Zero Punctuation: Killzone: Shadow Fall

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Killzone: Shadow Fall was going to be the first game we played on our let's play channel. Sadly HDCP. So I played it all the way until about half-way through the last mission and she I stopped to take a break I couldn't start again. I had found the game played out all of my 'give a shit'.

I thought the ending to Killzone Shadow Fall was rather surprising, yes the main character and the Helghast lady was kinda bland, but I think the ending made up for it

[Spoilers abound]
The player character, a really bland space marine like most killzone protagonists, reach the main villain, and is so close to ending the war before it has really begun. But, just as he's about to take the villain into custody the villain gets executed, and you get shot as well, dropping to the ground. You then see your mentor and surrogate father appear, deciding to use the situation to start a war and wipe out the helghast once and for all, his hatred so great he doesn't hesitate to execute the person he viewed as a son

The player character is then dead, but the game doesn't end there, you then end the game as Echo, real name is Maya Visari, granddaughter of Scolar Visari, the man who started the original war. You then end the game by assassinating the man who killed the player character, avenging the man who tried to prevent the war at all cost, but by avenging him kickstarting the war.

Griffolion:
Just a quick question about the whole not liking the current console generation due to lack of backwards compatibility thing. Were people really prepared to pay the likely $600 - $800 for one that did have native backwards compatibility?

I sure wasn't. Even if they offered a BC PS4, I'd have bought the non BC one and just kept my PS3. Like I already did.

BC is nice to go on about a the start of a new generation, but once it gets going and the library for actual games on that new console gets going, nobody tends to care anymore. I think Nintendo did it right with the Wii, actually. Have it for a while and then as time goes on and nobody cares anymore (and any new purchasers are finally diving in for the library of Wii games, not to play GameCube games), drop it to cut costs.

Hutzpah Chicken:
What happened to Spunk-gargle-wee-wee? It's a very good phrase to sum up things.

What happened to a derogatory phrase used to describe "realistic" modern military shooters? It probably stayed home today because Killzone is neither "realistic" or modern.

Sniper Team 4:
I'm just wondering, but am I the only person who think that the Helghast are actually bad guys? Okay, yes, they got the short end of the stick. No, that wasn't fair that the ISA pulled such a dick move. Germany also got the short end of the stick at the end of World War I, yet I don't see anyone going around saying that the Nazis had good reasons to do what they did.

No you are not the only person who thinks the Helghast are actually the bad guys. They are the bad guys and anyone who tries to deny it needs help. Yes, their anger and their desire to get Vekta back is warranted, but the way they go about it makes them evil. Killing innocent civilians of both races (fuck, in Killzone 2 Radec kills one of his own soldiers for a dress code violation). Stealing nuclear weapons and using them on their own civilians. Trying to blow up Earth with future sci-fi nukes.

And the ISA didn't even pull that dick move. The ISA's orders to Sev and his group were to surrender to the Helghast. Obviously a bad move considering what the Helghast would have done, but those were their orders nonetheless. And yes, Sev never intentionally nuked Helghan, he was trying to stop Stahl from blowing up Earth and when the ship full of nukes crashed, it set off a chain reaction with the raw materials still in the planet and BOOM.

The ISA certainly aren't white knight 100% good all the time good guys (especially in Shadow Fall, where they changed their name to VSA for some reason that was never explained). But the Helghast are most assuredly 100% the bad guys with absolutely no gray areas at all. Or at least the Helghast military is. They are evil sons of bitches.

SNCommand:
I thought the ending to Killzone Shadow Fall was rather surprising, yes the main character and the Helghast lady was kinda bland, but I think the ending made up for it

[Spoilers abound]
The player character, a really bland space marine like most killzone protagonists, reach the main villain, and is so close to ending the war before it has really begun. But, just as he's about to take the villain into custody the villain gets executed, and you get shot as well, dropping to the ground. You then see your mentor and surrogate father appear, deciding to use the situation to start a war and wipe out the helghast once and for all, his hatred so great he doesn't hesitate to execute the person he viewed as a son

The player character is then dead, but the game doesn't end there, you then end the game as Echo, real name is Maya Visari, granddaughter of Scolar Visari, the man who started the original war. You then end the game by assassinating the man who killed the player character, avenging the man who tried to prevent the war at all cost, but by avenging him kickstarting the war.

Actually, that's why I found the ending to be absolutely shit. "I raised you like a son. But I'm racist as hell and since you don't agree with me that we should kill a whole shitload of innocent civilians, fuck you, you die."

