Yes kids can handle mature games

Well this happened recently. The answer is what you'd expect at face value. A big scary M rated game can't possibly be marketed at kids could it? Its Assassins creed, its got ass and assassins all in that one word so its double as evil for kids right? Next thing you know they'll be running around in knives and hoodies stabbing each other. Oh wait, Ninjas are already marketed to kids and have been for years, and yet their not waging ninja clan wars against each other and the human race has been going along like normal. They aren't picking up and swinging katanas, or throwing poisoned shurikens, they're instead laughing about ninja jokes or "ninjaing" something (usually means invisibly achieving something) with their friends. Actually at the likeliest extreme they end up reading and taking an interest in Japan's history and how Ninjas legitimately existed. This leads me to a pretty bold topic about kids and violent video games, and a point I've been wanting to talk about for a while. To put it blunt I'm tired of two things around this subject: Treating kids like idiots who must be sheltered from anything spooky or morally questionable, and hypocrites who are calling for this while growing up playing M rated games themselves.

I think I've covered this in the past, but just to be clear I've been playing violent games since I was little. Not many necessarily, most video games on the whole were hard for me to grasp, but I know turok 2 was still among one of them, alongside Rampage if that's worth anything. There was a PlayStation 2 in my household before I was out of elementary school, and I know that's where a lot of my main course of childhood gaming came in and was also the same console and time period where I became a fan of FPS games (Turok evolution, Killzone, and timesplitters 2 being among some of my favorites around the time). I'm not an exception either, as my group of friends consisted of gamers who had been well experienced in gaming as well with pretty much everyone of them being massive fans of Halo (which sadly I couldn't discuss much with considering console barriers). I did know a couple of guys with it restricted, and that wasn't necessarily working out the best. The gamers I knew that were able to play what they wanted were good people. Heck most of them wouldn't even risk doing something as aggressive as an argument. I wouldn't say it necessarily had something to do with the games, but I can safely say the opposite isn't true where gaming somehow makes them bad.

Kids aren't idiots. Censoring things from them can be necessary, but there's a matter of what it is being censored. How real is it, how could it impact there lives, and how could it be a risky exposure? Heavy dark material might be held back to shelter them a bit longer from a horrible or grim concept they may not be able to cope with. Nudity and sex might be something you'll want to keep at least until their about teenagers (and then there's considered a time where you should "talk" about it). Intense language... perhaps, yeah you wouldn't want them repeating that. At the very least tell them these are words that aren't worth repeating. However laser guns, dagger drop down kills, impaling enemies, and other cartoonish levels of crazy fantasy violence... yeah they're not going to have their lives shattered by that or a bit of swearing. If they know right from wrong, that's just it. It starts and ends with the video game, at least as much as it does for most of us. I'm sorry but hours upon hours of shooting laser auto-rifles at monkies in Timesplitters does not turn a person evil, and neither will Master Chief's megablock form. To a totally sane being, be it of age 8 or 44, common media violence should not be much to worry about. Now on the other hand if we bring the topic to online play within some of the violent games, I'd worry about taking some parental precautions there as the explicit content can be much more unpredictable. Plus it'll save us of complaints about them using microphones.

Uh... you need 18 years of life to handle this? Really?

So please stop with the media grade BS about violent video games. Its not hurting your children, they aren't hypersensitive to this thing. Sure maybe as a parent you can decide some stuff is too much for your kids. Heavy rain, GTA, and more might have some content that goes beyond just random arcadey violence, and I wont blame you if you hold that back from a kid. However just seeing M or violent fiction at face value is a really low thing to judge on, and to be blunt its a bit showing of how shallow some people are (is violence really all you can see in AC? Please tell me you're exaggerating, otherwise you may be the one with the problem). These are the same ratings that demand you to be a teen to see Pikachu hitting Mario in Smash bros, or the shocking revelation of a cartoon cannon in Worms 3D. Oh yeah and there was that recent inconsistency with Dark Souls 2, where I'm hoping they came to their senses and admitted that yeah Dark Souls isn't so bad that you must be an adult to endure swords hitting polygons. Meanwhile there are kids discussing Mortal Kombat in middle school who are handling their lives just fine.

Honestly though the funny thing is this wasn't the subject of what sparked this discussion. Instead its about Ubisoft taking AC to kids through toys and other potential routes. I don't know for sure how its going to look several years from now, but if they were to make a kid friendly spin-off of the series, or simply go into other mediums like toys, books, etc then I say sure go for it. I don't think it actually is the best idea, but it can happen and its far from the only thing to do it. I wonder if people were such hypersensitive bubblewrap type parents over the subject matter of Aliens, and Mortal Kombat invading television and toys in past decades. Heck I adored the evolution cartoon when I was little, and that was linked to more of a mature comedy movie. Here's a brief spoiler for how this all went; Kids did fine. Oh but toy lightsaberes, solider figurines with guns, megablock pirates (which the AC stuff looks soooo close to), and person sized cowboy pop guns were always okay for kids, because double standards are fun! Stop treating kids like idiots guys. Seriously, you're not doing them any favors by telling someone they can't handle a bit of digital fantasy violence... or plastic violence? Stop being that shallow and let kids find for themselves what is fun in the entertainment industry. Who knows, maybe they'll be inspired to learn history from Assassins Creed just like I wanted to learn all about WW2 after playing some MOH games.

Oh the inhumane horror!

Now playing: Starfox Adventures!

Well for starters its weird going two "now playing" articles in a row, but this is kind of a celebration for me. Finally got everything together to play Starfox Adventures! Sure I've still got AC2 in mind and I was just playing it as soon as today. Likewise there's also something I didn't mention last time: pix the cat. freakin' pix the cat is like some casual addiction,, but I've got an article about that and general "fun-ness" down in the plans. Meanwhile lets talk starfox adventures, because that's something I'm playing now and hope to keep up because its a damn good representation of the sort of thing I loved and played before. Well... sort of.

SF:A (because I'm already tired of writing it out) is truly a weird game with a feeling of good Rare quality mixed in with a zelda influenced project. B&K, or DKC64 this is not, its rather more linear and focused on upgrading and proceeding on an adventure that seems intent on increasing in scope. Its a game about reading text, solving light level puzzles, enduring odd but solid combat in between destinations, and collecting an inventory of gear to do all this with and some of it upgrades as necessary per design. The thing that it gets right though, similar to Okami, is that it capitalizes on trying to lose the feeling that you're on rails. Sure you've still got traces of that giant key quest where thing A goes with set piece A, and you'll end up learning to use this with combinations of B and C, etc. However there's a lot of open and branching paths, a lack of intrusive level designs or barricades, and the setting and mechanics really has me immersed in a way that lives up to the idea that this is an "adventure" game. Oh yeah, and lets not forget this is Rare and it really does feel like it. There's this strange warped feeling to the quality that leaves its clear mark this wasn't directly nintendo. Its less afraid of adventure, less afraid of fortifying a range of mechanics that fit on top of a fluid scope (rather than keeping closed up ones among a predictable plan), and its just got that Rare tone of mixing up something slightly adorable with something dark. Ultimately though it never leaves that Nintendo land of gamey and fun-ness, as well as throwing in buckets of tried and true but awesome gaming cliches. Basically this is Rare's big answer to Zelda, and it strongly resembles that as you would expect. The only non-rare thing is the fact that they're stuck with restrictions to make things a starfox game. The world clearly shows an influence from a far different, far more original IP. However Starfox is still there, and he had to impact it as a starfox game. I'm not hating on it for that, just pointing out its a weird mix for Rare and I can't help but wonder if a couple things feel awkward not by design but by constraints due to the likely time consumer conversion of Dino planet to StarFox Adventures.

