|
Scyron posted:What jungle? the WHOLE PLANET was toasted. You can clearly see the shockwave encompasses the ENTIRETY of the planet. The only way the soldiers at the end "survived" is they probably were in space when it happened and chased after the escape pod. I'm sure it is not Visari in the pod too as some speculated in the KZ3 thread. You raise a valid point with the spoilered text, I'm just wildly speculating is all  Regarding KZ3 being better than KZ2, I'm kinda conflicted and it's solely because of the multiplayer. I thought it was better that KZ2 supported 32 player matches rather than the 24 in KZ3, and I appreciated the server browser along with the better menu system (being able to see cameras of the spawn zone you selected) in Killzone 2 as well. I also liked that KZ2 had power weapons such as the flamethrower and boltgun in a couple of multiplayer maps. On the other hand, I appreciated that KZ3 multiplayer has great additions such as the mechs being carried over from the singleplayer along with the jetpacks. I also liked that they added more stuff to make each class unique. At the end of the day though, I found Killzone 3 mutliplayer to be quite unbalanced compared to Killzone 2. I think the spawn capture system was quite a terrible idea since it results in really bad spawncamping, and the map design leads to frustration when combined with some of the ridiculous class abilities. A prime example of this is playing MAWLR Graveyard in Warzone. Since the map is essentially connected by two corridoors either side, you get loads of snipers outside each doorway using the upgraded invisibility ability and scrambler which makes it impossible for either team to break through. It's unfortunate but more often than not the game degenerates into invisible snipers (with rifles that fire very rapidly and do crazy damage) camping all the narrow doorways like this. Killzone 2 handled this by having members of each team have blue (ISA) or red (Helghast) lights visible on their armour, which applied to snipers even when cloaked so they weren't impossibly broken, along with much more open map design. I just hope that when Killzone 4 rolls around that the developers will have played a lot of the third game online and realized what bad decisions they made with the multiplayer component.
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 01:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 10:40 |
|
|
MUFFlNS posted:I don't think the intention was to nuke the planet, they just wanted to destroy Stahl's ship since it was so dangerous and packing some nasty form of new bio weaponry on it. The problem was that when it hit, since the ship was over a huge well of the stuff (as well as containing a whole bunch of weaponry developed with it) it obviously triggered a chain reaction that none of the ISA guys expected. You even hear them act shocked at the end about the whole planet being fried, and Rico expresses sadness at whatever fate they assume fell upon the population of Helghan since their whole goal was to simply stop Stahl. Jungle? There was 3 foot high grass that somehow made you invisible without being very thick even. I mean, I know you are fucken short in that game but its hard to believe that is a jungle and that they thought it qualified as a fun stealth section. KIllzone 3 had some great stuff though, the Jetpack sections were fantastic and the last act on the ship was great fun. The gently caress off super weapon you get is kinda cool but a step back from the lightning hose from KZ2.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 01:15
|
|
|
MUFFlNS posted:You are right about being unbalanced, having a lovely spawn system, and no ability to browse servers. In the end I got more enjoyment out of 3's multiplayer, but I also played it for a completely different reasons entirely. (for fun not a simple trophy grind) Which I think is the reason I can forgive a lot of lovely design decisions. If I wanted to play competitively, well I would be on GGs forums bitching about it ceaselessly, or suggesting how to improve on some of their terrible ideas. I'm not "excited" about 4, but I'm 3 titles in so far so chances are I will buy it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 01:19
|
|
|
Scyron posted:You are right about being unbalanced, having a lovely spawn system, and no ability to browse servers. I enjoy KZ 3 more just because it controlled a lot better than Killzone 2. The multiplayer was ok at times and I played it enough to level up at least 2 of my classes. But the spawn system needed some work and some maps were really bad. I felt like if they had fixed those things, the game would be much more playable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 01:23
|
|
|
Neon Knight posted:Jungle? There was 3 foot high grass that somehow made you invisible without being very thick even. I mean, I know you are fucken short in that game but its hard to believe that is a jungle and that they thought it qualified as a fun stealth section. Enemies in Killzone 3 were using the lightning gun which had me excited that I could pick it up when I killed them but noooooooo, freakin' things disappear from existence when you kill the soldiers carrying them  Scyron posted:You are right about being unbalanced, having a lovely spawn system, and no ability to browse servers. Yeah that's why it bugs me really, is playing for fun and knowing it could be mindblowingly good if it wasn't for some silly choices. I don't think a player should ever feel cheated when playing a mutliplayer game basically. Have you played Gears of War 3? I feel the same way about the sawn-off shotgun in that game which has really ruined the multiplayer experience I think.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 01:26
