EA. Activision. Capcom.

Rarified air, these three. All three could be considered the gold standard for third-party gaming companies. All three have been bringing us digital entertainment for years. Now, it can be said that all three have, at one time or another, pissed off the community that they helped build to the point of riots.

Rarified air. 

Of course, people hated EA and now hate Activision for their business practices, relying on sequels to generate revenue instead of offering fresh new IPs and advancing the medium. While their practices stunk, it was good business for them, as profits soared. 

Capcom, however, has earned the rage of their fans for a reason far worse than shoddy business practices. They’ve gone and done the one thing that no company, gaming or otherwise, should EVER do: They’ve ripped the hearts out of their loyal fanbase. 

Now, anyone who knows me knows that I have flown the blue-and-yellow Capcom flag for as long as I’ve been gaming. They’re responsible for many of my favorite gaming experiences, and I’m not afraid to admit. I used to defend Capcom in everything they did, even if I knew what they were doing was total idiocy. These days, though, it’s becoming harder and harder to defend the company I hold so dear to my heart.

I did not curse your name when Mega Man Universe bit the dust. The game was getting so-so preview buzz, and it looked like it had a long road ahead of it before it could be launched. I did not scream and pout when I found out that Ace Attorney Investigations: Miles Edgeworth 2 would not be coming state-side, as Ace Attorney can be considered a "niche" franchise and sales would have probably been subpar.

The cancellation of Mega Man Legends 3, however, is indefensible. Rage consumes me, but I know not how to put it into words.

Capcom, you created a special section of the Internet for fans to join and talk about the project with the actual developers. You led contests where the winners would actually have their entries included in the game. You introduced us to new characters like Aero and Barrett, and even announced plans for a demo version, Prototype, where we could play and critique the game for our special Internet corner. You built the hype for an INSANELY anticipated game expertly, and no one would ever argue that.

Now it’s gone. All of it. Poof.

You’ve pulled the plug on the project. You cite "lack of demand" and "not meeting expectations for greenlighting" as your reasons, but you refuse to explain yourself. The loyal fans who spent days in the Devroom communicating with the team and giving their feedback have been stepped on, crushed under the boot of executive opinion. A community that had been a major part of the game’s direction and decisions have had no say in the most important decision of all.

Capcom, this hurts. I know I’m supposed to be an objective game journalist, and I’m not supposed to choose favorites, but I do (as does everyone else, but that’s a column for a different day). Mega Man Legends is a favorite. Top 10 Personal Games Of All Time for sure, maybe even #1 on the original PlayStation. Mega Man Legends 2 was also enjoyable, but it ended on a major cliffhanger. That cliffhanger made fans clamor for more, and for twelve years they were ignored. 

Finally, the news came: a third Legends game! Our voices have been heard! God be praised! Inafune himself blessed the project, and Mega Man fans around the world cheered for the return of their favorite Blue Bomber. 

Then Inafune left, saying things like he hated his job and that settling at Capcom would mean "death to the creator" in him. We thought his works would be carried out honorably, as a final thank you to a man who built Capcom into what it is today. However, this was not to be, as both Mega Man titles have been, to put it frankly, shitcanned.

Let me tell you who I don’t want to be right now, a group of people that I don’t envy in the LEAST: The members of the Capcom show floor crew. Guys, did you forget San Diego Comic-Con is this week? You know, one of the biggest public conventions in the country, if not the world? Do you not understand what you have just done to your American PR team? They’re sitting ducks! Fish in a barrel! The fans will CHEW THEM UP. I’ve heard plans for picketing, bombarding employees with questions, etc…

…and yet you will offer no explanation, no true understanding of your decision. You will expect us to just chin up and take it, like so many other corporations who revel in gut-punching their consumers for the almighty dollar. 

