it?

This thread is rapidly degenerating IMO : way too many people here are harping on about a game they haven't even finished. But then again, games forums wouldn't be any fun if we only talked about the games we actually checked out for ourselves - e.g., we actually bothered to play beyond the demo, or the first three, four levels...

Why isn't it possible for an overhyped game to turn out, you know, just decent? Why the trashing? But hey, that's what gamers forums are all about, I guess.

I believe Johnny Minkley first used the phrase "Halo-beater" in relation to Killzone. This was after I left Dennis to launch Xbox World at Computec Media.

Yes, Blerk, I worked on CVG from 1999 to the end of 2002 for EMAP and Dennis. Your point? ;)

I guess all the arguments are out and everybody can decide. It's also true that you can't please everyone. I'm just sorry that some of the people have to rely on insults when they have nothing really constructive to say.
I still stand on the position that Halo 2 and Killzone shouldn't be compared and that Killzone is not as bad as the reviewer thinks. As the Shellshock was also mentioned in the discussion, I must say that I liked the atmosphere and find it similar to Killzone so probably there's a point of view issue here.
And no, I don't work for Guerilla or Sony.

I gonna try and stay netural here, the demo was alright and I seen some pretty bad graphical problems, enemies sinking into the floor, one of my teamates ending up to his neck in concrete. So I see what your aiming at here.

I had planned on getting it but I have ,wisely in this case, changed my mind. As FPS's go this was never gonna be a halo 1 beater never mind 2 or HL2 etc,

but it did have it's own sense of style just poorly executed I'm mean the reload animation was a nice touch, a real soilder would look while reloading I suppose and you can't go up ladders and things with a rifle in hand either, well you can but its unnecessary and difficult.

Ah well can't win them all I suppose

Yes, Blerk, I worked on CVG from 1999 to the end of 2002 for EMAP and Dennis. Your point? ;)

No point really. Just general mirth at C&VG, the gaming world's answer to Smash Hits. :-)

"I guess all the arguments are out and everybody can decide. It's also true that you can't please everyone. I'm just sorry that some of the people have to rely on insults when they have nothing really constructive to say.
I still stand on the position that Halo 2 and Killzone shouldn't be compared and that Killzone is not as bad as the reviewer thinks. As the Shellshock was also mentioned in the discussion, I must say that I liked the atmosphere and find it similar to Killzone so probably there's a point of view issue here.
And no, I don't work for Guerilla or Sony."

I didnīt insult you before you stared talking crap (the whole "I know what REAL war is REALLY about"-thing). Also, you didnt just say that you felt Killzone was better - you said that Halo was only pretty graphics and nothing more - bound to upset a few people.

(And the statement "Killzone is for war-freaks and Halo is for masses" is b-u-l-l-s-h-i-t. Like I said - Killzone has fuck-all to do with real war - and so does Halo).

Is all.

:)

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

Sony should have given this to Insomniac, I'm sure they could have made a great game :)

'So which of my 30 seconds in Halo are we talking about? My beach assault into woods with two squads of marines at my side? My desperate race to escape the flood? The time I spent in a tank engaged in combat with Covenant air force? My time as a sniper protecting a base from dropped Covenant troops? My (entirely insane) warthog race through ancient ruins? My tooth-and-nails fight over a bridge, struggling for every foot of ground, while forces on an adjacent bridge kept up a hail of fire? Banshee dogfighting in the snow? '

I remember all those except for the warthog race, which is presumably just you :) And except for the banshee dogfighting (the vehicles are a good point actually), they're all pretty similar experiences using pretty similar tactics. The 'sniper defence' devolves very quickly into a firefight, especially since you're 'sniping' with a pistol (you do mean the bit right at the beginning, no?)

And above all there are stretches and stretches and stretches of very similar corridors and grassland and corridors, and then some corridors, full of NPCs who, bless 'em, behave in a way you come to know and love. That's the Bungie magic: set up battles in different terrain with the same set of enemy and allies, concentrate on the AI and the graphics to make each of those battles fun, don't try to do different things. And season with vehicles, true.

wrt KOTOR and Civ - there are two differences.