|
|
|
MUFFlNS posted:Enemies in Killzone 3 were using the lightning gun which had me excited that I could pick it up when I killed them but noooooooo, freakin' things disappear from existence when you kill the soldiers carrying them I only played gears3 with goons, the game was fun but short lived due to most jumping ship to MW3 or other newer games. I enjoyed gears3 for what it was worth. I never got sawed-off or felt terribly cheated from a death, though I maybe put 5 hours in competitive mp. I got Gears for co-op primarily, then the hoard/beast secondary, competitive is last just because it is simple and formulaic with grab power weapons gameplay. Not bad, just not exactly my cup of tea. (How on Earth I enjoy Uncharted more, is odd since it follows that same formula, sans shotgun-fest.) I had no problem at all with Gears multiplayer, in fact Gears1 is my top rated MP experience ever due to how awesome private goon matches were. I have a soft spot for it since it is the last exclusive for 360, it features manly men with bigass guns and Gears was the reason I purchased a 360, on the same day the PS3 came out, no less. Maybe we should drop Gears because this is getting a bit off topic from the KZ3 discussion. As for killzone 3 MP, all I cared about was reviving teammates, using the only worthwhile assault rifle and planting proxy mines on enemy ammo crates. It was the simpler things that I got enjoyment out of, not so much leveling up all the classes, unlocking every perk or reaching top rank.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 02:51
|
|
|
I actually went ahead and played Killzone 1 and Liberation before I stepped into Killzone 2 (still haven't taken it out of the shrink-wrap). Please don't bother playing Killzone 1 unless you want some inconsequential character back story as the game has not aged well and can be repetitive and frustrating due to design decisions to lengthen the game and some bugs that can cause you to replay an entire level. Being that I haven't played Killzone 2 yet and that at the end of Liberation Rico gets captured and hauled off to Helghan prison I'm going to assume Killzone 2 has you bust him out at some point. Liberation itself is a good game but requires a PSP so that may not be accessible to all. Story-wise the previous spoiler should bring you up to speed if you're unable to play it. Being that I have yet to play Killzone 2 or 3 if there are any characters or background in the game that you feel may have more weight behind them in the either 1 or Liberation feel free to ask.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 04:05
|
|
|
Rico is with you from the beginning in Killzone 2. That plot point you mention is probably something they left for a Liberation sequel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 04:11
|
|
|
Dominic White posted:Easy? Yes. Yep, but if I use all those, I get a lovely score and the game acts as if I'm playing badly. I'm willing to gimp myself to make the game more fun, but not at the cost of actively being graded poorly on gameplay.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 04:30
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Yep, but if I use all those, I get a lovely score and the game acts as if I'm playing badly. I'm willing to gimp myself to make the game more fun, but not at the cost of actively being graded poorly on gameplay. The game actually encourages speed above all else in that every mission has a parameter that causes you to lose if you use 20 turns. Granted, you shouldn't take nearly that long on any mission, but its such a silly thing to have that it makes me wonder why they included it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 04:35
|
|
|
Is Bayonetta playable on PS3 with a patch or something, or is it still hosed? I've been wanting to play it for a while, but knew it had serious issues. Are they fixed?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 09:58
|
|
|
Cwapface posted:Is Bayonetta playable on PS3 with a patch or something, or is it still hosed? I've been wanting to play it for a while, but knew it had serious issues. Are they fixed?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 10:07
|
|
|
Most of us played the poo poo out of it unpatched. There was never any "serious" issues. It used to take way longer to load before the patch, that's all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 10:17
|
|
|
Mug posted:Most of us played the poo poo out of it unpatched. There was never any "serious" issues. Well, aside from running at half the framerate and with lower-quality textures. For a few people that's actually rather serious. And that's post-patch, too. The load-times and weird pauses got addressed by the patch, but that's it. ImpAtom posted:Yep, but if I use all those, I get a lovely score and the game acts as if I'm playing badly. I'm willing to gimp myself to make the game more fun, but not at the cost of actively being graded poorly on gameplay. And the most efficient way to play Bioshock was running at enemies with the wrench, dying, respawning and doing it again until you won. It was also the least fun by a long way, and was clearly what the developers hadn't intended. Just because the scoring system gives bonuses if you cheese everything doesn't mean you should feel compelled to, especially if doing so cuts out 90% of the actual gameplay. Dominic White fucked around with this message at 10:23 on Dec 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 10:20
|
|
|
Also, the load times only go away after choosing to install game data, an option that appears after installing the patch.
