Just as I start to wane on my Killzone 2 multiplayer addiction, they drop the first batch of DLC. The Steel & Titanium pack adds two new maps - Vekta Cruiser and Wasteland Bullet to the fold.
The good news is that both maps are rock solid. They're visually distinct and play extremely well. Clearly a lot of work went into the design of them and they add some great content to the fold.
I question whether $6 is a fair asking price for what amounts to a couple of new levels and trophies to prove you're playing them. Perhaps this is because I'm used to the PC world where companies like Epic would toss entire bonus packs to the community free of charge, and so spending over a fiver for gameplay which only takes a couple of hours to run through.
If you're a KZ2 fan, you've probably already bought it. I'd love to see some DLC which eventually adds new weapons or abilities, obviously. Some of this is because while the design of playing for unlockables is great, there's less desire to play when you've unlocked most of them.
Thumb sideways here.
Friday, May 01, 2009
Game Play: Killzone 2's Steel & Titanium Pack
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Game Play: Killzone 2 Multiplayer
I've finally had a bit of a chance to dig into Killzone 2's online features. To give a quick summary, it's a pretty sound achievement. I've had little problem getting into nearly full servers and the multiple objectives manage to keep the games fresh and interesting (though for the deathmatch fans out there, there's also plenty of servers which are purely deathmatch based).
It's an excellent portion to an already excellent game and impressively visual for an online experience. My real caveats is that some of the maps seem to be hobbled by some crucial choke points. More than a few matches seemed to be mostly about getting out of the spawn area alive than completing goals. And while the squad system adds quite a lot to the game - the matchmaking system doesn't always seem to compensate. When you're getting trampled by guys with rocket launchers and heavy machine guns, the match loses a certain amount of appeal.
That said, as some Tan readers know - I used to do Unreal mods as a hobby. From a modder perspective, the online portion is somewhat interesting.
For one thing, the concept of having multiple objectives on a single map isn't outright new. I knew modders who had been playing around with the concept at least since UT2003, if not earlier. The fact that we're really just seeing the idea come out commercially now is, to me at least, a factor of how much mods became commercialized after Counter-Strike got boxed and how little attention had been served to new gameplay innovations (which is where modding originated).
One of the main issues with placing multiple goals on the same map is that the map layout needs to appease all those goals. Traditionally deathmatch maps are rather blockish with plenty of avenues, capture the flag maps are more or less narrow and mirrored, domination/king of the hill maps are open with specifically designed zones, etc. Choke points aside, the level design handles a lot of requirements extremely well.
I'm moving into moderate addiction mode already, highly recommend.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Game Play: Killzone 2 First Look
Well the preorder did come on time and since I was pretty much brainfried when I got home on Friday, it was perfect timing. Killzone 2 was just what the doctor would have ordered, if the doctor was a gaming freak without a medical license.
There has been a lot of noise about reviewing Killzone 2, and I've already talked about that to some length. Now having played at least a fistful of the game, that being a portion of the single player, the whole thing is even more ridiculous.
It's true, Killzone 2 doesn't innovate. However since it belongs in a genre which only seems to try to be truly innovative every couple years or so, let's just hold that remark in check for a moment.
The first thing you'll notice about the game is that it is extremely attractive. It falls into the kind of level design which is trying for highly realistic locations, and very few of them "feel like a level", so to speak, although the occasional "I bet you know what will happen when you walk into that room" still occurs. The areas are dense with objects, and honestly the game throws so much visual information at you that at times you may forget to blink. This especially true once you start shooting the whole thing up.
While gritty and realistic, the design can also be somewhat monochromatic and dark. Granted, you're in a killzone and not a forest reserve or whatnot, but it does setup the reason that even though pretty ridiculous from a logical point of view, you'll be darn glad the Helghast decided to put those funky red lights on all their helmets. While it seems like pretty silly military decision, it sure beat being sniped from the shadows for hours on end.
For most of the game, you'll go from point A to point B, killing everything in between, and then occasionally hunker down in point C to kill things that come at you.
Never let it be said this game is not aptly named.
A huge hinge of the game is the cover mechanic, and for me is where some of the beauty and some of the problems lie. To do it completely, you'll be pushing L2 to keep close to your cover, pull the L stick to poke around, probably hit R3 in order to get zoomed in, and then fire with R1.