Terrible, terrible, terrible writing.

At least the multiplayer is good and helps make up for it.

mjc0961:

The ISA certainly aren't white knight 100% good all the time good guys (especially in Shadow Fall, where they changed their name to VSA for some reason that was never explained). But the Helghast are most assuredly 100% the bad guys with absolutely no gray areas at all. Or at least the Helghast military is. They are evil sons of bitches.

The VSA and ISA are two different organizations that coexist, ISA stands for Interplanetary Strategic Alliance and represents the interests of Earth and its colonies, the VSA on the other hand stand for Vektan Security Agency and exists to protect Vekta solely through secret operatives

Also agree with the Helghast being villains, they're sympathetic villains, but they're still far more evil than the side they fight against, at least as of now, Admiral Grey in Mercenary and Sinclair in Shadow Fall probably hints to a far more gray vs grey conflict in future installments

mjc0961:

Actually, that's why I found the ending to be absolutely shit. "I raised you like a son. But I'm racist as hell and since you don't agree with me that we should kill a whole shitload of innocent civilians, fuck you, you die."

Terrible, terrible, terrible writing.

At least the multiplayer is good and helps make up for it.

Well I saw no problem with that, if he can justify starting a war for the greater good I see no problem in him justifying to himself to kill a surrogate son

The man was clearly paranoid, and I think it was interesting to see how far he could go to achieve his goals, it's also clear that by disobeying his orders and following Echo, Sinclair begins to view you as a traitor and a threat, thus losing the little affection he likely had

Zontar:
it wouldn't be that expensive to do

Could you explain why it wouldn't be that expensive to do?

Coming up next: A tell Tales games about the strained relationships in a small community at the border between the Vectan and Helgan side.

hermes200:

Mcoffey:

Griffolion:
Just a quick question about the whole not liking the current console generation due to lack of backwards compatibility thing. Were people really prepared to pay the likely $600 - $800 for one that did have native backwards compatibility?

I would've been more likely to. I have to sacrifice a lot of surface area to keep both my PS3 and my PS4 (Which was a gift), and when I want to play one or the other, I have to dig the HDMI cable out of one and plug it into the other because my monitor has only one HDMI port. Call it first world problems if you want, but it would've been damn convenient to just have one device.

Maybe you should consider one of these:image

i've got that exact one, 1080p gives a snowy feed back, had to drop my PS3 and Wii U down to 1080i, which I wasnt impressed about

Griffolion:
Just a quick question about the whole not liking the current console generation due to lack of backwards compatibility thing. Were people really prepared to pay the likely $600 - $800 for one that did have native backwards compatibility?

Here's a better idea (for the xbone at least). Put in backwards compatibility, remove the kinect, and the price would even out and then Microsoft could just sit back and watch the machine basically print money. Instead they force people to have to choose which device they want to have out, the 360 or the xbone and since the 360 has a larger library with more great games it's not a hard choice.

Xan Krieger:
-snip-

So you're assuming equivalency of cost between backwards compatibility and the Kinect?

mjc0961:

No you are not the only person who thinks the Helghast are actually the bad guys. They are the bad guys and anyone who tries to deny it needs help. Yes, their anger and their desire to get Vekta back is warranted, but the way they go about it makes them evil. Killing innocent civilians of both races (fuck, in Killzone 2 Radec kills one of his own soldiers for a dress code violation). Stealing nuclear weapons and using them on their own civilians. Trying to blow up Earth with future sci-fi nukes.

And the ISA didn't even pull that dick move. The ISA's orders to Sev and his group were to surrender to the Helghast. Obviously a bad move considering what the Helghast would have done, but those were their orders nonetheless. And yes, Sev never intentionally nuked Helghan, he was trying to stop Stahl from blowing up Earth and when the ship full of nukes crashed, it set off a chain reaction with the raw materials still in the planet and BOOM.

The ISA certainly aren't white knight 100% good all the time good guys (especially in Shadow Fall, where they changed their name to VSA for some reason that was never explained). But the Helghast are most assuredly 100% the bad guys with absolutely no gray areas at all. Or at least the Helghast military is. They are evil sons of bitches.

Glad to hear that. I see so many people posting that the Helghast are the victims that I was starting to think I had missed something major in the games I played.
And the move I was talking about was back when the ISA and Earth literally kicked the Helghast out of their home because they weren't sharing enough of their profits with Earth, over a hundred years before the first Killzone game. That was a pretty low blow, sentencing them to exile on a hostile world because they lost a war no matter how you look at it.

