Killzone 2 will have no installation, 'optional or otherwise'

Haze? what the hell is that?

The thing that killed my hype for Timesplitters 4.

Why d'you ask?

That out of place reply was brought to you by the Joystiq fuck up comment system.

Joystiq Fuck up comment system fucking up comments since 1982.

Haha, couldn't agree with you more, Hyams. Sad, really.

I'll take that one further. I haven't played Gears either cause I can't live without my mouse/keyboard for shooters.

So you haven't tried Gears for PC?

No Resistance is the Gears killer this is the Halo Killer I think.

Gears killer? Not really, that's Quantum Theory you're thinking of.

This is the *Halo* killer. (Actually, 'Call of Duty killer' would be more apt, but that's multiplatform and so isn't quite as comical.)

PS3 don't need a Gears killer, Gears 2 was more than efficient enough at that...

The nature of the cover system means it doesnt play like a traditional fps. Less emphasis on twitch aiming. They could almost have a targeting system and it wouldn't change how the game plays that much.

I have a friend who is a mouse and kb snob, and this is the only console shooter he plays. Give it a try, you might be surprised

Actually, Killzone 2 is the Resistance 2 killer, as in: it killed any chance of me buying Resistance 2.

What you chattin'? Gears 2 is an excellent game, one of the best I've played this gen.

Actually no wiintwerfang, Haze is the Halo killer.
Resistance is the Gears killer and This game? Well I guess it Kills both.

Its a MASSACRE!

resistance was supposed to be the gears killer.
haze was supposed to be the halo killer.
(both failed at trying to do that, but resistance was still a great game and new franchise)

killzone is a game that is just moving on from a franchise, not trying to kill halo or gears.

all this gears hate coming from people that have never played the game it sounds like... lol...
keyboard and mouse, not the best setup for a game like gears IMO anyway.

What the hell is the difference? When someone says that one controller is better than the other for shooters, it just sounds like 100% stupid fanboy crap. The controllers are almost identical. There are SLIGHT DIFFERENCES that really don't make it any better or worse to control a shooting game.

If anything, I would argue that the PS3 controller just makes more sense in general, as the analog sticks are in the same spot as opposed to having one cocked to the side.

Please, please, please, tell me how you can hate the PS3 controller and love your 360 controller. I

KZ1 was already the Halo killer, so Halo is already dead. I think Sony is keeping KZ2 in their pocket for a future "xb360 killer app"-killer.

Okay.. the placement of the left analog feels more natural in my hands. the analogs on the 360 feel less loose than that of the dualshock. The shoulder buttons feel less tactile on the dualshock vs the 360.

the only thing I like about the dualshock is the better d-pad.

Levi, I love the PS3 controller for sports and fighting games, but it sucks for shooters. Sucks badly enough that, as a PS2 only owner last gen, I gave up on console shooters entirely. It wasn't until the 360 came out that I realized "hey, maybe shooters can work on consoles".

For starters, it's just uncomfortable as fuck to hold the controller with your thumb on the left analog stick. I have pretty normal sized hands, maybe a little on the big side, and that shit starts to bother me pretty quickly.

The analog stick is also convex on the top instead of concave. Idiotic design decision (and no reason for it) that gives your finger a much looser connection to the stick. Not a big deal on some games, but on shooters where you focus on aiming, it sucks. This is made even worse in that the PS3 analog sticks are WAY too loose for shooters, with way too little resistance to them for precision aiming. Perfect for racing games where you need to move the stick quickly, but poor for shooters where you need to adjust your reticle by centimeters or even millimeters on the screen. It's way more difficult to aim precisely on the DS3 than it is on the 360 controller.

The triggers are, simply put, a joke, at least as far as shooters go. Again, concave instead of convex for no reason (what freaking moron dreamt that up?), with too far of a pulldown and not enough resistance to the back of them. They're way too "mushy" and it makes feathering the trigger total guesswork as to whether or not it's even working.

