What is more important to the success of Killzone 2?

The question is did Guerilla have enough time to copy off of Bungie the king of FPSs

Because the multiplayer aspects of most FPS are so important to review scores these days, I think that Killzone 2 had better show up with some mad good multiplayer. Even if it does, the question you have to ask is whether Sony's online system can handle it. Then Killzone 2's graphics have to live up to expectations. Then Killzone 2's AI has to live up to expectations. This game will have more scrutiny thrown its way than even Halo 3 perhaps. I kind of hope that reviewers judge Killzone like they did Bioshock, on the strength of its single player campaign, if that is in fact where Guerilla placed its emphasis.

An excellent game shouldn't need multiplayer to make it shine. Bioshock is testament to that.ImaPirate0202

it sure helps. i mean, halo 3 did sell more in one week than bioshock has so far in its lifetime. having great multi helps a bunch.

While I love games that can tell a long great story properly, let's be honest, SONY is trying to make Killzone 2 it's Halo 3. To do this,Guerilla needs to shift it's primary focus to multiplayer, and last I checked there hasn't been much news at all about multiplayer. Regaurdless I really hope the game comes out strong on all fronts, and I think it will. DA_B0MB

An excellent game shouldn't need multiplayer to make it shine. Bioshock is testament to that.ImaPirate0202

But Bioshock wasn't in direct competition with the Halo franchise; Sony has positioned Killzone to be their answer to Halo, and thus they'll need to blow people away with the multiplayer as well. Bioshock is also an extremely unique FPS; most FPS games wouldn't stand on single player alone, because most just don't do enough different from other games. Bioshock may not have needed multiplayer, but that's because it wasn't your typical run-and-gun FPS. Killzone 2 looks to be much more traditional, and therefore will need to include the multiplayer that is also a traditional part of the modern FPS.

The sale of alot more ps3EmpCom

[QUOTE="ImaPirate0202"]An excellent game shouldn't need multiplayer to make it shine. Bioshock is testament to that.SeanBond

But Bioshock wasn't in direct competition with the Halo franchise; Sony has positioned Killzone to be their answer to Halo, and thus they'll need to blow people away with the multiplayer as well. Bioshock is also an extremely unique FPS; most FPS games wouldn't stand on single player alone, because most just don't do enough different from other games. Bioshock may not have needed multiplayer, but that's because it wasn't your typical run-and-gun FPS. Killzone 2 looks to be much more traditional, and therefore will need to include the multiplayer that is also a traditional part of the modern FPS.

And that's the problem. Developer's throw lackluster campaigns at us with multiplayer as an answer to replay value. To hell with multiplayer, give me a great campaign and I'll play and beat the game plenty of times. How's that for replay value.

The question is did Guerilla have enough time to copy off of Bungie the king of FPSs

Max_Settings

let me be the first to say:Bwahahahahahaha.

[QUOTE="ImaPirate0202"]An excellent game shouldn't need multiplayer to make it shine. Bioshock is testament to that.mtradr43

it sure helps. i mean, halo 3 did sell more in one week than bioshock has so far in its lifetime. having great multi helps a bunch.

Advertising helps a lot more.

Look no further than The Darkness. Multiplayer FTW.

Personally, I'm hoping for a great singleplayer a la Resistance: Fall of Man.

Both. This game is going to have a hard time getting the praise it deserves with all the Sony hatred going around. Not guarunteed a AAA handout review like Halo3 even if KZ2 is a far better game.Lazy_Boy88

Yeah Halo 3 was a handout AAA, hype always improves game scores, just ask Peter Molyneux. :roll:

They need a robust multiplayer feature. Great singleplayer games don't always draw in as many people.

The question is did Guerilla have enough time to copy off of Bungie the king of FPSs

Max_Settings

:lol:

SP definitely, if i want to play some MP shooting actions, i'll log onto Warhawk. i can see myself playing that game for months.

Both. This game is going to have a hard time getting the praise it deserves with all the Sony hatred going around. Not guarunteed a AAA handout review like Halo3 even if KZ2 is a far better game.Lazy_Boy88

The question is did Guerilla have enough time to copy off of Bungie the king of FPSs

Max_Settings

yes, because everything in Halo was 100% original, all created by Bungie. :lol:

Because the multiplayer aspects of most FPS are so important to review scores these days, I think that Killzone 2 had better show up with some mad good multiplayer. Even if it does, the question you have to ask is whether Sony's online system can handle it. Then Killzone 2's graphics have to live up to expectations. Then Killzone 2's AI has to live up to expectations. This game will have more scrutiny thrown its way than even Halo 3 perhaps. I kind of hope that reviewers judge Killzone like they did Bioshock, on the strength of its single player campaign, if that is in fact where Guerilla placed its emphasis.

magdalene1

what are you talking about? Thats in the hands of the developers and whoever is running the servers for the game.