There is nothing in this world that would justify forcing us to buy a clunky new console.

canadamus_prime:
There is nothing in this world that would justify forcing us to buy a clunky new console.

If Suikoden 6 came out I'd buy whatever console it was on.

Bittersteel:

Griffolion:
Just a quick question about the whole not liking the current console generation due to lack of backwards compatibility thing. Were people really prepared to pay the likely $600 - $800 for one that did have native backwards compatibility?

but but backwards compatibility!!!! It is the most importen part of the console! Yes, I'm getting sick of all of this. I would not be prepare to pay 7000 kr (700€ or more) or more for the same console with backwards compatibility.

It's not so much that BC is some kind of obligation, as that without it, both consoles have really anemic libraries which don't justify etc. etc. etc.

I mean, it always takes new consoles a while to build up decent libraries, but at this point the smart thing for a consumer to do is wait a while and buy a console after it's been out long enough that you're spoiled for choice of what to play on it. Which I'm not sure is a smart strategy for the manufacturers.

pffft You guys are still banging on about backwards compatibility? IT WOULDN'T HAVE WORKED. Emulating the last gen would be impossible simply because we don't have the power to do so and to put old hardware into the machines along with the new hardware would make the consoles about twice as large and a lot more expensive than they are now.

As to the "clunky new console" bit, I don't see a problem at all personally. So no, Yahtzee. I'm not going to put that asterisk after every positive thing you say. 'Cause it's wrong.

I am shocked that Yahtzee liked KZ:SF....or at least didn't not like it. Blown away, really....I've been playing it and liked it a lot (so as a rule of thumb if I like it I expect the game to get trashed by either the critics or the fans) and honestly thought the FPS part of the equation would have been too much for Yahtzee to get past. Wow.....

EDIT:

On the whole backwards compatibility issue. It's very simple really: if the consoles were backwards compatible then the following problems would arise for Sony and Microsoft:

1. a vast and seemingly endless array of existing titles, a great many of which are very cheap, would now be in direct competition with the costlier new stuff.

2. Neither of them would be able to re-sell the older games they choose to port over as new console special editions when the originals are out there (i.e. Tomb Raider for ex). If you can buy the older version for cheap then the port will make less money.

3. It is very likely that they have two console generations' prior data to determine that the short term (1-2 year) return on offering backwards compatibility is far costlier than the actual potential earnings. Doing backwards compatibility is, judging by the way it was handled last gen, a game by game affair that requires updating every game to work properly on the new console. Even with the last gen we had limited Xbox to 360 compatibility and as for PS3...well we all saw that they dropped that as part of "project make our console affordable."

Agreed that while a decent shooter it doesn't justify buying a PS4 just for it. While I appreciated making the morality of both sides in a gray area rather than the usual stark black and white in most games, it also meant that there was really no one for me to root for or identify with. Everyone is either a raging asshole or just bland and uninteresting, including the two main characters. The Helgast are understandably pissed about having their home destroyed but then they were planning do the same thing to the humans in the first place, not to mention invading Vekta and mercilessly slaughtering civilians in the first place. Not that the ISA are any better, developing biological weapons "just in case" and leaving their own people to get killed while evacuating their homes.

The shooting is solid but could have used more weapon variety, I really missed the amazing weapons from the second game. The owl drone is nice but like most gimmicks it falls to the wayside the longer you play and mostly you'll just use the attack function. The only really standout thing is the beautiful visuals, though even then you'll get stuck looking at the usual dull brown and gray ruins and such at parts too.

hermes200:

Mcoffey:

Griffolion:
Just a quick question about the whole not liking the current console generation due to lack of backwards compatibility thing. Were people really prepared to pay the likely $600 - $800 for one that did have native backwards compatibility?

I would've been more likely to. I have to sacrifice a lot of surface area to keep both my PS3 and my PS4 (Which was a gift), and when I want to play one or the other, I have to dig the HDMI cable out of one and plug it into the other because my monitor has only one HDMI port. Call it first world problems if you want, but it would've been damn convenient to just have one device.

Maybe you should consider one of these:image

The problem is less about first world problems and more about us not having to pay twice for games we already own or having them only available via the whims of a server that could break down or be taken offline at any time. Sure you could say "well then just don't sell your PS3." Ok? Well what happens when that PS3 breaks? Eventually support and production of the console will cease. Then in order to play your games you either have to pay for a monthly streaming service that could go down at any time or buy another of that console for a hugely inflated price. People seem to think the whole argument for backwards compatibility is laziness, when it is in fact a consumer rights issue.