Gears killer? I've played 15 or more games this gen that's 10 times better than Gears. This year alone Metal Gear Solid 4, Fallout 3, Resistance 2, LBP, Dead Space and Valkyria Chronicles were all better than Gears. Gears is good but it's not the best of the best.

vcize- if kz1 sold 1 million copies and halo 1-3 have sold over 5 million copies each, i dont see how thats true at all.

levi- IMO the 360 controller is better designed for shooters. the triggers work better for aiming and shooting than the ps3 controller buttons do.
the analog sticks are too closely placed on the ps3, not good for people with normal to large hands.

the ps3 controller was designed in japan by a japanese corporation, sony, and was more designed for smaller hands to hold... i.e. stereotypical asian hands vs. fat ass American hands.

each user will have a preference though. there is no right answer to this question.

I dunno. I find both controllers about equal, but I can see why others may prefer the 360 one.

Personally, I give the slight edge to the PS3 one for the d-pad and the sixaxis motion controls.

What I want to know is, when is Sony and Microsoft going to man up and make a Adventure killer.

ATARI 4 LIFE!

"vcize- if kz1 sold 1 million copies and halo 1-3 have sold over 5 million copies each, i dont see how thats true at all."

I was joking..

I'm with Levi on the controller issue.

I went from the original fat Xbox controller, to the mini, to the xbox 360 controller and finally to the PS3 with no problem.

I like the PS3 a little more because of the fact that the "triggers" have more tension and that seems to work better for racing games.

@Vcize The L1 and R1 are meant to be the "triggers" on the PS3, not R2 and L2.

If was forced to play and FPS with the R2 and L2 for shooting, I would throw the controller in the trash. Fortunately, none of the shooters I have played on the PS3 use R2 and L2 as "trigger" buttons.

"If was forced to play and FPS with the R2 and L2 for shooting, I would throw the controller in the trash"

Dude, that's how PS3 controller was designed.
R2 and L2 are the triggers.

just look at this pic:

http://www.kotaku.com.au/gallery/dualshock3ceramicewhite/2_large.jpg

Your mom is the Gears killer for PS3, she can do multiplayer allll night.

Giggity.

Giggity.

Well, my point was really that the controllers are still basically the same. It's still 2 controllers that both have 4 buttons in a diamond shape on the right, d-pad on the left, two analog sticks, and some triggers. I understand you can have a preference, but to say one sucks for this type of game compared to the other just doesn't make sense to me, because they are so similar. I personally like one, but I'm not going to put the other down; they're almost the same thing. If you could have the same controller layout on the same game for each system, you shouldn't suck ass on one controller and rule on the other. It's just idiotic. Preference is one thing, but saying one sucks for shooters and the other doesn't is the problem I have. I don't feel I have a disadvantage of any kind while using my PS3 controller instead of a 360 controller.

Everyone can have their preference, that's fine, but I'm willing to bet that there would be just as many kids who own the top of the charts every game on the PS3 as the 360 if it was a multiplatform game, regardless of the controller used.

Personally, I disagree that the concave/convex design choices were ridiculous, as I don't think they are any less tactile because of it, unless you have overly sweaty fingers. That, though, isn't me arguing about which is better, but just my opinion.

No offense as always, just throwing this stuff out there. I'm not a fanboy or anything.

PS Titanium, I think I

Actually, the "_______ killer" title is beyond retarded everytime it's been attempted. And sadly it's been the gaming media giving these labels and now the fantards have picked up the habit.

Examples? Fine, let's go there.

Legend of Zelda:OoT and it's killer, Brave Fencer Musashiden. I remember hearing about Brave Fencer Musashiden from the import scene and thought it sounded great. Nowhere in the Japanese media was it mentioned that Musashi was a Zelda killer. In fact, that special brand of retarded seems to be an english speaking exclusive. And so as it made it's "summer of Square" spread in the first US magazine, I cringed as it was called "Playstations answer to Ocarina of Time." Soon after three other magazines picked up that phrase for it and IGN was all too happy to further this agenda. If anyone ever bothered to TOUCH a fucking controller they'd realize the only thing Zelda and Musashi had in common was they were action RPGs where characters had swords. Apparently Legacy of Kain was aiming to be the Final Fantasy VII killer since both featured depressed women on their covers.

