To Those Who Accuse Killzone of Being Generic

  • 112 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by BluRayHiDef (10837 posts) -

Killzone, in my opinion, is just as unique as any of the other major shooters, such as Halo, Call of Duty, and Battlefield.

1. Halo is a fast paced space shooter that relies on exaggerated jumping mechanics, requires very fast reaction times, and features plasma/ thermal-energy projectile weapons.

2. Call of Duty is also a fast paced shooter, but is very realistic in regard to its setting and weapons (i.e. ordinary bullet-firing weapons/ virtual models of actual weapons).

3. Battlefield is a realistically paced shooter, also with a realistic setting and realistic weapons, but it's set apart from other shooters by its large maps and 64 player count.

Killzone is unlike any of these games. So, why do people always call it generic? It's quite sluggish compared to them all. Its weapons are unlike those in Halo in that even though they're futuristic, they mainly rely on bullets instead of plasma/ thermal-energy, and they're also unlike those in Call of Duty in that even though they mainly fire bullets, their designs are unlike modern weaponry. It's unlike Battlefield for the same reasons it's unlike Call of Duty.

So, once again, what's up with the 'generic' argument?

#2 Posted by Sushiglutton (5171 posts) -

"Generic" is one of the laziest criticisms in gaming. If you ignored it 100% of the time you would be close to optimal.

#3 Edited by dommeus (9097 posts) -
#4 Edited by BluRayHiDef (10837 posts) -

@dommeus said:

@BluRayHiDef: why does it matter?

Why does asking anything about video games on a gaming board matter? Gee, I don't know.

#5 Posted by DanteSuikoden (3418 posts) -

People are still feeling the effects of being Killzowned back in 09. One of the main symptoms was extreme damage control which is why people always throw around the word generic whenever Killzone is mentioned.

#6 Posted by spike6958 (4650 posts) -

Any game that's an FPS is instantly called generic with no logical thought or reason, because it's currently the most common genre.

#7 Edited by PyratRum (520 posts) -

I wouldn't call it generic but it's not exactly original either. I've always enjoyed the series for its "heavy" gunplay and gritty military sci-fi setting.

#8 Edited by Blabadon (25183 posts) -

Meh, I don't see what's generic about it really. It's a more-than-solid FPS with its own special brand of military sci-fi warfare. Beyond that, it would be harder to see what line would constitute generic anyways.

#9 Posted by BluRayHiDef (10837 posts) -

@Blabadon: My point exactly. There's nothing generic about it, but whenever a thread about it or the PS4 is made, you see a bunch of haters come in and call it generic. It's ridiculous.

#10 Edited by jun_aka_pekto (15724 posts) -

I dunno. Once I played a a number of FPS games, I mentally start grouping them into their similarities such as mission layout, size of map, invisible walls, mission progression, etc in the SP campaign. There's a number of them that have the same general formula: CoD, Crysis 2, KZ2 n KZ3, Metro, Hard Reset. I don't have a 360 and thus, never played any of the Halo games long enough to have a basis.

The only unique FPS games I've seen are STALKER n Far Cry 3, and to a smaller extent, Crysis/Warhead. To me, Far Cry 3 would be an example of what I'd like an FPS game to be. But, that's not to say I don't enjoy "generic" FPS games. On the contrary, I had fun with all the games I mentioned above.

Being "generic" doesn't mean it's not fun.

#11 Posted by -Snooze- (7304 posts) -

What you described as KZ sounds just like battlefield ... But with Space marines

#12 Edited by lensflare15 (6163 posts) -

It's an easy dismissal of a FPS console exclusive, at least for fanboys.

#13 Posted by psymon100 (6138 posts) -

Well, Haze felt really special.

#14 Posted by BluRayHiDef (10837 posts) -

@-Snooze-: Killzone plays very differently than Battlefield. As mentioned in the OP, KZ is slower paced and sports futuristic weaponry. On the other hand, Battlefield is a bit faster paced (though not too fast like COD or Halo) and sports modern/ realistic weaponry. It also has larger maps and more players, as well as vehicles (e.g. jets, tanks, go-carts, etc). They're nothing alike.

#15 Posted by dommeus (9097 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef said:

@dommeus said:

@BluRayHiDef: why does it matter?

Why does asking anything about video games on a gaming board matter? Gee, I don't know.

Yeah but, why do you care what people label Killzone? I'm not judging your hobby (f*ck, it's my hobby too), but I just don't understand why you would post this here?

