Hype only leads to disappointment. Best AI ever? Best graphics ever? Best story ever? Best multi-player ever?
The first "review" says that it is better than Gears 2. That's calling it a Gears killer.
The hype is too high.
EGM responds to reader mail with insults. They cherry pick the worst letters and poke fun at them. They think you are dumb and that they, themselves, are super stars.
They insult their readers, don't bathe, use vulgar language, make themselves to be rock stars, etc. I'm glad to see them gone.
Sony fans are looking more and more like religious Nintendo fanboys. Facts, fun, or innovation don't matter. As long as it's Mario, it's AAA material.
Killzone 2 has exposed the Sony bias.
I thought the whole purpose of a demo was to try it before buying it?
My point about the textures was that they were the best of the best at the time. That was the reason for the repeat/backtracking of a few maps. If you create new geometry, you would want new textures.
Regarding the Library: it has become en vogue to criticize it. It wasn't that bad. Being led by 343 Guilty Spark through the varied corridors was very cool.
For example, if you count trolls on screen, there are over 4000. These 4000 trolls fight independently. This is impressive AI on a large scale.
What, specifically, can you say that Killzone 2 does which demonstrates great AI? Taking cover, dodging bullets, and moving around in the environment are fundamental to any gun fight.
...it met and exceeded our expectations. Halo 3 deserved the hype. 4 player co-op, forge, and the ability to record everything you do in any mode.
Lazy level design in Halo 1? The levels were on a scale never before realized in an FPS. Instead of dark corridors, you had bright sunny outdoors. The textures were all normal maps which were state of the art in 2001. The textures were hi-res and you could stand in front of a wall with a sniper, zoom in and not see any pixels.
On top of all that, you could "go anywhere" on the maps. No invisible walls.
Maybe you're thinking of Prince of Persia? That's lazy ...
How does Killzone 2 look any different than CoD4? Yet, many of you are saying that the graphics are the best ever created.
I want to play the game to see if the hype matches the actual game. I am curious, but not convinced to spend the money on a PS3.
I'm a squirrel.
They really need to change the name. How about CrimeSpree?
I only own a 360 and will never buy a PS3. I guess there's some "bias" there. But, from this perspective, I see PS3 owners missing out on amazing games like Halo or Gears, and then make crazy claims about Killzone 2. (Before they have actually played it.)
So, they haven't played any 360 shooters, and then they say that a future game they haven't played is going to be better. On top of that, KZ2 is a sequel to a mediocre FPS.
In games like Fallout, or Fable, a few seconds means alot when you are jumping back and forth on a map.
I guess Sony fans don't need evidence. There is no evidence of amazing AI. The article gave none, either.
The article says that the AI will be a "new standard for the industry". It then says, "The AI will take cover, take advantage of your disadvantages and move around the environment so as to get out of your line of fire, even if they're in cover."
Halo 1 did all of that.
Overhyped.
They were both marketed heavily to mainstream audiences. Gears is particularly a good example since it was a totally new IP. MS had trailers in movie theaters for Gears.
People keep talking about how it looks amazing, but I don't see it. It looks no different than Call of Duty 4. The lighting and fire effects look mediocre.
The good thing about CoD4 was that it ran at 60 fps. If KZ2 runs at that speed, it will make up for the poor lighting.
Why spend $30 million to make another Zelda when you can spend $1 million to make another Mario Cart or "Wii BS" game?
They will use the next Zelda to launch a new console.