Actually screw it, I love the weird possibly shoehorned inclusion of Starfox, and I love the game's total result so far. Sure most of it is Dinosaur planet and Rare's lost gem covered under the label, but when suddenly the scene cut to a space ship full of a cartoony crew rocking out to a jukebox (which I didn't consider at the time, but what the heck is a jukebox doing on a space ship!?), it just cemented how awesome everything as a whole was. A world full of reptiles and lizard people, tribal tone mixed with culture clashed, elements of sci-fi slipping in with an ancient world full of magic, said magic coming from crystals and staffs, and a gamey plot that is loud and proud about you having fun inside of a video game adventure. My 10-year-old imagination would be as excited as it could be, save for maybe the lack of dragons. It hasn't been since like my introduction into warhammer 40'000 that I felt like a world just suited my liking so well. Sure some of the voice acting is kind of dumb or silly, or some of the logic to stuff like why you can't use lasers is dumb, and the gamey-ness might be a little too much when big important characters are actually telling you to "press the B button if you want to cancel so I can go back to sleep", but its all so fun and awesome never the less. I don't know how all this would have panned out under the Nintendo 64 as Dinosaur Planet, and who knows maybe that'd have meant more sequels or maybe at least an xbox exclusive reboot that would break me on wanting one alongside sunset overdrive. However whatever the case is, I like what it is in reality. I liked how they handled Fox's intro, and how they tried to adapt him into their old design. Its given a pretty fun even if a bit silly and clumsy of a game.

The game has a strong feeling of familiar and new because of all that I've covered. The characters all feel like a great kids cartoon cast, even if Peppy Hare's tone is hard to get used to here. The gameplay reminds me faintly of platformers, or older game cliches that you just don't find, and there's just that drive of adventure. However there's also no jump button (GRRR!), its still a zelda-ish adventure game even if just an inspired not cloned type, and the game's ongoing pacing and gadgets all bring a mixture of delight and frustrations that are of course unique to this adventure. A lot of my positive comparisons though are towards the platforming adventure and rare allusions I find within the game. The upbeat music, fun world, emphasis on exploring, and strange pacing gaps that actually drive me forward rather than repulse me are all making it a comforting experience inside of something that is ultimately quite different. Of course a lot of that different to is what keeps me going. I remember finally buying something from the shop merchant, and despite fixed initial prices there's an actual haggle system that had me shriek out loud "Oh, that's soooo cool!!!". That's just a light example, but of course its those small awesome moments that add up and make the adventure worth having.

This is all just day 1. I've already beaten the prologue, goofed around, got stuck and then unstuck a couple times, intentionally went the wrong way and loved it, accidentally went the wrong way and felt confused, and came around to racing, sliding on ice, losing and winning gambles, and smacking plenty of lizards down. As you can tell, I do love the experience so far. Even though this is no platformer, it feels like its serving my dose of fun with that genre for the year.... in a year where there really is no new answer for that. I'm glad to have stumbled onto a cool little old gem from a console's history I was never part of. I really want to beat it and hope to get Assault as well, even though that's a totally different beast. For now though I've got to get back to this game, its only on pause and I don't plan on putting it up for the night just yet.

Now playing: Assassins Creed 2

This might be another short one, but I've got to say its a good one. I've now got the very last major link in the series for me, at least that was the case until unity and rouge ironically came about on the very same day. Oh well, that's ok, unity sounds like its betraying itself by removing- oh I mean "Streamlining"- player input and removing (sorry, streamlining, got to remember that triple A buzzword for this kind of thing) manual hidden blade function, pick-pocketing, and even carrying corpses... in a game that's supposedly focusing on stealth roots. So yeah I'll take this time to reinforce the notion that AC2's arc is the best, and the rest gets comparatively worse even with the game that is supposedly like AC2 in its simplicity. With the actual AC2 in my hands though it looks like I'm finally getting to the roots of what matters to me and not what ubisoft (I'd be developer specific if it actually had a focused dev) tells me matters from unity's messy implementation. Anyways I grabbed AC2 yesterday when rummaging through the dirt cheap case-less bin at gamestop (aiming to see if it still had soccom 4, but it didn't). I got that and operation flashpoint for even less, but I'd rather focus on AC2 first.

So to be totally honest most of what I think could probably be a reframe of what I already said when I was replaying brotherhood. Its a good game with better base mechanics than its successors, and tells the story of a rouge type vigilante as he fights the Templars during the Italian renaissance. To the best of my knowledge the biggest thing AC brotherhood did was the assassination system, the big setting, a faster combat flow, and maybe a couple extra gadgets... most of which I don't think I bothered with (like the parachute). So the biggest loss to me will be my assassin minions, but apart from that I'm seeing the core game come together and delivering a lot of what I love. The only real difference I do feel is in how a couple things are paced, including what might be one of the best uses I've seen of QTEs where they pop up at just the right time in cut-scenes to help bring you in at just the right moments, or even as optional interactions like one bit where I had the ability to walk up and punch a guy in the middle of his faux-friendly greet. Similarly combat is just slower paced and has more of this odd loose feeling to it that actually feels pretty good once you get used to it, though strafing replaces a kick command which is just a bit weird and unnecessary considering the counter option. However I didn't pick it up soley for the gameplay, to be honest $5 for the story alone is a steal. So far I'm hooked on it, though I'm still a bit early. I pretty much beat the first mission or so in sequence 3, so I'm still early in and Ezio isn't old enough to be where I know he'll go. Still I've enjoyed seeing his beginnings, how he knew Leonardo, and just generally seeing how this stuff started. My only real complaint is that they really executed Ezio's educational part poorly. He literally learns about his family's assassination period through a flash. Now... I'm keeping my fingers crossed good 'ol La Volpe shows up soon.

The game all in all is pretty good and I hope to stay attached to it for some time, and finish it before FarCry 4 takes my attention. Well... actually I've got a couple things going on, starfox adventures just arrived in the mail and as soon as I get a gamecube card I might be aiming on that as well. Despite my badmouthing of Unity I also hope to eventually play that, as it does sound somewhat exciting despite its dumb faults. I just might ask for it as a Christmas present though rather than stressing cash on it. Its like I said before, AC is a series that has a lot of mixed bag results and I suppose I can't keep my nose out of it even when it smells a bit bitter. For now though... I'd really rather have the younger entries like AC2, and I still have loose ends to tie between the original, revaluations, and if I absolutely desire to maybe one of those that came out of the AC3 format. I do know rogue is up for rent, so there's that chance to. For now though, I'm going back to Ezio's beginnings, and I'm really enjoying it so far.

Why FarCry 4 is so exciting for doing so little

Have I seen this before?

