-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Killzone 3 Review Thread [Update: Reviews In OP]
- Thread starter Sn4ke_911
- Start date
Thunderbear
Mawio Gawaxy iz da Wheeson hee pways games
Jtrizzy said:
Exactly, and that's why Killzone 3 shouldn't be judged for it harsher than other 90%+ scoring FPS games with shitty stories.
Hopefully one day video-games will have good stories though. I wasn't a fan of Bioshock even though I know a lot of people are, but I do like the premise of the next Bioshock.
sca2511 said:I guess I'm the only one that liked KZ1 and KZ2's story :\ and I didn't really think that Rico was that bad. I'm hyped for KZ3's SP, whatever it may be
You're not the only one, I guess we are just in a minority. But even I think it wasn't great story telling, but it served its purpose for a really fun game. Halo's story is way, way overrated in my book. MGS 1 and MGS 3 had pretty good stories, and ICO... but there's not many games out there.
Castle Doctrine
Member
It's not really the story that bothered me in KZ2, it's tough to tell a story in an interactive video game, it's the characters that bothered me. They were so stereotypical and one dimensional. Military guys yelling, that's about it. Characters are what developers need to improve first, and hopefully throw together some decent story.
The Uncharted series is a good example, those stories are fairly cliché, it's the amusing and interesting characters that set the game apart from the rest.
The Uncharted series is a good example, those stories are fairly cliché, it's the amusing and interesting characters that set the game apart from the rest.
REMEMBER CITADEL
Banned
Thunderbear said:
I don't understand why people believe that Killzone is being held up to higher standards than other shooters when it comes to storytelling. Why would anyone be doing that?
The biggest complaint in most reviews I've seen seems to be the COD-ified structure of the single player campaign, not the game's "awful story".
mescalineeyes
Banned
I don't think that killzone 3 is being rated overly negatively or unfairly, I just think that the times of inflated review scores are finally coming to an end.
lol @ butthurt ps3 fanboys though.
lol @ butthurt ps3 fanboys though.
Castle Doctrine
Member
DennisK4 said:
These characters weren't good even for dudebro standards.
Lagspike_exe
Member
OMG, what am I going to do without an intriguing, War & Peace caliber story in a dudebro shooter?
Give me a break, no one gives a shit about stories in FPS games released in the past 10 years that aren't named Bioshock or Half Life.
Give me a break, no one gives a shit about stories in FPS games released in the past 10 years that aren't named Bioshock or Half Life.
Castle Doctrine
Member
Lagspike_exe said:OMG, what am I going to do without an intriguing, War & Peace caliber story in a dudebro shooter?
Give me a break, no one gives a shit about stories in FPS games released in the past 10 years that aren't named Bioshock or Half Life.
So it has to be either War & Peace or meaningless dudebro? Nothing in between?
I would take Twilight, never mind War & Peace.
edit: It reminds me if you criticize a movie like Hot Tub Time Machine:
"What did you expect? Citizen Kane!"
No, not Citizen Kane, but something that's at least, ya know, funny.
so the game is only about 4,5 hours long.. (spoilers at the link, if you do not want to know the name of the levels)
http://ps3.nowgamer.com/news/5130/killzone-3-campaign-45-hours-long-proof
according to them it´s the first playthrough on normal difficulty..
http://ps3.nowgamer.com/news/5130/killzone-3-campaign-45-hours-long-proof
according to them it´s the first playthrough on normal difficulty..
Lagspike_exe
Member
The-Warning said:
The game is being slammed by critics for a meaningless story. This suggests other FPS games on the market have a meaningfull story. They don't.
Stop spamming this. These kinds of numbers are suspect. The Eurogamer article on Vanquish being only a 4 hour game nailed it.Hanmik said:
If you include the cutscenes, it's nearly 6 hours and if you include dying and retries, it probably goes further. It's probably the same length as KZ2.
Castle Doctrine
Member
Lagspike_exe said:
Oh okay, I agree with you there, it's stupid that all of a sudden story is important. It seems Killzone is held up to ridiculous standards that other games aren't.
Lagspike_exe
Member
dark10x said:
I really don't think it includes deaths. This would push it into KZ2 territory, lenght - wise.
dark10x said:
sorry.. didn´t have the time to read through all posts here. Off course you are right.. if you include cutscenes (70min.) and deaths and retries, then we will end at 6-8 hours.. which is the norm for these kind of FPS games.. Was ment to include that in my original post, but I´m at work, and time ran out when I was typing..
