Killzone 3 - Less than great reception

[Defense]

85 isn't particularly bad, but from what I played it runs a lot more smoothly than Killzone 2. Can't say anything about the campaign considering no one played it, but considering how Killzone 2 was so mediocre, I can't imagine it being significantly worse in terms of story and characters.

Wait... There's reviews? It doesn't come out until the 22ND. WHAT THE HELL?

I thought reviewers oftentimes got games before the public?

 

[Programmed_For_Damage]

It's main problem has always been a lack of characters you can invest in and a clunky control system. Granted the controls reflect the visceral nature of lugging around heavy weapons, which in some ways is a plus, but it's hardly going to woo the twitch-reflex CoD crowd. That and the enemies are bland, bland, bland. Say what you want about Halo's cardboard characters, at least the enemy AI made shooting at them interesting.

 

[SovietSecrets]

Wait... There's reviews? It doesn't come out until the 22ND. WHAT THE HELL?

Killzone 2 review came out like a month and some more before the actual game. The reviewer at IGN had played the game 8 times before it came out.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

It's main problem has always been a lack of characters you can invest in and a clunky control system. Granted the controls reflect the visceral nature of lugging around heavy weapons, which in some ways is a plus, but it's hardly going to woo the twitch-reflex CoD crowd. That and the enemies are bland, bland, bland. Say what you want about Halo's cardboard characters, at least the enemy AI made shooting at them interesting.

Which Killzone did you play? The AI was an absolute ***** to fight against. Entrenched grenade jockey bastards. They were fun to fight against because you could lose quite easily.

 

[Programmed_For_Damage]

It's main problem has always been a lack of characters you can invest in and a clunky control system. Granted the controls reflect the visceral nature of lugging around heavy weapons, which in some ways is a plus, but it's hardly going to woo the twitch-reflex CoD crowd. That and the enemies are bland, bland, bland. Say what you want about Halo's cardboard characters, at least the enemy AI made shooting at them interesting.

Which Killzone did you play? The AI was an absolute ***** to fight against. Entrenched grenade jockey bastards. They were fun to fight against because you could lose quite easily.

Both the first and second one. I just found the whole experience underwhelming; which may have been due to the hype mind you.

 

[Marik2]

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?

I knew it wasnt gonna be better than the first game.

And no I dont care if they add like 3 patches to fix the issues. The game is still mediocre, Im gonna wait for uncharted and resistance 3 now those games look like they're gonna be loads of fun.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

I knew it wasnt gonna be better than the first game.

And no I dont care if they add like 3 patches to fix the issues. The game is still mediocre, Im gonna wait for uncharted and resistance 3 now those games look like they're gonna be loads of fun.

Because you don't think a game is great does not automatically make it mediocre.

 

[IamSofaKingRaw]

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.

Yeah, you have to actually learn how to play this game (KZ2 I mean) it is not as easy to pick up and play as Resistance 2. Most people like you put the game off because it didn't control like the 500 billion other shooters out there.

I also don't understand your gripes with the cover system. What you want the camera to pan out ans show you the enemies? I like how you have to take the risk of peeking out to see behind cover. Besides all your problems with KZ2 are fixed for KZ3. Play the open beta, its awesome.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

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

Damn right.... and the same reviewers who ***** about bad stories probably still say Doom is the best shooter of all time.

A shooter does not need a good story. It needs good shooting. A good story is merely a bonus.

 

[Waaghpowa]

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.

I agree with you in terms of the feel. Despite being a sci fi game it felt more realistic than the "camera with wheels" CoD games.

 

[Marik2]

I knew it wasnt gonna be better than the first game.

And no I dont care if they add like 3 patches to fix the issues. The game is still mediocre, Im gonna wait for uncharted and resistance 3 now those games look like they're gonna be loads of fun.

Because you don't think a game is great does not automatically make it mediocre.

Ok let me rephrase that "its mediocre to me and to a lot of people" I tried so hard to get into KZ2 and it didnt work for me.

Characters sucked (I dont care if they were made that way)

Enemies were bland

The levels werent interesting

And the multiplayer was boring

No its not a horrible game, it was just really bland (to me and many of my friends)

And the 3rd installment is most likely not gonna make me purchase it.

 

[Flac00]

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.

I agree with you, if the score was lowered by that much for bad story, then there is definitely a problem. MW2, COD 5 both had pretty bad stories that had some major inconsistencies and bad plot twists, yet they got higher scores or equivalent scores as this? Something is wrong here.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

im just enjoying the mass fanboy rationalisation-fest thats going on right now

I don't understand this. Are we not allowed to just enjoy a game because we think it is good? We need to justify everything, like the game is suddenly despised and we are just making up excuses to like it?