Let's be honest, you, like most users, will refuse to listen to reason, and will repeat yourself ad nauseum until the topic is forgotten. Then, a month or two from now, you will make the same topic, and do exactly the same thing.

System wars.

#16 Edited by -Snooze- (7304 posts) -

@-Snooze-: Killzone plays very differently than Battlefield. As mentioned in the OP, KZ is slower paced and sports futuristic weaponry. On the other hand, Battlefield is a bit faster paced (though not too fast like COD or Halo) and sports modern/ realistic weaponry. It also has larger maps and more players, as well as vehicles (e.g. jets, tanks, go-carts, etc). They're nothing alike.

I disagree. They're both quite slow paced, well KZ2 was. KZ3 felt more like COD in space, as opposed to BF in space. BF has vehicles too, they're just not space mariney, the gameplay was still very a like(KZ2) The setting is generic, just a bunch of space marines, and the gameplay is generic too, especially KZ3 was was just a very average game. KZ2 however had a nice unique sense of weight to everything.

#18 Posted by drekula2 (1880 posts) -

First person shooters are like cheap cologne. They're all the same and they stink.

#19 Edited by Rocker6 (13358 posts) -

I don't know, I just find it painfully average. KZ games are decent FPS, but nothing more. If they weren't exclusive, I think critic reception would've been much colder, they'd quickly get lost in the sea of more competent competitors.

#20 Posted by tormentos (16389 posts) -

"Generic" is one of the laziest criticisms in gaming. If you ignored it 100% of the time you would be close to optimal.

Yep and will apply even to Halo which many accuse of copying half life and other FPS.

Is basically a stigma any shooter for PS is generic it doesn't matter it could be the very best ever and it will still be call generic,in fact Killzone 2 gameplay was so difference from COD or Halo it wasn't even funny to compare it,the game took time to master the weight feel was something that set it apart from Halo more floaty gameplay or COD 40 MPH gameplay.

Resistance was more fast paced,and was always say to be COD with aliens,never mind that UT was also fast paced to so were other FPS before COD,which was basically a world war game of the ton when it hit.

Resistance had some of the most coolest weapons i have ever seen on a FPS,like the Auger that deployed a shield and actually could go trough walls,i remember when i played online when you were a chimera you could actually turn your special ability on and you could see trough wall and if you had the Auger you finish people without even exposing your self to fire,problem was that activating the special power over heated you and your energy started to drain so a simple shot could kill you or even if you just did not turn it off.
The Bullseye was also incredible once tag it was impossible to escape,all the bullets would fly to you even if you moved to other place.

Generic is a term that apply to basically any game now,few games really innovate this days,and those that bring something is not something big.

#21 Edited by jun_aka_pekto (15724 posts) -

Some of the criticism about an FPS game being generic stems from having a similar "corridor" style of environment, be it invisible walls or unclimbable buildings/cliffs, especially in the SP campaigns. Then there's the requisite rail shooting sequence and/or QT events. KZ 2 and 3 also added the blasted Six-axis sequences which to me, are pretty useless. I hate Six-axis with a passion.

#22 Edited by stereointegrity (10668 posts) -

#23 Posted by BluRayHiDef (10837 posts) -
#24 Edited by k2theswiss (16598 posts) -

someone hasn't played halo... I played 1-2 ones, and it felt nothing special, Maybe for it's time as I did play them in 2011. I had no intention playing 3 due to experience with 1-2. Anyways i will say new killzone does look nice in graphic wise, but true question is it special? If it was special i might be leaning towards a ps4 vs a x1 right now but i rather play cod/bf4 over it any day

#25 Posted by BluRayHiDef (10837 posts) -

someone hasn't played halo... I played 1-2 ones, and it felt nothing special, Maybe for it's time as I did play them in 2011. I had no intention playing 3 due to experience with 1-2. Anyways i will say new killzone does look nice in graphic wise, but true question is it special? If it was special i might be leaning towards a ps4 vs a x1 right now but i rather play cod/bf4 over it any day

COD and BF4 will both be available on PS4, so why would they be reasons to get an X1 over a PS4?