FarCry 4 revealed itself to an admitedly strange trailer during its original E3 unveiling. It was an incredible looking setting, great action, but it was so weird to see the exact piece by piece UI elements from Far Cry 3. On top of that while the graphics were improved over console versions, it was clear it was more like tuning up your PC settings rather than a sequel to go alongside a new console generation. Of course people will blame older consoles, but the actual reality is that its the same exact engine. You hear of rehashes and whatnot, but rarely ever is it so apparent that the UI is revealed to be the same thing. Since then this has changed a bit as we've seen new HUD pieces, but still it was such a strange reveal, especially from ubisoft who would rather inflate early builds than to make them seem like a true work in progress. Despite this I absolutely loved everything I saw, and it has become my most anticipated game of what's left of this year. No seriously, I can pass or wait on everything else except this and smash bros, and this surprisingly takes a higher priority over smash bros. Why though? Well actually these two things are quite connected, I'm actually happy to see its got a lot in common with FC3. Quite a few folks want to make it out to be an issue, because of course they do, and originally I wrote a (kind of angry) response towards that. However after sitting back about it, I'm just plain happy FarCry 4 is nearly here and now I'm here to explain myself a bit more.

So Far Cry 3 released a couple years ago and I really enjoyed it. However I didn't agree that it earned every inch of its enormous praise. Its character was horribly executed, it had some wonky checkpoints, and it had a couple nitpicks that just generally kind of stack on each other. After playing Wolfenstein's stealth system its especially hard to enjoy Farcry 3's faults. Oh the stealth system could especially be improved. Overall I just felt like things could have been better. FC1 and 2 sort of share a similar feel, they were amazing games that just didn't do everything as best as it could. A lot of their points will never be fully realized either, as every entry in the series seems to love wiping out the logic of the last game... at least until now. I was quite interested when I heard ubisoft had found Far Cry's formula with 3, but took it with a grain of salt until the reveal. When it showed itself, it was exactly what I wanted with the series: An evolution through a proper sequel. New subtle features made the show on top of what we knew amazing, such as smashing and shooting through a car window, or interacting with a red barrel before weaponizing it. Oh and for all you social types, there's co-op function for tackling forts, which in itself could be a massive game changing feature for a couple players (though personally I may never touch it). Of course there's the massive and well welcomed setting change and some of the additions brought on with it like riding elephants, and the potential for a decent protagonist (and maybe a better villain... sorry, I just don't quite agree that vaas was that special). I'm also hoping the drugy tones are tuned down to. I know its got a vibe for crazy and eccentric people, and stoners may find themselves in that mix, but I got a bit sick of seeing the run down drug addicted world of Farcry3, it kind of killed my interest in the tropical tone. I've also kind of been finding details on returning mechanics, and things like the health system and 4 slot weapon wheel still appear to be well implemented meaning the game isn't subtracting or "streamlining" its core. Oh and I haven't even brought up the competitive multiplayer, which is looking like a big step up from the generic FC3 multiplayer. ...Or the spirit world and magical tiger that I'm looking forward to trying out. What's that, you've put in an arena mode to!? This is shaping up to be a perfect sequel.

Familiar fun, but amped up amazement

This is how sequels are done. If you wanted something else, or want to cry DLC, then turn and leave. Seriously, there's nothing here for you. If you actually want something different, then why on earth would you be looking at the same franchise that you want to walk away from. A sequel isn't supposed to revolutionize your world, and often the most successful games in a franchises are the sequels that truly build upon a high quality base game that came before. Similarly that's where a lot of the most well remembered games in a franchise come from, #2, like uncharted, AC, Mass effect, Mario Kart 64 (kind of a 2), Spyro 2, Smash bros melee, Battlefield 2 or bad company 2 (both fit), and timesplitters 2. These are games that continued rather than destroyed their past successes, and although sometimes the next either hurt or helped the series out further these games are all slightly more well remembered and discussed for being that next major milestone on top of previously great ideas. Oh but I could go on in backwards fashion to; How about Mercenaries 2 and Star wars battlefront 2, Crysis 2, the western version of SMB2, or Far Cry 2? Leaving that special 2 number, we could also go to Killzone 3, the thief reboot, Dead space 3, and a couple others. Oh yeah, hardly anyone discusses them anymore (or compared to another) because they derailed or hurt parts of their original game. They aren't necessarily bad games, heck SWBF2 and killzone 3 stole hours on top of hours from me, and I think Deadspace 3 is probably my personal best option to get into that series because I'm not a big fan of the rest, but they were more confused entries that didn't live up. Oh and I could get carried away about how amazing of an example Ratchet & clank is with its well hated spin-off titles, versus the rehashed but loved 8 or so adventure games. However I'm getting slightly off track, lets go back to the basics. What's the point of an IP if it doesn't have its own identity, following, and its own style? It loses all that if it plays itself out like past farcry games have before. All the series has been known for consistently is an island location (which ironically FC4 breaks) with somewhat open ended combat and a community map pack function, and that's about it. Outside of that, Far Cry pretty much has to sell each game on itself rather than a strong fan base, which doesn't sound so bad but when nobody knows for sure what to expect out of it and there's always a list of odd flaws, then you know its a bit of an unstable property. Nobody knows quite how the mechanics, balance, or traveling will play out, or what features will be in it unless they see all the trailers. Now we do. Not only that but we can see it improve and fix itself as it goes on by. Its keeping a sense of style, its returning almost all the mechanics while fixing or adding to just about all of them as well, and its giving us a brand new world and adventure.

I guess that still leaves a question to my sequel logic though... an IP must have its own identity and style, but what about making that so for each individual game? Simple: new aesthetics, a new adventure as well as a story, a new sense of pacing, and of course subtle changes and

experimentation that influence balance for the better. All of these things stand out to make a game not only unique, but hopefully succeed over its past game. I think where some proper sequels do fail though is on the pacing and adventure aspect, which are far more subjective and tougher to perfect than mechanics. You can easily figure out if people will like a new game mode, or whether or not giving them a new travel method is a good idea. However its a lot harder to see if that level layout is tuned just right, or if players like what you did with the villain. Some sequels like Uncharted 3 flop on this point, while others like Crysis 3 are regarded as better. This is also probably extra hard on fighters, and I guess that explains the mixed bag I always hear around the god of war and Devil may cry series. The adventure and pacing are a huge part of what makes or breaks a sequel, and often if that alone is what goes wrong with a game fans are more than willing to give the next one a chance than if you were to step back and say... burn the whole damn thing with a big reboot or spiral the game out of a sane direction. Burning a series identity is how we end up with sloppy messes like Dungeon keeper (to which EA even said, though with some bad logic mixed in, that they needed to stick more to the old brand) or dead space 3, its just that its not popular to admit things like that because hating on the obvious and more forced rehashes like COD and madden is fun. However there is a point at which a series can truly go stale. When that happens, again walk away. Turn back, you aren't missing out on anything if you really became tired or bored with it. When enough people do that, they'll figure something out. I think that's part of why Tomb Raider really worked out as it is, it seems to reboot at just the right times. However just yelling at a highly successful and great new adventure in a series people are enjoying, it just makes you look kind of... well, dumb. If you've got specific complaints, then share them, but complaining about the whole package or saying its not "new enough" in a gaming industry full of different games, well you're not doing anybody any favors.