Nice double standard there.

 

[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.

I agree with you in terms of the feel. Despite being a sci fi game it felt more realistic than the "camera with wheels" CoD games.

That's more or less the feeling I get from these games, its no necessarily a flaw or something I find bad about them, it's just something I liked about KZ2.

The idea that a missile launcher could be whipped out and reloaded as fast as a pistol makes little or no sense to me :/ Things as heavy and powerful as a minigun should look and feel heavy, weighing you down and slowing you down. I also like the recoil power that the guns had, I'm not shooting peas, I'm firing shells and bullets, I want some serious vibrations and recoil.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

im just enjoying the mass fanboy rationalisation-fest thats going on right now

I don't understand this. Are we not allowed to just enjoy a game because we think it is good? We need to justify everything, like the game is suddenly despised and we are just making up excuses to like it?

Nice double standard there.

dawww did i hurt your feelings? i never said it was a bad game but am in fact laughing at the people going on saying that scores like 8.5 and 8 are bad claiming the review sights are full of "xbots". YOU are part of the problem thinking im attacking you.

Well, what would you prefer then? That we both be reasonable, and perhaps garner a discussion from this thread?

I too am not fond of the bitching about number ratings, if I wanted to see that get out of control I'd go to the G4 comments section. If you want a good fanboy laugh, check out their KZ3 review.

 

[pulse2]

im just enjoying the mass fanboy rationalisation-fest thats going on right now

I don't understand this. Are we not allowed to just enjoy a game because we think it is good? We need to justify everything, like the game is suddenly despised and we are just making up excuses to like it?

Nice double standard there.

dawww did i hurt your feelings? i never said it was a bad game but am in fact laughing at the people going on saying that scores like 8.5 and 8 are bad claiming the review sights are full of "xbots". YOU are part of the problem thinking im attacking you.

I personally thought the reveiws were justified if what I'm reading is right and I loved KZ2 and Liberation. I wasn't this happy about some of the lame reviews for GT5 and I am less of a lover of that game. Goes to show huh.

As far as I'm concerned, Guerilla's fan service worked against them, and admittedly, Guerilla needs better writers. I should sign up :/

 

[Jumplion]

An 85 average for Killzone 3 isn't bad by any means, though I certainly know certain people who think anything under a 9.0 (or hell, even a 9.5 for certain games) is "horrible" or some nonsense like that.

Though some of the complaints about the story do seem a bit unnecessary, I mean it's not like the series was ever known for it's riveting narrative or anything. Still, I can understand the grips, but I'll probably be picking Killzone 3 up regardless. The multiplayer is a ton of fun, though I wish they would let us play more maps (and maybe more modes, 3 modes seem a bit small...)

But darn it, I'd be lieing if I said that slightly lower-than-expected review scores don't make me think twice about getting a game. I only have so much cash, I need to be discerning with it, ya know?

 

[Programmed_For_Damage]

An 85 average for Killzone 3 isn't bad by any means, though I certainly know certain people who think anything under a 9.0 (or hell, even a 9.5 for certain games) is "horrible" or some nonsense like that.

True that. Back in the day a 8.5 was an insta-buy and to me still indicates a very solid game. I think the scoring system went to hell last year when you look at how many titles got over 9.1. As TISM once said "when everything is excellent, nothing is"

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

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?

Well, it's not exactly copying if the controls just feel like CoD - making them very sharp, responsive, easy to get used to. Or like Halo. Or like some other successful online console FPS.

So, yeah, Killzone could be pretty original with its controls, but that doesn't really make it any better. It's still slow and takes some getting used to.

Not much wrong with that, but it's easy to see why that would annoy some people.

 

[pulse2]

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?

Well, it's not exactly copying if the controls just feel like CoD - making them very sharp, responsive, easy to get used to. Or like Halo. Or like some other successful online console FPS.

So, yeah, Killzone could be pretty original with its controls, but that doesn't really make it any better. It's still slow and takes some getting used to.

Not much wrong with that, but it's easy to see why that would annoy some people.

I suppose that's all down to the person gaming. Killzone seemed slow and clunky to some people. I personally got used to and even liked the change. Not to say I didn't like CoD and Halo's gameplay styles, but somehow Killzone's felt more realistic to me. The weight and the clunkiness that comes with holding heavy weapons.

Well, different opinions I guess.