Yechezkel fucked around with this message at 10:25 on Dec 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 10:22
|
|
|
"half the framerate and lower-quality textures" compared to a version that most people who play the game on PS3 will never interact with in their life. Why would it affect their experience at all?Yechezkel posted:Also, the load times go away after choosing to install game data, an option that appears after installing the patch. Yes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 10:22
|
|
|
Mug posted:Most of us played the poo poo out of it unpatched. There was never any "serious" issues. It used to take way longer to load before the patch, that's all. Mug posted:"half the framerate and lower-quality textures" compared to a version that most people who play the game on PS3 will never interact with in their life. Why would it affect their experience at all? I used to have a roommate with an Xbox 360, and I played the demo for Bayonetta on 360 before trying it on PS3. The difference is huge and I personally think it affects the gameplay experience. To me playing an action game of that kind with a low, unstable framerate would be like playing a fighting game with a low framerate. Getting as much information as possible out of a constant high framerate is important and I find it extremely unacceptable when games like MvC3 are not locked at 60fps on PS3. You can play through the game fine, but the more you delve into the systems and try to dig into the combos and playing on higher difficulties for high scores, the ability to time and react to whats happening on screen is diminished. If I am remembering correctly, it also has less contrast making it muddier and more difficult to parse what is happening on screen. If you have no option to play Bayonetta on 360, it's a fantastic game on PS3 still and very much worth playing. I do however find it aggravating when people give out misinformation about it's performance on PS3.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 11:08
|
|
|
Final Fantasy 6 coming this week to NA PSN
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 11:15
|
|
|
bleep posted:I used to have a roommate with an Xbox 360, and I played the demo for Bayonetta on 360 before trying it on PS3. The difference is huge and I personally think it affects the gameplay experience. To me playing an action game of that kind with a low, unstable framerate would be like playing a fighting game with a low framerate. Getting as much information as possible out of a constant high framerate is important and I find it extremely unacceptable when games like MvC3 are not locked at 60fps on PS3. You can play through the game fine, but the more you delve into the systems and try to dig into the combos and playing on higher difficulties for high scores, the ability to time and react to whats happening on screen is diminished. If I am remembering correctly, it also has less contrast making it muddier and more difficult to parse what is happening on screen. Yeah, there are two or three parts that have terrible, terrible slowdown. One of those parts involve a lot of platforming. And the game actually looks bad compared to the XBOX version, and I wish they would release a better version one day. Vanquish looked excellent on the PS3, so I know it can be done.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 11:23
|
|
|
Renoistic posted:Yeah, there are two or three parts that have terrible, terrible slowdown. One of those parts involve a lot of platforming. And the game actually looks bad compared to the XBOX version, and I wish they would release a better version one day. Vanquish looked excellent on the PS3, so I know it can be done. Yeah it's nothing to do with the PS3, Sega just did not do a very good job porting it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 11:46
|
|
|
Dominic White posted:And the most efficient way to play Bioshock was running at enemies with the wrench, dying, respawning and doing it again until you won. It was also the least fun by a long way, and was clearly what the developers hadn't intended. Just because the scoring system gives bonuses if you cheese everything doesn't mean you should feel compelled to, especially if doing so cuts out 90% of the actual gameplay. Except, uh, that kind of obviously IS how the developers intended it. Playing 'sensible' will get you a bad score in the game. VC heavily rewards running into enemy fire and speeding towards the goal and actively punishes defensive setups or trying to lure enemies into traps. The primary scoring factor in the game, above all else, is speed. Speed is all that matters. You can leave 90% of the enemy forces alive as long as you grab that flag or blow up that one boss character. It's a badly designed game, and the fact that it could have been a well-designed game doesn't excuse it, especially considering they kept the same stupid-rear end scoring system in VC2 where the need to get a good rank is even higher due to more poo poo to unlock. To point back to the Bioshock example: You know what the developers did after it became clear that the Vita Chambers allowed that? They offered players the option to turn it off, and even threw in an achievement for it. So it's a pretty poor example because the developers themselves recognized it was a bad idea and took steps to fix it. If you don't want to use the Vita Chambers, the game not only allows for that option without punishing you, but actively rewards you with an (admittedly useless) 'cheevo. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 14:52 on Dec 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 14:48