#26 Edited by RimacBugatti (1170 posts) -

To be honest in my opinion Halo was very basic. Gameplay was lame and visually I was not impressed. Killzone is unique in comparison. unfortunately some people are afraid of change and that's what Sony offers with their Playstation consoles. I myself enjoy innovation and creativity and that's why I preordered PS4 because it looks to offer some new experiences. Yes Xbox was trying to offer something different but what they were trying to offer doesn't appeal to gamers as much as it appealed to households as far as providing similar experiences as a computer. So why wouldn't they just stick with a computer. Xbox in my opinion isn't competing with PS4 because PS4 is a gaming console as for Xbox One is an entertainment device. And Tablets don't compete with consoles because a Tablet is not a gaming device nor does it offer a gaming experience. True gamers are Playstation fans. Gaming is gaming and unfortunately PC as well doesn't offer some of the awesome games that you can get on Playstation. Overall Playstation stands for what gaming has always been. I myself will be disappointed when they get away from consoles which I think they will be doing ion the near future.

#27 Posted by FoxbatAlpha (5882 posts) -

I think when most people say generic, they mean it sux.

#28 Edited by Demonjoe93 (9403 posts) -

Because the vast majority of them are stupid fanboys who have either not played the game or not played enough of it to have an accurate opinion of it. It's just like @Sushiglutton said in this thread about "generic" being a lazy criticism towards a game. "Generic" is one of the biggest cop-out excuses fan boys use here to bash a game that's not on their system.

#29 Posted by lockjaw333 (1741 posts) -

I wouldn't say its generic....I just think the series isn't good.

#30 Posted by k2theswiss (16598 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef: there is more reasons why im leaning more towards a x1 then ps4 then just some multiples...

#31 Posted by funsohng (27456 posts) -

Killzone isn't really generic; it's just not that good.

The controls are atrocious for the most part when compared to other games, and single player campaign is interesting at best.

#32 Posted by BluRayHiDef (10837 posts) -

@k2theswiss: Tell me your reasons for getting an X1 instead of a PS4?

#33 Edited by I_can_haz (6447 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef: Here on SW people call any game they don't like "generic". You have to remember most of the people that post here aren't too bright. They like to use words most of the time that they don't know the meaning of just to sound cool to their peers. Killzone is not generic, if people want to call it generic because it is an FPS set in a war zone then every other FPS out there is generic (Arma, BF, Halo, Titanfall, etc. are just as generic as KZ then).

#34 Posted by cain006 (8625 posts) -

It's just a lazy way to say that they didn't enjoy the game.

#35 Posted by k2theswiss (16598 posts) -

@k2theswiss: Tell me your reasons for getting an X1 instead of a PS4?

  1. the most simple and currently the games right out the gate or near future
    1. dead rising 3
    2. possibly fable legends enjoyed 1/2 not so much 3 so i give it other chance if i like what i see
    3. titanfall
    4. halo 5
  2. halo is one of my favorite series
  3. xbox live has ruled this gen just like last gen, Sony has been working to improve psn, but still hasn't caught up yet. Hopfuly sony can bring some heat to ms this time around, It be better for everyone
  4. i like idea of kinect being included in every box and this time it's not just a add on
  5. i mostly end up with both either way down the road
#36 Posted by remiks00 (1529 posts) -

Personally, I never gave Killzone a chance until a few months ago (killzone 3). I've always viewed it as Sony's attempt at creating a "Halo killer". I must say, that I'm glad I gave it a chance but it's a very fun game. It has a unique style of gameplay with the weight of the guns, and the classes. I love the multiplayer. I'm tired of the Halo series myself, so I was open to change. Halo really isn't all that great anymore tbh, especially after experiencing 4. The series has been milked to death, and it's showing. I was a huge Gears fan this gen also, but they don't need to make another one of those either. But it's going to happen...

#37 Posted by Couth_ (9915 posts) -

It's generic. Every FPS game is generic at this point. Most good games are generic anyway. Games that try to break out of a mould usually end up being awful

#38 Posted by Bigboi500 (28804 posts) -

Forgettable might be a better description, at least for past games in the series. Who knows, maybe this one will be more memorable.

#39 Posted by speedfreak48t5p (6131 posts) -

@drekula2 said:

First person shooters are like cheap cologne. They're all the same and they stink.

Just like stealth games.

#40 Edited by Jebus213 (8702 posts) -

Killzone, in my opinion, is just as unique as any of the other major shooters, such as Halo, Call of Duty, and Battlefield.

1. Halo is a fast paced space shooter that relies on exaggerated jumping mechanics, requires very fast reaction times, and features plasma/ thermal-energy projectile weapons.

2. Call of Duty is also a fast paced shooter, but is very realistic in regard to its setting and weapons (i.e. ordinary bullet-firing weapons/ virtual models of actual weapons).

3. Battlefield is a realistically paced shooter, also with a realistic setting and realistic weapons, but it's set apart from other shooters by its large maps and 64 player count.