The most hilarious part of all the Farcry 3 rehash complaints though is that a rehash and somewhat of a literal reskin was already made, sold, and very well received with quite a few even saying it was better than the main game. Actually I'll take that back, some bring it up as one of the best shooters we've gotten over recent years (which is a bit overkill in my book, but oh well more power to the underdogs I guess). All the game really did was take a small piece of far cry 3, throw over some neon in color scheme, give it a mini-story, re-skin some enemies, and give the player a handful of new weapons and animations. However it became ridiculously successful as a stand-alone small game and there's rumors it may get a sequel, kind of like a spin-off series under Far Cry 3's engine. I'm sure you've heard of it, its Blood Dragon.

Yeah... it is this awesome.

Actually one picture isn't enough to represent how amazing this game's aesthetics appear so...

LASER SHOOTING LIZARDS! Don't fight how brilliant that is!

Now before I get to my main point I need to clear something up. Someone out there is citing the smaller price tag, and saying "SEE! I told you they only want to make you pay for a reskin! It started cheap, but now they're printing it at $60! Damn you ubisoft!" but that's missing my point. To shoot that down though, there's not hardly any special features, improvements, or even a matchable amount of base content in Blood Dragon. Its safe to assume Far Cry 4 beats that and meets a $60 price. However my actual point in bringing up blood dragon is an "I told you so" with how much fun it can be to get a game that just changes the aesthetics just right, and runs off a great base game. The voice, theme, feel, and energy that was excited when seeing this world made it worth the ride, and people have praised this miniature game to the high heavens for it. So imagine a totally new world, a bigger budget, more improvements, and more features.

Enough battling the hype train wreckers though. They aren't here reading my blog, but I had to say something. I've been meaning to talk of proper sequels for a long time. I just wont really see eye to eye with those that demand everything needs to be changed, especially with some of my favorite games never coming back or never topping itself because they took that road. Well Far Cry 4 may help boost a series I never really expected to put in the spotlight, because its doing some great things with a good base game. I'm excited to see it improve its stealth mechanics (finally able to drag bodies normally), add an arena mode, and give me a great looking adventure on to the snowy eastern mountains, all on a similar base game that I really enjoyed. Meanwhile it looks like there's some room for a lot of good surprises, as I've been keeping out of story trailers, staying away from looking at the XP system, and I'm kind of glad the arena has a shallow explanation. I'm really excited to see what awaits on the mountains, and what footage I'll capture in bringing it all over on PS4. Next tuesday will be the beginning of a new adventure I've been waiting quite a while for. Oh and pleaaaaase make arena mode as good as it sounds, at least have it sort of match up to R&C standards. Having that thrown in an open world game with good gunplay sounds fantastic. Call it a rehash, but I think ubisoft made the perfect move to get me interested in this sequel.

Happy belated 10th birthday Killzone!

The helghast march endures

Quick heads up by the way. Killzone Liberation is kind of omitted from this discussion, both because I never bothered much with it, and because its totally different from the rest of the franchise. Sorry if this isn't technically hitting every piece of the franchise.

On Novermber 2nd 2004, Halo's worst nightmare would be upon the world and eliminate its influence with a big loud bang. Its name was Killzone and it perfected the shooter genre with its inredi-.... oh wait, that's my alternative history plan for whenever I get a time machine. Yeah ok lame halo killer jokes aside, its Killzone's sort of 10th anniversary (and no that halo killer label shouldn't be taken seriously). I'm late to the part because I just read it off PS lifestyle, and until then had no idea. I don't actually keep up with this stuff easily, though I do remember Spyro's in September, and Dark Souls at November 2011. Still I never get this stuff right on time. However a 10 mark milestone caught just a few days off one of my favorite franchises ever, fine... I'll do something about it. I don't mean to start it off insultingly, but Killzone is a very weird game out of the many that exist, and if it wasn't for its association with Sony and eye candy it may have lost any true trace of reputation it ever did have. It lives off insane hype thanks to 1st party marketing & association, focused console development, and high end graphics. Maybe I'm wrong and people (probably those with a similar mind as myself) do give it more legit credit, but that's what I see all over the place. That also helps explain why the insane hype just drops into a swift disappearance as other games may carry on. Still Killzone 2's online servers are still up to this day, with a demand for the HD original to reboot its own online function. Why do I myself and a few others continue to uphold this game as something more than what the mainstream media sees it? Are we delusional fanatics for it, or is this a true cult following that keeps a series on in passion that the mainstream side just doesn't see? I think the answer is honestly on both ends, but mostly the last one about a cult passion.

I think its difficult to deny that killzone does something special, whether or not one chooses to see how much of that special sauce they include within each game. Some people can and will just see it as a "sci-fi Call of Duty" which is an absolute sickening analogy to any Killzone 2 veteran. It always rubs me the wrong way, and I see it to be quite a naive generalization. Still it has its roots. At face value you've got big scale military battles, bullet firing weapons that work with an aim down sites function, squad mates telling you what to do in a short (unless the original) campaign with loose scripts, and if we're talking older WW2 COD then we've got space nazis to add to the "sci-fi"-ized COD aspect. Also with Killzone 3 you've also got loud explosive moments in the campaign, and pop-up points in multiplayer. So fair enough, but despite this you can stump them by asking how many others take WW2 influenced stuff into sci-fi aspects in gaming, give it a fictional story and cannon, give it big cinematic speeches that wrap you up in political struggles of the war, and of course all in extreme if not maxed console visuals. You have to admit by then that it shoots just a bit further than say just another generic COD or Battlefield, especially before the recent Advanced warfare which admittedly gives COD the sci-fi and fictionally creative spin. However lets say you're awesome and dig deeper, finding more rich smaller bits the game has uniquely to itself. You notice the meaty impact of the weapons where as the competition is twitch and more plastic. You spy on the helghast and notice hidden dialogue, or spot awesome AI moves they pull out on you while loving their distinct voices. You notice the multiplayer is tuned to be played at a strange tactical slow, thinking man's shooter pace but within a map and format designed for a twitchy frag motivated shooter (and that the combination surprisingly works). You notice the odd aspect in campaigns that aren't common alongside the mundane mechanics, whether it be the squad driven aspects of Killzone 1, the heavy gun boss brutes in Killzone 2, the surprising story tie-ins in mercenaries seemingly arcadey format, or the old school PC FPS meets modern mechanics mix up with shadow fall, or the well placed super weapon hiding somewhere in every game. You may notice that Killzone 2 actually makes you earn true milestones in its progression system, and in shadow fall are reminded why one isn't even necessary to begin with and appreciate GG thinking outside the trends for a bit. Welcome to Killzone, your hunt for awesome small touches has just begun. Might I suggest you also take notes of anything suspicious the bug AI in killzone 2 or 3 does, or try getting a feel for the weight per weapon differences in shadow fall.