Capcom, I trust you will make up for this, perhaps even at Comic-Con. It seems absurd to announce such a demonizing thing just before a major public event without having a back-up plan, and for your sake I sure hope you have one. I will say this, though: in all my years of being a fan, Capcom, it is harder to defend you as a company now than it has ever been before. It truly seems like you have abandoned those who have followed you since the beginning. You’re slowly but surely joining the ranks of the most reviled gaming companies. Hell, I’ve already read a forum post calling you the "Activision of Japan." I can only hope that this decision is the genesis of a new direction for not only this title, but for the character Mega Man in general. Two games cancelled and being left out of a major crossover game does not inspire confidence in the least.

I can only defend a company’s poor decisions for so long. Eventually, even the most hardened Capcom fans, like myself, will have to surrender.

I’ll leave with just one more thing, and ironically enough it’s a saying I picked up from a trailer for an upcoming Capcom game:

Rage never dies. Capcom, you’ll do well to remember that.

Corseted gowns of thick, lustrous fabrics, flashy jewelry and elaborate hair updos are only fly on occasions such as Halloween or (if you’re lucky) a costume-themed wedding. The days of women sitting around, waiting for a horseback messenger to come with the mail, sewing a cushion or playing the harpsichord are over. Practicality has lead to the minimalism of today’s fashion.

The fantasy genre, in contrast, thrives on magical manifestations — runes, mage-hardened metals, and crafting woods. I think most of us like the idea of forces beyond what we normally experience, but in games that take place in the modern day or the future these forces are easy to get away with by just saying that technology has advanced that far. In the medieval, fantasy realm, we call it magic. Instead of having a bullet-proof body suit and laser guns, we have a breast plate with +300 fire resistance or a mage staff with +135 electricity damage.

I tend to prefer the clothing of the elven spellcasters because they always seem to set the trends in medieval fantasy worlds. They keep it light and simple with lush fabrics and tasteful jewelry. The human, wench look is boring and dwarves….well, let’s just say they aren’t known for their sense of style. However, in MMORPGs like World of Warcraft and Rift, I absolutely love the mohawks, hair colors, piercings and makeup options.

With games like World of Warcraft, Rift, Dragon Age, Oblivion, The Witcher and Fable, should game designers look beyond this world and start making new, innovative standards? After all, fantasy world fashion is directly modeled after our own medieval history. Games like Assassin’s Creed aim for historical accuracy, but most throw in a dragon or 30 and all of a sudden there are mages, magic stones, talking trees, trolls and an evil sorceror trying to conquer the land in mystical flowing tunics with encumbering, pointed hoods. Where’s the continuity?

Asymetrical cuts, ruffles, hats of any sort besides hoods, and even heels are strikingly absent, it seems, in fantasy chic. What if there were a world of dragons, blacksmiths, witchcraft and castles, but with a more modern or edgy fashion? Or even better, a world far removed from our own with clothing completely different from both the stereotypical fantasy world and realistic representations (not "steampunk," "Victorian," "cowboy/western," the "1930s" style, etc.)?

If any game designers out there aren’t afraid to push the envelope and be experimental, I urge them to try new ideas in the fantasy realm. Try combining things we know but from different time periods like broken robot dolls with dragons and castles. Give dwarves dark powers, and morph elven culture into a pseudo-capitalist power struggle. If nothing else, just do something we haven’t seen before. Originality speaks louder than volume.

With movies like “Scott Pilgrim vs. The World” and “Gamer,” it’s clear that video games are becoming more and more accepted as a part of everyday media culture. Even TV shows like NCIS and Law and Order base weekly stories around gaming whether it’s from a behavioral or technical perspective. You probably know someone who works for a videogame company or writes about gaming for business or pleasure. And with systems like the Wii and Kinect, games are the new family-fun activity.

There are, of course, the lifelong gamers who can kick your ass at any game and own every console and every collection of games, but there’s a whole era of new, casual gamers emerging, as well. These are the people who have heard of Halo, Call of Duty, and World of Warcraft, and throw their hands up in indifference. I only played World of Warcraft for about a year or so before I started to give tower-defense games and others like Team Fortress a try. I was willing to try because I had someone to play them with and, clearly, because Pixeljunk: Monsters is just too cute to pass up.