It takes a little getting used to - and the payoff isn't insanely great. It works, and it works in an amazing number of situations which lend to the complexities of the game, but as mechanics go it is neither crisp nor smooth. Yet, at the same, that kind of works for me, because some of the button press methods I've seen other games, which simplify the process ... well ... they don't stress me out. I'm not a fan of Killzone's because it makes me work, but I oddly like it because it makes me think, and if I absent mindedly do something wrong - I get shot up for it.
Which is why Killzone 2 really works for me. It's not a "thinking man's shooter" or some such nonsense, but like many successful games in the genre, you do get farther if you think about the scenario. There are times when taking cover makes sense, there are times when rushing makes sense, and there are times when backtracking to get that sniper rifle makes sense.
It's not a perfect shooter. It's certainly not the most unique one. It's not a Halo killer or Gears of War killer. But it is really, really good one and it should be recognized as such. It's a top tier rendition of the FPS genre and can safely rub shoulders with the big guys. If I had to sum it up, I'd say someone took the original Killzone, slammed it alongside Criterion's Black and expanded the whole into a deep and engaging arena. I don't care that Killzone 2 doesn't break the mold, because I am too damn busy shooting the hell out the mold to notice.
OK, off to travel now. Will try multiplayer in a few weeks when I'm back in the country.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Edge Of Controversy
I almost commented on this before, except I find it rather hard to give a damn.
Edge gave Killzone 2 a 7 out of 10. Which honestly, I have no idea if that's a valid score or not - I have not played the game nor have I tried the demo (and don't me started on gamers acting like they're an authority on a game based on a demo). The review resulted in a flame war of hilarious proportions, recommended reading if there ever was such a thing for the genre.
Whether the game is good or not, or justifies the score, can't really say. But the review itself sucked. Even if it is an honest opinion of the game, it just isn't very good writing.
Here is an example:
Right. A rare treat except GoldenEye. If you haven't played the umpteen military based shooters created since Counter-Strike went commercial, the vast majority of them utilizing increasingly more sophisticated ragdoll tech. A paragraph like this makes me think the writer (although technically here it is writers - it apparently took the entire Edge staff to produce this gem) just wants the reader to know: I played GoldenEye.
Which especially sad if that is supposed to count as old school in some way.
Example 2:
The "neat trick" was really "just another character", of course. And, what is exactly is supposd to be "gaming's latest obsession"? Foul-mouthed main characters? Maybe it's a "games that like to be more like Gears Of War's latest obsession," or "there was a lot of swearing in GTA IV, so we can do it too" kind of thing - but it's not like Flower features a cursing petal or anything. As obsessions go, there's nothing in that quote that really makes sense to gaming in general.
And the problem here is that Edge seems to be going out of its way to prove Killzone 2 to be banal. I'm half-surprised they didn't complain about the use of guns in a game.
Leading us to my favorite part:
Can someone tell me what exactly is wrong with sentry bots? Fallout 3 had a decent number of them, and other than their tendency to shoot large rockets in my direction - I never thought to myself, "wow, how unimaginative." I mean how about "another alien race based vaguely on insects" (Gears Of War), or "another alien race based vaguely on vampires/zombies/goth monsters" (Uh, also, Gears Of War), or how about a "men in the future will be roided out soldiers in large metal suits, using equipment with randomly placed LED lights" (You get the point).
And I'm not suggesting that Gears Of War was cliche or unimaginative, I'm just saying that the shooter genre has so many building blocks that get swapped around, it isn't very useful to point something like, "they used robots" as a part of a critique. Does Edge knock every game for using a cinematic that evokes a scene from a Valve game? No? Then shut the hell up.
Sentry bots. Edge goes on about sentry bots, but for the actual multiplayer portion of the game, we get:
Separate development of the multiplayer modes has paid dividends, the badge and perks systems adding distinctive RPG flavour to a uniquely hardcore team-based experience.
And that's it. Which tells me nothing new that I didn't already know from the dozen Killzone 2 previews out there. I know someone who writes movie reviews not by watching movies, but by reading other reviews and paraphrasing them.
I'm not suggesting that Edge did that. But if they did, it would possibly would have been a better review.
I did like this portion:
Mostly because I've played FEAR and I've played Black, and so I understand what is being said. Oddly though, it's about the only part of the review well written and really, really made me want to play the game.
(Oh, and for anyone wanting to respond with some nitpicky response pointing out a grammar or spelling error, so how is it I get to be all high and mighty about writing - the answer is simple. I don't get paid for this. They do. And also, bite me.)
Posts
