Killzone 2 on IGN

[IchI]

HL2 already did that though.

/Editing

what did Half-Life 2 do that was new? The only thing that I found to be new was that the animation was 'technically' better than a lot of other games. In terms of 'gameplay' like you quote. I'm not so sure. I can't think of anything Half-Life 2 did that other first person shooters hadn't previously done.

 

[Warbie]

Now, shall we move along from this Halo/Half-Life nonsense and get back to the topic at hand?

He started it! (in all fairness i've been quite good about this recently - look at the two Halo 3 threads at the moment! I've been sitting on my hands and biting my tongue for weeks)

What's SMOD btw?

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

what did Half-Life 2 do that was new? The only thing that I found to be new was that the animation was 'technically' better than a lot of other games. In terms of 'gameplay' like you quote. I'm not so sure. I can't think of anything Half-Life 2 did that other first person shooters hadn't previously done.

Persistent narrative without sucking you into cut-scenes, physics interaction taken to a new level giving you the ability to improvise combat and puzzle solving strategies, unrivaled facial animation technology.. list goes on. Not to say it's the perfect game, I played through it once or twice and couldn't be arsed to pick it up again.

The most exciting aspect of Half-Life 2 to me has always really been the Source engine and the mod community though.

Ok enough derailing sorry :thumbs:

 

[Icarusintel]

I wonder if certain people in here realize it's still in Alpha at best and has a long ways to go before release next year.

This quote also made me go D:

For us, we need a great deal of processing power. The PS3 really allows us to build Killzone 2 on a grand scale with a level of detail that is truly eye-catching. To give you an example, our character models on screen use the same amount of polygons as an entire level of Killzone on PS2.

 

[Asknoone]

what did Half-Life 2 do that was new? The only thing that I found to be new was that the animation was 'technically' better than a lot of other games. In terms of 'gameplay' like you quote. I'm not so sure. I can't think of anything Half-Life 2 did that other first person shooters hadn't previously done.

It's called structured gameplay. In terms of how the game plays, and what happens scene by scene, there hasn't been much in the way of it (RE4/MGS compare here as also doing this). Beyond shooting the enemy there's countless layers to the actual gameplay, in both what the player does and encounters as it moves scene from scene. Gameplay theory.

It's a difficult thing to describe, but at it's most basic, it isn't just about placing enemies in front of the player, which is really all the majority of shooters do.

Topic wise, Killzone suffered from this and I'm hoping the sequel doesn't.

 

[Warbie]

I haven't got a clue what you're talking about, Samon Which is just as well - it'd be more dull around here if we saw eye to eye.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

It's called structured gameplay. In terms of how the game plays, and what happens scene by scene, there hasn't been much in the way of it (RE4/MGS compare here). Beyond shooting the enemy there's countless layers to the actual gameplay, in both what the player does and encounters as move scene from scene.

It's a difficult thing to describe, but at it's most basic, it isn't just about placing enemies in front of the player, which is really all the majority of shooters do.

Topic wise, Killzone suffered from this and I'm hoping the sequel doesn't.

This is why I prefer games like Dues Ex and Half-Life to games like Halo or Killzone.

Don't even get me started on the "combat" in Dues Ex.. :|

I haven't got a clue what you're talking about, Samon Which is just as well - it'd be more dull around here if we saw eye to eye.

Composition in level design and general gameplay design, Halo is downright sloppy next to Half Life 2, it feels like enemies are there just for the sake of combat, not integrated in any type of structured relevant manner.

 

[VirusType2]

Speak for yourself. Halo kept me on the edge of my seat for months on end. I like a shooter than needs fast reactions and super quick thinking to survive. HL2 is quite the opposite.

The fact is, the combat in HL2 could and should have been so much better - very average, almost a decade old and surpassed years before it came out. I do appreciate what Valve have done for fps and story telling, i'd now like them to raise the bar in the actual playing of the game.

Wow, This looks all wrong to me. I disagree with everything here except the story part.

HL2 doesn't require fast reactions? That is false. I bet there could be a reaction time test to actually prove that you need fast reactions and smart thinking to play on the harder difficulty levels.

Have you ever played through the game on a hard difficulty level?

Especially in the prison or whatever it is, on the hard difficulty I must have died in there 20 times, but it was so fun, I just kept trying.

The game starts getting into amazing fire-fights, a couple levels into the game. Half-Life2 has the best combat of any FPS that I have played. The enemy throws grenades at you, and runs from grenades. They team up on you, and try to surround you. They peek out of doorways and windows and avoid gunfire. They will throw a grenade into a room you are in and seek cover, while you can pick up the grenade and throw it back, try to run like hell, or die trying.