What is it that gets people who never showed any interest in gaming to all of a sudden decide to give one a try? The most obvious answer is being social at a party and taking part in a game of Halo, Wii Sports, Mario Kart, Street Fighter, Rock Band or similar titles. Even the social aspect of MMORPGs like World of Warcraft can be what initially sparks an interest in dipping a toe into the videogame pool. I think a big misconception that non-gamers have had and still have today is that gamers play alone in their bedrooms, shutting out the entire world. This is by no means the standard or norm and shouldn’t be the stereotype of video games or gamers.

The recent craze of motion-control gaming with products like Kinect, Move, and of course, the Wii, seem like the next big thing, but only because the technology is progressing. I have no desire to play golf as a cartoon character in my living room or attempt to workout in front of my TV. I can’t speak for everyone, but it all seems a little cheesy. Those systems remind me of toys at Christmas; the “innovative gameplay” gets hyped and you’re excited to open your present, but by December 31st you’re already back to motion-less controllers or no games at all.

I have touched on this in other articles, but I believe that customization, whether it be for the character in the game or even for the console itself, can really help to draw in non-gamers, especially women. If I were gifted an Xbox, two controllers and a game at Christmas having never played any video games in the past, I would rather they be hot pink, bejeweled or something other than the plain white or black. I want a game like Borderlands or Dragon Age: Origins, where I can play as a chick and customize colors and hairstyles.

Since I know that I don’t have the amazing, bad-ass, headshot skills of a pro-gamer, it’s intimidating to try a new game, fearing I will make a fool of myself or quit out of frustration. World of Warcraft was my first game, and it drew me in with its gradual learning curve and its welcoming RPG schematic. Granted, I might not catch on as fast as the token “gamer,” and I might take longer to level up, but I didn’t have to know a combination of buttons, platform like a pro, or know how to shoot a sniper rifle right off the bat. Similarly, tower-defense games helped me ease into strategy play. I could focus on what I knew — building a giant cannon defense grid — and watch the other, more experienced player put a slow tower here and a laser tower there due to the positioning of the track and direction the enemy was moving.

These types of games may not be for everyone, but I found them to be extremely helpful for me — someone who didn’t know how to turn on an Xbox or use the PC mouse for anything other than surfing the web. Casual gamers today are a new breed. We enjoy games when they cater to us, when they actively bridge the intimidation, skill, or financial gap that has separated gaming from wider acceptance for so long. The newb, it seems, is the future of gaming.

As a result from the high interest in customizing or “modding” video games from both women and men, websites have been born to solely provide you with every mod you can imagine for any specific game. When you are given the option to download (for free no less) a file that will give you 30 more hairstyles to choose from, 20 new eye colors and unique tattoos for your character, who can resist? I have heard the argument, “I stay away from mods so I can play the game the way the creator intended it to be played and to keep myself in the story and lore as much as possible.” With respect to the game designers, I believe that a game should be played the way the designer intended it to be. You cannot assume that the player will choose a crazy hair-style, wardrobe or eye color just because the option is there. However, there are those who love a game enough to give it a second, third, fourth, or even fifth play-through. Once you’ve given a game its full attention without altering any of the appearances, surely you can have a little experimental fun from then on.

Besides customizing a character’s clothing, what about being able to modify your environment’s colors, theme, weather, and sounds, be it music or sound effects? There are already games in which the player’s input alters the way a song flows or changes the colors on the screen, however, these are usually puzzle games such as Lumines or beautiful indie games like Flower. What about incorporating these elements into an RPG? I would engage with an RPG more if, based on the decisions I make, the aesthetic representation reflects those choices and the personality that my character is developing. Fable 2 and Fable 3 grasped this idea and, in my opinion, stand out from other RPGs because of it.