What AI expectations are you referring to? Halo 3 has pretty bad AI, especially when it is compared to recent games.

What is more important to the success of Killzone 2?

Massive Marketing Campaign

[QUOTE="Max_Settings"]

The question is did Guerilla have enough time to copy off of Bungie the king of FPSs

NavigatorsGhost

yes, because everything in Halo was 100% original, all created by Bungie. :lol:

Because the multiplayer aspects of most FPS are so important to review scores these days, I think that Killzone 2 had better show up with some mad good multiplayer. Even if it does, the question you have to ask is whether Sony's online system can handle it. Then Killzone 2's graphics have to live up to expectations. Then Killzone 2's AI has to live up to expectations. This game will have more scrutiny thrown its way than even Halo 3 perhaps. I kind of hope that reviewers judge Killzone like they did Bioshock, on the strength of its single player campaign, if that is in fact where Guerilla placed its emphasis.

magdalene1

what are you talking about? Thats in the hands of the developers and whoever is running the servers for the game.

What AI expectations are you referring to? Halo 3 has pretty bad AI, especially when it is compared to recent games.

Though you're allies i do admit suck(execpt for the Arbiter) The enemies in Halo 3 for 99% of time are really smart

The question is did Guerilla have enough time to copy off of Bungie the king of FPSs

Max_Settings

[QUOTE="NavigatorsGhost"][QUOTE="Max_Settings"]

The question is did Guerilla have enough time to copy off of Bungie the king of FPSs

go7400

yes, because everything in Halo was 100% original, all created by Bungie. :lol:

Because the multiplayer aspects of most FPS are so important to review scores these days, I think that Killzone 2 had better show up with some mad good multiplayer. Even if it does, the question you have to ask is whether Sony's online system can handle it. Then Killzone 2's graphics have to live up to expectations. Then Killzone 2's AI has to live up to expectations. This game will have more scrutiny thrown its way than even Halo 3 perhaps. I kind of hope that reviewers judge Killzone like they did Bioshock, on the strength of its single player campaign, if that is in fact where Guerilla placed its emphasis.

magdalene1

what are you talking about? Thats in the hands of the developers and whoever is running the servers for the game.

What AI expectations are you referring to? Halo 3 has pretty bad AI, especially when it is compared to recent games.

Though you're allies i do admit suck(execpt for the Arbiter) The enemies in Halo 3 for 99% of time are really smart

Lol, thats hilarious. Smart? Are you frigging kidding me? The extent of their tactics involves occassionaly diving out of the way of plasma pistol charge up shots. And on harder difficulties they tend to avoid grenades pretty well, using that patented dive move again.

Other than that, they don't do crap. They are supposedly squad leaders, and yet the enemies in this game never work as a group. The grunts run around in circles as soon as you show up and start shooting. The brutes stand in the open and only take cover after you've severely hurt them and taken down their shieds. They do not move at all. They will strafe from their hiding position and thats it.

They don't look for better weapon and use it.

They don't work together with the other brutes or grunts.

They don't patrol.

If you are engaging 10 enemies or so, and take damage, while you are sitting back waiting for your shields to recharge the enemies should be advancing on you to flush you out. At best, the grunts throw a grenade or two, often missing completely.

The AI in this game is flat out garbage. And don't give me that crap that I haven't played the game or I should play it on a harder difficulty. Legendary solo was a cakewalk. The regenerating shield, poor enemy AI, and abundance of ammo removes any sort of challenge. At least in the previous games you would encounter Elites who would actually engage you, not sit back and take potshots at you. This game requires patience and thats it.

Single player!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can't stress that enough!! Nowdays every game builds on Multiplayer. But you can't play 20 games online. We need great single player games with a great story!!!

We already have Warhawk for online and I read that there will be an expantion pack comming soon for it!!

So defenatly Single Player!!

Look at God of War.....single player game and how awsome!!

Also MGS is single player and how great it is!! GTA is single player to!!

So I say it again!! Single player!

Oh well. Its nearly impossible to make something as fun as Halo multiplayer.JiveT

too true. and with that i conclude...