Killzone 3 Multiplayer = Puke

[The Cage]

That's what I meant though. He was saying that KZ2 was more like BF3 rather than KZ3. Meaning that KZ2 was more realistic and tactical like BF3.

You don't personally think they would do better at other sort of games? I think they did a great job with LBP and a few other franchises.

No, he said KZ2 is like BF3 which is not true cause they are totally different.

[Fon]

I think trying to compete directly with MS was a huge mistake for Sony. They should not bother to compete with Halo or COD...MAG was a disaster, so was SOCOM 4 and practically every shooter other than Warhawk/Starhawk...and well Resistance 1 was pretty good.

They need to reboot SOCOM, work on some japanese-style games and keep some of the better series like LBP and whatever ND/Rachet/ICO devs want to work on.

They really need to focus away from shooters. GG just doesn't know storyline, neither gameplay...those are two big things I look for in a shooter...graphics are supposed to be icing on the cake. They remind me of Crytek. No substance.

Indeed. Sony was aiming for their own Call of Duty/Halo but they over-saturated their own library with shooters which aren't all too great compared to the likes of Call of Duty, Rainbow 6, Counter Strike and Battlefield. Playstation has always been about variety and mainly RPG's. They need to shift their focus on something different.

[TEJ2025]

I don't get how people say Sony needs to change their focus. They have a wide variety of games in a lot of different genres. This might not be their strongest but it's just one game. Doom and gloom for Sony again I guess.

[Fon]

I don't get how people say Sony needs to change their focus. They have wide variety of games in a lot of different genres. This might not be their strongest but it's just one game. Doom and gloom for Sony again I guess.

Nobody said anything about doom and gloom for Sony.. Shooters isn't Sony's strong point here hence why I said that they should shift their focus from it.

[sainraja]

Let's all ignore the fact that it is quite possible that the developers themselves may have wanted to do an FPS.

[Sufi]

I don't get how people say Sony needs to change their focus. They have a wide variety of games in a lot of different genres. This might not be their strongest but it's just one game. Doom and gloom for Sony again I guess.

It's not just one game. It's almost their entire library of shooters.

They spent $40 mil on KZ2...WHY! It failed! They could've produced many other amazing things with it.

I could've told them it was crap...what kind of a focus group do they have? Their QA team must suck balls tbh.

Yes, they are all decent games but they need to do better than that if it's a saturated market...which is why I'm saying, "Make decent games that are more unique" because while LBP was just a decent game for its time, LBP2 is amazing. It's better to make an OK game in a new market than a saturated one. It's good in every single way possible. Sales-wise and satisfaction.

Let's all ignore the fact that it is quite possible that the developers themselves may have wanted to do an FPS.

We don't know what they actually wanted to do but I do know that Sony funds them and incorporates a lot of restrictions and/or support these games need to have (Move support on Heavy Rain made the dev angry because it ultimately made their DLC delayed/cancelled, Move support on SOCOM 4 practically destroyed it).

If Sony has no say then they could simply just not fund them and not go for their idea. If you think this was primarily what the dev wanted to do then think again. Sony wanted these shooters, they have spent more money into shooters than any other genre this generation and in the end, other than Warhawk/Uncharted, every single franchise has been a miss in some way or another.

[sainraja]

You're making a lot of assumptions there, Sufi.

Just like we don't know what they actually wanted to do, we don't know if they didn't wanted to make Killzone.

Guerilla Games pitched Sony Killzone on the PS2. You think they didn't want to continue the series? which has pretty much been a trend in gaming. Not to mention that a sequel is pretty much expected by gamers...

I also never suggested that Sony has no say in what goes on in their studios at all (but Sony as a corporate entity does not come up with ideas for the games their developers work on.) The developers do, that is their job, and that is what Sony expects from them.

You mentioned LBP in one of your posts before. Sony green lighted that title and that idea was pitched to them by Media Molecule. If they were that restrictive, they wouldn't have okay'ed that.

[Sufi]

You're making a lot of assumptions there, Sufi.

Just like we don't know what they actually wanted to do, we don't know if they didn't wanted to make Killzone.

Guerilla Games pitched Sony Killzone on the PS2. You think they didn't want to continue the series? which has pretty much been a trend in gaming. Not to mention that a sequel is pretty much expected by gamers...

I also never suggested that Sony has no say in what goes on in their studios at all (but Sony as a corporate entity does not come up with ideas for the games their developers work on.) The developers do, that is their job, and that is what Sony expects from them.

You mentioned LBP in one of your posts before. Sony green lighted that title and that idea was pitched to them by Media Molecule. If they were that restrictive, they wouldn't have okay'ed that.

You're right about everything you just said but I just find it hard to believe that Rachet dev wanted to really go down the shooter path...and now they wanna quit.

They did great with platformers and OK with shooters...don't you see something fishy with that? I think it would've been amazing if they were able to focus more on Rachet and create a masterpiece rather than go down the tried and true path with that series. Rachet was great on PS2 but come on...it didn't really seem to progress into the next-gen.

Just the fact that Sony green-lighted so many of these shooters is what confuses me. Fine, GG wanted to make shooters...so what, it doesn't mean they're good at it. Why did Sony spend so much money into that franchise? While KZ2 created a lot of buzz they needed, ultimately the series was just mediocre and they relatively failed as far as the funds they put into it.

[TekkenLord]

everyone have they own taste, just like some people think COD online can't compare to BF 3. can't please everyone.

[FireSol]

everyone have they own taste, just like some people think COD online can't compare to BF 3. can't please everyone.

and there is ppl who thinks that they both suck )))

Sufi, MAG in not disaster!! it just different! before 2.0 it has best skill system to date!! Mag has it own bugs, and glitshes, but it was really fun to play.

[Suzano-O]

I died when he said "saturated genre where creativeness and authenticity is extremely important"...

[TGO]

It's only the multiplayer, KZ3 can stand on its own with it SP, BF3 can't
So I wouldn't say Sony need to stop making FPS, cuz they are actually better then a lot of devs, what they need to do it just copy and paste the multiplayer from the popular online shooters and stop trying to do something different with it

Sent from my Xperia Ray

[Sufi]

I died when he said "saturated genre where creativeness and authenticity is extremely important"...

What's wrong about that? Bioshock Infinite is the perfect example of what I'm talking about. This game is what makes the FPS genre so amazing.

Those are not the only two things that are needed but those are something I look for and I think they matter a good deal.

It's only the multiplayer, KZ3 can stand on its own with it SP, BF3 can't
So I wouldn't say Sony need to stop making FPS, cuz they are actually better then a lot of devs, what they need to do it just copy and paste the multiplayer from the popular online shooters and stop trying to do something different with it

Sent from my Xperia Ray

You can't just copy paste it. There's a lot more to a shooter than just multiplayer. For the MP to be good, you also need good gun mechanics...which KZ3 fails at. Also you need good general aspects of the gameplay...attention to detail so to speak. KZ3 feels like an arcade shooter.

I'd say even COD is more complicated than this game atm.

[The Cage]

It's not just one game. It's almost their entire library of shooters.

They spent $40 mil on KZ2...WHY! It failed! They could've produced many other amazing things with it.

I could've told them it was crap...what kind of a focus group do they have? Their QA team must suck balls tbh.

Yes, they are all decent games but they need to do better than that if it's a saturated market...which is why I'm saying, "Make decent games that are more unique" because while LBP was just a decent game for its time, LBP2 is amazing. It's better to make an OK game in a new market than a saturated one. It's good in every single way possible. Sales-wise and satisfaction.

We don't know what they actually wanted to do but I do know that Sony funds them and incorporates a lot of restrictions and/or support these games need to have (Move support on Heavy Rain made the dev angry because it ultimately made their DLC delayed/cancelled, Move support on SOCOM 4 practically destroyed it).

If Sony has no say then they could simply just not fund them and not go for their idea. If you think this was primarily what the dev wanted to do then think again. Sony wanted these shooters, they have spent more money into shooters than any other genre this generation and in the end, other than Warhawk/Uncharted, every single franchise has been a miss in some way or another.

It did Not fail, KZ2 is a great game and people Still play it online... it's better than BF3 and Even CoD
it needs skills not just run, shoot , camp.


You're bashing every game and post on here

[Sufi]

It did Not fail, KZ2 is a great game and people Still play it online... it's better than BF3 and Even CoD
it needs skills not just run, shoot , camp.


You're bashing every game and post on here

I can tell you that BF3 needs hell of a lot more skill. You need to learn not only how to operate vehicles and their strategies but multiple other guns/classes...ammo that have physics and the whole "run, shoot, camp" is laughable because that can be said about every shooter.

BF3 as of now is the most tactical shooter out on the market. Every game has rush, camp, shoot, run, trust me on this. Just that BF3 incorporates it in a really good way.

How am I bashing every game on here? I have praised the games that Sony did a great job with. As far as bashing posts...give me an example and then we'll talk.

KZ2 failed because 40 million dollars were spent on it (when an average AAA game takes about 10) and it didn't come to fruition like it was meant to. Now of course it didn't completely fail because it probably made them profits but then we have games out there that make far more money, are much more popular and cost less than half that funding.

If it actually were an amazing game, then we can at least negate everything else by saying that at least it was good for us. The game was mediocre at best. I must've played about 2 hours (and then it sat on my desk for 2 weeks) before I just couldn't continue anymore and had to ebay it.

All I'm saying is that they need to shift their focus because this didn't pan out as well as they were hoping for. It's time to move on and focus on genres that they can better compete in. Uncharted for example pretty much owns the action genre...that's a good example of where they went good. The Last of Us could also be another great title...it's a step in the right direction but they need to stop with FPS because they can never be one of the best out there in it. It's too big of a genre.

[THE_Tanglefoot]

I don't want Sony to stop. Killzone is my favorite shooter series this gen. 3 has its problems but still had a great campaign. Especially when looking at the competition last year. Multipayer is all about preference. Some like it some don't. Killzone 2 is still IMO the best shooter on the market. It has the best squad setup and it takes skill to play. Others have said it and I'll say it. Killzone 2 was not a run and gun shooter. Sony and GG just need to take killozne back to what made 2 great. The atmoshpere. Focus on gameplay keep Warzone, but add new modes to the mix, and keep operations but expand the levels and give it more maps.

[Blacksite]

Well, I have yet to play a current-gen FPS title that is truly unique.

But I agree with Sufi in that Sony should move on and focus on genres that they can better compete in. Unfortunately, we haven't and most likely won't continue to see the same amount of groundbreaking titles like those in the good, old PlayStation 2 days because developers realize that people care more about the next hardcore shooter than anything else. Not to mention that multiplayer gaming has a much larger emphasis than single-player so you end up with poorly-written stories for those that don't care about their kill-death ratios.

[keefy]

The biggest flaw with killzones are the controls and is robably the maint reason why it didnt take off in popularity that and only a few schems to choose form oh and 1 profile for single and multiplayer is silly when they play completely different.

[mickice]

If you didnt like it thats fine, move along and let the rest of us enjoy it. I mostly play free for all, awesome game.

[Noxia]

KZ2 was up there with the biggest wastes of money spent on a game. Didn't touch 3 at all and have no inclination to do so.

[Soldier 95B]

Well, I have yet to play a current-gen FPS title that is truly unique.

Sadly, truer words haven't been spoken.

[Funeralfog]

when the fuck is selling millions considered a failure? hahaha wow

[Noxia]

Justin Bieber has sold millions of CDs but him and the whole genre (Fagpop) will always be a failure to me

[The Cage]

I can tell you that BF3 needs hell of a lot more skill. You need to learn not only how to operate vehicles and their strategies but multiple other guns/classes...ammo that have physics and the whole "run, shoot, camp" is laughable because that can be said about every shooter.

BF3 as of now is the most tactical shooter out on the market. Every game has rush, camp, shoot, run, trust me on this. Just that BF3 incorporates it in a really good way.

How am I bashing every game on here? I have praised the games that Sony did a great job with. As far as bashing posts...give me an example and then we'll talk.

KZ2 failed because 40 million dollars were spent on it (when an average AAA game takes about 10) and it didn't come to fruition like it was meant to. Now of course it didn't completely fail because it probably made them profits but then we have games out there that make far more money, are much more popular and cost less than half that funding.

If it actually were an amazing game, then we can at least negate everything else by saying that at least it was good for us. The game was mediocre at best. I must've played about 2 hours (and then it sat on my desk for 2 weeks) before I just couldn't continue anymore and had to ebay it.

All I'm saying is that they need to shift their focus because this didn't pan out as well as they were hoping for. It's time to move on and focus on genres that they can better compete in. Uncharted for example pretty much owns the action genre...that's a good example of where they went good. The Last of Us could also be another great title...it's a step in the right direction but they need to stop with FPS because they can never be one of the best out there in it. It's too big of a genre.

Here goes the bashing again ...

if you don't like it, simply just leave it and stop saying that it failed, it DID Not fail

and when i said "run,shoot,camp" i meant CoD

but yet again KZ2 needs skills to play you can't just run and shoot
and it's totally different from BF3 so don't compare also BF3 is easier.

[Sufi]

KZ2 was up there with the biggest wastes of money spent on a game. Didn't touch 3 at all and have no inclination to do so.

Exactly.

when the fuck is selling millions considered a failure? hahaha wow

In a context, yes it is a failure. If it were a title that didn't have such a huge funding, it would've been great...but for what they paid for, they didn't exactly get all that much out of it. I doubt even BF3 needed 40 million to be made and that probably has twice the sales of KZ2.

Here goes the bashing again ...

if you don't like it, simply just leave it and stop saying that it failed, it DID Not fail

and when i said "run,shoot,camp" i meant CoD

but yet again KZ2 needs skills to play you can't just run and shoot
and it's totally different from BF3 so don't compare also BF3 is easier.

I'm not sure what you consider bashing. Is criticizing a game bashing? If so, ok I'm bashing it.

And if you can't compare the both then how can you say that BF3 is easier lol. Have you ever played BF3? Try playing the hardcore mode and say that again. You won't last a minute.