Imagine playing as a chick who is on a journey to avenge her family and also discover who she is along the way. You start the game with basic, modest clothing such as jeans and a t-shirt, an everyday atmosphere such as standing outside of a house in the suburbs, and a soundtrack that is either safe, run-of-the-mill background music or the latest Eminem and Katy Perry hits. Along the way, you make choices that start to develop your determination to succeed and your animosity towards your enemies. By the end of the game, you are wearing combat boots, leather pants, a black tank top with a leather harness to hold your assassin knives, a leather holster for your pistol and a belt of shotgun shells. Your hair has also been chopped and dyed red to disguise yourself, the music has turned to a mix of metal and dark, electronic beats, the world is darker and bloodier, and NPCs look at you with hate and envy.

Or maybe you had your character play it safe, acting nobly and heroically throughout the entire game. Your appearance, soundtrack and environment would look very different from those who took the more dangerous road. This is just one of many different outcomes that your character could have. Maybe you really like pink and wanted there to be a certain pink flower that would bloom everywhere once a town was rescued in your story. Maybe you love thunderstorms and want there to be dark clouds, thunder, lightning, and a swarm of blackbirds circling overhead as you approach an enemy castle because that’s your thing. The possibilities could be endless, or at least to the end of the game designer’s imagination.

As someone who has not played games her entire life and doesn’t know much about downloading and installing all types of mods for a game, I’m more likely to approach games with easily manageable, built-in customization systems. Customization can spark inspiration for future game designers who once thought games were boring and all looked the same. The fact that modding has become so huge and is pretty standard for many gamers (especially PC gamers), it seems only obvious that people like and want customization for their favorite games. As a fairly new medium that is just now reaching out to more and more women and people of all interests and cultures, I say let’s keep our creative outlets open and not close any doors.

It’s been nearly 13 years since The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time made its debut, and today gamers are still singing its praise. But, as is often the case, when we go back to inspect a cherished game, it’s not quite what we remember.

With the launch of the Nintendo 3DS later this month, many people will undoubtedly be grabbing the revolutionary handheld in anticipation of the release of The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3D in early June. This is a great opportunity for kids who missed the original game to experience the magic and wonderment the rest of us enjoyed many years ago. With screenshots and videos teasing fans, OOT3D looks to be a more visually polished game. The real test of time (see what I did there?) will be in seeing how well the game’s play mechanics hold up.

So before this remastered version becomes available, I decided it would be best to jog my memory, clarifying what exactly made this game so great in the first place.
From the moment I shoved the cartridge into the slot and flipped on the power switch, it was like being transported back to my childhood. I felt the same sense of giddy excitement at the age of 22 that I did at 10. I can still remember how it felt to stumble upon the Sacred Forest Meadow for the first time. It was as if I had found something that was meant to be hidden. This feeling is still there. The things that were great in 1999 are still great in 2011; the music, the characters, the story, and the grand sense of adventure. These are the things that stick with people, years after playing a game. Time has done nothing to diminish the shine on these parts of OOT.

What hasn’t aged well is the control scheme. The Nintendo 64 controller is no longer the perfect fit for my hands that it once was. One analog stick just doesn’t cut it anymore, and the game played clunkier than I remember. This makes for less-than-ideal maneuvering, which really becomes a hindrance during boss battles where precision is preferred. Nowhere was this more apparent than in the notorious Water Temple and its subsequent pain-in-the-ass boss fight. Z-Targeting has its usefulness, but it sometimes gets in its own way, making for a more frustrating experience. On more than one occasion, I was ready to slam my controller into the wall. This stemmed from the fact that the game wanted to target a different enemy than the one I was trying for, or would target something when I didn’t want it to target at all. It seems we must have been acclimated to poor controls during this era of gaming. (Editor’s note: Or perhaps this was the best developers could offer at the time, a comparative step up from everything else.)

From the video footage and the layout on the 3DS, it looks as if Nintendo has straightened out the controls in OOT3D. This will certainly make for a smoother gameplay experience, further immersing the player, which, along with the beautiful 3DS-rendered visuals, will bring an aging masterpiece into the modern age of gaming. The one plea that I would make to Nintendo is for the inclusion of an orchestrated soundtrack rather than the midi music from the original OOT. Koji Kondo’s landmark score deserves this nod of appreciation, as does the game itself.

