“Get up on that tank and mow down those Higs with that em-gee!”
I REALLY hate when a game feels like you are crouching the whole time. I actually sometimes have that problem in Fallout 3, but that’s a scenery problem. Since when do those blocks in the middle of an interstate feel like they are as tall as I am? What am I? 3 feet tall?
That’s going to be another comments thread for the ages.
Just to set the levels here, Tom didn’t like Call of Duty: World at War either, which was a really fun game when all was said and done.
Continuing to set the levels, did anyone besides you like World of War?
Something like 6 million of his closests friends according to sales (and a few reviewers as well, just to head of the “millions of flies like shit too”-argument)
I haven’t played either Killzone of World of War, so I have no record to set or reset. I just know that once Killzone 2 is released the PS3 will leave the Wii in the dust… oh, wait.
What does that have to do with anything? Is my opinion on Killzone 2 somehow less credible because I was underwhelmed by Call of Duty 5? How about I “set the level” again by pointing out my over-the-top adulation for Call of Duty 4? Then you can come back with something about how I didn’t like The Darkness. At which point I’ll explain that I loved Riddick. And finally we can work our way to the fact that I didn’t care for Deus Ex. Will the level be set at that point?
And FWIW, I don’t dispute that Call of Duty 5 is a “fun game”. Luckily, there’s a lot more to talk about when you consider games than whether they’re “fun” or not.
-Tom
It’s good to read a contrarian opinion, as I keep thinking of the press’ over the top reaction to GTA4 whenever I see another 9+/10 on this game. Still, I think most people care much more about the multiplayer and will be how the game is ultimately judged.
haha we have to bring over this comment on fidgit:
By fdfddfdfd at 7:28 AM ON 02/04/09
You are like that guy who has been watching porn so long in his life that he can only get off unless it is some really freaky fetish stuff.
For people of size, the term midget is offensive.
They prefer the term ‘dwarf’, although I think that is more because they get +2 to their constitution.
Sure, there’s lots of great stuff to discuss, it just seems like lately a game being fun isn’t enough to net a positive review from you. It’s got to raise the bar or be impactful in its social commentary. Everyone was worried about Treyarch’s regression of the series back to WWII, but it turned out pretty great. Sure, it wasn’t as good at Modern Warfare and it didn’t have an impact moment like the AC-130 Gunship level, but Infinity Ward is just over everyone’s head at this point for the corridor shooter. That doesn’t mean CoD 5 wasn’t a good game in its own right. I just think that after so many years of FPS by the numbers Modern Warfare, Crysis and Far Cry 2 came along and ruined the curve to the point where some very fun games all of a sudden come across as disappointing…
But don’t worry about it. I don’t really care. We can argue about what a single player campaign needs to deliver, but ironically we live in a world where all the masses seem to care about is multiplayer anyway. Supposedly that’s where Killzone 2’s innovations really lie, asside from technology. And with CoD 4, Gears 2, Halo 3, Resistance 2, all the kids car about is online. I’ve never played multi in any of them. So I might be out of touch.
Does he have a point? The big shooters of last year (like Resistance 2 and Gears 2) have single player modes that are really, really just ok when you step back and analyze them. Tom is likely to be a bit more harsh than that. Sure, they are stupid fun but what do we see that is special or unique? Is that what we need? Does a shooter need to be special or unique in some way? Is it bad if it isn’t?
Tom, how does Killzone 2 stack up with those games? Outside of being short, it sounds like it falls somewhere in between. For someone who plays a lot of shooters but not every one, that would be just fine for me.
Jeez Brad, we should really chat before we post the same opinion. :)
If you have it, come play R2 co-op with us sometime. I’m having a lot of fun with it. You really are missing out on the meat of some of these games without giving multi a try. The games you mention hide a large portion of themselves behind the multiplayer curtain. The single player portion of CoD 4 was fun, for example, but I would have considered the game to be pretty weak without the awesome multiplayer mode they included.
Killzone 2 is on my radar mostly because of the multiplayer. Without it, I wouldn’t be that interested in driving to the store, at least not any time soon.
I’m not sure that the “masses” care primarily about multiplayer. I think it’s more likely that the vocal minority that populates internet message boards tends to care disproportionately about multiplayer. Of course I’m exposing my own bias, because I don’t care about multiplayer. My feeling is that most people don’t either because they’re intimidated by the community or because they just prefer their gaming time to be less adversarial. Personally, I stick with single player because I always win. I play games to have fun and feel a sense of accomplishment. In the single player campaign I can always persevere and I like that. Getting my ass kicked constantly in MP just isn’t fun to me and I don’t have the time, skill, or interest to get good.
Also, I know Tom took some issue with you “setting the level” by bringing up his CoD5 review, but I thought it was a fair comment. Knowing a reviewer’s particular predilections helps one to know whether he wants to rely on that particular person’s view. It doesn’t make the reviewer right or wrong, but knowing something about how he’s viewed other games seems fair to me.
…like Saints Row 2.
There’s no way to edit Fidgit messages, is there? I don’t want mine to come across as sarcastic, because I really want to know Tom’s opinion of why Far Cry 2 and Call of Duty 4 are such great games. I agree for Call of Duty but I want him to justify it.
I am not Tom, but I can answer that.
They both have PC versions, which is the main requirement for an FPS not to suck.
Sounds almost identical to a Criterion game called ‘Black’ which I recently started playing.
Stupidly gorgeous and technically superior to most of its generational counterparts(ie. PS2-era), but the game survives almost solely on those achievements alone. Firing a pretty gun and watching the dramatic fireworks claim the screen is not exactly enough to assuage the rote levels and lack of creative or inspired setpieces which tend to actually make the best games remembered as the best.
Why don’t you start by reading his Far Cry 2 review?
http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/far-cry-2/far-cry-2-review/1257574
Btw, that took me less than 1 second to find in Google.
To me that doesn’t really explain why it’s so great.
What I want is to ask Tom about it.
Edit: removed some stuff from the text.