Talk:Killzone 2/Archive 2

Features?
I think it would be interesting to note some of the more prevelent Killzone 2 features. Like being able to listen to music in game (as far as I am aware, no other PS3 game can do this using the XMB) and the expansive stat tracking on Killzone.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.236.249 (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are games that support in-game music already. Super Stardust HD, Warhawk -v1.5 update, Uncharted - TBA, Resistance 2 - Launch, Burnout Paradise - TBA, PAIN, Super Stardust HD, High Velocity Bowling, MLB 08 The Show -> The last few are through the game, not through XMB. Ffgamera (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No PlayStation HOME GameLaunch'ing Feature
Hey I registered to edit the page to post a section about PlayStation HOME content that Killzone 2 features and on the back of the game it states "-PLAYSTATION(R)HOME-" which means it either has Unlocks for PSN Home or GameLaunch'ing support. Which is Does NOT offer neither several players have confirmed this:

http://www.boardsus.playstation.com%2Fplaystation%2Fboard%2Fmessage%3Fboard.id%3Dps3home%26thread.id%3D586021%26view%3Dby_date_ascending%26page%3D1

The only PlayStation Home related content to Killzone 2 is the Costumes from Amazon which are Not included on the BluRay so if someone can add a -- section -- with this info it would be cool to let people know so that they don't spend their time trying to go from PSN Home rooms to room seeing if they can setup a gamelaunch or not.

Thanks

-PSNID: FPlus —Preceding unsigned comment added by FplusPS3 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What what what? Firstly, are you trying to say that PlayStation Home does not support Killzone 2 game launching or will not? Secondly, the link is broken. Thirdly, the only games that support game launching currently are Warhawk and Everybody's Golf 5 (Japan only). Ffgamera (talk) 09:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed Vehicles
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/34207.html

In a recent interview, Steven Ter Heide(Producer of Killzone 2) CONFIRMS that there will be drivable vehicles in the the game.

If someone would like to add this to the main article, please do.

24.117.156.235 (talk) 08:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. NarooN (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not very confirmed "vehicles". There's only one situation where you use a tank, and another where you use an exoskeleton. Ffgamera (talk) 03:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ray Tracing
Killzone 2 shows a basic form of realtime ray tracing that IBM studied. To get full ray tracing they had to hook up 3 Playstion 3 systems. This is shown here:

Images
This page has 15 screen-shots currently, this seems excessive. John .n-  IRL  12:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Reviews
Who the hell are MEGamers? Are they really notable enough to be mentioned here? I realise that their score is used on Metacritic, but there are plenty of sites they use that Wikipedia doesn't consider notable. Frvernchanezzz (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, never heard of them. Not to mention, most of the sites listed in the text are Official Playstation Magazines and its not like those are unbiased. Might want to change it to IGN and GameSpot reviews instead. --198.110.216.29 (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * MEGamers review

At this moment, there is no Killzone 2 review on MEGamers. There may of been one at some point but there isn't now. I accidentally marked 200.100.203.145's edit as vandalism instead of a normal revert using Twinkle. Sorry about that but the revert is still valid. A link was provided to Metacritic but the link on Metacritic's page is also dead, suggesting there was a review but it has since been retracted. Besides, I'm not convinced that MEGamers has established it's self as a valid, reliable critical authority.  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 12:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Maxim review

I removed the Maxim review, not because it was a low score but because Maxim is not considered as reliable source for video game reviews. A quick glance over some other high-profile video game articles shows none of them including a Maxim review. I don't see how giving a game a low score suddenly makes the publication notable. To be honest, it's probably because of reviews like this that they are not taken seriously. Obviously, if a notable, reliable publication gives it a bad review, I won't have any problem with it being included. Also, if you look over the article's edit history you will see that I've also removed two positive reviews because they didn't fall within the guidelines agreed by editors.  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 09:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Good call. As this is such a high profile release, I have a feeling this page will get flooded with really high and really low scores from many, many unreliable sources (MEGamers? Who?). Perhaps a pre-emptive semi-protection is in order? 124.186.135.244 (talk) 09:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Page protection can't be used pre-emptively (WP:SEMI). Never heard of MEGamers either TBH.  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 12:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Split Screen
Ok, I can't find any information anywhere about whether or not it has split screen. No official sources at least. I've seen petitions asking for it, but I need real information.--66.187.36.141 (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

it doesnt have it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Big Johnno (talk • contribs) 14:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Killzone 2 does not feature offline multiplayer or co-operative play. Ffgamera (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Correct, although speculation as risen. Nucleos 18:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahahs (talk • contribs)

KIllzone 2 does offer a bot system for use in a kind of "skirmish" mode... these will level up in the same system as the player, unlocking weapons and classes. 83.104.133.95 (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Badge System
Should we put up the badge system for the different classes on multi-player? Or should we wait till the game is released? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.64.105.95 (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Classes were put in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alias50 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Development: Technical Information
With regard to the line, "Reviewers and critics have gone as far as calling it 'Crysis level' graphics. On a technical perspective, this is echoed true." I don't see any citations, and while it's not a knock on the game as such, this seems to be a pretty subjective issue -- it's not backed up by technical fact/engine feature comparisons, or any authoritative sources to be "echoed true".