Not only that, but it is an issue of preserving our history. Like Extra Credits said, there are so many games that are just... gone. Disappeared due to companies not doing backwards compatibility and consumers just accepting it. You would expect your new computer to utilize software that at LEAST ran on the last OS, why can't we expect the same from games?

Griffolion:

Zontar:
it wouldn't be that expensive to do

Could you explain why it wouldn't be that expensive to do?

It's because the issue is a software one, not a hardware one. If Sony wanted it could be quite possible to make PS1, 2 and 3 games run on the PS4 without modifications to the hardware.

Azaraxzealot:

hermes200:

Mcoffey:
I would've been more likely to. I have to sacrifice a lot of surface area to keep both my PS3 and my PS4 (Which was a gift), and when I want to play one or the other, I have to dig the HDMI cable out of one and plug it into the other because my monitor has only one HDMI port. Call it first world problems if you want, but it would've been damn convenient to just have one device.

Maybe you should consider one of these:image

The problem is less about first world problems and more about us not having to pay twice for games we already own or having them only available via the whims of a server that could break down or be taken offline at any time. Sure you could say "well then just don't sell your PS3." Ok? Well what happens when that PS3 breaks? Eventually support and production of the console will cease. Then in order to play your games you either have to pay for a monthly streaming service that could go down at any time or buy another of that console for a hugely inflated price. People seem to think the whole argument for backwards compatibility is laziness, when it is in fact a consumer rights issue.

Not only that, but it is an issue of preserving our history. Like Extra Credits said, there are so many games that are just... gone. Disappeared due to companies not doing backwards compatibility and consumers just accepting it. You would expect your new computer to utilize software that at LEAST ran on the last OS, why can't we expect the same from games?

I'm not sure why we are holding the console maker up to a higher standard than so many other manufactured products out there. There are tech and gear in the world that went out of production over time and were never replaced, or backwards compatible, and we don't miss that stuff, due to obsolescence. It becomes history as a matter of recourse. If you tell a manufacturer that they need to make a product that is backwards compatible indefinitely, or must be maintained into perpetuity, what you are telling them is that they no longer can equate their profits to the actual life cycle of the product in the here and now, but must look at it as a burden of maintenance into both the past and the future.

Sure, old consoles aren't supported anymore by the original makers.....but they do have a support network. You can find enthusiasts for old consoles who work to keep them running, repair, trade, sell and continue with their hobby in a more historical way.

A bigger question relates to the nature of a game sale: if you can no longer play a certain game on the PS3 (say it breaks in 2019, the day after the PS5 is released) are you going to be incensed that the only way to then play The Last of Us is to pay for a $5 download from PSN? Because that's what we currently have for a variety of PS1 titles right now, and my hope is that we'll see more PS2 titles show up in the future. I think for my purposes being able to access these games in the future is more important to me than being able to play them on my old console. And yes, I will pay a bit for a new port of a game on a newer machine, especially if it means the game will now exist in a medium (digital) that transcends the physical media it started on.

Zontar:
-snip-

Ah okay, so you know a bit about hardware emulation. How easy would it be to emulate a cell broadband processor on x86 and 256MB of xDR RAM?

Yeah, your analogy isn't really that good.

Germany and the Allied Forces didn't bid for Europe, with Germany winning the bid, expanding and making a profit and then taxing the bejeebes out everybody until the butthurt Allied Forces thought, fuck it, let's just go and take something that doesn't belong to us by force.

Vekta belonged to the Helghan Corporation fair and square, they bought the planets (vekta + helghast) and during the First Extra Solar War, UCN basically invades Vekta.

camazotz:

Azaraxzealot:

hermes200:
Maybe you should consider one of these:image

The problem is less about first world problems and more about us not having to pay twice for games we already own or having them only available via the whims of a server that could break down or be taken offline at any time. Sure you could say "well then just don't sell your PS3." Ok? Well what happens when that PS3 breaks? Eventually support and production of the console will cease. Then in order to play your games you either have to pay for a monthly streaming service that could go down at any time or buy another of that console for a hugely inflated price. People seem to think the whole argument for backwards compatibility is laziness, when it is in fact a consumer rights issue.

Not only that, but it is an issue of preserving our history. Like Extra Credits said, there are so many games that are just... gone. Disappeared due to companies not doing backwards compatibility and consumers just accepting it. You would expect your new computer to utilize software that at LEAST ran on the last OS, why can't we expect the same from games?