One is instant gratification. In those other games you're often doing repetitive, only faintly interesting stuff like schlepping from A to B or tweaking tax rates, for bigger fun down the line. Halo never lets you alone to do dull stuff (except explore for the door you've missed), it keeps chucking grenades at you.

Second is strategy. In Halo you never need to think beyond a very short time frame - not quite thirty seconds in an involved fight, but not far off. You certainly don't think in terms of strategy.

The ammo and weapons thing is telling. In DX or Unreal or HL or other excellent shooters you have six or eight weapons with different ammo types that you hoard and spend. In Halo you can only have two weapons, and you conserve ammo from moment to moment, but you can always pick up more from the bodies of your enemies. You don't need to worry so much about conserving your health and armour over time, either, because of the energy shield...which takes less than thirty seconds to regenerate.

I fell over and hurt my finger.

>I remember all those except for the warthog race, which is presumably just you :) And except for the banshee dogfighting

Err... that's from Halo 2 dude

I thought you'd left me.

:)

"And except for the banshee dogfighting (the vehicles are a good point actually), they're all pretty similar experiences using pretty similar tactics."

I disagree - I found them all very different. Some were heavy-weaponed charges, some were speed-driven evasions, some were cautious sniping. I remember a brutal sequence where my vehicle got shot out from under me and I was fighting convenant artillery, tanks, and troops, *on foot* across a frozen lake. I was very careful, changed position a lot, swapped between weapons quickly, and targetted specific enemy types while moving for position. Very different from the charge up the beach or the securing of the landing zones. Halo also has the co-op option - a very different experience of the game.

"And above all there are stretches and stretches and stretches of very similar corridors and grassland and corridors, and then some corridors, full of NPCs who, bless 'em, behave in a way you come to know and love."

True of all NPCs in computer games. The ninjas in HalfLife all try to sneak up and stab you, the headcrabs all jump for your face. Samey levels are hardly unique to Halo, either. I don't even think they were that much more samey than any other shooter. I remember a lot of lab corridors in HalfLife.

"The 'sniper defence' devolves very quickly into a firefight, especially since you're 'sniping' with a pistol (you do mean the bit right at the beginning, no?) "

I do, but I had a sniper rifle. Taken from a dead soldier, I think.

"One is instant gratification. In those other games you're often doing repetitive, only faintly interesting stuff like schlepping from A to B or tweaking tax rates, for bigger fun down the line."

Of course there are differences between Civ, KOTOR and Halo. But my point is only that if Halo is the same 30 seconds of fun, so are KOTOR and Civ. And everything else. How many different activities did you do in KOTOR? How many enemies demonstrated unique forms of behaviour? I certainly found KOTOR more repetitive than Halo. Talk about your endless samey corridors. :)

"Second is strategy. In Halo you never need to think beyond a very short time frame"

But Halo isn't a strategy game. If it gets marked down for this, then Civ gets marked down for its fights being dull. However, for a shooter, I found Halo's 2-weapon limit *did* add a nice touch of strategy - which gun is likely to be more useful in this environment? How likely am I to find ammo for it? What sort of enemies am I fighting. I remember agonising over it at some points.

But this is getting off the point. I still hold that "30 seconds of fun over and over" is an entirely unhelpful description.

> Err... that's from Halo 2 dude

No it wasn't - I haven't finished Halo 2 yet. :)

I don't mean a race between 2 warthogs, I mean I was racing *on* a warthog. Against time. And, y'know, bad guys and stuff.

There's a warthog race in Halo 2?

Neat!

Framerate was steady and AI was pretty good for an FPS. Canīt see why some reviewers bash the AI. Timesplitters, Halo series and especially Doom III has quite awful AI in comparison.

Halo has worse AI than Killzone!!! :)

What absolute unadulterated rubbish......

In fairness, Halo is a bit more varied an experience than the "30 seconds" comment suggests. It was great 3 years ago, but Halo 2 has ruined it for me.

As for Killzone - surely any FPS is going to be pants with the PS2's controller.

"I've rarely been so nonplussed with a videogame. It's digital prozac."

Umm, nonplussed means to be filled with bewilderment. So I don not understand what you are saying with the prozac reference.

I think your enthusiasm's doing you a disservice. I'm *not* 'marking down' Halo for it. I think Bungie are doing one thing exceptionally well, and it's unfair to criticise Halo for not being like DX or indeed HL2. It sounds like Killzone was trying to do something very similar, so that's a fair comparison.

wrt samey enemies. The headcrabs all jump, but the zombies or the marines or the vortigaunts work completely differently. Not to mention the huge beastie you can't shoot at but can distract with grenades, the sharks or the landmines. Halo has three kinds of enemy who shoot at you and three kinds who try to melee you. The ones who shoot at you use cover intelligently and all that, so it's still fun.

'I disagree - I found them all very different. Some were heavy-weaponed charges, some were speed-driven evasions, some were cautious sniping.'

Yeah. How many *puzzles*, though? As opposed to fights? God forbid that I'm implying a game with more puzzles is necessarily better, that's patently not true, but it does mean you're doing something different more often.

'How many different activities did you do in KOTOR? How many enemies demonstrated unique forms of behaviour?'

All of them, but then I was also buying equipment, managing xp, talking to NPCs, talking to party members, solving puzzles, using non-combat Jedi powers, and so on.

Look at it this way. In DX, pick a thirty-second segment of gameplay. Now pick another nine thirty-second segments of gameplay. You may find that I'm fighting or exploring a peaceful area or hacking a lock or chatting up an NPC or shopping or whatever. In Halo I'm probably doing ten lots of shooting, chucking grenades, ducking back into cover.

The distinction between Halo and more versatile games is that you're doing the same thing, more or less, over and over again - thirty seconds of fun maybe in the versatile games, but a radically different thirty seconds of fun a lot of the time, rather than the same thirty seconds.

The distinction between Halo and similarly focused shooters is that in Halo there's considerably more chance of it being '30 seconds of fun', not '30 seconds of *meh*', repeated over and over.

' I still hold that "30 seconds of fun over and over" is an entirely unhelpful description.'

It translates to me as: we're only trying to do one thing very well, not five things quite well. It'd persuade me to buy it. :)

No point really. Just general mirth at C&VG, the gaming world's answer to Smash Hits. :-)

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.

Laugh if you like, but it shook a few trees back then.

Now, on the other hand....

"wrt samey enemies. The headcrabs all jump, but the zombies or the marines or the vortigaunts work completely differently. Not to mention the huge beastie you can't shoot at but can distract with grenades, the sharks or the landmines. Halo has three kinds of enemy who shoot at you and three kinds who try to melee you."

Hey - if you ignore everything that makes Halo's enemies different and generalise them in "melee" and "shoot" enemies, they *do* sound samey! And if you put them next to individually named enemies from Half-Life, Halo's sound even worse! I'd never noticed that!

:)

The jackals in Halo carry huge shields and use them for cover while shooting. The grunts are cowardly and flee whenever something doesn't go their way. The elites are quick, aggressive, and have regenerating force fields. Thats 3 "shoot" enemies with different behaviour. The "melee" types include Hunters, who have huge shields that make them immune to basic frontal weapons fire and splash-damage ranged weapons, and who do these terrifying close-range charges. The basic flood do headcrab jumping. The bulgy-mutant Flodd thingies stumble towards you and blow up.

Halo's enemies are just as diverse as Half-Life's.

And now I'm arguing that Halo is great, which isn't my point. I *do* like it, but that's not my issue. I don't think it's the best shooter ever.

"Yeah. How many *puzzles*, though? As opposed to fights? God forbid that I'm implying a game with more puzzles is necessarily better, that's patently not true, but it does mean you're doing something different more often. "

Fair enough. Halo doesn't do puzzles. But Half-Life (and lots of other shooters) don't have vehicles.

Let's try and cut to the wotsit. You get thirty seconds of Halo on foot with marines, thirty seconds alone in a tank, thirty seconds being gunner in a warthog, and thirty alone in a locked room against a hundred Flood.

Do you consider these four things the same gameplay experience? If you don't think that's varied enough to count as anything other than "the same 30 seconds of fun over and over", then fairy nuff. We've got different definitions of "same" and are unlikely to cross the divide.

Although, if you do, then I still don't understand how any other shooter (leave HL2 out of it, if you'd be so good - firstly I've not played it and so
can't usefully comment, and secondly it has the advantage of having been out last week, and is based on newer, more advanced tech than Halo, which is what? 3 years old? I'm not sure the comparison is fair. Especially, as I understand it, HL2 is the Game of Games) can be excused from the same complaint.

I'd argue that the same can be said of any other game, shooter or not, since, f'rex, I don't see that clicking on dialogue options and clicking on a limited set of combat moves in KOTOR represents more diverse gameplay than Halo's weapons, varying situations, and vehicles. Since we lack any means of quantifying this, I guess you could take either side. What's important, though is that I'm right.

"look at it this way. In DX, pick a thirty-second segment of gameplay. Now pick another nine thirty-second segments of gameplay. You may find that I'm fighting or exploring a peaceful area or hacking a lock or chatting up an NPC or shopping or whatever. In Halo I'm probably doing ten lots of shooting, chucking grenades, ducking back into cover. "

What you won't be doing in DE, though, is taking to the skies in a banshee, driving a tank, or doing a timed escape in a jeep through an exploding spaceship. Same in KOTOR, where your interaction with the world is (a) clicking a dialogue option, or (b) clicking an attack ability.

Halo is more focussed in the activities you undertake, sure, but the plus side of that is that you get more of them. It's just that they're all combat-based.

I guess if your definition of different requires you have noncombat stuff, fair enough. But the downside of *that* is you lose vehicles, or squad battles, or different tactical objectives, or whatever.

Good god..

/hands out awards for longest replies

No point really. Just general mirth at C&VG, the gaming world's answer to Smash Hits. :-)

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.

It's true.

I wonder if they are ever going to hire a replacement.

Edit: This site needs an html help guide ;)

OHHH, best comment section since GTA!
This'll be good. :D
I must say, have lost respect for the the dutch press though. They're usually the first ones to ripp into the shitty games dutch developers try to putt out there but now they were aperently blinded by the nice screenshots.
Power Unlimeted even dared to say "No, we're not marking it up becuase it's dutch, it's just that good!"
-8.9
And everywhere you look, one negative review after the other, even IGN slagged it off.
Credibitlity minus a 100.

Feanor: nonplussed means 'not to have words to express'. I think what it was trying to say was the game is... Meh.

I played through it with Rico because I couldn't be bothered repeating the levels endlessly with the other characters (they die too quickly). The characters could have been used much better, mainly Hacka could have cloaking skills or something like that.

The AI is the most pathetic I've seen recently, the gameplay overall is really repetitive and the frame rate sucks but the graphics are really good.

If they had tried to do something like the original Medal of Honour on th PS1 it would suit the game really well, unfortunately they went for the 'shoot everything on screen' approach and even that isn't done that great.

Maybe an extra point wouldn't hurt though..

Res Corr, I take it you HAVE played (and completed) a final build of the game? Or are you just defending it because OP2M told you to defend it?

A nice reply to Ress Cor:

First of all it would have been nice if you had "died laughing" and saved us more Killzone thread pain.

"You did not review the final build" Yep, boxed copy, right here. Want proof? I also played the preview build for the first four chapters, so am in a good position to see how things have changed.

"You're too poor to own a good TV" Erm, sorry dude. 50" Tosh Plasma not good enough for you?

"Angry at playing a hard game" Erm, no level took more than an hour, most took about 40 mins.

And you have a personal invite to come round my house and kick my arse!

If you have a router you should be able to just plug the xbox network cable into the back of the router. If it is a router it normally will have 4 or so ethernet type sockets. Many routers have a DMZ option that you can use to tell the router to turn off all the fiddly security stuff like NAT and allow a direct connection - not recommended for the PC connection tho.

edit - just looked at the BT site - it only has one ethernet connection. BT say its suitable for games consoles so there should be a way of disabling NAT etc.

BTW if you post this question on the eurogamer forum - link on the menu above, then someone else might be able to help you out.