The same goes for the bits about lighting. Also, I don't see in the line "Critics early on called the game's graphics impossible to be rendered in real time, but this has obviously been proven false" what is supposed to be "obvious" given that there's no reference here. If it's referring to the original 2005 E3 trailer, then that's a whole other bag of worms; debates still rage on about the game's graphical fidelity in comparison to that trailer, and there is no one definitive opinion about whether it matches up or not.

Sulph (talk) 11:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Edge Review
Right, so the Edge review (7/10) has been pretty contentious. The score and the quotes are staying in the article (just because people don't like them doesn't mean they should be removed). Questions of Edge's bias and such are completely irrelevant. The question now is whether to include the PSXExtreme article or subsequent followups. I would generally be against including it, as regardless of what they say, PSXExtreme is a PlayStation-orientated site (and therefore cannot be considered neutral when discussing a PS3-exclusive game review). If the review was to get coverage from the mainstream games industry press(Eurogamer, IGN, 1UP etc) as being overly harsh, I wouldn't have a problem including it. Anyway, discuss. Thanks! Fin©™ 11:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. If we're only including reviews that are positive/we agree with then the entire section is completely pointless. As for including commentaries from other sources on the Edge review, I don't see how these can be justified. The sources that have disputed the review are mainly heavily PS3-orientated, making there comments biased and therefore unreliable. Aside from the fact that it's not the place of Wikipedia to try and explain why a particular publication gave the review they did. Anyway, the reasons why Edge gave the game 7/10 are already explained in the article: "the game's use of "gameplay clichés" and its weak storyline and characters". Any suggestion that there were other reasons why the score was given is purely speculative. I don't see anyone trying to add justification for the positive reviews?  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 12:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Grand. Though like I said, if it gets significant coverage outside the PS3-press (such as, say, Gamespot's Kane & Lynch review) it'd worth including. Otherwise, nop. Thanks for the input! Fin©™ 12:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but I don't see this happening. All of the major, independent gaming sites have published some controversial reviews in their time. I doubt it's considered good form to criticise a fellow publication's reviews. Besides, it's all blown over now pretty-much. I don't know why people get so worked up about one person's opinion on one game in one magazine? Baffled!  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 12:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's because it sticks out like a sore thumb. People don't question why they gave the game such a score, unless it is pathetically low. Ffgamera (talk) 08:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really see how 7 can be considered a "bad" score anyway. It's a scale of 1-10. Logic would indicate that (roughly) 1-3 is "bad", 4-6 is "average", 7-9 is "good" and 10 is "outstanding". They're saying KZ2 is better than average, "good". How is that a bad score? Sorry, this sounds like it's turning into a forum discussion but I'm trying to point out that I don't think such a big deal should be made over this in the article. Because it's not a big deal. It's ONE PERSON'S opinion, it's the worst review the game has received and even that describes the game as "good". Surely that's a positive thing? Accusing a reviewer of being bias or a "fanboy" happens every time a much hyped game receives anything less than a 9 or 10. It's to be expected that at least one publication will try to gain some extra hits on their website by posting a controversial review of a highly anticipated game. It happens so often that it's just not notable enough to mention it in great detail.  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 09:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Without wanting to get into the whole do-reviews-deserve-a-number argument, the vast majority of game sites and magazines rate on an 7/8-10 scale, 7 is average, anything above is ok. Edge doesn't use this - 5 is average, 7 is good, anything above 7 is really good. I also don't think Edge is deliberately controversial - I think they're deliberately overly harsh, but not intentionally controversial. But yeah, don't want to turn this into a forum! Thanks! Fin©™ 11:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Want me to elaborate? Take their average of scores given to games. That average is higher than Killzone 2's review. So, why would they rate so many games in history, and only give one game (notably) (Haze) lower than Killzone 2? Ffgamera (talk) 08:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What? Their average is 6.3, definitely not above 7. You seriously haven't a clue what you're talking about if you think they've give one game below 7 - random example is Army of Two, which got 4/10. I remember Mario Kart Double Dash caused a bit of a stir when they gave it 5/10. Seriously, go do some research. Thanks! Fin©™ 08:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant their average for notable games. Ffgamera (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So you admit that Killzone 2 is higher than their standard average score? "Notable" is ridiculously subjective anyway, how do you define it? Is Tomb Raider Underworld notable? It got 8/10. Is Fallout 3? 7/10. I didn't see the internet jumping up and down complaining about either of those score being too high or too low. BioShock? 8/10. Resistance 2? 6/10. Too Human? 6/10. So what is the average for notable games that you claimed above? Edge doesn't work by games being notable anyway - they rate each game as if they've come in to it fresh (or at least, they try to). If a game has previously got good reviews, is hyped to high heaven and has all followers screaming "THIS IS GOING TO BE THE BEST GAME EVAR", they'll review it exactly the same as an obscure game nobody's heard about. That's the way it is, I don't think they should be attacked for that attitude. Thanks! Fin©™ 11:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, im japanese and i dont speak english very well, but, just read this http://www.psxextreme.com/feature/378.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nu89 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate?  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 12:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Edge is biased, just take a look on the metacritic forum http://forums.metacritic.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/217108/m/8490039295/p/2 (read the "Valkyrie" post and compare) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nu89 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC) and this one http://forums.metacritic.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/217108/m/2860011495
 * Forums are not a reliable source. I do think the Variety article that was linked to covers the whole thing quite well though. Thanks! Fin©™ 10:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

