uber

User Score
9.5

Presentation - 10
Gameplay - 9.0
Value - 9.5

In all my years of gaming, I've never seen a game so controversial within the gaming community as killzone 2. From the doctored footage shown at E3 2005 to the deadzone in the controls, killzone has gone through its production and launch with the biggest bulls-eye on it's back in recent history. Part of the antipathy towards the title resulted simply because the franchise was billed by Sony to be a Halo killer fps. A comment this incendiary will hardly go unnoticed, and people have been gunning for this game ever since.

    In undertaking a review of this game, I will try to give perspective to the controversy as best as possible in order to help the reader understand how the scores can vary so greatly.
Guerilla has maintained for some time that the goal they were going for with killzone was something they called, "hollywood realism." This basically refers to an exaggerated realism which is designed to maximize visceral enjoyment and immersion. This idea presents itself as a theme in the way the game feels and plays, so it is a testament to the talent of the developers that it is so consistently applied. Whether a player actually likes it or not is a different question.
      This theme was executed with several focus points. The first is of course the graphics. Without amazing graphics, a game's immersion factor would be limited. In this killzone is an unparalled success. It is without a doubt the most visually stunning game I've ever seen. From character models to weather effects, everything works to suck the player into the experience. Hand in hand with graphics is level design, and for the most part the set pieces are breathtaking. Storming Visari's palace was a combination of aesthetic beauty and thumb-blistering difficulty. With that said, there were some pronounced criticisms of the design. The drab color palette is successful at creating a mood and a sinister undertone, but the repetitive building architecture seems uninspired after a while. This feeling is hammered home on the train level, where going through endless tunnels on the Helghan landscape gave me flashbacks of watching Tom and Jerry chase eachother through a house that seemed miles long. In addition to the graphics and level design, the characters themselves are in a way part of the visual presentation, and while they look great, the characters themselves leave lots to be desired. In general the dialogue is only slightly better than Army of Two. By the end of the game, I wanted to shoot Rico myself. The other characters are not nearly as bad, but they are overshadowed by the mindless, swearing army-jock that is Rico. I really don't know how much to weight this objection, because I have known army infantry grunts before, and they are hardly Shakespeare-quoting diplomats. Maybe they got it right after all.
      The second focus is the gameplay itself. To put it simply, this game has some of the most intense, butt-clenching gameplay I've ever played. To give an example, I was trying to beat the game with a friend, and we were swapping the controller upon death (there was a LOT of swapping). Well after a fairly respectable turn on the part of yours truly, my friend was duly grossed out to find the controller literally dripping with sweat. The gameplay can be broken down into two types: massive scale battles and small team insertion missions. Massive battles are ones where both sides are heavily invested in the fight, and the frontline will not advance unless the player pushes it forward. These battles can be quite drawn out, as both sides will reinforce their ranks, and the helghast will counter-attack if given the chance. The small teams missions feel like fps levels of old, where the player and a squad mate complete objectives. This scheme lends to a nice variety of gameplay, but given the rush of the major battles, the routine levels tend to feel a little muted.....but not that much. The missions overall were very consistent with your character. You are a grunt, and most of the objectives in the game are grunt objectives. The only times the game deviates from this is when the Helghast attack Templars cruiser and the player mans an AA gun (there would be...i dunno, gunners to do that). The chief criticism of the missions would be the boss fights. The developers do a very good job of integrating boss fights in such a way as to not make the levels feel like they are from circa 1993. The fights more or less involve having to figure out what the weakness of the boss is before one can best it. Unfortunately, the joy of figuring it out for oneself is spoiled by one's squadmates. The first boss is a case in point. After about 10 seconds it's obvious that sheer bullet volume is insufficient, but after a headshot spins him around the glowing fuel back on his back should be a telltale mark of what one should do. I guess that is too much to expect out of a player, because your mate coaches you through exactly what to do...lame. The bosses do get more challenging, and Radec is one tough sumbitch to take out in the final battle, but the allies sometimes like to play captain obvious a bit too much. The last thing about the missions worth mentioning are the hidden elements, i.e. intel and symbols. This feature feels tacked on and unnatural simply because the levels tend to be so intense that looking around for hidden crap is really not high on the players list of things to do. I do understand that it helps replayability and what-not, but it was just an afterthought for me.
      The next gameplay feature we will look at is the gunplay. The weapon selection is modest but adequate. There is a general paucity of hi-tech weaponry such as one might find in resistance or halo, but I think this reflects the realistic feel of the warzone. I just don't think sticking a BFG in some hidden alley would be in line with the theme the devs have set up. Also, when you consider how unbelievably satisfying it is to play with the standard issue rifle, having a large arsenal to choose from just seems superfluous. The gun types cover the usual types, and almost without exception the are brilliantly done. The sniper rifle, for example, is a marked improvement over the previous iteration's version. It even incorporates the six axis controls into the scoping mechanism. Whereas in COD one has to hold the left stick to hold a breath to steady the rifle, in killzone the steadiness of the rifle is actually taken from the steadiness of the players hand. It is a simple modification that is brillian in gameplay. For the majority of the game it doesn't factor that much into the play, but there were a few firefights that I found myself unable to hit anybody I was so shaky. Contrasted with this highnote are the horrible lows that are the flamethrower and grenade launcher. I imagine that the flamethrower was supposed to be modeled after the trajectory of napalm, but the only thing that comes out of it is fail. And as for the grenade launcher, I just have no idea what the goal was for it. It simply doesn't work like a grenade launcher should. My advice to someone who comes across it is to just leave it there.