This is how its been since Killzone 1 for me. It was on the surface much like Medal of Honor, and some other shooters I played. As a matter of fact it was the first game I thought back to when during the 7th gen switch i said I was bored with generic military shooters and would toss my controller up at any more "we're pinned down by snipers, save us please oh mighty player" moments coming out of another fps. Still the reality was I mostly saw it for its small touches. The enemies captured my gaze instantly, as their awesome glowing eyes complimented by thick masks and dark villain black military armor gave them an amazing appearance that was further enjoyable by their awesome gruff british voice. The game opens with an incredible speech and cut-scene that I watched practically every time despite not quite understanding the plot at the age I was. The gameplay introduced sprinting, Grenade cooking, guns that felt heavy and serious but also had silly side perks, and has to this day my favorite form of health system where it regenerates a randomly small chunk of health if you avoid fire (no scripted quarter mark crap, or at least not a visible one), but ultimately dwindles fast and mostly stays off when hit. Above all though it was the first game I ever played with an actual offline bot multiplayer mode (and ironically the only one with split-screen support in the whole series). Overall it wasn't anything revolutionary on the whole, but all these things were new to me and I'm almost sure they were all unseen on the same game on that PS2 era. Oh yeah, and then there were other weird little novelties I just adored. The trench tutorial was an amazing 1st level portion. Dead bodies scripted to stay around, and long lasting normal corpses created a cool level of immersion to the war scene that was incredible compared to the dumb fade out guys of the time. Weapons had awesome visual attachments like ghost sights, double taped magazines, shotgun attachments, one hit kill sniping (speaking of which, this was the first game that actually made sniping fun to me), a big chunky 3 burst machine pistol function, the awesome knife stab animations, and of course there was the insane chaingun that had a rocket launcher on the underbarrel. Seriously, best "military" gun ever. The game was easily among my favorites on PS2 until I got Timesplitters 2 which just smashed it in bot customization, but looking back Killzone had more long lasting value now that honestly Unreal Tournament smashes Timesplitters. Meanwhile killzone still has that old military shooter charm that holds the best elements of its era (in my opinion at least). So ever since the original, these small touches all coming together in an otherwise generic shooter package were always present and made its mark on the series going forward. Its just that alongside these small touches, they executed them finely in a way that a niche crowd would adore them for it, especially around its next big game Killzone 2.

Of course though leading back to what I was saying before, it may be a slight does of delusion to. Killzone is incredible in quality, but not necessarily the best. Its not the gifted child FPS or last stand for the hardcore shooter (though it kind of was with KZ2) we sometimes convince ourselves of, its just a damn well executed and interesting shooter. A lot of Killzone's most brilliant moments have been done somewhere else before, maybe even better. The most original aspects are probably within the (usually unfulfilled) story/lore, and its dynamic warzone system at best. Still I think there is a good reason some do hold it to a higher pedestal. Consider this idea: Killzone is the go-to console FPS counter-part to old school PC FPS communities. No really, think about it for a moment. For starters the seasoned multi-platform FPS veterans often compare it to old COD, Counter-strike, and arena shooters like Quake and unreal. These all are basically the father of competitive FPS gaming, and were massive on PC at one point and time. On top of that its clear Guerrilla has influence from that era with shadow fall's design, the multiplayer director citing Counter-strike as his favorite game and as some of the best maps, one of them used to be a big programmer for epic long ago, and not to long ago when talking specs and design they noted a PC heavy gaming background. want more though? Well go back again to what I described as its weird mixed multiplayer. We're talking small-mid sized squared up or rounded map designs with slow paced movement, heavy bullet based

weaponry, and slow team based objectives done kind of like a splash damage style game but more dynamic. Its a strange mix that gives you a thought provoking Counter-strike type of feeling except the tense penalty is replaced by chaotic gunfights once you do get to the action. People take quite a few rounds to take out causing for a decent gun duel, well timed power ups and map tricks can save you, but you respawn like normal if you lose. That's kind of like Arena or frag shooters, or at least an old military style mentality. Meanwhile teamplay is essential to stay on top of bomb planting, capture, and protection themed objectives in the sort of way you'd expect a more tactical game than some twitchy arena shooter.  Its like a strange mix up of older competitive scenes, thrown into an era where the vast majority of console gamers are only exposed to COD style games and shame-less watered down rip-offs of such. Killzone doesn't play up to a lot of originality and has its own COD elements, but its ultimately executed in a format closer to older shooters done for console guys that didn't experience them (or just guys that like its style here, like myself). On top of that it often gets the same community tropes, jokes, reactions, sharing. You've got people fussing all over the place about spawn camping, proper mapping and tactical use, brazillion players lagging up matches, and popular banning trends for servers (like no RPGs). When Killzone tries to distance itself from these community aspects, people lose their minds and you have a lesser situation like Killzone 3.

This aspect is probably what helps keep killzone relevant despite what goes on in the mainstream views, but also why its stuck to a small niche cult fan following. Actually the previously mentioned games are in the same ditch as well, its not like you're hearing much on counter-strike and quake from IGN and the main comment section. The entire game community is going to shift over here and celebrate a new crown of competitive gaming when they've been exposed to bigger classics before with mods and a superior control method, or like I just mentioned don't even pay much attention to those classics since times have moved onto new trends. However Killzone still holds its own well against the likes of COD, halo, battlefield, or as just another alternative to the older competitive games. Its got a good enough reach that console gamers thirsting for competition and show-offy attitudes can meet up with console gamers that are in it for fun but only seem to have fun with the sort of competitive depth. So the clan wars roll on, people are measuring KDRs all over the place, and meanwhile others are laughing their heads off at a poor spawn placement or getting a surge of adrenaline rush as they become the major pushing force into grabbing that target in the last 30 seconds of a round. Actually... lets continue talking about how much of a total blast that is in its own little place:

Pass the coffee, repair the turret, and prepare for warzone!

Oh yes, countless good morning where I wake up, grab a fresh cup of coffee, and load up warzone to have an absolute thrill that leaves me sweating in my chair with a big grin on my face after a big match. Killzone, your multiplayer is a wonderful thing. Even though I grew up playing the first exclusively with bots (because I never had any online stuff for the PS2), you cannot experience the main series right with them. Maybe Mercenary, actually I liked that a bit better with its bot DLC, but otherwise the rest needs real people for the best time. Sure you can customize what you want in bots, play on your favorite map until your heart is content, but its just not the same thrills. Playing with real people opens you up to the grenade spam, those dastardly snipers with shots ringing in your ears, the ludicrous player clusters, the unpredictable tacticians that can win or screw over a match at any moment, and that rush of dashing through a wide open field of cross-fire just to resurrect a fallen beacon carrier (or take it for yourself).... its an insane but wonderful clusterfuck. Of course that isn't to downplay that bots are awesome to, and I respect killzone for putting them in each round (and felt betrayed when mercenary didn't for a while).

Something I also liked that truly added to the chaos was the way the game comes full circle a bit with its campaign and multiplayer. Its not a Brink situation where campaign is scrapped, but rather the events of campaign and the background, as well as who these sides of the war are, truly show themselves underneath the multiplayer's surface. The events of the game in play loosely tie in with your map environments, with remakes even getting a present age treatment every time around.