PSXExtreme is indeed PS3-orientated, but they are NOT a fansite. http://www.psxextreme.com/feature/379-1.html clarifies their statement, and http://www.psxextreme.com/feature/378.html attempts clears up some hate (although completely, and utterly pointless). EDGE have given a lot of games in history, reviews higher than 7. FF9, LBP, MGS4 you name it. Although, they gave one game lower: Haze. Ffgamera (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Edge Review Part 2
Again, don't see any reason to include it unless it's commented on seriously by other publications (not in the "they can do what they want" way most - except PSXExtreme - have so far). If it does spark a discussion about scores, ratings and Edge's policy by rational people, then I'm all for it. Otherwise, nope! Thanks! Fin©™ 21:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I think the word "controversial" is pretty loaded - who thinks its controversial? Is it really? etcetc. Thanks! Fin©™ 21:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The only sites which have mentioned the Edge review have been heavily PS3-orientated and are therefore bias. Maybe if it's mentioned by some neutral sources then it could be worth noting, but like I said above, I don't see this happening.  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 22:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ehh, well Edge doesn't deserved to be attacked, they just deserve to be told to not down a good game. Leave the article as it is. As far as the game's average reviews goes, Edge's review is substantially lower. I had no idea Edge enjoys reviewing games so low as the previous discussion enlightened me to. I think it would spark as much if another extremely hyped title got the same review. Of course they're gonna be attacked for giving a slighly low review to an extremely hyped game. Ffgamera (talk) 09:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "they just deserve to be told to not down a good game". Who decides what a good game is? You mean they should automatically adjust their score to suit the Metacritic average? Or should they just give the score that people want? (chances are every platform exclusive would get 10). Edge does not "enjoy" reviewing games "so low", they simply grade good games from 5-10 instead of the industry standard of 7-10. A 7 from Edge is about equivilant to a high 8 from OPM. An Edge 5 is an OXM 7. Another "extremely hyped" game, Fallout 3, got a 7, the internet didn't seem to explode - I think it was as anticipated as Killzone. MGS4 got an 8 (equivilant to a low 9, remember) though, and the same thing happened. People need to stop attacking reviews of games they haven't actually played. Just because a game is "extremely" hyped does not mean it is a good game. Thanks! Fin©™ 10:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. I think it's just a number, but their words seemed a bit harsh to some people, that's probably why. Ffgamera (talk) 09:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, we've come to the conclusion that we should leave the reviews section as it is (unless websites change their reviews or Metacritic's average changes etc) and that Edge's review can stay there without the "it sticks out" or "it's caused uproar" side comments. And also, please don't delete this bit as demonstrated recently. Thanks. Yours sincerely, Ffgamera (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Edge just gave Resident Evil 5 a 7/10 too. http://www.edge-online.com/magazine/review-resident-evil-5?page=0%2C0 Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 11:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Permission to remove future game template
It is now released in Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. Ffgamera (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't see why not. The purpose of it is to warn readers that the information about the game may change significantly, which isn't the case anymore.  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 20:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok done, I have almost completed the game and will help with the plot soon. Ffgamera (talk) 08:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good good. But remember, no original research.  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 08:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite a twisting story. Not sure if I should put this up just yet. Ffgamera (talk) 09:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Be careful with spoilers. --PS3 Addict (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:SPOILERS. Thanks! Fin©™ 20:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have put up the plot, don't read it until you've played the game unless you're fine about spoilers. Feel free to change it around a bit. Ffgamera (talk) 03:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Native Resolution
It says 1080i and 720p it cant be both can someone correct it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.210.93 (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it can be both. The game natively supports output in both 1080i and 720p (obviously not at the same time!). There was a citation there once. I'll try and find it and re-add it.  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 17:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why 1080i and not 1080p..? "i" is more for TV signals and "p" is more for games and blu ray films... I just find it weird :-/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.228.127 (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1080i is interlaced and 1080p is progressive scan. Click on the respective links to see what they are. Ffgamera (talk) 02:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. So it seem PS would be better, why not use that instead of interlaced? Does it use more space? Do we know Kz2 isnt capable of using PS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.228.127 (talk) 10:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh it is. 720p is progressive scan. Interlaced just distorts the image slightly, but is faster, more efficient and consumes less bandwidth. Progressive scan does not distort the image, but it is a bit slower, less efficient and consumes more bandwidth. Or something like that. Ffgamera (talk) 07:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In order of picture quality, it goes 1080i, 720p, 1080p. The game doesn't support 1080p simply because the PS3 couldn't process it. You currently only see 1080p in small games like Flower. Most games run in 720p. The reason they added 1080i support is only because some older HD TVs only support standard definition (SD), 1080i and 1080p not 720p so these people would have to play in SD. Most people won't use this resolution but it's available for the minority who do need it.  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 08:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But one important point you missed out in is the fact that 1080i can do a larger horizontal resolution (1920) compared to 720p (1280). Therefore, on larger TVs, the resolution is larger than 720p. Ffgamera (talk) 09:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But that doesn't mean the quality is better. If I have a choice between 1080i and 720p, I'd go with 720p. Especially for gaming.  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 10:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes maybe p is better then i. i draws a half frame at one time, while p draws the whole frame at once. But what do you mean Ps3 cant handle games in 1080p..? GT 5 Prologue renders in native 1080p, so will God of War III as well. And those are not small games. GT5 for example, use 1080p in 60 fps with LPCM 7.1ch high definition sound, in a game with over 70 cars, and that not even the full version. The full version will have over 900 cars... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.232.65 (talk) 12:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not the PS3, it's the game engine. Ffgamera (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Okok, WP:FORUM. Thanks! Fin©™ 13:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 1080i is basically an upscaled version of 576PAL which is pixel-per-pixel a lower resolution than 720P. Markthemac (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

