With an immense amount of talent and money, Killzone 2 serves as a good example why superficial measures will always supercede any form of depth in a first-person shooter.Look at the havoc that this era of three dimensions has wrought upon single player games. I’ve actually owned Killzone 2 for quite sometime and finally decided to give it a proper playthrough once Killzone 3 was placed at my doorstep. If you’ve read any of my reviews or analysis of the first-person shooters I’ve played, then you should know of my fascination with the genre. Emitting the aura of decades of games developed in Europe, Killzone 2 further supplants the idea that most games need not have a single player story. This glorified tech demo is saved by the multiplayer, but if the game was multiplayer only -- would that have hurt the series? In the following paragraphs I will try and outline, and plea, with both game developers and gamers to stop demanding high-concept stories to be coupled with graphically proficient shooters.
Killzone 2 has proven that there is only money for either a graphical revolution or a maturation of narratives in games. Never both.
Though the story in Killzone 2 isn't the best -- by a longshot. The experimental decisions made in the multiplayer is something fans and non-fans should at least try.Echoing the drum of a first person shooter having an amazing mulitplayer mode feels like watching a rerun of Jay Leno’s “Tonight Show.” The people who like it, will never be convinced that they need something else. The people that don’t -- already have other options. I think Killzone 2’s multiplayer is quite the revolution. I don’t like overstating or spewing hyperbole, but this [essential] showpiece for why Sony is begging you to buy their expensive console is actually worth your time. It also makes for interesting dinner conversation.
The idea that I can sit down and play one game, online with my friends, and have scenarios change within minutes is actually -- something shooters of [I feel] a higher integrity should take note of. Think about it this way, imagine playing Team Fortress 2. The player logs on to a server and would play the various modes within one map and one game. Pretty amazing. The same would apply for your Call of Duty’s and your Battlefield’s. Guerrilla Games developed quite the polished gem, granted I’m playing the multiplayer online after the control issues were patched. There are still weight and control issues, but not as pronounced as they are in the single player campaign. If there were a way that you could download the multiplayer mode of Killzone 2, I’d easily recommend it. Unfortunately, this isn’t the case.
On the surface, we see, both WWI and WWII wardrobe influences. Garish facemasks hinting at a people struggling for their survival, but coping. Unfortunate this was never explored more.The biggest detriment to Killzone 2 deals solely with the decisions of the goal of the game. Is it a tech demo showing off the magnificent lighting effects “only capable on the PS3?” Is it a disposable product with a single player crammed on a Blu-Ray disc, simply to tick a feature on the back of the box? I don’t know the answer, because when I played the single player campaign, I got so bored I set the difficulty higher for the purpose of being entertained. Big mistake. Turns out, one hereditary trait of European-developed games is that, if you ask for a harder game -- you get one.
While dying several times over, the voice acting becomes an issue. Not that it’s garishly bad, notice that the talent is competent, but the sound engineer isn’t. Music cues sometimes drop out entirely and the rubbery mouth sync becomes incredibly comedic. In the more polished seens characters look like dogs chewing peanut butter. Funny. A game applauded for how ‘envelop pushing’ its graphical fidelity is only to trip over the hurdles of conveying human interaction. Kind of ironic.
From the original Killzone, Jan Templar commands your unit to invade a planet [of which you’re never given a clear reason why]. You play as Cev and are surrounded by a team of misfits just as one-dimensional as the sleeve-less star. Everyone fights and moves forward, no one questions their actions. If you’re looking for an interesting role-reversal where you get to empathize with the Helghan people, keep looking.
Protip: Though it would be great to know why the Helghast's eyes glow that amber color. It functions as a great playing mechanic when taking down snipers from afar.One thing that needs improvement, in games in general, is when playing at a higher difficulty -- typically the computer artificial intelligence improves. In Killzone 2, if you shoot and miss, the crafty Helgahst will hide behind cover, flank and advance on you aggressively. What usually goes unrecognized is how rock-dumb your computer friendly A.I. plays. Seriously, how many times did I die saving Rico? Notice how the friendly A.I. runs out of cover while hopelessly outnumbered, maybe he’s trying to put on a show for you?
The biggest demerit I could give to a shooter, is it having no soul to its story -- until now. Killzone 2 has broken any hope for games’ of this magnitude, pushing story-elements to the forefront, while having a multiplayer feature attached. It’s the other way around. Killzone, as it stands now, is a multiplayer franchise with a single player functioning as a footnote to why you’re shooting [or embodying] characters with glowing, amber eyes. With the most unfortunate hindrance, the actual story-elements of Killzone are incredibly interesting.
Killzone 2 does an excellent job of paint a picture of a world barely inhabitable. Because the story is poor, there is little to no investment in traversing a land covered and drab grays and browns -- though meticulously sculpted.There was an art team at Guerrilla that studied World War I cities and political climate. There were people who researched wardrobes and work ethic imported from northern-Asia and morphed it all into this enemy that is human, but is never humanized. Helghan is a world falling apart. The Helghast and humans from Vekta once lived together. You would only know this from playing the original Killzone. The game with a better story, but not as technically proficient.
There is no dichotomy. One never feels conflicted about killing the Helghast. There is no, edgy attempt at placing the player in a low-ranking, Helghan soldier’s boots. The testosterone levels in this development would have you believe there are no women on Helghan -- if there are, they are only warning the men that the Vekta are coming -- whilst, veiled behind a radio microphone. This, video game, and I mean that in every derogatory sense [irony], had a pivotal opportunity to reach as far as it had graphically -- artistically. Killzone 2 gives off the impression that the art team lost many battles before this game was put on shelves.
What the gamer received was art-through-technological achievement. And that is worth kudos. Make no mistake, there is art in pushing for better technology in any media. But when the groundwork you laid on a ‘lesser platform’ excels past that of its current iteration, that’s a step back.
Making matters worse, I immediately started playing Killzone 3 once my woeful trek with Killzone 2’s campaign came to an end. I didn’t have the pleasure of waiting, hoping that, “They’ll get it right this time. They’ll have more money and more resources.” I’m currently playing through the final bits of Killzone 3’s story and I can’t believe how much money goes wasted on such superficial aspects of gaming. But hey, check out that multiplayer, right?
I give Killzone 2 …
But to be honest: movies, books and vidja gaems should try better than this current status quo.The “Creative Writing For Dummies” Award