If you have plans to buy OOT3D, or even if you don’t, you may want to take a trip down memory lane and remind yourself why you spent countless nights tracking down heart pieces, hunting Gold Skulltulas, and fishing for "the big one," without the benefits of the sinking lure. Be sure to check back for GamerNode’s review of The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3D when it releases for the Nintendo 3DS in June.

[Josh Robinson]

We grew up with Disney stories of a princess yearning for her prince to rescue her, that they may live happily ever after. The fact of the matter is, in real life, romantic relationships have become so much more than a man of stature courting a woman in need of rescue. So why is it that a vast array of current video games still have strictly male and female relationships and old-fashioned romance storylines? Does the girl have to fall in love with the male protagonist?

LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) characters in video games has always been a controversial topic, from the basic act of including a homosexual character in a game to how much sexual content is shown (or implied) in a scene. With the rise of tough chicks in video games and the acceptance of same-sex relationships, there should be no shortage of gay romances appearing in games, yet this option was taken out of Mass Effect 2. A female Shepard is not able to have a homosexual relationship with any of the other female characters, and the same goes for a male Shepard with any male characters. Maybe the writers didn’t want the Shepard character to swing that way, but isn’t the person playing the game and their experience what’s most important when creating a game? It becomes the fine line of making a romantic relationship fit the era and feel of the game, but at the same time, appealing to the player’s sensibilities. I believe that the more options available, the more unique and tailored the experience will be for the player, strengthening the narrative and moving the medium forward.

Dragon Age: Origins is one game that has impressed me when it comes to options for romantic relationships, heterosexual and homosexual. You could easily have played the game without any sort of romantic or sexual interaction with anyone, but you could also romance just about any main character in the game, regardless of your gender choice. You could even engage in a threesome or foursome, given you had selected the right conversation options. I believe that DA:O should be an example of how games, or at least RPGs, could (and maybe should) mature to embrace the world we live in.

Games are becoming more and more social each year. Gamers who are gay have endured ridicule and embarrassment from other hateful players. The comment, “Why don’t you just be quiet about your preference and nobody will bother you?” is commonplace and tiresome. Nobody should feel forced to hide who they are, even if they are behind a computer screen. As a newer medium and one that is at the forefront of technology, why not use this to help discourage negativity and bullying? Wouldn’t more gay characters in games help with our generation’s overall acceptance and respect towards the homosexual community, and more specifically, gay gamers?

Video games have already caused controversy with their gore, language and violent scenes. Should romance options and sex scenes be any more dangerous to embrace? I believe that showing basic human emotion, like a romantic sex scene, should be encouraged, regardless of whether the scene involves the opposite or the same gender. What is so dangerous about showing a part of life that exists and can bring some beauty and emotion to a game? I’m not saying that an explicit sex scene should be plastered at the beginning of a game where the player has no option to watch it, and I don’t encourage this for a video game that is marketed towards children. Consumers should be aware that these real-life simulations exist in the more teen- or adult-marketed games. This is the same for other media types, such as books, movies and music. I feel that if a person wants to purchase a game for someone, their responsibility lies in paying attention to what they are gifting that person. There are plenty of video games available on the shelves that do not have any gore, foul language, crude violence, or relationships whatsoever. Personal beliefs and tastes should not determine how an entire medium is censored.

5) Deagle (Army of Two)

Though Army of Two may not have received the most positive critical reception (rightfully so given the myriad of uninspired design choices), the swagged-out weapon upgrade system in single-player still beats out many others. Add to that the wonderful, gamey irreverence of bastardizing one of gaming’s most infamous of power pistols, the Desert Eagle, by officially calling it what gamers have been calling it for years. Spend the bank to pimp it out, and Army of Two offers a shinier Deagle than any Call of Duty game ever has.

4) Screamer (Bulletstorm)

Though Bulletstorm has yet to make a legacy less than one week after release, the Screamer is sure to take a prominent place in the canon for experimental weapon design. It’s not the first pistol to set enemies on fire or aid players with a fast draw lock-on system, but it’s certainly the first to shoot both bullets and fireworks. Yes, Fireworks is also the name of a Skillshot, but how else could one describe the emittance of sputtering sparks that earns this pistol its namesake?