Meanwhile objectives consist of things like taking propaganda beacons back and forth, issuing out orders from their leaders who spew political view and war analogies out constantly. You've got top notch voice actors preaching their extremes over a battlefield where people are bleeding out (and some making sure they bleed faster), grenades implode within rooms, and polluted skies fill the top of your view. Whenever you get those moments of pure straight silence of the guns and objectives halting, it leaves this odd feeling of unease knowing that somewhere there's still guns running around looking for you, or maybe a cloaked sniper putting your head into their scope. Oh and if a sniper has interrupted the silence, its an amazingly unique little ring to it. The atmosphere and immersion in the game compliment the heavy dark war vibes the campaign, story, and lore have set out to accomplish. When you load up and go into warzone, you're not just throwing yourself into some random context-less arena. You're actually playing what will feel like battles these soldiers have in the aftermath of your events in campaign as the specific hero characters.

Now of course I can praise the games on many things, but I'll take a quick paragraph to remind myself the games were never perfect. This is especially true when we look at them all as successors rather than on their own. Killzone shadow fall has a lacking player base and less creativity in its server system thanks to a pretty dumb format that rewards the same old modes rather than new player ones. Mortally wounded state is screwed up by intentional makings that don't quite make sense. Up until recently, poor hitboxes that may as well have been invisible walls on the environment really screwed with some shots, especially on the forest map. Subjectively I also have to bitch about the lack of control options, sniper changes, and succumbing to the ugly grenade indicator trend. Mercenary is a bit harder to describe in its faults, but it sure has them. Its just real minor nitpicks in design, like its killstreak system, some weird oddities in its special take-downs, and similar stuff. Meanwhile the less said about 3 might be better, with a total disregard for player respect in server systems. It was the least polished game, gave the sniper arguably too much power, the progression system broke balance and made an entire tier of weapons practically useless, and spawns were a little too strict to help prevent spawn camping that happened anyways (maybe even more than before, I certainly know it was less fun here as well). Meanwhile Killzone 2 was the start of those said spawn camp issues, went a little too far with its class ribbon requirements, drones could get a totally random and cheap headshot on you, both light machine guns were stuck to a useless class (no abilities at all, literally useless) to try and artificially make him unique, DLC maps are never played, and user spawns had... well, lets just say it made search & destroy objectives a little too obvious in how the tactics would unfold. Oh yeah and in every single game lag plays out in a very unusual fashion that has some very interesting results that may irritate some.

However despite my gripes, some of these things actually help make the game better at the end of the day. Especially Killzone 2. Tacticians shoving spawns on top of each other? Oh well, it'll be fun running into a wall of frag grenades for a while as both spawn points battle for 5 minutes. Speaking of which, grenade spam was just hilarious fun anyways. Sentry bot headshot you? Laugh it off, and get back into the fight. Found a LMG you can swap into and still keep class abilities? You just feel special for finding that, its like a little treasure luck hands over to you every so often. The little unrefinements in these games were usually where the fun things came from, and were a part of the charm. You could pull out your tools, knife, or grenade and keep them out in killzone 2 for some reason, but this also lead to killing people with the revive gun. Meanwhile melee combat was still stuck down to clubbing, and that massive bullet sponge health bar made these fights absolutely hilarious. I recall once someone posted this video as an example of what a point blank experience is like in Killzone 2, and it is a little too close to being true, and fantastic for such. However this ain't just about Killzone 2, even if that's where the best gold was. Killzone 1 was a demolitions paradise, as bots picked up on weapons and blasted you countless times, but this gave it a fun little arms race effect on matches. Killzone 3 still had those awesome moments where the supposedly annoying zombie medics made for some interesting times, or that weird thrill of spamming the artillery beacons or trolling a tactical spawn position. Then there's that strange pistol flash light in Shadow fall that seems to exist for no other reason than the minor chance of running it through a sniper, or just annoying some poor guy blinded by it. I actually had a good kill with that today. Even though spawn camping isn't as bad in the past, it is still present, and I actually look forward to it at times because of shadow fall's odd work arounds with it. One of this series most reoccurring problems suddenly becomes a game of wits, and it makes me feel kind of clever when the opportunity comes by. When it comes to the spin-off mercenary, much like its problems the good needs to be found by playing it. Its hard to describe some of the goofy, oddball, or interesting moments they call in what is easily the twitchiest killzone multiplayer of the bunch. Still at the end of the day their problems are all tolerable enough to know and love the game as a killzone game... even 3, despite being the probably the weakest of them.

I know it sounds kind of weird, but at times the competitive sense of the killzone multiplayer scene can actually be one of its least pleasant factors on surface value. At least to me. I don't play it for the kill death ratios, the clan disputes, to decorate my profile, or even struggle for trophies. Its not about how good I am, or how I play, its about the fun within the game. If an invisible sniper shoots me I take it as a challenge to fight him, not whine about it on the forums because its "totally not fair". Hey dude, Killzone just does invisible snipers, get over it. That's part of its depth and fun, and its a mentally stimulating challenge for the sniper as much as he is a threat to you. Of course that's a rare complaint, the more common ones are pretty silly to with one or two of the supposed competitive guys even defending the downfall of user servers because they have a socialistic mindset that every single guy in the universe needs to play to their ideal rule set for the sake of being fair. Um... no. I and a surprising amount of other guys are here because of some weird raw fun value we find within the lightly competetive (with heavier probably being flat out major E sports and brawlers) type games, other than that element itself. I love its weird sense of depth mixed with wishy-washy balance, I love the features included to help tailor the experience to players, I love having to think a bit but executing it in a reckless and brutal fast rate, and I love just the amount of effort that generally goes into these games. Some guy may view the lack of grinding in shadow fall as a competitive choice (its fair and balanced, made for straight up matches where the best wins), and ironically the same can be flipped on Killzone 2's milestone + ribbons ranking system (decorated veterans and skilled players where it on their sleeves in this system), but I love them both because they attribute to the sort of depth and attitude I adore within a game. Some may find it competitive to have switching round and objectives varying up and testing your general FPS knowledge with most of its staple modes in one match. I just see it as a great system that's fun to play within because it constantly keeps you on your toes and you're always adapting to something new, which is where I kick in best with. ...and I still see a lot of similarly shared views, despite the sportsmanship tone a lot of the community will take. Its just an amazing feeling when I bump into that one guy that is barking about grenade indicators, or people talking about how funny it was when they charged into an objective a certain way rather than those just bragging on scores, or having a bunch of people talk about how great accurate hipfire actually can be when applied right. These conversations and people don't seem to pop up much elsewhere, it feels like its usually just here... a game that is loose in penalty, but with a strong edge that is built up on depth. That depth gives it more things to build up community lore with, more things to feel and get used to or enjoy in the gameplay, opens up new freedoms to the player, and generally draws a community of seasoned players. Thus you get a lot of guys that just enjoy themselves off this strangely "serious" game that others treat like a proving grounds. Still I wouldn't have it any other way. Of course another reason I love this game and not something like some super esport thing is because Killzone isn't too steep in itself about how things work. At the end of the day you're still doing staple objectives, your death is at the very worst case scenario a time penalty meaning you'll just pop back up into the fight and maybe get somewhat careless at times, and honestly the game has too many weird or wonky effects thrown in the mix that once again sort of build on the weird fun rather than a razor sharp rule set. Its the best of both worlds, not being too light, casual, or deceivingly simple, but also not being too strict, stressing, or serious.

