Killzone 3 - Less than great reception

[pulse2]

Reveiws seem inconsistant in thier scores but the same cons pop up of storyline mediocrity and some other niggling issues, otherwise a good game. Another thing that came up is that Guerilla tried to please people too much and took out things that made Killzone 2 unique.

Under the idea that you've played Killzone 2, would it bother you that the gameplay was tweaked to appease those who moaned about it? Personally I loved Killzone 2, felt it could have done with a wider colour palette and some additions here and there, but I was satisfied with the general gameplay.

What do you guys think?

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

Reviews... already?

Man, that's fast. Well, I did find the GameSpot review, 8.5, not exactly bad reception or anything. But, really, did they expect a great story out of Killzone? What gives?

There are tons of games with shit story I don't see panned.

It still looks really good. I'll be sure to get to it eventually.

 

[rockingnic]

The problem of KZ2 was that the controls were too weighed down and took time getting use to. It sounds better that they made the controls less floaty but they still have a weight to them (based from the review I saw on IGN). I don't play FPSs for story, I play them because I like shooting people in a fun and immersed way which what KZ3 sounds like. I'm waiting for my KZ3 beta to finish downloading then I will know for sure (unless they tweak it in the final version).

Also, any game that scores around a 7/10, sometimes 6/10, usually is a good game and fun. I have games that got 6.5/10 and I like them WAY MORE than all the CoD games that get 9+/10.

EDIT: After playing the beta, this will be the best multiplayer game on the PS3. Over any CoD, Battlefield, Mag, MoH, etc.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Reviews... already?

Man, that's fast. Well, I did find the GameSpot review, 8.5, not exactly bad reception or anything. But, really, did they expect a great story out of Killzone? What gives?

There are tons of games with shit story I don't see panned.

It still looks really good. I'll be sure to get to it eventually.

Honestly, the Killzone series has always been missing that special something to push it into the realm of a great game. The first game had little more than the FPS cover gimmick (that the series has retained), which made an interesting experience but it was hardly revelatory. The PSP game was, all considered, fun but nothing terribly special. Killzone 2 looked great but the story was awful, the cover mechanic made a return (and still didn't quite work right) and multiplayer chose to discard this one unique feature in favor of a game that was basically "Slower Modern Warfare". The rotating game type (while playing a particular game) was a stroke of genius, but unfortunately various design problems kept me from playing the game for long.

Guerrilla has simply not had a history of producing great games thus far. They've made technically amazing games that are mechanically solid, but that is all. I'll still probably pick this one up down the line as I would like another excuse to play my PS3 and it is entirely possible that time will help resolve my problems with the multiplayer component.

 

[Sp3ratus]

I think it's fantatsic. Granted, I only tried the multiplayer demo, but for me, it's great. The multiplayer is the primary reason I'm buying it since KZ2 multiplayer was as great as it was. The fact that they expanded the colour palette and made the experience more focused just make it's all the better, atleast from what I've experienced with my 4 hours in the game.

Oh, and I've also posted my first impressions, in case anyone is interested: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.262386-Killzone-3-First-impressions

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

Reviews... already?

Man, that's fast. Well, I did find the GameSpot review, 8.5, not exactly bad reception or anything. But, really, did they expect a great story out of Killzone? What gives?

There are tons of games with shit story I don't see panned.

It still looks really good. I'll be sure to get to it eventually.

Honestly, the Killzone series has always been missing that special something to push it into the realm of a great game. The first game had little more than the FPS cover gimmick (that the series has retained), which made an interesting experience but it was hardly revelatory. The PSP game was, all considered, fun but nothing terribly special. Killzone 2 looked great but the story was awful, the cover mechanic made a return (and still didn't quite work right) and multiplayer chose to discard this one unique feature in favor of a game that was basically "Slower Modern Warfare". The rotating game type (while playing a particular game) was a stroke of genius, but unfortunately various design problems kept me from playing the game for long.

Guerrilla has simply not had a history of producing great games thus far. They've made technically amazing games that are mechanically solid, but that is all. I'll still probably pick this one up down the line as I would like another excuse to play my PS3 and it is entirely possible that time will help resolve my problems with the multiplayer component.

I'd say the things missing are sharp controls and memorable level design. I even think the story was halfway salvaged in KZ2.