3) L. Hawk (Resident Evil 5)

Probably the most standard pistol on the list, the Deagle-esque L. Hawk from Resident Evil 5 could also be lauded as (potentially) one of the most powerful pistols in recent history. Buy all the upgrades, beat the single-player campaign, and the L. Hawk transforms into an infinite-ammo Uroburos-pounding instrument of death. It may seem almost unfair at that point to keep mowing down the armies of helpless, headless zombies, but it’s just too much damn fun.

2) M6D Pistol (Halo: Combat Evolved)

The M6D is likely one of the most infamous pistols in gaming because of how insanely overpowered it could be. The jump from Halo to Halo 2 saw a drastic reduction in power, and a likewise powerful response from the Halo series fanbase. Some were passionately opposed to the change, some were all too happy to accept it, and a strange few wished it would disappear entirely. In every Halo iteration since the first, the pistol has been one of the biggest points of balancing contention despite the varied arsenal always avaible to Spartans worldwide.

1) The Golden Gun (Goldeneye)

How can the supremacy of the Golden Gun be argued with? Too overpowered? That’s the point. Too irrelevant? That’s another point. Too gold? Precisely. Not only did this pistol find it’s origin in a Bond movie entirely apart from Goldeneye but it’s made its way into two iterations of the Goldeneye game since. As if that wasn’t enough, the reboot of Goldeneye for the Wii was accompanied by a Golden Gun peripheral to house the Wiimote for some real gold-bullet-slinging action. And one-shot kills in split-screen mulitplayer were never more infuriating than in the Temple with health handicaps and Klobbs all around. The Man with the Golden Gun? Thankfully, it’s all of us.

February 22 marked the release of two notable and polarizing first-person shooters, Bulletstorm and Killzone 3. One focuses on irreverent, frantic, arcade-style shoot-em-ups and the other on high-fidelity graphics, an interplanetary struggle for survival, and making things glow red. It’s time to pit these two sci-fi gunplay giants against each other and watch the symphony of bloodied ragdoll corpse-chunking ensue. Bulletstorm and Killzone 3 are going Head 2 Head.

Bulletstorm

If Dead Space 2 is the game your mom hates, then she will be blind with inconsolable rage for Bulletstorm. Grayson Hunt, the rough-edged space pirate protagonist, shoots off enough foul-mouthed one-liners to make George Carlin roll over, not to even mention his supremely profane former general. But the language can be ignored to some extent. Where Bulletstorm really shines, and where it gets downright dirty, is the gameplay, namely the Skillshots system that holds it all together. Has a game ever rewarded you for performing bullet castrations or firing a weapon while drunk? Now it has. And with the campaign mode to deliver story and character, the Echoes mode to deliver old school score-whoring, and Anarchy to deliver the cooperative online experience, it’s practically everything a gamer could ask for.

Killzone 3

Killzone 3 is a techgeek’s wet dream, with all the cool new features ranging from 3D support to PlayStation Move support, and of course the incredible visuals, which are stunning — bright, crisp, and incredibly realistic. Add to that the guns that are modeled after real military weaponry, the vast expanses and tight corridors of the exotic planet Helghan, the attention to detail in almost every aspect of the game, and some of the greatest dying gasps in gaming and you’re looking at a real meal ticket for the PlayStation 3. It also offers a fleshed-out single-player campaign and a class-based multiplayer mode lauded by fans as the best in the industry. Killzone 3 does not leave the gamer wanting in terms of features, and provides a fitting close to this sci-fi military shooter series.

Start those voting engines! Leave a comment below with your vote and the winner will be announced on the next H2H article. GO GO GO!

[Dan Crabtree]

Few genres have evolved over the years as much as the first-person shooter genre. Listing notable titles, their innovations, and effects upon later games is fairly easy, especially when it’s clear that a handful have lead the majority. Franchises like Half-Life, Halo, and Call of Duty as well as solitary hits like Goldeneye 007 have all made a significant impact not only in the FPS genre but in the gaming industry as a whole.