high acclaim
I'm no fanboy or anything, and I don't think the halos are the best games in the universe.Hell I even want to play the damn game. But why is it Killzone 2 gets "high acclaim" at 91% but yet halo 3 gets "favorable" at 93%? At one point it even said "mixed reviews". I'm not gonna change anything myself, but some people just have to stop being so biased. (perhaps this belongs somewhere else, but I'm new here, give me some credit) Rolln2013 (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Rolln2013
 * Hi. I'm not sure if this is what the phrase "high acclaim" is based on but 92 equates to "Universal acclaim" on Metacritic (written next to the score). But I agree, it does seem somewhat objective.  ChimpanzeeUK  - User | Talk | Contribs 08:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think the person who wrote that section would have noticed that. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 08:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Map difference
I just wanted to point out that there is another difference between the multiplayer teams aside from the models. The ISA and HGH start in different parts of all the maps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuri dragon 17 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sales
Any info about how many copies sold as of April 2009? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.232.65 (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If we knew, we would've put it up by now. Unfortunately, we don't know. :( Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 06:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty amazing because of the Japan sales. I think gamespot might have it.BFritzen (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

False Information
Someone has put false information about the game's reception. It says the game has received negative reviews which isn't true. I know for a fact that the gametrailers.com & the Xplay scores are wrong. I also find it difficult to believe that Official Playstation Magazine Australia would give it a 1/10, when this is Sony's "big game." Someone needs to correct the "reception" part of the article because the facts posted there are almost the complete opposite of the truth.
 * Someone obviously vandalised the article at one point. It's fixed now. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 06:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

New Maps
Steel and Titanium have been released (stateside at least). A mention of these might be a great idea. BFritzen (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Version 1.26 and 1.27
All other countries are at version 1.25, version 1.26 is a super-minor patch for the Japanese game. 1.27 is to be released some time this week.