Ubisoft director: Red Steel 2 to support Wii MotionPlus

Just like people care about Killzone 2, even if the first one sucked just like Red Steel 1.

LMAO!

Killzone 1 came out in 2004, and was a decent game, save for some glitches.

Red Steel was a rushed launch title with a laughable story and camera, awful controls, and graphics so bad they fit right in with PS1 and Nintendo 64. Killzone 2 looks like an outstanding graphical acheivement and will hopefully be an amazing game. Red Steel 2 will be the same boring sh*t as the last one.

Good try, though. :)

Bad graphics? The game looked fine. Douche.

No, The_Punisher. Fernando is right. Killzone is only being anticipated because it looks pretty and everyone is hoping against hope that it will turn out okay. All save for the most rabid Sony fanboys will agree to that. Can't the Nintendo guys get a little excited for some promises of improved gameplay?

I actually liked KZ1, a lot! Enjoyed teh hell out of it. Sure it want the Halo Killer. They didn't want to be a Halo killer anyway, the media made that crap up. I was actually pretty impressed with KZ1's visuals back then. Bottom line, It didnt suck. It just had some glitches.

At least with Killzone 2 we have seen stories and screen captures to get excited about. What have we seen for Red Steel 2 that warrants getting excited about? What do you know that would redeem the title?

@SkreeHunter

The fact that you think the graphics were fine upsets me. Very much.

@WRE

You can think that if you want, but we've seen actual gameplay as well, and it looks like a solid shooter with great graphics.

This will be like RSV2: More of the same. The only difference is that RSV1 was good, and RS1 was complete sh*t.

What have we seen that should get us excited about Redsteel 2? NOTHING. We haven't seen anything yet.

Duke,
I'm not saying that we should be cavorting in the streets over this news, but it sounds like there might be some promise there and, what the hell, who else is offering us a 1:1 sword-fighting game? Sure, it might suck, but us Wii guys are hungry for games as it is! Cut us a break, for hell's sake. ; )

More kittens died the day Red Steel launched than any other day in the history of the world. I don't think I've ever bought a game, come home to put it in my console and then cried at how terrible it was before. I remember that horrific moment totally spoiled how excited I was to come home with the Wii launch night. I put Red Steel back in it's box, drove to walmart and demanded my money back. By god I got my money back too.

In fairness to Killzone 1, it supposedly runs a lot better on the PS3, since it's performance issues where what I had previously heard are what really killed it.

Also, the DEVELOPERS are the ones who never said it was a Halo killer, but Sony and their marketing staffs didn't exactly shy away the media from calling it a Halo killer.

They're not much better on PS3, but then again i never played it on my PS2, so i can't compare. It was bad enough to not let me finish the game. I have more important games to play (currently playing Lost Odyssey. Makes me sad there's not a lot of JRPG's this-gen, becuase i love it).

Wow, Fernando stole the words right out of my mouth.

Now I'm frightened.

"who else is offering us a 1:1 sword-fighting game?"

Ubisoft did with Red Steel 1...


http://www.cubed3.com/news/5818
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/08/29/has-red-steel-moved-to-freestyle-swordfighting/

"Mordrag: Hi, in your interview with Ubisoft you could ask how the swordfighting is going to work now, because it was announced to be redesigned. So that the swordmoves aren't predetermined any more but are converted 1:1.

N-LAN: That's the case indeed. The developer has confirmed that the control scheme will be completely redesigned so that the controller moves are converted into the game precisely..."

EGM was the place that first started the halo killer shit with Killzone 1. It wasn't a bad game, it was just average unlike Red Steel which blew complete ass. Me and some of my friends chewed out one of our other friends who brought it over in december of 06 because everyone thought it was one of the worst shooters they ever played.

To this day it probably still is the worst shooter I've ever played (Never had the "honor" of playing haze though)

Most of the "faults" with KZ1 were directly related to the limitations of the PS2. GG pushed the game further than the PS2 could handle. If you play the game on the PS3, the glitches practically dissapear and the framerate is rock solid.

Only ignorant fools like Fernandos and WRE still believe the FALSE claims that KZ1 was a bad game. The multi-player was the bread and butter of KZ1. I know that GG has said the multi-player will be HALF the experience of KZ2 and I KNOW they will deliver.

Sony NEEDS this game to be practically perfect because reviewers will hold this game to a different standard than ANY other simpley because it's SONY.

Go on and keep telling yourself that KZ1 sucked, don't try int on the PS3, keep the wool over your eyes because come the beta and the February....none of your bitching will matter to ANYONE with a PS3 playing KZ2.

thank you....and may the FSM bless you.

In fairness Killjebus, a game shouldn't need a different system from the future to run well. Assume there was a ps3 game that somehow pushed it to the max, it shouldn't need a PS4 to run well because it's....a ps3 game.

I agree, my point was that the game itself did not suck, the HW was what limited it. GG should have not pushed the PS2 that hard...but they did...and now we do not have to worry about the HW with KZ2.

Why are you idiots even arguing this stuff? Haze is where it's at.

@Skreehunter

If the graphics looked fine, explain this quote:

"Graphically, the game looks below even that of new GameCube titles, with blocky faces and low polygon counts abound."