I'm not sure why we are holding the console maker up to a higher standard than so many other manufactured products out there. There are tech and gear in the world that went out of production over time and were never replaced, or backwards compatible, and we don't miss that stuff, due to obsolescence. It becomes history as a matter of recourse. If you tell a manufacturer that they need to make a product that is backwards compatible indefinitely, or must be maintained into perpetuity, what you are telling them is that they no longer can equate their profits to the actual life cycle of the product in the here and now, but must look at it as a burden of maintenance into both the past and the future.

Sure, old consoles aren't supported anymore by the original makers.....but they do have a support network. You can find enthusiasts for old consoles who work to keep them running, repair, trade, sell and continue with their hobby in a more historical way.

A bigger question relates to the nature of a game sale: if you can no longer play a certain game on the PS3 (say it breaks in 2019, the day after the PS5 is released) are you going to be incensed that the only way to then play The Last of Us is to pay for a $5 download from PSN? Because that's what we currently have for a variety of PS1 titles right now, and my hope is that we'll see more PS2 titles show up in the future. I think for my purposes being able to access these games in the future is more important to me than being able to play them on my old console. And yes, I will pay a bit for a new port of a game on a newer machine, especially if it means the game will now exist in a medium (digital) that transcends the physical media it started on.

Well that's short-term thinking, which is what killed many a great companies and has caused entire species to go extinct. The fact of the matter is, Microsoft Word 1995 still works on Windows 7, and you can still save documents in that format (and even older ones) even today. Why are game companies held to a much lower standard? I do agree we should go digital, but not that the games should exist in some nebulous "cloud" that could go down due to unforeseen circumstances or because the company just decides it's not worth it to keep the servers running.

These "networks" you speak of have not saved games and hardware from simply disappearing from history. You could argue obsolescence, that they deserved to be forgotten if the companies decided not to support them, however, how many games existed out there that people once played and had fond memories of that they just can't play because they can't find it (think Gubble 2 for PC) even through illicit channels. You can jury rig consoles for decades as has been shown by retro console enthusiasts, but remember that this last generation was built largely on proprietary hardware, so how many people do you think will be well-versed in the ins and outs of the PS3 cell architecture? Even many top developers don't know exactly how it works or how to get the most out of it (including Naughty Dog).

And yes, I AM advocating "...that they need to make a product that is backwards compatible indefinitely, or must be maintained into perpetuity, what you are telling them is that they no longer can equate their profits to the actual life cycle of the product in the here and now, but must look at it as a burden of maintenance into both the past and the future;" because, again, short-term thinking has never worked out. It's cost companies uncountable amounts of money, wreaked havoc on the environment, and has caused the entire world to plummet into economic toil. I will once again use Microsoft and its OS's as an example, they work very hard to keep their products as backwards compatible as possible, and it has translated into success. In any programming class, one of the most basic principles you will learn is making your program as widely compatible as possible. I am not holding game manufacturers to a HIGHER standard, I am holding them to the tech industry standard (of which they are a part of, and that is irrefutable).

At the very least, Sony and Microsoft could have made your purchases on their DIGITAL products translate forward. As it stands, all your purchases on the PSN and Xbox Live are null and void once they decide to discontinue their product and your PS3/Xbox 360 breaks. There really is no excuse for that. You now have to buy all the PS1 and PS2 and Xbox and all digital classics/games all over again for no good reason.

Azaraxzealot:

hermes200:

Mcoffey:
I would've been more likely to. I have to sacrifice a lot of surface area to keep both my PS3 and my PS4 (Which was a gift), and when I want to play one or the other, I have to dig the HDMI cable out of one and plug it into the other because my monitor has only one HDMI port. Call it first world problems if you want, but it would've been damn convenient to just have one device.

Maybe you should consider one of these:image

The problem is less about first world problems and more about us not having to pay twice for games we already own or having them only available via the whims of a server that could break down or be taken offline at any time. Sure you could say "well then just don't sell your PS3." Ok? Well what happens when that PS3 breaks? Eventually support and production of the console will cease. Then in order to play your games you either have to pay for a monthly streaming service that could go down at any time or buy another of that console for a hugely inflated price. People seem to think the whole argument for backwards compatibility is laziness, when it is in fact a consumer rights issue.

Not only that, but it is an issue of preserving our history. Like Extra Credits said, there are so many games that are just... gone. Disappeared due to companies not doing backwards compatibility and consumers just accepting it. You would expect your new computer to utilize software that at LEAST ran on the last OS, why can't we expect the same from games?

