 |
Our intern thinks that gamers who compare "Killzone 2" to "Call of Duty 4" and "Gears of War 2" are way off the mark. See why.
***
By Sal Basile
It's been two weeks since the release of "Killzone 2," and message boards have been in an uproar. Many gamers have been dubbing the game as "the greatest shooter of all time" while others can't tell if they even like it or not. The topics of debate include the new cover system, the graphics, online play; and they, of course, compare the game to other blockbuster shooters: "Gears of War 2," "Halo 3," "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare," and "Resistance 2." But in comparing "Killzone 2" to these past titles -- ones that have different gameplay mechanics and point-of-views -- I think gamers aren't giving "Killzone 2" the credit it deserves.
One IGN board user "darkcape89" started the topic "Can somebody explain to me the greatness in Killzone 2," where he compares the gameplay to "COD4." Poster "juanherrera" follows this up by stating "people were expecting Call of Duty, that's the problem. Its not meant to be like it at all."
The topic of many other arguments is also the fact that "Killzone 2" has a much more sluggish feeling to it. Personally, due to the slower nature of the game, "Killzone 2" is the only game I've been able to play with both the x-axis and the y-axis sensitivity maxed out. Again, this is due to the reflexes I've acquired through countless hours of "COD4." I can't help but wonder though: would I think the game is sluggish if I had never played the faster-paced games?
Other gamers deem it acceptable to compare the game to "Gears of War 2," a third-person shooter. Both games require an immense sense of teamwork, but in different ways and on different scales. "Gears of War 2" is five-vs.-five and requires players to rush to the power weapons before the other team. On the other hand, "Killzone 2" is 16-vs.-16, and has players formulate a strategy, balance the amount of each class, and react quickly to on-screen objectives. I hardly think any third-person shooter should be compared to "Killzone 2," or any first-person shooter for that matter.
"Killzone 2" does have the familiar first-person shooter gaming mechanics, weapons and game modes (though it does introduces a cover system to the franchise). However, unlike most of the games it's being compared to, "Killzone 2" has a deep class system allowing to mix and match abilities, as well as a slower-paced warzone.
Therefore, if this game was to be compared to any other game, I feel the most fitting would be "Battlefield 2." "Battlefield 2" also contains strategic, class-based gameplay, and is generally slower than other first-person titles. However, from what I've seen, "Battlefield 2" has yet to come up in discussion.
If more gamers took in "Killzone 2" as it is, without comparing it to those other titles, I believe they would be more understanding to the style developer Guerrilla Games decided to approach it with. Just as Capcom has commented on its "RE5" controls to be exactly how they want them, Guerrilla has said it's done the same. In an interview with CVG, producer Seb Downie stated, "It is not a twitchy, split-second gun-wielding experience like some shooters." He also said that the online experience is quicker than the campaign, and that players are too accustomed to these "twitchy" shooters. Ultimately, he thinks, they're going to have to deal with the growing pains.
I agree wholeheartedly with Downie here. "Killzone 2" deserves a better rep than what it's getting.
***
Readers, what do you think?
Related Posts:
'Killzone 2' - It May Look Too Good (A Review, Of Sorts)
Guerrilla Games' Must-Do List For 'Killzone 2'