|
|
|
I just wanted to tell all Swedish goons that you can buy Rayman Origins at game.se for a third of the price on release (199:-), shipping included. Paying 599:- was insane but now there's no excuse not to buy it!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 14:54
|
|
|
Mug posted:"half the framerate and lower-quality textures" compared to a version that most people who play the game on PS3 will never interact with in their life. Why would it affect their experience at all?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 18:08
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Except, uh, that kind of obviously IS how the developers intended it. Playing 'sensible' will get you a bad score in the game. VC heavily rewards running into enemy fire and speeding towards the goal and actively punishes defensive setups or trying to lure enemies into traps. The primary scoring factor in the game, above all else, is speed. Speed is all that matters. You can leave 90% of the enemy forces alive as long as you grab that flag or blow up that one boss character. If you seriously believe that they put all those missions with all those enemies and all those unit classes with all those abilities in the game, only to seriously intend players to ignore almost all of it and just run Alicia to the objective time and time again, you're completely insane. That's like saying that Quake was intentionally designed so you could play it like this. It's a weird oversight in the scoring system, but each enemy also gives a bounty, so you're really not missing out on many points in the end if you just play the game normally.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 20:24
|
|
|
Yeah I don't care if I D-ranked almost all the missions so far, I'm having a good time laying traps and being all strategic. I've also been playing way too much. I was driving to the store yesterday and got this weird nervous feeling. I realized it was because, subconsciously, I was afraid my car would run out of AP before it made it all the way there.  I felt like I should've given myself a wedgie right there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 20:27
|
|
|
Code Jockey posted:Yeah I don't care if I D-ranked almost all the missions so far, I'm having a good time laying traps and being all strategic. Yeah, that's how I played the game, too. It rewards speed, but it also rewards taking out captains and such, so whatever. I had fun playing it the way I did, knowing there were other ways to play it that would technically net more points. As long as I could run around being adorable and shooting things in the head, I was fine. I also very rarely used roders, which I honeslty kept forgetting I had until enemy commanders used them. And yeah, I had that dumb, half-asleep "Do I have enough AP to get to work?" moment as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 20:33
|
|
|
Dominic White posted:If you seriously believe that they put all those missions with all those enemies and all those unit classes with all those abilities in the game, only to seriously intend players to ignore almost all of it and just run Alicia to the objective time and time again, you're completely insane. That's like saying that Quake was intentionally designed so you could play it like this. No, I'm saying they're bad at designing the games. If it was an oversight, they would have fixed it in the sequel and they didn't. In fact, they were even asked about it and said that they were not going to change it because it was how they intended it. They toned down Scouts but *kept the same scoring system* and the game just ended up being about using other broken poo poo instead. It's also pretty hard to call it an oversight when the primary drat factor in getting an A/S rank is speed. It doesn't matter how many you kill, just how fast you do it. Also, several unlocks depend on score, not pure points, so playing the game "normally" does in fact make you miss stuff. It's fine if you don't care, but it's still a design problem and still stupid to anyone who does. If the only way to have fun in the game is to not use a bunch of overpowered characters, not use orders, not try to get a good score and in general cripple myself to the point of silliness, that isn't a well-designed game. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Dec 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 20:42