Just so you know, here's a complete list of consoles that have full backwards compatibility with a previous system:

PS2
Wii
Wii U

Three. In the history of gaming consoles, there have been three. I'm not arguing that backwards compatibility wouldn't be cool, but it's ridiculous to think that there's some precedent that means gaming companies have to do this. Putting it in a modern console, especially the PS4, would either drive prices up massively or reduce functionality in other places - it's just impractical.

And yes, games will disappear, just like everything else in the world that is around for a significant length of time. Committing it to a streaming system helps that - probably a hell of a lot better than just putting it on the next console in a row. And how is this a consumer rights violation?! They sold you a game for that console, there wasn't any small print on the side of Metal Gear Solid 2 that said 'by the way, you'll be able to play this on all of Sony's consoles until the end of time!'. Backwards compatibility is a feature, not a bloody human right. Just... no.

SirBryghtside:

Azaraxzealot:

hermes200:
Maybe you should consider one of these:image

The problem is less about first world problems and more about us not having to pay twice for games we already own or having them only available via the whims of a server that could break down or be taken offline at any time. Sure you could say "well then just don't sell your PS3." Ok? Well what happens when that PS3 breaks? Eventually support and production of the console will cease. Then in order to play your games you either have to pay for a monthly streaming service that could go down at any time or buy another of that console for a hugely inflated price. People seem to think the whole argument for backwards compatibility is laziness, when it is in fact a consumer rights issue.

Not only that, but it is an issue of preserving our history. Like Extra Credits said, there are so many games that are just... gone. Disappeared due to companies not doing backwards compatibility and consumers just accepting it. You would expect your new computer to utilize software that at LEAST ran on the last OS, why can't we expect the same from games?

Just so you know, here's a complete list of consoles that have full backwards compatibility with a previous system:

PS2
Wii
Wii U

Three. In the history of gaming consoles, there have been three. I'm not arguing that backwards compatibility wouldn't be cool, but it's ridiculous to think that there's some precedent that means gaming companies have to do this. Putting it in a modern console, especially the PS4, would either drive prices up massively or reduce functionality in other places - it's just impractical.

And yes, games will disappear, just like everything else in the world that is around for a significant length of time. Committing it to a streaming system helps that - probably a hell of a lot better than just putting it on the next console in a row. And how is this a consumer rights violation?! They sold you a game for that console, there wasn't any small print on the side of Metal Gear Solid 2 that said 'by the way, you'll be able to play this on all of Sony's consoles until the end of time!'. Backwards compatibility is a feature, not a bloody human right. Just... no.

There's a precedent set in the tech industry, which games are part of. You would be upset if no software you currently ran on your computer just didn't work in the next OS (especially when the current OS stops being supported and your computer eventually breaks), so why are game companies held to a lower standard?

Committing to streaming system would NOT help in the current state of the world with the way internet infrastructure is. Most of the world is NOT connected to the internet, and you are immediately cutting out a huge potential audience for the sake of.... what? I don't understand how not having backwards compatibility helps me as a consumer other than giving me a cheaper console that does nothing I want it to do. At any time a company can just shut down the servers when they feel like it (see: EA), and then when the streaming service is discontinued and all your money is gone and wasted, THEN will you still be on their side?

It may be impractical, but the games companies dug this grave themselves by choosing to make proprietary hardware. The rest of the tech industry and the lowest levels of programming education ALL stress compatibility and fail students who do not make their programs flexible and compatible on a huge range of systems while firing employees who do the same. The games industry should be held to the same standard, since they are part of that tech industry.

Griffolion:

Xan Krieger:
-snip-

So you're assuming equivalency of cost between backwards compatibility and the Kinect?

Didn't they say the kinect was about half the cost of the system? How much could backwards compatibility cost compared to that?

Xan Krieger:

Griffolion:

Xan Krieger:
-snip-

So you're assuming equivalency of cost between backwards compatibility and the Kinect?

Didn't they say the kinect was about half the cost of the system? How much could backwards compatibility cost compared to that?

They more or less said that the Kinect is the difference in cost between the Xbox One and the PS4. So about $100US.

How exactly do you put a price point on backwards compatibility though? It's pure speculation how much it might've cost unless you were part of the dev team and were part of the decision making process behind choosing to not go with a backwards compatible console.