I haven't played it in a while since I've not played many games lately, but the level that I described earlier where I played it like 20 times in a row - it's the level where you have to carry the gun turrets, and position them to help you shoot down the seemingly endless attack of combine soldiers. Play that level man. ****ing hairy, messy, and fun as hell IMHO.


For an aging game, this game really stands the test of time IMHO. The lazer sites and nice touches like that, I still haven't seen any game do everything so well.

Wait until the source engine gets a major texture upgrade, I guess we might have to wait until Half-Life3. Everyone will be shitting themselves and going insane all over again. Hopefully no one steals the source code this time.

 

[Asknoone]

I haven't got a clue what you're talking about, Samon Which is just as well - it'd be more dull around here if we saw eye to eye.

I'll write a big article on it for you sometime.

Composition in level design and general gameplay design, Halo is downright sloppy next to Half Life 2, it feels like enemies are there just for the sake of combat, not integrated in any type of structured relevant manner.

We got winner. Basically, yes. It's about doing little more than placing enemies in front of the player. Mundane direction in that the FP perspective is to be about no more than combat! /rinse repeat

HL2/RE4/MGS are the games you ought to play to see this kind of gameplay done right.

 

[Gray Fox]

I ****ing loves hl2's combat. The bug bait and gravity gun, and secondary fire mode of the assault rifle were a breath of fresh air, and an awesome one at that.
All three of those alone gave a wealth of fun options, that made the game fun and repayable. And thats not even counting the great job they did with the other, generic weapons.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

Wow, This looks all wrong to me. I disagree with everything here except the story part.

HL2 doesn't require fast reactions? That is false. I bet there could be a reaction time test to actually prove that you need fast reactions and smart thinking to play on the harder difficulty levels.

Have you ever played through the game on a hard difficulty level?

Especially in the prison or whatever it is, on the hard difficulty I must have died in there 20 times, but it was so fun, I just kept trying.

The game starts getting into amazing fire-fights, a couple levels into the game. Half-Life2 has the best combat of any FPS that I have played. The enemy throws grenades at you, and runs from grenades. They team up on you, and try to surround you.

I haven't played it in a while since I've not played many games lately, but the level that I described earlier where I played it like 20 times in a row - it's the level where you have to carry the gun turrets, and position them to help you shoot down the seemingly endless attack of combine soldiers. Play that level man. ****ing hairy, messy, and fun as hell IMHO.


For an aging game, this game really stands the test of time IMHO. The lazer sites and nice touches like that, I still haven't seen any game do everything so well.

Wait until the source engine gets a major texture upgrade, I guess we might have to wait until Half-Life3. Everyone will be shitting themselves and going insane all over again. Hopefully no one steals the source code this time.

I think Valve is focusing less on major technology breakthroughs now, they already stated that Source is an ongoing project and that the episodes are basically Half-Life 3. I can see their next big thing being an IP.

Oh man would it be awesome to see a new Valve IP.

HL2/RE4/MGS are the games you ought to play to see this kind of gameplay done right.

I think a big part of it is having a game play goal other than reaching the next check point, the story feels forced on me in Halo, and entirely separate from the game play - all I have to do is fight hordes and hordes of enemies in the same fashion for hours on end and reach a check point so that I can do the same thing in a possibly slightly different setting. Where as in a game like Half-Life 2 I feel compelled to reach the objective and can approach things accordingly, in terms of pace or method of execution.

The old design philosophy of playing through content to get to the bigger gun has grown quite tiresome since Doom, yet so many developers can't see to get over it.

 

[VirusType2]

I think Valve is focusing less on major technology breakthroughs now, they already stated that Source is an ongoing project and that the episodes are basically Half-Life 3. I can see their next big thing being an IP.

Oh man would it be awesome to see a new Valve IP.

I edited my post, to include this too:

The combine soldiers peek out of doorways and windows and avoid gunfire. They will throw a grenade into a room you are in and seek cover, while you can pick up the grenade and throw it back, try to run like hell, or die trying.


I don't know, all this talk has me ready to play the game again. I might download or make a sound mod or something for it, as the sound of the gravity gun gets on my nerves, but I love this game so much.

 

[Gargantou]

I wonder if certain people in here realize it's still in Alpha at best and has a long ways to go before release next year.

This quote also made me go D:

That quote makes me go "Hype!"!