If you want a reminder as to how far FPSs have come, just play the original Killzone for the PlayStation 2. It made me realize just how spoiled we shooter fans are now, with standard conventions like aiming down iron sights or through a scope, objective markers, customizable weapons and characters, and even a jump button all being absent from Killzone. Playing it is mostly a humbling experience when compared to today’s FPSs.

Killzone had high expectations during its development, and was an extremely hyped title, deemed by many as Sony’s "Halo Killer" — a pretty serious claim in 2004. With months of press coverage and high praise leading up to its release, PS2 fans clamoring for a huge FPS hit of their own had every right to be excited for Killzone. In reality, it turned out to be somewhat of an inconsistent experience, not to mention it was released at one of the worst possible times — only days before Halo 2 and Microsoft’s new Xbox LIVE service. Despite its poor timing, Killzone managed to develop a core following with fans willing to defend their flagship game to the death.

Killzone‘s competition aside, I still find its plot much more fascinating than anything Halo did. The idea of future humans colonizing planets and expanding the reaches of humanity, only to endure a horrific war with a dissident race of humans that colonized another planet is much more interesting to me than fighting some aliens. Yet for all this history, turmoil, and the massive war taking place in the game, Killzone feels more like a quiet letdown than an epic war story.

Killzone‘s audio is partially to blame for this. For starters, the game often has moments of complete silence during gameplay — no music, no background shootouts or gunfire… nothing. These uncomfortable moments of silence, when nothing is happening and the player is just waiting for the next skirmish, make the game feel seriously deserted and desolate, like the war between the enemy Helghast and I.S.A. is already over.

The quality of the voice work in the game is generally low as well. It’s not that voice acting was poor, but the quality of the voices themselves just sounds bad, like everyone was reciting their lines through a speakerphone. And don’t even get me started on the grating screams that come from defeated Helghast. Imagine a monotone voice screaming through a cheap karaoke machine over and over again, and that’s about what it’s like to kill dudes in Killzone.

Yet things like weapon effects and music (the few times when there is music) are very well done. It’s clear that Guerilla Games put a lot of hard work into the weapons, the way they feel and sound, and their design. All the weaponry looks advanced, but grounded enough in reality that they seem like realistic evolutions of modern weapons. Each weapon has a very distinctive sound to it, and is impressive even today.

Killzone was touted as a graphical showpiece for the PS2, so it’s no revelation that it relies heavily on its visuals to sell the experience it is going for. The visuals range from surprisingly impressive to barely acceptable PSOne graphics. Guerilla Games was generous with the amount of motion blur put into Killzone, but it wasn’t enough to hide all the ugly textures and blocky polygons. It’s clear to me that Killzone‘s art style and direction is superb in many areas, with its own fully realized environments, weapons and enemy designs. Unfortunately it’s just one of those games that looks fantastic in screenshots, but is disappointing in motion. This is more of the PS2′s fault than Killzone‘s. The game pushes the PS2′s capability to the limit, and in the end it is just too ambitious for the system to fully handle. The frame rate is extremely inconsistent, making precise aiming and movements difficult when they are most important. Coupled with the game’s slower, more deliberate controls, it can seem like you’re moving through a world where the air was replaced with molasses.

Friendly and enemy AI is also a joke, with both sides often standing still, absorbing bullets one moment and then erratically rushing and taking cover another. NPC animations are often jarring, particularly their death animations. They look more like crumpling cardboard boxes than people falling over, which jolted me out of Killzone‘s immersion even six years ago. It’s strange, however, that Killzone features the best damn gun-reloading animations ever. Seriously, reloading a gun has never been so intense-looking or given so much meticulous attention to detail. I guess Guerilla Games spent more time doing reload animations than animating anything else, because the disparity between the two is like seeing two different games.

