What I gather from reviews is that the game's single player seems so well designed for a co-op implementation that its lack thereof makes little sense. But does the lack of co-op merit point deductions? I say only if the lack of co-op makes the single player campaign less enjoyable. If not, then it shouldn't matter.
"But not many seem eager to point out all the obvious flaws that detract from what could have been a fantastic experience. A real shame."
It's a good thing this site decided to take it upon themselves to point out those "obvious flaws" that other sites are too... afraid? ..to point out. Those flaws include not being able to play the cutscenes, team can't revive you, the AI gets tougher as you play, and it won't "reach the pinnacle of the Call of Duty seri...
Innovative, if not groundbreaking. EA is really pushing the boundaries of video game technology with Madden. Maybe next year they can make the football solid matter that doesn't just just phase through players (they haven't been able to solve this problem since Madden 97).
To me, Medal of Honor on Playstation was far ahead of its time... that game took the FPS genre in a new direction by showing how polishing a proven formula can do wonders.. where do you think CoD came from? Also, I think Red Faction on PS2 deserves far more credit than it gets... great game.
Honestly I would prefer a beautiful OLED screen in favor of touch screen. Or even more wishfully, a flexible OLED psp2! Too bad OLED technology is largely in the R&D cycle and is still a ways off from commercial mass production...
"This is not the first time that this has happened, Sony engineers did a great job of designing the walkman until Apple came along and gave them a software lesson that was more about designing an IPod that was consumers friendly and easy to use than the Walkman. Now Nintendo has done the same but this time in the gaming market."
Lol this is possibly the most incoherent and nonsensical claim I've heard in a while. Setting aside the grammatical errors, the example he use...
This is a poorly written article. I'm also tired of reading short three or four paragraph articles that only speculate and come to illusory conclusions that any thirteen year old child could make. Substantial articles with real depth to them are far and few in "gaming journalism". It's a shame. These are a couple articles on the front page of N4G that show what I'm talking about:
only three SHORT paragraphs at that. Odds are they didn't play the game. Even if it was a flop, they hated it, or just thought it sucked... a game of this magnitude would take more than three paragraphs to review.
What's the significance of real-time raytracing? I've heard it's an advanced technique that's hard to do... but what exactly makes real-time raytracing good?
I was in the beta and the controller layouts are all standard FPS layouts... nothing out of the ordinary, just pick one you're used to and adapt. To me, the only aspect that would kill a shooting game is if there is invert aim and you can't change it (try playing Rainbow Six for the PS1 now.. not easy lol)
"We’ve watched as gaming has grown to become the biggest economic force in entertainment." and @oysters "...second class citizens of the entertainment world when we actually lead it."
I'm not sure here, but I would say the biggest economic force in entertainment would be movies. If you include money generated from the box office I think it's larger economic force than gaming. I could be wrong, so if someone knows otherwise please correct me.
you could call me old school... 'cause I think parents and schools should teach children. If the parents/schools are doing their job, then kids will learn from games on their own.
is a long way off from being commercially practical. OLED TVs will dominate the market by 2010... If not for their ability to reproduce color and motion (which is amazing) then for their energy efficiency.
"But the obvious lack of consistency in reviews is my point."
I 100% agree. If Gears, CoD, R2 had all been criticized for something, and Killzone 2 is doing the same thing.. then yes, criticize the hell out of it. Inconsistency is the perfect word for this preview.
It's one thing to knock a game on it's own merit. Some people don't like certain things and others do, that's life. But to criticize Killzone 2 for something that CoD4 did the entire game and received no criticism for it being selective. For instance, "So why is it so dull to play through? It's because the enemies come in waves – with no real variety within their ranks..." As I recall, CoD4 enemies came in wave after wave in just about every firefight, and after you killed an enemy ...
WOW... That's like sex for my eyes! Watching these makes me miss my ps3 though... it was stolen the day before Thanksgiving *sighs*
The fact this guy can't discern between the correct use of 'to' and 'too' lends little to his credibility: "From a distance the game certainly looks nice, and maintains some level of appealing grit, but when you get up close to things they tend too look generic." Also, I'm in the beta and I've played through Resistance 2. R2 is a beautiful game in my opinion. But to honestly compare the textures in R2 and Killzone 2 is just nonsensical. I could on about the fallacies of this guys ar...
You know... Killzone 2 might just have some competition in the graphics department after all. Damn these screens looks good.