That was in Joystiq's impression of the game. Granted, they later go on to say that the lighting was impressive, but it was far from anything to write home about.

"I agree, my point was that the game itself did not suck"

The game in fact DID suck. They shouldn't have developed a PS2 game like they were working on a Xbox. Stop defending and making excuses for the game's mediocrity.

On an Xbox? Uh, what on the xbox looks better than God of War II, dare i ask?

Killzone had probably the WORST AI EVAR. I remember local multiplayer when all the enemies would do is run up to you and shoot. It was like playing GoldenEye all over again. At least HALO (the game it was supposed to topple) had enemies in turrets and little shields in front of them, this was all open landscape, so you could line up a shot from a mile away

"Uh, what on the xbox looks better than God of War II, dare i ask?"

Fable.
The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay.
Ninja Gaiden.

There's plenty more, but don't argue as though the PS2 is more powerful than the Xbox, because that simply isn't the truth.

And 4MyFriends, the game wasn't bad. Yeah, it had some problems, but it's still a pretty decent game. Certainly better than Red Steel was.

Sorry, nevermind. You clearly haven't played God of War II.

"Sorry, nevermind. You clearly haven't played God of War II."

No, you've clearly not played the games I've listed, or bothered to look up the PS2's tech specs for that matter. You could debate Ninja Gaiden, but the fact of the matter is that technologically, Fable looks much better than God of War II, and Chronicles of Riddick is one of, if not the best looking game to have come out last generation.

oh, is that all? just the gameplay?

Wow way to be dick. Yes the game had other problems but gameplay was the major issue dickhead.

He meant "if a GAME has bad GAMEPLAY then it is pretty much flawed at its core"

For instance, a game with great gameplay and bad sound is annoying, but a game with great sound and bad gameplay is a half-assed music video.

The multiplayer was decent, but it suffered from the same shitty control system; the only difference was that there wasn't lots of enemies perforating you from every angle.

I chuckled, +1 :)

I will gladly pay a little extra for more precise motion controls. How's that SIXAXIS functionality treating you? Isn't the PS3 controller just an accelerometer and a PSX controller duct-taped together? And they want $60 per player for THAT? So what was your point there, exactly? Oh, right; you don't have one.
And $30 for a speaker for everyone in the room doesn't sound too bad when you consider that individual headsets for 4 people can get pricey real fast.
Who am I replying to again? Oh great, Curmeo 2.0, like he'd ever listen to reason...

But WRE, you have to admit that something doesn't smell right when it comes to this add-on mic for the Wii.

What doesn't smell right about it? It's a speaker phone mic.
As long as it works well (hopefully you can at least hook it up to speakers, since I can't imagine the audio quality will be great), seems like a semi-reasonable solution to me.

Going off what I saw during their E3 conference (it was hooked on a tv), I for one look forward to shouting at my TV all the way across my room so someone can hear me.

WRE, if you have played Warhawk (which you clearly have not) you would know that they work perfectly...

Speech is over-rated in multi-player games anyway. I can understand the need in team-based games, where you need to relay orders/enemy sightings/etc, but in other games it's just a way to bitch at the person killing you.

Noshino,
I own Warhawk and you're right. SIXAXIS controls work perfectly...in one game.

Where are the cries of Nintendo copied Sony with Wiispeak? Oh, thats right...double standard rules apply.

The PSeye, has FOUR omni-directional mics built in so that it can pick up FOUR different voices at the SAME time and a person on another PS3 can understand each and everyone of them. Why Sony doesnt make the PSeye the standard voice-communication for the PS3 is baffling to me. No earpiece to make you look like a dork.

I can go over 30ft away from my PSeye and talk in a noraml tone of voice and it STILL picks up my voice when I tested it out during a chat. These same 4 omni-directional mics have noise cancelling technology in them too.

This device is way more advanced than the pitiful Wiispeak and is only 10 bucks more. Yet somehow, Nintendo will get the recognition for a headsetless way of online communication for 2 reasons...

1. Sony does market the PSeye AT ALL
2. Nintendo WILL

Sony is stupid to NOT spread the word on how awesome the PSeye really is. Motion control, taking a pic of ANYTHING and putting it into a game and the object immediatly fits into the game world with physics.

Perhaps Sony is waiting to take the cloak off the PSeye with the release of LBP. Alex Evans said that they will make GREAT use of the PSeye. He specifically said that they expect us to use the PSeye to take a picture of whatever you want and put it into the game.

I hope that is why Sony is being mum on the PSeye...I hope.

May the CTP fill you up.

"Where are the cries of Nintendo copied Sony with Wiispeak?"

Please. It's fucking voice chat. The PC had all three of the consoles beat to that years upon years ago.

"He specifically said that they expect us to use the PSeye to take a picture of whatever you want and put it into the game."

Wow. They should just start calling it Little Big Wang...

""Where are the cries of Nintendo copied Sony with Wiispeak?""

It was a joke, I was poking fun at the babies who bring up the blank copied blank arguement.

And to me, PC is irrelevant to what I was talking about. I refer to consoles only.