      The last thing that one must consider in assessing gameplay is the AI. The AI in killzone stands out about as much as the graphics. The friendly AI has been greatly criticized, but after seeing what human teammates are capable of doing in multiplayer (I actually got in a flamewar with some dude who was pissed that I killed him after he walked into my line of fire...more than once) I think I'd actually prefer the cpu teammates. And as for the Helghast AI....simply brutal. They work very well together, provide covering fire, flush with grenades, and are very aggressive. To put it simply, they will come get your ass. The standard fps tactics of finding a safe perch to fire headshots is rendered completely obsolete. They will find a way to get you. I learned this the hard way. On the veteran difficulty level, it took me over 12 hours to finish, and I died 248 times. Despite that ridiculous number of deaths, I never found myself frustrated with the game. I actually would be excited to try it again, simply because my death would not come from something cheap or fluky, but rather that they had gotten the best of me. Also, having a hig sneak up behind you and dent your skull with the butt of his rifle has a way of firing one up. This game gets personal. Concurrently with the AI, nothing complements a worthy foe like a beautiful death, and in killzone those are in no short supply. The ragdoll physics and gunplay make killing the higs the most satisfying and enjoyable breaking of the sixth commandment in gaming today. The way the blood flies and the bodies react to penetration is something that never gets old. And the fact that there are over 100 distinct death animations ensures that it will never be repetitive.
      The last focus of the hollywood realism is in the controls. The developers really wanted to convey a person being controlled and not a gun, so movement in the game has a definite feeling of weight. In running and jumping this comes across flawlessly, but in tracking targets and turnspeed it poses a pretty radical break with more contemporary fps controls. Prima facie this comes off as poor programming, but once it is understood the value becomes apparent. There is inertia factored in to horizontal movements, so the rate of turn is not constant. This makes it very hard to target quickly. The reason that this is in the game is that the developers integrated an amazing cover mechanic, and they intend for the player to use it. Being able to run and target on the fly vis a vis COD would render the cover mechanic unnecessary. The idea is to slow it down, use cover, and choose shots wisely. If the player stays in that style, then the controls really shine. However, if the player decides to run n gun, it will almost invariably lead to a quick death. My opinion on the controls is mixed. I love the fast twitch nature of COD, but I also understand that in real combat one cannot just rush the enemy and take them all down with headshots. The killzone controls are there to keep things honest. Even with this knowledge, I still found myself falling back on my old strategies, and next thing I knew I was falling lifelessly to the ground even before I had finished my Rambo yell.
      People have alleged that the campaign was forgettable and that the game does nothing new, but here you have a new perspective on controls which ushers in a new level of immersion, and it is criticized for being different. I, for one, find this humorous and sad.
      Before I score the game, I need to mention a few other important observations not related to the immersion factor. The story has been criticized for its weakness. The story is interesting and very straightforward, and apparently because it lacks a modern twist it is inferior. The method of telling the narrative is interesting, because everything you find out about the story is through the point of view of your character. This explains the lack of disclosure, because he is only a grunt. He only knows what to do next, and who to kill. To be honest, during the missions I really didn't have time to focus on the story. It could have been as simple as,"If they have red eyes....shoot them" and that would have been ok with me.
      Perhaps the biggest technical problem which negatively impacted gameplay were the projectile physics on the train level. Whenever a grenade was thrown or fired, the inertia of the character was not considered in the trajectory of the grenade. It was as if you were stationary with respect to the train and lobbed the grenade on it. Any first year physics student would know that a ball thrown by a passenger on a moving train would move as if they train were at rest. Well after the first grenade I threw rolled back to me and detonated at my feet I realized I was in a non-Newtonian universe. This problem was the only thing I encountered which actually affected the fun factor of the game. After covering so many dimensions of this game, I feel like an actual score is not necessary, but since this wouldn't really be a review without a final score I would give it somewhere around a 9.5. This is because of two major considerations. One, it is simply the best shooter i've ever played. While it doesn't have as many large scale fights as COD4, it does a better job of delivering an immersive experience. And just in writing this review I cannot wait to play it again. Secondly, this game stands out as a definite contender for game of the year honors. It does so many things near perfectly that it can not be overlooked. A few technical flaws keep it from perfection (and let's face it no game is perfect), but in achieving its goals I would say that it has been a huge success.


      The MP I score independently, as it is pretty much a game of its own. It is a very fresh take on mp with it's unlockable badge and class system. The biggest drawback to it are the idiots who play online like it's a futuristic COD. The maps are beautiful, and the classes are really fun to play with, but there still remains some work to be done before the mp has the same polish and tactical quality that the single player game has. Most matches tend to degenerate into chaotic firefights where everyone dies. The design and balance of the game is easily better than COD5, but until players learn how to use the classes and not play like decapitated chickens I would say COD4 is still the king.


Thanks for reading.