Hypereides
Member
Scores are up and down... but frankly Im not surprised if KZ3 is a tiny bit average. KZ2 was ridiculously pretty but thats it.
From what I understand they basically ripped out the entire structure of the MP in KZ2 and maybe even more CoD-ish.
What I really dont like about Guerrilla - or any other studio in this matter - is the mimic of CoD's gameplay. They have this "if you cant beat 'em, join 'em" attitude which sours me. Do studios really not want to make something different and exciting instead of copypasting all the time?
From what I understand they basically ripped out the entire structure of the MP in KZ2 and maybe even more CoD-ish.
What I really dont like about Guerrilla - or any other studio in this matter - is the mimic of CoD's gameplay. They have this "if you cant beat 'em, join 'em" attitude which sours me. Do studios really not want to make something different and exciting instead of copypasting all the time?
I'm not going to get too flowery. as I'm going to save the expansive thought for my review.
Sorry if this is too clinical.
I'm kind of bad at estimating how long it takes me to play games, but I'd guess that it took me between 6 and 8 hours to play through Killzone 3 from start to finish. I should note that there were some spots in the game where I died a lot, so I'm sure it will be a shorter experience for more advanced players.
The campaign plays a lot like Killzone 2. You are still funneled down the cattle shoot towards each enemy engagement. Once in battle, like in Killzone 2, there is a certain amount of freedom in how you go about taking out the enemy. On the flip side, there are a lot of moments where someone is shouting over the radio exactly what you should be doing. That's kind of annoying.
You still need to take cover, or you will die quickly. My memory of Killzone 2 is that you had to hold L2 to stay in cover. In KZ3 there is an option to toggle cover, meaning you can simply press L2 against cover and stick to it. This is makes the COD-Style control scheme, where you use L1 to zoom, feel very intuitive.
The story is certainly more fleshed out than in Killzone 2, though I didn't find the amount of cutscenes intrusive or overwhelming. There are some odd bits of logic in the story, and the editing is, at times, really questionable. The timing of some of the cuts is kind of bizarre, particularly the one before the credits. It's a pretty simple story: You are a group of soldiers caught behind enemy lines. Eventually the concern changes from saving yourself to stopping the Helghast from launching an attack on Earth. Pretty standard stuff, if you ask me. I did not care about any of the characters except for Stahl, the Billy Bob Thornton-looking weapons manufacturer from Helghan. He was sort of interesting.
Though it has its moments of Dudebro-style machismo, the swearing is definitely toned down compared to KZ2. It's still there, but in much smaller bursts.
Anyone hoping for Rico to have a Raiden-esque redemption are going to be disappointed. He's certainly not as grating as in KZ2, but he's still a "I play by my own rules" type of asshole. He is pretty useful this time around, though, as he will zap you back to life if its safe for him to do so.
I did not like the vehicle sections. While they are nice for changing up the gameplay. They all seemed overly simplistic and like a waste of time.
People who complained about he movement speed and "weightiness" of the guns, should have no complaints this time around. Everything is responsive and recoil is vastly toned down compared to Killzone 2. I kind of miss the way it was.
People who complain about the lack of color won't be satisfied with this game, either. Those people miss the point. Helghan is supposed to be an oppressive environment. There are times where it pays to stop for a second and look around, because the environments are generally packed with so many little details that it's tough to take them all in.
It probably sounds like I disliked the game, but that's not the case. The campaign has its moments of excellence and I really enjoy the cover-based gameplay in these wonderfully realized environments. I didn't find the story and characters offensive, but they're certainly not of Uncharted-quality. I imagine that anyone who liked Killzone 2's campaign would like Killzone 3, unless the changes to the gunplay put them off too much. It's not a genre-redefining experience, but it's a solid, polished campaign.
I'd be happy to answer any questions that I can about the campaign if anyone wants to know something more specific.
Sorry if this is too clinical.
I'm kind of bad at estimating how long it takes me to play games, but I'd guess that it took me between 6 and 8 hours to play through Killzone 3 from start to finish. I should note that there were some spots in the game where I died a lot, so I'm sure it will be a shorter experience for more advanced players.