You wanna know why Sony dropped backwards compatability from the functions list when they were designing the PS4? Because NOBODY thought it was a good idea when it was on PS3. Sony said, "Look, this machine can play BluRay movies, PS3 games and any PS2/1 game disks you own!" and people responded, "But that's $599! I'll just hold onto my PS2 and get a 360." That's right, the reason there is no backwards compatibility now is because their fanbase said, "that's too expensive and dumb." You can blame every person who owned PS2 and moved to 360. Now that Sony has the cheaper machine everyone expects backwards compatibility? You didn't support it last time and there is no reason why you would actually support it this time. You say you will, but you wouldn't. With PS4 at $599 and XB1 at $499 guess what console everyone would have bought.

Now onto the game at hand: Both the Helghast and ISA are dicks.

Griffolion:
Just a quick question about the whole not liking the current console generation due to lack of backwards compatibility thing. Were people really prepared to pay the likely $600 - $800 for one that did have native backwards compatibility?

Yes, yes I would. I paid $1000 AUD for the backwards compatible PS3 and would have happily paid that premium for a limited edition PS4/XBO console and left the cheaper standard version for those that don't care. Honestly both consoles could have done it :-/

Captcha: cold shoulder - yes, and the designers deserve it for being idiots.

I also completely gave up on the plot on this thing in the first 30 seconds (still in the intro movie) where we are informed that Space USA blew up the planet of the Space Soviet Nazis then.... gave them half their home planet to colonize.

That was so goddamn stupid I was out for the rest of the game. I don't really know who did what to who, or why. On the other hand, the combat was kinda fun, especially the open sections and the drone. And it was pretty.

So exactly like every other Killzone game (except the Vita one), but with much higher frame rate.

I can say with confidence that this review stands apart form others in recent memory for being a multi-hit combo of hilarity. The bit at the beginning with the caveat, the jokes deeper in, it all gelled so nicely. This was Yahtzee in his best form. Good show.

Holy feth! Yatzhee praising a game from a series I love!? And it's Killzone of all things!? I am flabbergasted!

I don't care what he said: as soon as I get the cash I'm getting a PS4 and this game.

The ONLY reason backwards compatibility is so impractical for the PS4 in the first place is because using the cell technology in the PS3 was a ridiculously short-sighted idea. Had they not done something so obscenely stupid that developers for their console still at the END of that console generation can't quite figure out how to design games around it, we'd all be talking as if backwards compatibility IS a staple. Sony shot themselves in the foot with that misstep. Let's be honest; backwards compatibility itself didn't shave off $200 from the console. In actuality, it might have shaved off half as much (if that), with the other $100 coming from Sony deciding to sell their consoles at a loss just so they could get people to buy their games in the first place. But that's only if you think that backwards compatibility was the only thing cut out in that price cut; it wasn't.

The PS3 lost quite a few features from its initial release, including a larger storage capacity. Truth be told, if I wanted anything jettisoned from the PS3, it would have been the BluRay. I still don't own a BluRay player and I have not seen--let alone touched--a BluRay disc or player since they came out. Sony was so obsessed with pushing their latest home entertainment tech during the PS3 launch that they forgot what they should have been pushing on a gaming console--games. During the PS2 era, DVD Players had already been out for a good while before the PS2, so integrating them in wasn't nearly as huge a gamble as with the PS3 and BluRay.

SirBryghtside:
Just so you know, here's a complete list of consoles that have full backwards compatibility with a previous system:

PS2
Wii
Wii U

Anything before the PS2 era has found its way onto the PC in some form of emulation or another, but even then, those games were much easier to emulate so it's hardly fair to stretch that all the way back to the days of Atari when you're talking about a feature that's only been around for little over a decade (full backwards compatibility, that is, although partial and even significant backwards compatibility have been around since the days of SNES and Game Boy).

In this current age of gaming as we know it (which would have started with the PS2/XBox/Gamecube), Sony revolutionized the way we perceive what our consoles can do when they more or less said six, simple words: "Your PS2 can run PS1 games." This era STARTED with backwards compatibility, and in that context, your list actually comprises a third of the competitive consoles that have come out since then. More than half actually, since there still do exist PS3s that offer backwards compatibility, and it's a bit disingenuous not to point out that lack of backwards compatibility for Microsoft's consoles has always been a sore point for XBox owners. So really, if you exclude the company that refuses to play the compatibility game for whatever reason, even though PCs which have always been their domain do it so easily (hell, PCs are now emulating PS2 and Gamecube games), then it's actually half of the applicable consoles that have had backwards compatibility. And let's not forget that Nintendo's handhelds have offered full backwards compatibility as a near-staple since the GBA days, although they've only ever extended it to the immediately preceding handheld instead of all prior handhelds.