You just don't get the type of thrills from some casual jump in, get out game. Those multiplayers are fun, hell I put over days of time in total on my Modern Warfare 2 profile when it was a fresh way of pick-up & play gaming to me at the time. However you're not going to have the same type of drawn out moments, the dynamic objectives, or those tense "can I make this?" moments in most other shooters that have bottled themselves outside of the older competitive roots. Now they're usually focused on pleasing you through artificial skinner boxes, and pick-up and play surface gameplay. This is a weird sort of way that makes everyone feel like they can be an army stopping, quick scoping, gun slinging winner in some way or another, and you get pushed to play not because you're learning and experiencing but because there's some artificial milestone to work towards. Killzone isn't that kind of game, and whenever it does take a step in that direction (like grenade indicators or odd accuracy changes) the community throws a fit. Its fairly modernized, but stays away from that sort of breezy tone. Its slower, its darker, it lets you see your pain when shot but also makes you work to shoot, and you're always given something to adapt to. Yet that's also why its kind of fantastic that way, even if you're not in it for some dumb skill measuring contest. Its fun to have that stupid moment where some guy cans you with a surprise grenade, or when you're on the rifle butt's end of a frantic melee fight. Its fun to sit back and have a laugh at your failures, but similarly an absolute thrill to feel proud of your success (or being right beside a successful buddy). I suppose these lite-competitive type shooters like Killzone, those that splash damage make, arena shooters, and probably earlier COD games were kind of like a penalty free Dark Souls of the FPS world. You study, you fail, you master, you find your specialty, or you achieve a new one, and you never stop failing and yet discovering. Its not afraid to give you amazing things in that type of environment, and it expects you to make the most of them where as something else would just dumb it down or replace it with a "reward". This is also the type of place where things just stay clean. No crap about perks, strange set-ups, and odd weapon stats. You get an assault rifle or two, figure out which you like, find your ideal class, and get to work, but in an environment that has many external elements to figure out. As an example your hipfire isn't cartoonishly inaccurate, so it has a special use you need to learn while balancing. Even though you've got such limited weapons (and a couple attachments only as of last game), they become major icons, allow for balanced gameplay, and work off the game's core being very flexible and a part of a natural learning curve.

Helghan belongs to the helghast...

Before I conclude this piece I would love to cover more of the campaign, or just extra fluff of the killzone universe. I think really though I've put out enough, and I've already discussed how incredible the helghast are in the past. So I'll try to sum it up as this real quickly; Killzone is like gaming's Warhammer 40k in theme and style. Its got that perfect gothic meets sci-fi tone with "war politics are evil" point while also betraying that narrative by making a silly and fantastic game out of it. Its thankfully not a self-critical Spec Ops situation, just an entertaining story that revels in war under literal dark tones. Its a world where characters are given loud booming and preachy voices, or lines to scream or trash talk with, ultimately each voice going towards a violent or manipulating figure head that is somehow delivered in an over the top manner that makes their evil entertaining or ironic. The way its all presented under a typically narrow scope, and mostly delivered with undertones (at least pre-mercenary/shadow fall) make it a fun twist to get involved in when you're new to the series. The enthusiasts with the series had a good time discussing who was right and wrong while always knowing the conclusion was nobody. Suddenly your fight in Killzone 2 ends up to Visari dying under a united arm symbol, visually realizing him as a martyr with the ideology of a better society. Suddenly the beginning of the war on Vekta that the ISA army was using to play the victim card with, turns out to in fact be a backwards version of a war before the games where the helghast were the ones brutally pushed off the planet and forced under horrid conditions. Suddenly you know where the narrative is going, and with the end of shadow fall it proves the point that as each entry in the series pushed more battles forward its a constant cycle of vengeance, and war, and fighting that causes or leads into more fighting. Its a fascinating underlying narrative of the whole series, all while you've got that incredible atmosphere I glossed over when admiring the multiplayer. Each Killzone seems to come forward making a big deal of darker areas; A gritty ruined war torn future without going apocalyptic with it, full of heavy physics, loud gunfire, and soldiers that bleed for that M rating. Killzone's PS3 engine had over 200 death animations programmed into it (alongside great ragdoll physics), and when still a work in progress there was a time when Killzone 2 was possibly aiming to be the first game with realistic bleeding. It actually turned war and earthy dark ruined polluted war torn wars into an awesome art style, and fused it perfectly with gameplay asthetics that truly work with the game. Of course its still got many silly things on the surface, I mean just look at the Helghast designs. They're campy super villains with nazi inspirations mixed with stereotypical gruff villain voices. Again it all kind of leads back into Warhammer 40ks style, just executed more simply and differently.

With killzone vs W40k there's Less factions, no theology, no super random tech and planet leaps, but still maintaining high levels of its dark gothic war tones set under psudo-science fiction elements, and like warhammer takes small influences from an actual war. If you look into it, I can also assure you you'll bump into some fans crossing over into each thing. Neither do it to be too preachy or critical though. W40K would rather have chainsaw swords, and Killzone would love to throw in a guy that reminds people of darth vader. Even though they gloss over the horrors of war, they usually lead it back into the one true positive form it does have: game value. Nobody likes actual war, but it makes for damn good conflicts, which is strangely something almost never capitalized on (especially in games). You rarely have preachy leaders, conflicting points of interest, or dynamic reasonable context per faction in games. Usually there's a good and an evil, and you roll with that and have some dumb hero or "you won the war" story, and in recent times we haven't been able to bother with creative settings either. You've got modern soldiers fighting modern inspired wars with minimal context, drive, or reasoning, and the short length promises to cripple whatever value there is to the story. At best there's a government conspiracy theory thrown in to give you a twist on your villain, but its not quite special enough to make its best use in a war. Killzone and Warhammer buck this trend. You're going to see or hear about lots of battles, lots of blood, and then odd contexts for it. You're going to hear real political struggles, grown men arguing, or unusual idealogies put on a high pedastool. Its not about money and greed, at least not all the time. There's no easy villain cash in here. Its about the war, not the characters (though their campy or  presence shouldn't be overlooked), not some stupid hollywood formula plot. Its about the politics, destruction, the strategy, and the visual ideas that comes with war. That alongside how cool the helghast looks, make for a pretty cool and surprisingly unique stance in tone that Killzone has. Oh hey, remember when I pointed out how this game gets viewed as a "sci-fi COD" by the naive? Now you know why I consider it to be a terrible claim, and it makes for one hell of a strike against the opinions of those who use it as they're clearly on a different page.

So... what's next? That's a very interesting question.