 

[Sparta]

Oh god Warbie look what you did?

You opened Pandoras Box!

You fool!

(And SMOD is SuperMod for Half-Life 2, adds more enemies, weapons and even a few bonus levels into Half-life 2. It can be summarized by saying, you have shoot-outs with G-man.)

 

[IchI]

Ye, my point exactly. Half-Life 2 never did anything 'new' hense why I was so adament about point it out. It simply did a lot of existing things well. This is why Valve, Blizzard and other developers stand above others because they 'polish' there games gameplay wise. A game DOESN'T have to do anything new. It simply has to do existing things well and polished. When I say polished I don't mean graphically. Although yes it does help.

Comparing Halo to Half-Life 2 is kind of stupid. They are both completely different games in my opinion. Many people will play Halo and simply have unadulterated fun. Many people play Half-Life 2 and feel a sense of depth and adventure. Its all down to personal preference but I think its undesputable that they are 'both' very polished games.

So basiclly, I just don't like the idea of someone justifying that Half-Life 2 was good because it had something new, when it didn't. I personally am not a fan of Half-Life 2. I didn't enjoy it all that much. It was good, but it lost my interest. But that doesn't mean I don't think its a good well polished game. Am I making sense?

 

[Asknoone]

Hrm, it depends how you define 'new'. The gameplay direction is a new - , nah-uh, I've ranted enough.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

Ye, my point exactly. Half-Life 2 never did anything 'new' hense why I was so adament about point it out. It simply did a lot of existing things well. This is why Valve, Blizzard and other developers stand above others because they 'polish' there games gameplay wise. A game DOESN'T have to do anything new. It simply has to do existing things well and polished. When I say polished I don't mean graphically. Although yes it does help.

Comparing Halo to Half-Life 2 is kind of stupid. They are both completely different games in my opinion. Many people will play Halo and simply have unadulterated fun. Many people play Half-Life 2 and feel a sense of depth and adventure. Its all down to personal preference but I think its undesputable that they are 'both' very polished games.

So basiclly, I just don't like the idea of someone justifying that Half-Life 2 was good because it had something new, when it didn't. I personally am not a fan of Half-Life 2. I didn't enjoy it all that much. It was good, but it lost my interest. But that doesn't mean I don't think its a good well polished game. Am I making sense?

I would have to disagree though, I think Half Life 2 did offer a new way of going at FPS gameplay, specifically in terms of using physics to solve problems, and the narrative scenes blending so seamlessly with combat sequences.

Though this is sort of my stance on the entire issue of how Valve has progressed the FPS genre:

Half-Life was revolutionary, Half-Life 2 was evolutionary.

Hrm, it depends how you define 'new'. The gameplay direction is a new - , nah-uh, I've ranted enough.

Never stop ranting D: this is HL2.net

 

[Sparta]

So how about that Killzone 2?

Coming out on PS3 is it?

 

[Icarusintel]

So how about that Killzone 2?

Coming out on PS3 is it?

Yes, exactly. On-topic posts would be wonderful in here. Though they'll only really be X360 owners saying it's not good enough and PS3 owners being fairly excited. Being part of the latter crowd, I am excited.

 

[Asknoone]

I think a big part of it is having a game play goal other than reaching the next check point, the story feels forced on me in Halo, and entirely separate from the game play - all I have to do is fight hordes and hordes of enemies in the same fashion for hours on end and reach a check point so that I can do the same thing in a possibly slightly different setting. Where as in a game like Half-Life 2 I feel compelled to reach the objective and can approach things accordingly, in terms of pace or method of execution.

The old design philosophy of playing through content to get to the bigger gun has grown quite tiresome since Doom, yet so many developers can't see to get over it.

I think it's more about the idea of a game being more than just a specific thing. There's alot to be said about providing a constantly changing gameplay scenario. It may be the simple thing of avoiding a chopper shooting at you because you can't engage it, or having your NPC companion defend you with a sniper rifle, or it could be a big thing like the bugbait, which pretty much re-defines the pace of the game in a single stroke. These things happen chapter by chapter, and in RE4 and MGS's case level by level/bit by bit.

Halo and Killzone do not grasp this, and that is why more is done in a chapter of HL2 than the entirety of the former games. I think that's a good way of putting it?

So how about that Killzone 2?

Coming out on PS3 is it?