Halo vs. Killzone. Maybe you remember the hype. Guerrila does and they've spoken out against it several times. Halo was a brightly colored epic space adventure with a purpose of telling an epic story. Killzone was a dirty and gritty and ugly vision of war in the far future. Halo the actions were exaggerated and sped up to emphasize gameplay and you played as a single faceless character. Killzone had the slower paced tactical timing found in the Call of Duty series and focused around a cast of characters. In other words, the media jumped on Killzone being a Halo killer instead of simply being Killzone and it's reviews took massive beatings because of it.

Tons of other examples exist but these are my two favorite. Unless a developer specifically calls out the competitor (GH vs. RB), then games should be taken as their own designs with their own focus. Otherwise you end up building a game beyond all possibility of achieving those goals. As an example, Resistance versus Gears. Stupid fucking comparison to make and I never heard Epic nor Insomniac make the comparisons. But despite this the question gets asked on which is better. Gears may BE better than Resistance, but that invalidates Resistance as a game how? Same thing with all "______ killer" titles.

Well put, Sheppy.

Plus, it also reminded me how much I absolutely loved Brace Fencer Musashi on the PS1. On top of that, it never, ever occurred to me at the time to compare it to anything. It was just a blast in its own right. Had some fine voice acting for its time as well.

Almost makes me want to play it again, but something tells me the same thrill wouldn't be there anymore.

I WILL FUCKING KILL EVERYONE >: K

"It's still 2 controllers that both have 4 buttons in a diamond shape on the right, d-pad on the left, two analog sticks, and some triggers. I understand you can have a preference, but to say one sucks for this type of game compared to the other just doesn't make sense to me, because they are so similar."

A Ferrari and a Kia Rio both have 4 wheels, a steering wheel, and a gas pedal all place in basically the same spot. But when you use them, they react differently.

Bottom line is this. If I draw a dot on the wall in a shooting game and then make your character look somewhere else randomly and tell you to shoot the dot on the wall, most people will be able to do it MUCH more quickly with the 360 controller than the PS3 controller. The analog sticks on the PS3 controller are way too lose and floaty to aim precisely and quickly. The Dual Shock controller is the very reason that most PC gamers talk about the inferiority of console controllers on FPS games.

As far as the triggers go, I typically re-map the shoot button to R2 since leaving my index finger on R1 just adds to the cramped awkward way to hold the controller. It's retarded that I can pick up a 360 controller and all my fingers naturally fall into the exact place they are needed to be to play the game whereas with the DS3 I have to reach unnaturally with my left thumb and scrunch my index fingers unnaturally.

Subtle differences in the way they look does not mean subtle differences in the way they play. Not by a longshot.

I must agree with Vcize about the feel of a PS3 controller, in terms of the "raised & loose portions of it"

Racing games are epic suck with no tension in the triggers. "Look! I can do 25mph/280mph."Cruising into a turn fluctuates from 30-75mph. Ammirite?

*Gran Turismo fanboys/L337's need not respond*

I love PS3s triggers, they hurt a lot less than 360s

Agreed. I wonder if it's just because so many people complain because they have ginormous ADD and don't realize the benefits. I'd like the option for every game.

I added a point to your pool of 'rank' with that cross button

If installs weren't the reaction to inadequacies in the PS3 hardware, namely the disc drive, then you might be onto something. Considering I have to wait through installs or poor load times because Sony was negligent when they forced their format on the PlayStation brand, I find the situation perfectly suited to complaint.

Agreed with David. Ironically if Sony hadn't spent so much of their budget on getting Blu-Ray into the PS3 then it would be a much better console. They wouldn't have been forced to use the Cell, and could have afforded a better graphics chip.

You don't even know how long it takes to load as-is. And it's not like the BluRay drive is loud.

Why insist on an install?

I said I like having the option, not that I insist on an install. If it saves me a few seconds when loading then why not? I've got an 80GB PS3, gotta use it for something.

You could always not install your games and just fill that 80GB with CP...

Supposedly, this technology is so easy to use that even a caveman can program it!




(I'm so very, very sorry)

I get it. I quit, but I get it.

It doesn't need it. The game has little to no loading.

The equation is thus:

Blu-ray (less compression on textures and stuff) + Cell processor (good at streaming) + big budget (streaming can be hard to implement) = no loading.

Killzone 2 will be like Uncharted, in that once you're in the game there won't be any loading screens.