But, yeah. Something is not quite there yet.

 

[pulse2]

There were people who liked the weighty feel to Killzone 2 as if offered a different scheme to things, so that you felt as though weapons were heavy, this in turn made you feel normal or human as opposed to the super soldier that Halo and CoD have you believe you are in the way weapons rarely feel like much effort to lift and handle.

I agree the game lacked that special something, but I do think it had enough content in it to be given a superb game status. Haven't played KZ3 yet, I'm hoping that it hasn;t been dramtically changed, but already I'm worried based on what others have siad having also played KZ2.

 

[baddude1337]

The story sucks? The Justice trailer made the story look interesting..how can you fuck up the premise of a Helghast civil war?

Well, it's still pre-ordered. I quite liked the first, Liberation and the second one (but still haven't finished it) and I totally love the universe they've created, the Helghast are especially cool. Wouldn't it be great if there was a game where you could play as them in a campaign, kicking ISA ass?

 

[gigastar]

My main problem(s) with KZ2 was the cover-based combat, the total removal of alternate fire from certain guns, the heavy feeling controls, the sniper rifles aimability being bound to the flatness of the controller (offline), weapons that cant hit shit at 5 paces and the Helgan soldiers having much more health than you apparently did.

I dont even pretend to play games for a story anymore, as im into literature my standards are very, very high.

I only judge games by thier single player element. As Yahtzee said, a good game doesnt need multiplayer to excuse it.

Honestly I dont know why Guerilla dont just ditch the CBC, Its just not fun.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

There were people who liked the weighty feel to Killzone 2 as if offered a different scheme to things, so that you felt as though weapons were heavy, this in turn made you feel normal or human as opposed to the super soldier that Halo and CoD have you believe you are in the way weapons rarely feel like much effort to lift and handle."

Well, some people call it "weighty", other people call it "stiff".

It's not just in how the weapons handle, it's also in how much control you actually have over stuff.

Don't get me wrong, the online in Killzone 2 is mindblowingly good and the game feels far less stiff in multiplayer than it does in its campaign (I have no clue why), but it just kinda feels alien. Well, for me, a guy whose gaming tastes could be summed up in three words: Call Of Duty.

 

[thedeathscythe]

Reviews... already?

Man, that's fast. Well, I did find the GameSpot review, 8.5, not exactly bad reception or anything. But, really, did they expect a great story out of Killzone? What gives?

There are tons of games with shit story I don't see panned.

It still looks really good. I'll be sure to get to it eventually.

Honestly, the Killzone series has always been missing that special something to push it into the realm of a great game. The first game had little more than the FPS cover gimmick (that the series has retained), which made an interesting experience but it was hardly revelatory. The PSP game was, all considered, fun but nothing terribly special. Killzone 2 looked great but the story was awful, the cover mechanic made a return (and still didn't quite work right) and multiplayer chose to discard this one unique feature in favor of a game that was basically "Slower Modern Warfare". The rotating game type (while playing a particular game) was a stroke of genius, but unfortunately various design problems kept me from playing the game for long.

Guerrilla has simply not had a history of producing great games thus far. They've made technically amazing games that are mechanically solid, but that is all. I'll still probably pick this one up down the line as I would like another excuse to play my PS3 and it is entirely possible that time will help resolve my problems with the multiplayer component.

I thought the second game added first person cover? As far as I know, the first game was only known for looking really good (although getting choppy when too much action was happening), having some cool weapons (assault rifles with shotgun secondary fires and stuff), and a decent online mode. I liked the gameplay, cutscenes and the environments, but there was something missing...

As for the second one, online mode was revamped which was cool because I liked the class based system they were going for, it was a cool twist. Story mode was really cinematic but dragged on near the end, I still liked it though, and then yeah, they added that first person cover system but it was only for story mode. I really liked that cover system though, it was unique.

I hope they have it in the third (haven't read reviews yet), and I hope they even include it online. That being said, I'm hopeful for this game, I hope it finds that thing that was missing from the first two. I think Guerrilla has a solid history for creating games, but nothing amazing, but at the same time, nothing terrible. It feels like they're on this solid plateau and they could break off it at any point (hopefully upwards).

 

[IamSofaKingRaw]

People over hyped it so everyone was expecting the 2nd coming but obviously the game didn't deliver that. Without the hype it probably would have gotten 9.5s all over.