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

I think it's more about the idea of a game being more than just a specific thing. There's alot to be said about providing a constantly changing gameplay scenario. It may be the simple thing of avoiding a chopper shooting at you because you can't engage it, or having your NPC companion defend you with a sniper rifle, or it could be a big thing like the bugbait, which pretty much re-defines the pace of the game in a single stroke. These things happen chapter by chapter, and in RE4 and MGS's case level by level/bit by bit.

Halo and Killzone do not grasp this, and that is why more is done in a chapter of HL2 than the entirety of the former games. I think that's a good way of putting it?

very well said, multifaceted gameplay > rinse and repeat gameplay

 

[Warbie]

This is why I prefer games like Dues Ex and Half-Life to games like Halo or Killzone.

Don't even get me started on the "combat" in Dues Ex.. :|

It all comes down to your expectations from fps. I prize the combat above all else (the only way I could stomache Deus Ex was by playing it on the realsitic setting - which still sucked combat wise).

Composition in level design and general gameplay design, Halo is downright sloppy next to Half Life 2, it feels like enemies are there just for the sake of combat, not integrated in any type of structured relevant manner.

Fair enough, I see your point about level composition, but think we have quite different ideas of what gameplay is.

I found the combat in HL2 so jarring, and mainly because everything else was so good. The scene in the lab with Lamarr jumping about and knocking things over utterly awesome. Being bullied at the train station, realising you could actually pick something up and put it in the bin, the detail, the atmosphere. Superb. Then the combat started (bear in mind i've literally spent years spanking GE, PD, Halo and have high expectations in this area from something that has 'raised the bar') and wow, such a let down. It didn't flow, and certainly didn't raise the bar - amazing, convincing game world on one hand, tame, unconvincing decade old fighting on the other. The contrast between what HL2 does and doesn't do well was too large for me.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

I guess what made up for that was hurling sawblades at zombies with the gravity gun, or using armies of antlions to shred my foes. Plenty of ways other than bland weapon firing to dispatch enemies.

Ugh all this talk is making me want Bioshock so much.

 

[Asknoone]

Fair enough, I see your point about level composition, but think we have quite different ideas of what gameplay is.

I found the combat in HL2 so jarring, and mainly because everything else was so good. The scene in the lab with Lamarr jumping about and knocking things over utterly awesome. Being bullied at the train station, realising you could actually pick something up and put it in the bin, the detail, the atmosphere. Superb. Then the combat started (bear in mind i've literally spent years spanking GE, PD, Halo and have high expectations in this area from something that has 'raised the bar') and wow, such a let down. It didn't flow, and certainly didn't raise the bar - amazing, convincing game world on one hand, tame, unconvincing decade old fighting on the other. The contrast between what HL2 does and doesn't do well was too large for me.

I still think you're fixated on the idea of combat being centric, and were in fact simply looking for a combat oriented game to match the likes of Halo and Goldeneye.

 

[Yorick]

Halo more like Doom for consoles.

 

[VirusType2]

Don't know, but from the minute I loaded up Half-Life2 and got to the start menu, this game was the first and only game to literally blow my mind. I felt like I had just put away the toys and had discovered something that was cooler than I was. Like watching your first R rated movie when you were a kid.

I just couldn't believe what I was playing. I felt like I had just stepped 10 years into the future. I knew I would never want another console.

It was something of a religious awakening to play this game for the first time.


It was just unbelievable gaming zen.


That's why I joined several Half Life forums. The first time I had ever joined a forum. And that's why I'm still here.


Just had to comment one more time, sorry for contributing to the derailment. Cya.

 

[PvtRyan]

It all comes down to your expectations from fps. I prize the combat above all else (the only way I could stomache Deus Ex was by playing it on the realsitic setting - which still sucked combat wise).



Fair enough, I see your point about level composition, but think we have quite different ideas of what gameplay is.

I found the combat in HL2 so jarring, and mainly because everything else was so good. The scene in the lab with Lamarr jumping about and knocking things over utterly awesome. Being bullied at the train station, realising you could actually pick something up and put it in the bin, the detail, the atmosphere. Superb. Then the combat started (bear in mind i've literally spent years spanking GE, PD, Halo and have high expectations in this area from something that has 'raised the bar') and wow, such a let down. It didn't flow, and certainly didn't raise the bar - amazing, convincing game world on one hand, tame, unconvincing decade old fighting on the other. The contrast between what HL2 does and doesn't do well was too large for me.