I think the real Killzone 4 is next, but there's so much that can go on with that. They'll have to bring the series back in between 3 and shadow fall, while also trying to keep up with the features shadow fall brought with its tech jump. When we go back to Helghan, what will it look like? Or maybe I'm just jumping conclusions and we'll be stuck trying to just piece together the bits in between games for ourselves, with future games pushing onwards into the new struggles implied by Shadow Fall's ending. Actually speaking of which, I have to ask if Shadow Fall will almost be its own sub-series. They could easily expand and rework the role of a shadow marshal, while retaining the normal Killzone numbered titles as something more of a linear corridor shooter with less tech. There's also that unknown new IP, which while a separate thing may just as easily become a major influence upon the developer's projects going forward. On top of that the time in which they break off from Killzone may also follow through on different trends and ideas, and with killzone often following those with odd but welcomed differences it may easily change things up a good bit. On top of all that there's the possibility of Killzone mercenary 2, something likely done outside of the team but never the less a move to impact the franchise and thus no less relevant for what is next in the series. My major concern as with the series all the time will be the matter of mechanics, features, and balance. Every little nitpick kind of counts to me. Sometimes I'm a little hard on the series, and I've always got disappointments with each game, but I guess that's also because Killzone's really set its bar dangerously high in my book. The Killzone 2 engine to this day is probably my all time favorite game engine because it just does aesthetics, physics, visuals, controls, and the effects so perfectly. Shadowfall obviously does graphics better, but it failed in many other departments like physics and destruction, but at the same time it is in some ways a step forward and should still be appreciated. Its just that again Killzone 2 set the bar higher, and they have a lot of work to do in order to meet that again on newer systems, never the less top it. On top of that lets just talk of my actual feature expectations. I expect fantastic gunplay, the advanced level select system, customizable bots, custom servers, fun classes and balances, fun dynamic warzones, a great campaign that furthers the lore and war, and I hope for good rule sets to the classes that empowers my medic bias. That's asking for a lot in addition to new innovations and the common sense FPS goals (like balanced gameplay, maps, working servers, etc), especially in Shadow Fall's case where they're starting a fresh spot on the timeline. I also don't speak for the whole community, so there's a big demand for clans, different opinions on weapons and stats, and of course whatever Sony asks of the team. So yeah I suppose I can't expect perfect sequels all the time. I'm not ungrateful for what I got either. I put hours upon hours into the arguably weakest: Killzone 3 (Plus it gave us some great lore and stuff like this). I love shadow fall despite it undermining the aesthetics. Its my favorite multiplayer on PS4, and its campaign is pretty impressive despite wolfenstein crushing it. So if they keep putting out high quality on the whole, and great features, I can enjoy it. Still I'm always keeping my fingers crossed for the very best, and without the rush of a console launch window I'm hoping they truly tune the game up right. Whenever that announcement goes out though, I know exactly where I'll be: glued to that news. It happens every time, and it kind of makes me happy the press hypes it up so dang much. Its just kind of fun to be a part of that hype train when it comes to this series, and I'm almost looking forward to that thrill as much as the thrill of playing it.

So... closing up now, Happy birthday Killzone. I'm a few days late, worked on this post for some of those days, but I think its worth a good long chat with myself over how awesome its been for 10 years of such a fantastic series. Its a bit of an underdog series, and as stated before its a bit weird to wonder if it'd exist without the 1st party hype, but then again that also suits me. I seem to love these semi-hipster type obscure games, with odd mixed balances and a strange combination of trend tossing and trend following. Killzone actually suits me quite well, even though on the surface it seems quite contradicting to the old school corridor shooters I love. I'm going to keep my fingers crossed that the series endures as a fantastic FPS franchise that continues to please me. For all those fun caffeinated battles, all the thrills, for keeping me enjoying it down to every single amazing intro (which was sadly outside of the last two games), being one of the only games that gets me glued to the hype, and great appreciative post is in order. So thank you for 10 good years Killzone. From that time of first putting that disc in and hearing Brian Cox as Visari preach his words, something special had begun and that intro still holds up as incredible to this day. Its been my ideal military shooter, and if there's any that can stand out to make me happy in a warzone its Killzone.

Now Playing: Anarchy Reigns

Sorry for the lack of a halloween update. I just haven't had anything to say on it related to gaming. I don't do horror games, I didn't feel encouraged to do anything similar or even october-y recently, and I just don't have anything useful to contribute to that subject. I'm sure there's plenty that have done a good one though, so happy hunting. Anyways onto this small article:

Such a weird game that just came seemingly out of nowhere for me. I remember hearing about this game struggling to get localized for western audiences, and it was some kind of fighting game... that's it. The next thing you know I'm going to the mall with my dad around my birthday, he hands me 20 or $30, and then I see this game on the shelves as a brand new... $30 game? A brand new game that's cheap? What witchery is this!? So this game that surprisingly made its way over to the US, bragged about special brawling on its box art, and remained at the precise spot for my budget made it stand out a good bit. I took a risk and was met with strange mixed feelings of delight and confusion. It turns out the game was sort of kind of, but not really, a sequel to Madworld. I just saw it as "hey, isn't that... why is he here?". It had a couple characters, and that same odd rap drive to its soundtrack, but outside of that the similarities stop. It just confused me. Then the really poor and muddy graphics, the extremely weird 3D brawler controls, and the entire concept of the campaign all just made it feel like I was in some weird surreal void. Despite this, bots, oddball cast characters, and the insane feeling and strong learning curve all made this a very unique title that held my attention a bit, and at the end of the day I really enjoy it. Here I am returning to it a couple years later.

To be honest the game could be better, and that's just the flat truth. The campaign is a grind, the training and tutorial is a little weird, and honestly I don't think this could come anything close to touching Madworld in quality (it lacks the humor, player engagement, exploration, and to some degree even precision). Still its a lot of damn good gamey fun. I honestly love this odd direction for a bralwer to take. It keeps me pumped, on the edge of my seat, and I feel like I'm learning and experiencing something I don't get out of other games. All the while its somewhat customizable,

more free in form, and is something more like a giant 3D world smash bros... except with maybe up to 16 players. Wild, right? Its fun to try different combos, different tactics, test something new out with a character, or get a special surprise within the map. Oh yeah and there's a great little soccer mode. The only major problem I have with the game is its blocking system just feels unresponsive and broken. Alongside that its one of those games where I feel terrible to play a female because they're depicted in such a way that feels embarrassing. Of course there is the obvious campaign grind, but I see the highlight as the bot matches with the campaign being a quick break in between that. Still those aren't so bad of complaints. Sadly the game was a victim of my stupid focus issues. I ditched it somewhere before I even got half-way through it, and didn't get back to it until recently. Its a shame to because I never unlocked the big bull until real recently, and that guys awesome to have if not for a cool fighter than for a cool opponent. Still its fun to re-learn some of this stuff. With that being said though I'm terrible at bot matches, and haven't won anything outside the soccer mode (which was a little too easy). Still I adore bot matches because like always, I just seem to love combat sports games for some weird reason. That theme just works, including with this weird apocalyptic 3D brawler.

I can't help but feel like I may be cheating you here, but I really don't have much else to talk about. Its hard to make much notes of a fighter. I finished the white campaign and I'm working on the black and then later red sides. I hope things go well and I actually get around to completing it, but with one of my PS3's starting to give me issues I may find myself migrating away from it again to play something like smash bros or some PS4 games instead. I really do need to play smash bros again. Still sticking it back to here, I've got weird mutants to kill, arenas to clear, and people to slaughter.