 

[mighty_wambat]

My main problem(s) with KZ2 was the cover-based combat, the total removal of alternate fire from certain guns, the heavy feeling controls, the sniper rifles aimability being bound to the flatness of the controller (offline), weapons that cant hit shit at 5 paces and the Helgan soldiers having much more health than you apparently did.

I dont even pretend to play games for a story anymore, as im into literature my standards are very, very high.

I only judge games by thier single player element. As Yahtzee said, a good game doesnt need multiplayer to excuse it.

Honestly I dont know why Guerilla dont just ditch the CBC, Its just not fun.

i am so deeply offended by this comment, ... i want to remark on that first of all, i have had people cuss me out in gratuitous fashion online but this comment... it is truly insulting.

first person cover based combat, and the heavy controls are the primary draw of killzone 2. its what makes it not just another generic shooter. it unapologetically says that its going to be a unique game and you site everything that makes it special and call it a flaw.

I'm baffled.

then the snipers... lack of aimability? what in the world are you talking about? killzone 2 is to my knowledge the only shooter to take advantage of the playstation 3's six axis controls. how can that... how do you...

so you can't like the stories ... but you only play the single player?

so all in all, you don't like the single player because its not the same as everything else on the market, you don't like the multiplayer because you diden't play it and you don't like the story because its not as good as the best of the best of a historical art medium more then 2700 years old and you don't like the controls because you diden't understand them?

but your still here to tell us that you have higher standards then the rest of us?


anyway, on the topic, according to metacritic, its got an aggregate score of 86. the lowest scores are only 70. so i think its a bit soon at the least and untrue at worst to say its less then a great reception, true its not a 99 like mass effect but its not doing poorly

 

[Sniper Team 4]

My problem with both Killzone and Killzone 2 was that the trailers LIED! They make the games seem like you will be fighting in these huge battles, where you are one soldier among many, and your teammates can hit stuff just as well as you can, and you're not the only one being shot at.
Instead, I'm constantly by myself, or with one other squad mate who's constantly yelling at me to move forward while he hides all the way at the back of the battle, and I'm doing convert stuff. Boring compared to what the trailers show.

And yeah, the story has been bland to me (deal breaker), the characters annoying and unremarkable, and I swear if I ever hear Rico yell, "Yeah, pop their tops!" again I'm going to lose it.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Don't care. Malcolm McDowell automatically invalidates any criticism if the story for being such a badass.

Gonna get this one though, looks fucking awesome.

And who's to say that patches won't fix the game up?

 

[gigastar]

first person cover based combat, and the heavy controls are the primary draw of killzone 2. its what makes it not just another generic shooter. it unapologetically says that its going to be a unique game and you site everything that makes it special and call it a flaw.

The main point in any cover based combat game is that your character has about as much health as the mooks on the other team do. This is ok if its third-person, but in first-person when you get behind cover you cant see what shooting at you or where from without exposing youself.

On controls, compared to another PS3 exclusive at the time, Resistance 2, the controls felt like swinging lead bricks to get the crosshairs where I wanted them to be. I had maximised the sensitivity before giving up and just playing. Also what fucking idiot purposely makes a game hard to play through controls. Other than Egosoft.

then the snipers... lack of aimability? what in the world are you talking about? killzone 2 is to my knowledge the only shooter to take advantage of the playstation 3's six axis controls. how can that... how do you...

Im talking about having to hold the controller flat to keep the scope steady. More of a personal issue with my wrists not being very flexible. Also I didnt complain about the other motion control application, unless you would like me to.

Also the first FPS to make usage of the six axis motion controls was Resistance: Fall of Man. If only to break grapples its still a usage.

so you can't like the stories ... but you only play the single player?

To be exact I did play the multiplayer before its overhaul, but in between the original multiplayer and the new one I had been indoctrinated by Team Fortress 2. The exemplar class based multiplayer game.

Concerning story elements, it can be distilled to 'jugheads invade wasteland plannet with no knowledge of just what theyll be facing, add on dramatic death and nuke plot carryover from last game'. This has only one meaning to me. [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GeneralFailure] Sure theres a dramatic death or two, but I didnt take to any of the characters too much in this game, mostly because I predicted who would die, and got it right. As a wise Autrailian Brit once said 'They wouldn't bother with this much characterisation if they didnt intend to kill them off'

so all in all, you don't like the single player because its not the same as everything else on the market...