The campaign plays a lot like Killzone 2. You are still funneled down the cattle shoot towards each enemy engagement. Once in battle, like in Killzone 2, there is a certain amount of freedom in how you go about taking out the enemy. On the flip side, there are a lot of moments where someone is shouting over the radio exactly what you should be doing. That's kind of annoying.
You still need to take cover, or you will die quickly. My memory of Killzone 2 is that you had to hold L2 to stay in cover. In KZ3 there is an option to toggle cover, meaning you can simply press L2 against cover and stick to it. This is makes the COD-Style control scheme, where you use L1 to zoom, feel very intuitive.
The story is certainly more fleshed out than in Killzone 2, though I didn't find the amount of cutscenes intrusive or overwhelming. There are some odd bits of logic in the story, and the editing is, at times, really questionable. The timing of some of the cuts is kind of bizarre, particularly the one before the credits. It's a pretty simple story: You are a group of soldiers caught behind enemy lines. Eventually the concern changes from saving yourself to stopping the Helghast from launching an attack on Earth. Pretty standard stuff, if you ask me. I did not care about any of the characters except for Stahl, the Billy Bob Thornton-looking weapons manufacturer from Helghan. He was sort of interesting.
Though it has its moments of Dudebro-style machismo, the swearing is definitely toned down compared to KZ2. It's still there, but in much smaller bursts.
Anyone hoping for Rico to have a Raiden-esque redemption are going to be disappointed. He's certainly not as grating as in KZ2, but he's still a "I play by my own rules" type of asshole. He is pretty useful this time around, though, as he will zap you back to life if its safe for him to do so.
I did not like the vehicle sections. While they are nice for changing up the gameplay. They all seemed overly simplistic and like a waste of time.
People who complained about he movement speed and "weightiness" of the guns, should have no complaints this time around. Everything is responsive and recoil is vastly toned down compared to Killzone 2. I kind of miss the way it was.
People who complain about the lack of color won't be satisfied with this game, either. Those people miss the point. Helghan is supposed to be an oppressive environment. There are times where it pays to stop for a second and look around, because the environments are generally packed with so many little details that it's tough to take them all in.
It probably sounds like I disliked the game, but that's not the case. The campaign has its moments of excellence and I really enjoy the cover-based gameplay in these wonderfully realized environments. I didn't find the story and characters offensive, but they're certainly not of Uncharted-quality. I imagine that anyone who liked Killzone 2's campaign would like Killzone 3, unless the changes to the gunplay put them off too much. It's not a genre-redefining experience, but it's a solid, polished campaign.
I'd be happy to answer any questions that I can about the campaign if anyone wants to know something more specific.
REMEMBER CITADEL said:
I don't think we're reading the same reviews? And anyway, the irony of your point is that if it were too COD-fied it would still get crazy praise seeing as how COD does lol.
But in any case, I do feel the bigger titles do tend to review slightly less harsh. But that's probably because the developers or publishers market the games better, even towards jounrnalists, with better launch parties, press kits, press events and so forth.
Always-honest
Banned
Thanx Shurs, good roundup.
Did you play with move?
Did you play with move?
Always-honest
Banned
Was there more destructabilty in the environment?Shurs said:
Always-honest
Banned
Were there a couple of moments that really blew you away? (without spoiling anything..)Shurs said:
Is it a memorable single player?
OK .. from Shurs post ... the game could take between 8 and 10 hours and we have people bitching its 4.5 hours.
Regarding friendly fire .. is this a beta thing only? I can understand if they didn't add friendly fire in the beta cause I know some pricks on my friends lists that kill their own team on purpose (I know I can those friends .. ). Imagine someone's first experience at Killzone being shit on by their own team members!!!
Oh .. and people crapped on KZ2 for its recoil. Now that KZ3 has less recoil, people are still crapping on it ..
GG just can't win ..
Regarding friendly fire .. is this a beta thing only? I can understand if they didn't add friendly fire in the beta cause I know some pricks on my friends lists that kill their own team on purpose (I know I can those friends .. ). Imagine someone's first experience at Killzone being shit on by their own team members!!!
Oh .. and people crapped on KZ2 for its recoil. Now that KZ3 has less recoil, people are still crapping on it ..
GG just can't win ..
H_Prestige
Banned
sajj316 said:
I don't remember anyone complaining about KZ2 recoil. The complaint was with the input lag, not how the guns felt. That was the game's strong point.
REMEMBER CITADEL
Banned
nib95 said:
First of all, the majority of praise for COD comes from its hugely popular multiplayer, the same thing Killzone 3 is being praised for. Secondly, the reviews that I've read claim that by COD-ifying its campaign Killzone 3 has lost the thing that made its predecessors stand out in terms of gameplay and overall campaign structure. It's not that something is inherently wrong with such a campaign, but you're already getting it in COD games, every year. Finally, going by score averages (which I don't like because they're a lazy shortcut, but I don't care enough to research this any further), Killzone 3 is getting approximately the same scores as Black Ops so where's that "crazy praise" that COD is allegedly getting and Killzone 3 is not?
I'd say that Killzone is definitely among the biggest FPS franchises at the moment, if not in terms of sales, then certainly in terms of budget, hype and quality.
Always-honest said:
Stop and look around at most points in the game when you're in an outdoor environment and you're going to see something impressive.
Some of the set pieces are diminished by having someone yelling into the radio "Shoot this thing in this exact place." That said, there is one "boss" battle in particular, which has been shown in previews, that is quite impressive in its scale.
I didn't really consider Killzone 2's single player campaign to be memorable. Killzone 3 feels largely the same in that regard. I mean, I remember things from it, of course, but I won't be writing romanticized accounts of moments I experienced in the game. That's mostly due to it being a pretty straightforward, cinematic experience. There's not a lot to think about afterwords. And that's fine for what they're trying to do with this game.
I think the game succeeds in making you feel like you are battling in an oppressed environment. I appreciate that.
Always-honest
Banned
okay thanx, sounds great to me.Shurs said:
Bolded part is important to me.
Being an FPS fan my first instinct is to get this game day one.
But after buying COD BO on PC and not touching the single player I have learned that I cant just play a game anymore just cos its hyped up and sells well.
It has to be a good game, with good controls and interesting game play.
Plus I promised myself I wouldn't get it unless I force myself to finish KZ2.
But after buying COD BO on PC and not touching the single player I have learned that I cant just play a game anymore just cos its hyped up and sells well.
It has to be a good game, with good controls and interesting game play.
Plus I promised myself I wouldn't get it unless I force myself to finish KZ2.
Union Carbine
Member
This.H_Prestige said:
Or it could be that those other games are bringing more to the table. Those other games often come with single player campaigns, 2-4 online co-op campaigns, co-op modes like horde, etc. and competitive multiplayer. All anybody wants to talk about in this thread is story comparisons but in a lot of reviews that I read they mentioned a lack of online co-op as a disappointment. I'm still getting Killzone 3 but it's still disappointing that Guerilla didn't pack more into the overall package.nib95 said:
H_Prestige
Banned
Why exactly does KZ2 get so much crap for being too "hardcore"? Last I checked BC2 is a pretty hardcore game yet no one is demanding it be dumbed down for the COD crowd.
ScrabbleBanshee
Member
After having just finished ME2 for the first time, I'm feeling like that experience will have completely ruined me for KZ3. I don't expect a lot out of a shooter story, but following up on the ME2 is going to just make it seem even worse.
Since I don't care for online multiplayer, it's starting to feel like getting KZ3 at least at release is going to be a waste of time for me. I might as well wait for it to drop to $20 if all I really care about is the SP experience right? I *have* had high hopes of seeing how the Move would work with a "real" game though.
My preorder for KZ3 is locked in a bit under msrp at $50. Should I stick with it even if I don't plan on spending hours a day online?
Since I don't care for online multiplayer, it's starting to feel like getting KZ3 at least at release is going to be a waste of time for me. I might as well wait for it to drop to $20 if all I really care about is the SP experience right? I *have* had high hopes of seeing how the Move would work with a "real" game though.
My preorder for KZ3 is locked in a bit under msrp at $50. Should I stick with it even if I don't plan on spending hours a day online?
fuzzyreactor
Banned
rent it, or get it when price goes down to $20-30ScrabbleBanshee said:
SonOfABeep
Banned
It's that closing paragraph from Joystiq that has me most questioning picking this up.
KZ2 seemed like a good base that had a generic FPS put on it. If they say KZ3 is inferior, I'll wait until Platinum Hits or something.
Sounds like it salvaged a 3.5/5 because the multiplayer is awesome as always.