Killzone is unlike any of these games. So, why do people always call it generic? It's quite sluggish compared to them all. Its weapons are unlike those in Halo in that even though they're futuristic, they mainly rely on bullets instead of plasma/ thermal-energy, and they're also unlike those in Call of Duty in that even though they mainly fire bullets, their designs are unlike modern weaponry. It's unlike Battlefield for the same reasons it's unlike Call of Duty.

So, once again, what's up with the 'generic' argument?

Shut your face.

#41 Edited by Demonjoe93 (9403 posts) -

@Jebus213 said:

@BluRayHiDef said:

Killzone, in my opinion, is just as unique as any of the other major shooters, such as Halo, Call of Duty, and Battlefield.

1. Halo is a fast paced space shooter that relies on exaggerated jumping mechanics, requires very fast reaction times, and features plasma/ thermal-energy projectile weapons.

2. Call of Duty is also a fast paced shooter, but is very realistic in regard to its setting and weapons (i.e. ordinary bullet-firing weapons/ virtual models of actual weapons).

3. Battlefield is a realistically paced shooter, also with a realistic setting and realistic weapons, but it's set apart from other shooters by its large maps and 64 player count.

Killzone is unlike any of these games. So, why do people always call it generic? It's quite sluggish compared to them all. Its weapons are unlike those in Halo in that even though they're futuristic, they mainly rely on bullets instead of plasma/ thermal-energy, and they're also unlike those in Call of Duty in that even though they mainly fire bullets, their designs are unlike modern weaponry. It's unlike Battlefield for the same reasons it's unlike Call of Duty.

So, once again, what's up with the 'generic' argument?

Shut your face.

You sure told him.

#42 Posted by soulitane (13374 posts) -

It's not, people here just aren't smart enough to know what generic actually means.

#43 Edited by tagyhag (15867 posts) -

It's not really generic (Although people have different meanings held to that word) but it's not a unique series either. Especially as the sequels continue to be pretty much the same thing, just prettier.

#44 Posted by uninspiredcup (6775 posts) -

Battlefield isn't realistic. Yes, Killzone is generic. If it wasn't for the visuals no one would care.

#45 Posted by DanteVincent (25 posts) -

I love me some killzone, op describes it very accurately, also, something that most people fail to realize on killzone, most due to habit and most due to not knowing is the aiming system, in killzone , to get the most accurate shot you have to crouch, not ADS, you only ADS to take on people who are REALLY far, aiming down the sight in a mid range fire fight will get you killed before your screen can zoom in and change perspective, you add to the the sense of weight the weapons have, much like in bf3 as tc perfectly described, and you have a game where aiming and shooting takes different set of actions.

Aside from that you have class systems, with very distinct and unique roles even more so than battlefield, i'll let my bias flow here, i love me some class based multiplayer lol, in any genre, classes are awesome, the more varied and distinct the better, killzone does that.

Warzone, it's like battlefield, i do prefer battlefield in this regard, but that's mostly due to the setting, i like real more than fiction, but killzone does it different, more dinamically with chaging and random objectives.

Game is great, weren't for that they wouldn't have gotten 9 and 8,5 respectivelly, the hating is become really generic, the game, no, the game is not.

#46 Posted by yangynagsuu (7 posts) -

"There was an exciting announcement for lore fans yesterday on Twitter from Micky Neilson, the publishing lead at Blizzard Entertainment. Over the last few years Blizzard has been working on various series of short stories, all available for free on their website, exploring different aspects of World of Warcraft. Micky has confirmed that the next short story series will revolve around the villains of WoW.; Had to go through proper channels, but it's official: we'll be doing Villains short stories. ANDI'll be doing a Kael'thas story.;;; - Micky Neilson September 10, 2013If you've been following Micky's twitter feed, you may remember that he took an informal poll a little while ago, asking for fan preferences on which direction to take in the next collection of http://www.mmotank.com/ shorts.

#47 Posted by jg4xchamp (46604 posts) -

Halo is not fast paced. Not even the slightest.

#48 Posted by the_bi99man (11024 posts) -

Killzone, in my opinion, is just as unique as any of the other major shooters, such as Halo, Call of Duty, and Battlefield.

#49 Posted by CyberLips (1616 posts) -

When i hear the word generic i think of Ryse SOR because to me it's very forgettable and has nothing unique in it.

#50 Posted by kipsta77 (899 posts) -

It's not generic. It's just bland, it doesn't have its own flavour. And damn is it boring....