No I really dont like it because its artwork doesnt have a shred of green in it. No really I checked. And it more or less went for the dogshit brown and gun-metal gray look.

Also if youre thinking Call of Duty, I dont trust any game that was made under Vivendi. I know Activision makes CoD, but guess who owns Activision.

you don't like the multiplayer because you diden't didn't play it...

During the period I was playing it, it just felt slow. Especially on larger maps.

and you don't like the story because its not as good as the best of the best of a historical art medium more then 2700 years old...

Lets face it they could have done better. Jughead Invasion with Dramatic Deaths and Desperate Final Offense and Nuclear Taboo are just sheer overused. Speaking of nukes why bring the detonation codes for stolen nukes right to the hostile thiefs doorstep? Oh, right. [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GeneralFailure]

and you don't like the controls because you diden't didn't understand them?

I dont remember mentioning being unable to understand how to play. Also as mentioned above, I played Resistance 2. Entirely same control scheme with two pairs of buttons switched around, causing this [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DamnYouMuscleMemory] all too much in the early stages.

but your still here to tell us that you have higher standards then the rest of us?

You see those badges under my profile name? Did you think I got those by being a natrually nice and agreeable person?

Also dont confuse standards with opinion. I said I have high standards and did not say that I was better for it.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

For gods sakes people, it is getting fine reviews. It isn't adding much new to the table, but it still looks like a great game.

I hate numerical scores. Just give us a fucking opinion not dictated by math.

 

[Shanked_Salt]

From I can see over at metacritic alot of sites are raving about KZ3. A metascore above 85 is also very strong. Think biggest critisim it is is recieving is it just doesn't offer much new to an already saturated FPS market. I don't see much saying it it poorly designed or anything.

I really enjoyed the polished presentation, graphics, sound, gunplay and enviroments in KZ2 and thought the push in the final mission was epic. Final boss fight was lame and generic though as are the atypical characters.

Mulitplayer also very good and addictive but still suffered from some overcrowded maps and subsequent spamming resulting in slaugher box type games - alot of online FPS guilty of this ofcourse.

I just recently started to play it again this week and noticed the somewhat frustrating weighty feel to weapons that people mention. I don't recall knowing this was an intentional design element. Makes me look at it a bit different now for KZ2.

In most FPS (bar outright action FPS) I agree that varying weapons should be harder to handle and feel heavier but the aiming still seems not right and quite difficult to use. A rocket launcher feels like a beast to wield which makes sense but a light weight carbon type rifle or even a little pistol still feels heavy and clunky to aim which I don't like. It's just not smooth.

I do see myself picking up KZ3 and hope they have improved some of the elements over KZ2. I figure alot of the multiplayer community will slowly but eventually migrate over to KZ3 anyway so we may have no choice in the matter unless we like empty servers.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I rented Killzone 2 but didn't really like it. It seemed kinda sameish to me and once I got to the weird six-axis control thing (ie: turn the controller to turn the valve) what little interest I had drained completely. I didn't even touch the multiplayer but it seems like if I don't I may as well not have picked up the game to begin with.

 

[pulse2]

There were people who liked the weighty feel to Killzone 2 as if offered a different scheme to things, so that you felt as though weapons were heavy, this in turn made you feel normal or human as opposed to the super soldier that Halo and CoD have you believe you are in the way weapons rarely feel like much effort to lift and handle."

Well, some people call it "weighty", other people call it "stiff".

It's not just in how the weapons handle, it's also in how much control you actually have over stuff.

Don't get me wrong, the online in Killzone 2 is mindblowingly good and the game feels far less stiff in multiplayer than it does in its campaign (I have no clue why), but it just kinda feels alien. Well, for me, a guy whose gaming tastes could be summed up in three words: Call Of Duty.

I think that was probably why I liked it, yeah, might have come across stiff, but it wasn't conforming to the mainstream ideal of FPS control, I suppose for some people it takes getting used to, while for others it was fine.

Its sorta the same way people felt with MAG, where after playing games like CoD, people expected MAG to feel and play the same way, goes without saying, is copying any better or does it just make the game more generic?