Killzone has many strong points, especially for its time and for being the first entry in its franchise. But it is, in a word, inconsistent. For every step forward Killzone takes, it takes two steps backward. It is an interesting and ambitious game, but perhaps too much so. It is a nice trip down Memory Lane for sure, but in no way does Killzone hold up by today’s standards. If only the Killzone fans in 2004 knew what the PS3 would bring them in Killzone 2 and Killzone 3.

[Tyler Cameron]

*Note that there will be contradictions and exceptions to the generalities expressed below. That’s why they’re generalities.*

First-Person Shooters

The name of these games is immersion, but at what cost? From the first-person perspective, players become the character they control, whether that character is fleshed out or not. For example, Master Chief of the Halo series fills the role of a defined character but he remains a blank template in character development (at least in the games, though that’s not necessarily a bad thing). The character of Jack in BioShock, however, has deep significance within the game’s storyline and couldn’t as readily be replaced by another figure.

Whatever the level of plot integration, the player feels as though they are the character whose shoes they wear, lending both a sense of greater intimacy and a distance due to the lack of their appearance on-screen. How can you get to know someone you can’t see but can control? This mirrors the human experience in a way third-person shooters can’t, which developers have exploited and used to their advantage. Just look at the aura of mystery surrounding Gordon Freeman or the strong, silent confidence exuded by Samus in the Metroid: Prime series.

Specifically for shooters, first-person also allows players a higher degree of accuracy. Though plenty of third-person games have solid aiming systems, notice that almost all of them switch to first-person perspective when using a sniper rifle. It’s because when the player wants to be the most accurate, the only option is to take their avatar off the screen to keep it from obscuring the view. However, along with increased accuracy comes the problem of a kind of "tunnel vision" where players only see directly in front. Third-person shooters give a view of the peripheral at all times, which allows for greater spatial awareness and reactivity. First-person shooters emphasize focus, which proves to be their greatest strength, despite the inherent limitations.

Third-Person Shooters

In contrast to first-person shooters, third-person shooters accentuate the tactical aspects of combat and the characters in the fight. Cover systems are largely unused or lightly used in first-person shooters, and for good reason; it would play awkwardly and probably raise the difficulty to latch players onto cover, facing the opposite direction from their targets. Third-person, however, makes full use of cover systems, Gears of War being one of the best examples, because it allows the player to see what is needed to prepare proper tactical moves even if the character could not. The acrobatics made available by the third-person perspective also lend to its affinity for the cover system, though some first-person titles like Crysis do employ light acrobatics with success.

Being able to see a player’s avatar has a significant effect on the psychological reaction to it. Third-person feels more like a story that’s being told to the player rather than being experienced by the player. This removes identification with the character but allows for a novelistic level of character development. The blank slate is filled with what are often rich and exciting characters.

Horror shooters are fairly divided between first-person and third-person, which showcases some of the distinct differences in titles rarely involving cover or military tactics. Games like Resident Evil 5 and Dead Space capture the spirit of horror by using over-the-shoulder camera focus that deemphasizes the character and plays up the creepy environments. Amnesia: The Dark Descent (which is not a shooter, but presented in first-person perspective), on the other hand, is all about the external environment and uses first-person to make the player feel powerless — as limited as the scope of their view. Third-person horror empowers players slightly more, making the perspective itself a little more terrifying. Just imagine what the derelict, necromorph infested Ishimura would be like in first-person. Third-person gives developers more options, which can be hard to manage, but if done properly these shooters are right on par with their first-person counterparts.

Shooters will always play a crucial role in the games industry, but what perspective will lead the way? First-person benefits from immersion and character ambiguity, and third-person gives a wider visual range with more options for tactical manuevers. Some say that PCs are the first-person platform and consoles are the third-person platform, so is the success of a perspective tied to the platforms that support them. And what of peripherals, particularly those enabling motion control? Does the Move lend itself to a particular point-of-view over another? Developers will drive the innovation, but its the gamers that will ultimately answer these questions of perspective.

Tell us what your perspective is in the comments section below.

[Dan Crabtree, Features Director]