Killzone 3peat: Return of the Same

[Woodsey]

It's disappointing after the bits and pieces I've seen from InFamous 2 and Uncharted 3. Those series have made pretty obvious major improvements while Killzone languishes.

That is a stupid argument. Infamous 2, and Uncharted are two completely different genres, and Killzone is another genre. You're comparing apples and oranges and glowing red doom goggles. None of them can be compared to each other, nor should they.

Of course they can, since you're not comparing gameplay, but improvements made in each game's own regard.

Genre only comes into it if you want to argue that FPS's have less places they can go.

OT: Not interested in the series myself.

I played the KZ2 demo, and it just made me angry (it's also REALLY weird looking, and not in a good way).

 

[googleback]

looks ok... I liked Killzone 2 but not the multiplayer so i'll wait for a price drop (ps3 exclusive prices drop like stones haha)

 

[valleyshrew]

Seems like a ludicrous standard. It reminds me of the unfair criticism of New Vegas that it was just fallout 3.5. Every nintendo series is just a series of rehashes and they never get criticised for it. Mario galaxy 2 is far more of an expansion than fallout new vegas was, but it got unanimous perfect scores. Other than GTA and final fantasy I can't think of any game series where each game is radically different with entirely new characters, location and time period. It is the standard to be direct sequels without huge changes. Infamous and Uncharted are really not good examples to use of sequels changing hugely for the better. They're basically following the same formula as the ratchet and clank series - small adjustments to gameplay rather than a revolution or accumulative expansion, new but similar levels and a little more story development.

When people criticised left 4 dead 2 for being an expansion (which is even worse when the game is all gameplay with next to no story), the game community got all defensive about it and lots of arguments were made about how they were worth a sequel. I don't mind a sequel being more of the same if the original was great. KZ2 wasn't that good, but it was moderately interesting with unique multiplayer which is more than can be said for most shooters.

 

[Spacewolf]

and what would you of liked them to change? Its an FPS theirs not really a great deal they can do to change it except just to polish up whats there

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Obviously I'll have to reserve final judgment for next week, but as far as I can tell from the demo, the videos I've watched, and articles/forums I've read, KZ3 is basically the exact same game as KZ2 as far as gameplay. The only new features I've seen so far are the "brutal melee" combos, which for a shooting game shouldn't come into use often, and the use of jetpacks. Yay.

I would pay $20 for a continuation of the campaign from Killzone 2, but I don't see this being worth $60. Rental for me: beat the campaign in 5-6 hours, put 20-30 hours online, gg and return. Sequels breed complacency and do not drive innovation.

I don't agree. Killzone 3 appears to have fixed two of the biggest problems with the first game: lack of interesting levels and too much "shoot while in cover" style gameplay.

Killzone 3 looks like it actually has many different kinds of levels now, with jungles, snow, factories, cities etc. The whole gameworld isn't just made of 2-3 colors anymore.

And the combat looks like its more close combat now like it was in Killzone 1 instead of being basically like Gears of War but in first person. Throw in improved controls and close-up kills and you have a considerably improved version of the first game.

I agree with Hardcore Gamer. I do like KZ, but it's a little brown. KZ3 looks a lot more colourful, and that's basically the biggest improvement I could possibly want to have happened. I'll almost certaintly be buying this if I have the money.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

It's disappointing after the bits and pieces I've seen from InFamous 2 and Uncharted 3. Those series have made pretty obvious major improvements while Killzone languishes.

That is a stupid argument. Infamous 2, and Uncharted are two completely different genres, and Killzone is another genre. You're comparing apples and oranges and glowing red doom goggles. None of them can be compared to each other, nor should they.

I'll explain.

Seeing InFamous 2 and Uncharted 3 in action, it's clear that the developers of these games have taken great pains to improve upon the previous entries in these series on all fronts.

Seeing Killzone 3 in action, it's clear that the developers of this particular game barely even evolved their previous iteration.

In other words, the jump from IF1 to IF2, or from UC2 to UC3, appears noticeably greater than the jump from KZ2 to KZ3.

Next time, don't call an argument stupid simply because you fail to grasp the actual structure.

I'm flashing back to all of the analogy failure I was exposed to in college.

I still see a flaw in this reasoning. You are comparing the first game in a series to its sequel, but comparing Killzone's sequel to its other sequel.

If we use your argument to compare Killzone 1 to Killzone 2, then it fits in with your Infamous 1 Uncharted 1 idea of vast improvements.

Still, thanks for explaining. Makes it easier to judge things with an explanation than just throwing out a blanket statement.

To me, it looks like Killzone 3 is addressing a lot of the issues I had with 2. Mostly, the story looks like it at least gives a shit this time around.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I still see a flaw in this reasoning. You are comparing the first game in a series to its sequel, but comparing Killzone's sequel to its other sequel.

Except I was comparing UC2 to UC3.

If we use your argument to compare Killzone 1 to Killzone 2, then it fits in with your Infamous 1 Uncharted 1 idea of vast improvements.

Actually, given KZ1 was a PS2 game, THAT is a truly "apples to oranges" comparison.

To me, it looks like Killzone 3 is addressing a lot of the issues I had with 2. Mostly, the story looks like it at least gives a shit this time around.

I think the improved controls are a pretty big step, so I was probably being too harsh. Not so sure about the story, though; most of the reviews have been pretty dismissive of the singleplayer campaign.

Either way, I look forward to playing it. Just not a first-day, $60 purchase for me.

Edit: although, nothing really is these days!