Sony STARTED something when they released the PS2, and they messed it up when they made that horrible decision to cut backwards compatibility instead of BluRay with the PS3. If the PS4 had been the PS3, we'd still have backwards compatibility and these arguments about cost-efficiency would have little merit; everyone would instead be praising Sony and Nintendo for their forward-thinking and the XBox One would have taken a much harsher blow than it did from the entire backwards compatibility debate. "It only does everything" would not have become the joke of a tagline that it is today.

Sniper Team 4:
I'm just wondering, but am I the only person who think that the Helghast are actually bad guys? Okay, yes, they got the short end of the stick. No, that wasn't fair that the ISA pulled such a dick move. Germany also got the short end of the stick at the end of World War I, yet I don't see anyone going around saying that the Nazis had good reasons to do what they did.
The Helghast invaded a colony world and started killing without remorse. Military and civilians. So of course Vekta and Earth are going to respond. Then, it's revealed that the Helghast are building a literal planet-killing weapon which they fully intend to use on Earth. A weapon that will kill EVERYONE on the planet, or at least the overwhelming majority of people. And if I remember right, the 'good guys' at the end of three didn't deliberately set off the weapon. They were trying to prevent it from going off (you know, trying to save all the people back on Earth) and then, in the ensuing gun fight, stuff blew up. They didn't go and push the button and laugh, and I seem to recall they were horrified at what had just happened. Or am I remembering the end of Killzone 3 wrong?
I'm not saying that the good guys are not at fault, but I'm starting to wonder if I'm the only person that thinks the Helghast are getting too much of a free pass because of what happened to them over a hundred years ago. I mean, one of the first scenes from Shadowfall shows a Helghan soldier walking up and shooting a wounded woman in the head in cold blood, then executing the man who was trying to help her. These aren't exactly Nobel Peace Prize winners here.

Yes you are, you despicable Vektan sympathiser!

Ahem.

A few counter-parts to all that:

- The Germany analogy in this instance only works if Europe was completely devoid of human life until the 1870s when the country is founded by people from across the channel, having been given exclusive permission to settle there without interference provided they obey the laws of the cross-channel countries. Germany does so but it turns out that the nation is sitting right on top of the world's most potent oil/coal/vital natural resource deposits, so much so that Germany now provides the rest of the world's needs in these areas. The cross-channel authorities don't like this one bit and when the German government starts charging tariffs on anyone who wants to use these resources (but not cripplingly high taxes), the cross-channel folks form the Allied powers and launch a surprise war on the unprepared Germans, crushing them within hours in a curb-stomp battle. The Treaty of Versailles is then imposed and dismantles Germany, removes its entire government from power, disbands its military forces and makes the former country a vassal-state, allowing the Allies to bring in their own people to recolonise the land. A minority of Germans take issue with this and begin a guerilla campaign to make trouble for the Allies, receiving enough support from the population to make it an on-going threat serious enough for the Allied governor to declare martial law and enact increasingly draconian laws. This gets so bad that the German people petition the Allies for the right to leave their own homeland and find a new one, a petition that is granted BUT it is entirely up to the Germans to supply and fund themselves. The Germans leave Europe and end up in Siberia (or somewhere equally hostile to human life), suffering horrific losses from starvation, illness and exposure while the Allies declare them a sovereign nation, specifically so they don't have to provide any aid (not to mention New Germany is put under blockade anyway). Eventually, over a period of centuries, New Germany rebuilds itself into a major military power and sends an invasion force to liberate its own homeland.

Now this analogy is by no-means perfect but the Helghast have suffered a lot more then a bruised ego and a lost war in the Killzone timeline. Nor does this completely excuse their actions but in the light of their brutalised past at the hands of the Vektans, can you really blame them for taking revenge on soldiers and civilians alike? Plus this was more a case of showing no mercy to anyone in the heat of battle rather than a campaign of racial annihilation.

- While the Helghast were developing irradiated petrusite weaponry (presumably to be deployed as an advanced chemical weapon), only the Stahl Arms corporation, at the behest of its CEO, was actively working on the planet-killer grade stuff and doing so in secret. When Stahl reveals his plans to use the weapon to exterminate all life on Earth, the Helghast are genuinely horrified.

- As much as I am loathe to admit it, the main characters at the end of Killzone 3 are only guilty of indirect holocaust at best, but the fact that they were fighting after the Vektan government had officially surrendered (as stated by an ISA senior officer earlier in-game) makes them war criminals.

My point is: while the Helghast obviously don't have clean hands in this conflict, they are far from the designated "bad guys".

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here