I praise Halo for its combat and I look forward to Crysis because of its combat, but HL2 was fine in the combat department for the most part. Shooting zombies and antlions, was good fun, mostly with the shotgun and SMG. Shooting combine was not as good, the combine assault rifle didn't feel very convincing and the combine were always placed in situations where their AI had limited options (the potential AI of combine is much better than HL2 often shows). But I'm not sure how HL2's combat was a letdown when it's exactly the same as HL1 and every trailer showed it as such. HL2 can learn from Halo, like binding grenades to a button instead of making it a separate weapon, more open areas for interesting combat, but Halo can learn a lot more from HL2, like diversity and pace.

 

[IchI]

Fair enough, I see your point about level composition, but think we have quite different ideas of what gameplay is.

I found the combat in HL2 so jarring, and mainly because everything else was so good. The scene in the lab with Lamarr jumping about and knocking things over utterly awesome. Being bullied at the train station, realising you could actually pick something up and put it in the bin, the detail, the atmosphere. Superb. Then the combat started (bear in mind i've literally spent years spanking GE, PD, Halo and have high expectations in this area from something that has 'raised the bar') and wow, such a let down. It didn't flow, and certainly didn't raise the bar - amazing, convincing game world on one hand, tame, unconvincing decade old fighting on the other. The contrast between what HL2 does and doesn't do well was too large for me.

I completely agree with you there.

Take into account everyone I don't think anyone is saying Halo or Half-Life 2 are bad games, we are just pointing out there is a clear difference between someone who likes Halo and Half-Life 2.

Also the people talking about talking off topic. I mention these because I feel Killzone will definatly be a Halo but at the same time I also think its going to be a Resistance Fall of Man

 

[Warbie]

But I'm not sure how HL2's combat was a letdown when it's exactly the same as HL1

Exactly. It's hardly compelling stuff. Not combat that will draw you in to play the game over and over, trying to learn everything, improve. Hell, there's nothing to improve on in the first place. There's no scope for it.

I think it's more about the idea of a game being more than just a specific thing. There's alot to be said about providing a constantly changing gameplay scenario. It may be the simple thing of avoiding a chopper shooting at you because you can't engage it, or having your NPC companion defend you with a sniper rifle, or it could be a big thing like the bugbait, which pretty much re-defines the pace of the game in a single stroke. These things happen chapter by chapter, and in RE4 and MGS's case level by level/bit by bit.

Halo and Killzone do not grasp this, and that is why more is done in a chapter of HL2 than the entirety of the former games. I think that's a good way of putting it?

I intended to stop here, but, seeing as we're now doing this discussion again, have to chime in.

Reading this makes me wonder whether we're playing the same games. There is so much variety to many of the encounters in Halo - it's this area that sets it aside more than other fps. Sure, this varies from level to level, with the corridor sections being poorer examples, but is still the case. The weapons you choose to use alone can completely change the experience (pace, difficulty, tactics etc) of an entire level.

In a similar thread on another forum I frequent someone made the point ...

'Instead of relying on a quick and accurate trigger finger to pop head shots into your enemies you have to rely on a more tactical and analytical approach to each combat situation.
Accuracy is still important, but you can not win outright by just getting enough shots on each target, you will be mowed down well before you get the kill you desire.
In order to succeed in Halo, you need to identify which targets to focus on, how to weaken your enemy forces the fastest, what routes to take, what weapons to carry (rather than carrying 20 different guns)'

... which pretty much sums up what i'd try to say in 3 pages of waffle. There's enough options for battles to evolve in a way they never could in HL2. I honestly didn't see a single 'constantly changing gameplay scenario'.

Take into account everyone I don't think anyone is saying Halo or Half-Life 2 are bad games, we are just pointing out there is a clear difference between someone who likes Halo and Half-Life 2.

Group hug

// toned the rant down.

 

[IchI]

'Instead of relying on a quick and accurate trigger finger to pop head shots into your enemies you have to rely on a more tactical and analytical approach to each combat situation.
Accuracy is still important, but you can not win outright by just getting enough shots on each target, you will be mowed down well before you get the kill you desire.
In order to succeed in Halo, you need to identify which targets to focus on, how to weaken your enemy forces the fastest, what routes to take, what weapons to carry (rather than carrying 20 different guns)'

I think the thing that makes Halo even better is the fact you do all this without even thinking about it. Well you do think about it, but not like your planning war or playing something like Ghost Recon. Your constantly having fun but you always have this element of subconcious strategy.

 

[Asknoone]

Reading this makes me wonder whether we're playing the same games. There is so much variety to many of the encounters in Halo - it's this area that sets it aside more than other fps.

