Killzone 2: Stellar Graphics Cannot Accommodate Poor Handling

Available: PS3
Game Type: 1 Player Shooter/Multiplayer
From: Sony Computer Entertainment/Guerilla Games

If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it and meant it a million times: I would take a smooth framerate and controls over fantastic graphics any day. Few games can reach that heavenly status like God of War III whereby both are attained, and even fewer can reach that point with the correct balance. This is where Killzone 2 failed for me.

On a purely technical front this game is stellar. I’m sure we can all remember seeing those first shots from the technical demonstration at 2006’s E3 Convention just as I’m sure we were all skeptical of the ability to achieve such a feat. Seeing those first clips, I felt like it was just another empty promise, and once the actual mechanics and other intricate codes were embedded in the game, these flashy visuals would falter like any other. In this respect Killzone 2 was a huge success. PS3 owners and critics alike gave grateful applause to the games honesty with this so-called tech demo, as the real-time graphics were more than up to par. The grayish tones of the dead planet Helghan was quite a sight, perfectly conveying the fact that this planet was on its way out. Those of you who played the first game will remember that the Helghast invaded Earth to seek relief from the harsh climates of their home world, only to be driven off by the heroes of our planet.

The second game sees Earth’s forces bringing the fight to the Helghast’s front door, and as I said, this place is in need of a desperate remodeling to say the least.
Aside from the story we knew before games release, you won’t find much progression in the story. It’s a bit disjointed as I remember, and the boneheaded dialog between your character and his commando companions is none better. But again, this isn’t the draw of Killzone, the selling point is the fantastic graphics and FPS gunplay. As I already said, the graphics succeed with flying colors, but the FPS, or rather the core experience, does not.

Perhaps it was due to my love for Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare's precise and fantastic controls, but Killzone just didn’t have the control I require from my first person shooters. I often found it hard to line up a proper headshot and instead resorted to blasting my way through the game in a shoot-from-the-hip style. First, to aim through your scope or iron sights, you need to click R3. Anyone that has played a FPS in the current generation knows the standard is R1, or RB on Xbox. I realize that some games utilize the clicking of the right analog stick as the standard, and in fact Rainbox 6 Vegas used this method to great success. IN some games you are even allowed a bit of customization for the control scheme. In Killzone 2 you have the option to change aim to R1, but you sacrifice the placement of grenades, crouching, and other important features that make it just as frustrating in the long run. Needless to say, this was a poor choice on the development team’s behalf. It's not that the controls are unplayable, my point is that I just never felt as comfortable as with other control schemes.

Some may think this is a small grievance, and by all accounts it should have been; I have more than enough FPS experience to manage one button-mapping being off, but the controls only worsen from here. Targeting is clunky, meaning a slight touch of the analog stick barely moves the crosshair while a bit more pressure makes it fly across the screen. Again, maybe the excellent precision we see in this generation’s Call of Duty titles is the culprit, pampering us into thinking this should be the norm, but I don’t think that’s a good excuse. It’s not rocket science—well it might be, but I’m sure the programmers that can attain such amazing visual could have tweaked this to better suit our needs. On a side note, I tried just about every adjustment of the X/Y sensitivity, and it was no better.

A final complain about this game is the amount of bullets it takes to kill a Helghast soldier. Again, to refer back to Call of Duty, I’ve just fell in love with the one shot kill to the head or a 2 or 3 body-shot death. I mean, bullets kill right? In fact, movies and games don’t do it justice. When a bullet hits the flesh, it rips apart and changes shape from a bullet to that of a burred spider web, causing the crazy damage you would see in a real life shot to the head. To stick with the COD example, they do not exemplify this damage either, so I don’t think it’s asking much. I don’t expect a Soldier of Fortune level of blood and gore for a bullet wound, rather the one-hit kill scenario. I feel so much more tactical when I can pump three rounds into a dudes chest, move the crosshair over to their commanders head and drop him, then empty the remaining 10 rounds into a three soldier crowd, taking them all down in seven seconds; emptying a clip into a soldier only to have him run away, or hitting him in the head twice only to have his helmet sway is just not very fun, and borderline frustrating.

The good parts of this game lie in its set pieces and graphics, not its controls. I think I’ve made an ample point to explain the graphics are still where the bar is placed (this is over two years old mind you), but the atmosphere and use of those graphics is second to none. The glowing eyes of a Helghast soldier are terrifying for other reasons than their immunity to ammunition, and as I stated at the beginning the foreboding grays of the decaying cities in which you fight are all too real. The game also employs a cover system, albeit flawed in practice. As you approach anything that would be used as cover, a simple click of the shoulder button allows you to use it as cover and gives you the ability to blind fire or pop out and shoot. It doesn’t work as well as I’d hoped, although with a bit of practice it works fairly well. I would really love to see this idea used in more games and I would certainly enjoy seeing it perfected. If it could reach the level of cover and shooting mechanics as Metal Gear, for example, it could turn into a great change for the FPS landscape as a whole.

All this said, I don’t mean to imply that Killzone was by any means a bad game. It was far better than the first, visually and control-wise, but it still needs some work. There are some glimmering silver linings that show through, among which the highly lauded visuals and the cover idea. If the control mapping was improved and the degree to which the X/Y axis flows were improved, this game would surely contend with the big boys like COD, Bad Company, etc, and could even overtake my distaste for the amount of ammo it takes to kill someone. I enjoyed the game enough to play through and then again half way looking for Helghan symbols to destroy, and by the end of the game these issues I didn’t like seemed to dissipate a bit. Nonetheless, I hope the third installment due in 2011 is tweaked better to my liking, and that will surely be a sight to behold and a blast to play.

Graphics: The best of the best, even though it's a couple years old at this point. Had the FPS controls matched the graphics even at 66%, this could have unseated COD Modern Warfare as Game of the Year.

Controls: I'll start with everything but aiming: they're fine. In fact, I love the idea of a cover system in a FPS, whereby a simple click of R2 you can get behind cover, blind fire, pop and fire, etc. However, the aiming system lags something awful. If it weren't for Infinity Ward's stellar work, perhaps it would have been excusable. I just didn't feel like I had the precision I require in my shooters.

Story: Neither good nor bad. The story moves along okay, but it feels undeveloped (and yes, I did play the first game and still had trouble as to why I was on Helghast). But again, it's not horrible.

Multiple Play: With a strong online component and various collectibles that were a bear to find, this game is entertaining enough to play through a couple times easily.

Total: 72/100, C-