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:No, I'm saying they're bad at designing the games. If it was an oversight, they would have fixed it in the sequel and they didn't. In fact, they were even asked about it and said that they were not going to change it because it was how they intended it. You have a link? I'd love to read a post mortem on either game, but the Japanese remain mostly secretive about development.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 22:15
|
|
|
Sony, will you please stop giving the UK PSN pure white or otherwise amazingly light background textures, or at least make the foreground text black when you do. I can't see poo poo on the PSOne Classics screen at the moment unless I turn the view mode to icon only, and then I still can't see poo poo in the product box.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 23:14
|
|
|
Rinkles posted:You have a link? I'd love to read a post mortem on either game, but the Japanese remain mostly secretive about development. I'll see if I can dig it up. It was back when VCII came out so it might take a while.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 23:15
|
|
|
Did they talk about how lovely it was that they had to ditch the giant, intricately designed battlefields that made 1 so good because of the memory and storage limitations of the PSP?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 23:17
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Did they talk about how lovely it was that they had to ditch the giant, intricately designed battlefields that made 1 so good because of the memory and storage limitations of the PSP? No, they talked more about how smaller and more portable missions were requested to make them easier to pick up and play IIRC. Which is probably marketing bullshit but Japan does love its PSP.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 23:47
|
|
|
There were times where I was annoyed with the size because it was mainly just walking with nothing in between. Its probably the main reason that I never used my tank at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 23:54
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:There were times where I was annoyed with the size because it was mainly just walking with nothing in between. Its probably the main reason that I never used my tank at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2011 23:57
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:No, they talked more about how smaller and more portable missions were requested to make them easier to pick up and play IIRC. I want to know who the hell are these people who always ask for things no one ever wants, ever. It happened with a lot of franchises already.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 00:44
|
|
|
Y'know what I wish VC had? The ability to group together multiple units to move/attack/act in unison. There've been a few times where there's been, say, a blind corner with a few units behind it, and marching ONE unit at a time around the corner is basically suicide [and I can't easily chuck a grenade around or get a tank over there or w/e] If I could charge like 3-4 troopers around the corner and concentrate fire that would be awesome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 00:51
|
|
|
Krad posted:I want to know who the hell are these people who always ask for things no one ever wants, ever. It happened with a lot of franchises already. Japan has a lot more emphasis on portable gaming then America, and in turn have more requests for "bite-sized" missions that you can pick up and play quickly during a train ride or such. Sort of like Smart Phone gaming.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 00:53
|
|
|
I'm just recently getting back into console gaming after a long layoff (work, family, etc). I'm thinking of buying a PS3, but I've heard they have backwards compatibility issues with PS2 games. Is that for all games? Some games? Does the model of PS3 matter? I found this page on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PlayStation_3_backward_compatible_PlayStation_2_and_PlayStation_games but I can't tell if it's saying those games are backward compatable for the old models of the PS3 or not. Help is appreciated. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 00:56
|
|
|
Retail Slave posted:I'm just recently getting back into console gaming after a long layoff (work, family, etc). I'm thinking of buying a PS3, but I've heard they have backwards compatibility issues with PS2 games. Is that for all games? Some games? Does the model of PS3 matter? Basically, anything other than the very first models of PS3 (which are now extremely rare/expensive) can't run PS2 games, sorry. They later came up with a software emulator, but they don't let you download it by itself - you need to buy digital versions of the whole games again on PSN.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 00:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 10:40 |
|
|
Probably better suited for the PS3 General discussion thread, but the short of it is that unless you're buying used off someone, you're not getting BC at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2011 00:58
|
|