Sure, this varies from level to level, with the corridor sections being poorer examples, but is still the case. The weapons you choose to use alone can completely change the experience (pace, difficulty, tactics etc) of an entire level.

In a similar thread on another forum I frequent someone made the point ...

'Instead of relying on a quick and accurate trigger finger to pop head shots into your enemies you have to rely on a more tactical and analytical approach to each combat situation.
Accuracy is still important, but you can not win outright by just getting enough shots on each target, you will be mowed down well before you get the kill you desire.
In order to succeed in Halo, you need to identify which targets to focus on, how to weaken your enemy forces the fastest, what routes to take, what weapons to carry (rather than carrying 20 different guns)'

... which pretty much sums up what i'd try to say in 3 pages of waffle. There's enough options for battles to evolve in a way they never could in HL2. I honestly didn't see a single 'constantly changing gameplay scenario'.

That's just bone-cruchingly superficial. All you're doing there is grouping gameplay under the combat banner once again. Your idea of gameplay changing is approach to combat encounters and very little else. All it proves is that Halo is no more than a combat oriented game with nothing to it. Again, you have the idea that gameplay is combat, and combat alone, which is mundane. I could put more, but I detailed it before and I'm not repeating.

 

[PvtRyan]

Problem of Halo is that it's a one-trick pony, it just repeats the same scenario over and over again, ad nauseum. Once you've seen one thing, you've seen it all. Literally, you only have to play one level to see everything the game has to offer. After that, the boredom sets in. Compare that with HL2 where every change of scenery sounded in a different kind of game, from hunting zombies to fighting in the streets to flying an airboat to driving a buggy along the coastline. At no point was it a one-trick pony like Halo.

 

[Warbie]

Again, you have the idea that gameplay is combat, and combat alone, which is mundane.

That's not true. I see gameplay as what you actually have to do in a game and how much fun it is. Bomberman has superb gameplay, as does SF2, Mario Kart. It's a pleasure just runing about in Mario 64 and climbing a tree. This is what I mean when I say the fun is in the playing.

I enjoyed the the gameworld in HL2 and really do appreciate what you see in it (well, I think so), but found that, other than being swept up in the whole experience (which is what seems to be Valve's intention), there isn't much to it. Little is asked from the player and what you actually have to engage yourself with (the puzzles, fighting, driving, the AI) is quite average. Put it this way - take out what you like about HL2, leaving just the basic gameplay mechanics, and you'll see what I see.

I don't rant about Halo simply because the combat is good, that's simply the reason I like it. It's because it keeps you active. There's alot involved in just playing the game - quick thinking, skill (and all the other stuff I rabbit on about)

 

[Lucid]

Game looks damn sexy if anything else.

 

[Asknoone]

Put it this way - take out what you like about HL2, leaving just the basic gameplay mechanics, and you'll see what I see.

But that would be taking out the basic gameplay mechanics ?

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

But that would be taking out the basic gameplay mechanics ?

Let's put it this way, just divide by zero and then we'll....... oh shi

 

[Absinthe]

I'd say Halo has more scope to its combat mechanics than Half-Life 2. But then I'd say that Halo repeats the same scenario over and over again while Half-Life 2 offers more diversity in its encounters. I'd say Halo has better firefights, but Half-Life 2 feels like a more complete, comprehensive package with its settings, level designs, narrative, and NPCs.

Halo 2 focuses almost solely on its combat. Half-Life 2 focuses more on creating an experience.

As for Killzone 2, I'm a tad surprised. It looks better than I thought it would... sometimes. Graphically, it's a mixed bag to me. Lame explosions and low-res textures with good animation and NPC modelling. The combat looks like Halo's in that it seems quite visceral, but also generic. To me that translates into immediate satisfaction that evetually grows tedious. And now we play the waiting game.

 

[Warbie]

Samon, so you rate HL2 when it comes to running about and shooting things, the AI and think the driving controls well?

We're playing HL2, and most other fps, in exactly the same we were playing the original Unreal years ago - it's just wrapped up in a much better package.

 

[Sparta]

No no no Absinthe, Halo 2 focused on being a complete pile of shit with nothing but a simple gimmick and incredibly expensive and misleading advertising campaign to fill Microsofts already bulging pockets with even more money.

Whereas Half-life 2 focuses more on creating an experience.

 

[Asknoone]

But the basic gameplay mechanics aren't running around shooting things, so doesn't that make your point a tad inane? And, I'm great with any vehicle I drive (except the horrible buggy). :cheese: