Herman Hulst FTW and why Rico shouldn't revive you.

Let me begin by saying that Herman Hulst (Guerilla Games' Managing Director working on Killzone 3) has to be the best spokesperson alive, gaming or otherwise. The level of confidence he exudes is spellbinding! Did you see him on Sony's E3 stage? He was brilliant. He honestly looks like he could have starred in Terminator... in terms of tech specs, his mug seems to indicate he is an even more advanced unit than Arnold. I would do or buy anything he told me to. That reminds me, not enough people bought Killzone 2, that game was amazing.

Moving on.

Rico shouldn't be reviving us in Killzone 3. This new "feature" of Rico's was recently unveiled at E3 2010 and I'm far from convinced it's a good idea. Did you ever play Prince of Persia (PS3/X360)? Well, there was this ethereal helper you had that refused to let you fall (she caught you) during any of the games platforming sections (did I mention it was a platformer?). Keeps the flow, for sure, but if games like Demon's Souls have taught us anything, it's that people, to some extent, appreciate the value of punishment for failure. We like dying because when we finally do beat a section or boss (or whatever) we feel like we've accomplished something. Is that really so hard to understand? I don't expect games to exhibit the extraordinarily high level of difficulty present in Demon's Souls, but that's not to say the other extreme is the only other option. If you are anywhere near what one might consider a core gamer, than I doubt you would get very much gratification from beating a game that "went easy on you".
Punishment for poor performance (ie. dying) has a value in the video game experience. Prince of Persia threw that out, and it seriously tarnished the gaming experience for me (although to be fair I didn't like the game much in the first place, even though IGN, reputable game journalism site indeed, gave it a 9.4). Now Killzone 3 is about to do the same.
This seems to be a reaction to the bellyaching of gamers everywhere over the idiotic, unlikeably and useless Rico (your partner for much of Killzone 2). He didn't ever seem to kill anyone, was controlled by terrible AI, often got stuck in places where he would simply absorb bullets and scream in agony, and would die frequently. What's worse, when he died, for whatever reason I (we?) felt compelled to revive him despite his many faults because he might distract gunfire from us. Unfortunately, every revive for this sad reason only fueled the hate for Rico. Over and over we were confronted with the task of bringing back some annoying brute from the dead just because he would absorb bullets and that *might* be helpful to us.
Baffling, indeed it is, that the game design choice of allowing Rico to revive the player mid-battle is meant to be a response to charges that he was "useless" in KZ2. When confronted by interviewers with the Rico hate, they respond enthusiastically that they have remedied the problem! And yet, they seem to have missed the point entirely. Giving Rico the "use" of being able to revive you is far from what I would have thought should have been the reaction to peoples complaints. Just give him a better personality, better aim and better AI, don't make him an instrument to make the rest of the game easier! It's looking as though in their attempt to fix one ailing element of gameplay thay have threatened another.

But still, Herman Hulst is great.