Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Do you mean 
Reply
Fender Bender
Registered: 05/15/2009
Offline
4131 posts
 

Re: Killzone 3 already sucks?

Mar 9, 2011

Xauth wrote:

It saddens me to see games that I buy die within a few months or even weeks because a group starts the whole "This game sucks with these reasons" and end up convincing more people to not play the game simply because they don't like it.

..you know.. that doesn't bother or affect anyone except people who live 24h a day on the internet.

What annoys other people, to the point where they end up posting obsessively on the internet like this - is when the "This game sucks" complaining actually ends up substantially changing a game right after release. Because it impresses developers and publishers when complaints are headed off with "if you won't do this, my 8000 COD-playing friends and I will hate you".

The same prooblem is there when the complaints also motivate the developer to go ahead and make another game even more in line with internet waah complaints. In spite of actually knowing what the problems with changing the design really is.

So now we have two broken games that allegedly their fans love. Because the negative responses have been addressed, and everything interesting about the game has been trashed. After all, nothing sells more than a product that offends and challenges no one. And that's what Killzone is all about, apparently.. Make COD, or don't get paid..

Seriously, though... outside of playing this game with the move, preferably in single-player.., it's just not a good game. The graphics are absolutely stunning. You have a really neat cover-system in single player. The map-design is extremely pretty (even if it's not up there with the "moving train" in KZ2). The animation is often good as well (though not as good in real time as in KZ2.. which nothing is, of course).

You have all these things that make you really like the developers - the art-direction, the objects, the music. The graphics engine, the way 3d is used... It all has the building blocks for being epic.

But the writing is atrociously bad. And the structure of the game - the way the levels are used for the game-progression - has the same problem as Call of Duty: it's war for 12 year olds.. except it's still rated M and 18+ for graphic violence. Even if KZ3 doesn't have those cheezy cut-scene moments that make the game "look like a film", and can be played by a six-year old. Instead, the game is difficult, and you need to be quick to continue through the levels. Although you don't have the long-developing scenarios you had in KZ2, such as the dam level - another one-off from some genius of a developer..

So the net effect for kz3 is that it is a hardcore game that has been unsuccessfully blunted with COD elements. While it has lost the details that made the other Killzones brilliant. This is even more apparent in the online mode, with the perks, the streak awards, and the extremely annoying popups. Just as it is with the movement speed, and the lack of strafing penalties. Couple that with no handling of the lag, as well as low health and high bullet-damage - and you have the "get shot in the back 50 times in a row if you ever slow down" all of us know and love from other shooters. According to the internet.

In any case.. when it comes to the internet sentiment - if you count the number of positive and negative posts (which I'm sure someone at Sony is actually doing, if the KZ2 kerfuffle is any indication), you'll probably find that in spite of any complaint, many people feel that the game is perfect. Even though they have not played the game, a lot of people know the game is great, and will believe this based on the fact that GG have officially stated that they "have listened to fans and have improved the game". That's all they need to know, before buying "Forgettable Generic Action Shooter With Hollywoodish Writing 19". And why do these people turn up? Because they are sold on the advertisement, and they have read the mellow reviews in the magazines. And I think that they genuinely will like the game as well.

So - can I objectively decide for you whether you are going to like the game? Or tell you that the easily approachable, but deeper game-rules in KZ2 was better..? Or that the writing has been steadily diving since KZ1? And that the online is so broken you're not going to be able to enjoy it..? Of course not. I can't decide that for you. And besides - it's exactly the same as COD now. And COD is popular, so therefore Killzone 3 is popular as well. This is only logical.

(And we of course expect week 2 sales in the realm of 400.000 copies, while KZ3 is set to outsell KZ2's 2.5m before summer. Will happen any time now...

Please use plain text.
Message 11 of 73 (327 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Lombax Warrior
Registered: 07/29/2010
Offline
142 posts
 

Re: Killzone 3 already sucks?

Mar 9, 2011

I don't know why people are saying the game sucks.  It may not be the same as Killzone 2, and I'm sure a lot of Killzone 2 hardcore players may be let down, but Killzone 3 judged on its own merits (not compared to Killzone 2) does not suck.  It's a great game.  Sure, the single player campaign is short, and the story is shallow, but who cares about the story for an FPS?  The story is as legit as Call of Duty, so what's the problem?  If the story gives you enough reason to get into the intense action sequences, and makes you want to finish the game, then it's done it's job.

I've been having a blast with the multiplayer too.  Maybe they've geared the game towards more "casual" players, but if that means players who don't have time to spend hundreds of hours online on the same game, then yes it's more casual-friendly.  I play lots of games, but don't usually spend a lot of time on the multiplayer part, but I'm hooked on Killzone 3.  So the developers have done something right if they can keep people like me coming back to it every night.

I don't think the online community will die for this game anytime soon!

Please use plain text.
Message 12 of 73 (327 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Fender Bender
Registered: 05/15/2009
Offline
4131 posts
 

Re: Killzone 3 already sucks?

Mar 9, 2011

soundandvision77 wrote:

I've been having a blast with the multiplayer too.  Maybe they've geared the game towards more "casual" players, but if that means players who don't have time to spend hundreds of hours online on the same game, then yes it's more casual-friendly.

..kz2 had a much quicker unlock path, though. Unlocking the classes was basically a learning curve, introduction to the abilities. Then as you played the classes, you could combine them.

The ones who didn't like that weren't casual players - the main "complaint" on the forums was that there wasn't enough ranks and unlocks to "motivate you to play the game more". In truth - it was casual, but with depth. Where the interesting part of the game was the actual gameplay, rather than the unlocks and perks. You didn't get an advantage by ranking up, so everyone had a level playing field once they learned the rules, simple as that. I thought that meant it was a good game. Others, very loud others, disagree.

What we have now, in Killzone 3 (and KZ2 post patch) is something that adds more ranks, more point-grinding, and a longer linear upgrade path. So you end up with more powerful weapons if you play all day. For people who only play the game once in a while, it's going to take them a week or two to actually get the last turrets, or the weapons you want. Along with the severely overpowered abilities (such as cloak or disguise that doesn't break).

So if you just starting out, you're going to have a hard time keeping up -  even if you're a decent player. ..just like in COD.

I mean, I'm just asking - is that really more casual-friendly? ....To spawn-rape noobs.. until they grind enough experience to spawn-rape other noobs back..? Like has been said before - the problem with Killzone 2 was the presentation, not the actual game. Unlike with COD - where the presentation is great, and the actual game is atrocious.. KZ3 seems to take a serious stab at combining the two for some reason..

Please use plain text.
Message 13 of 73 (327 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Hekseville Citizen
Registered: 11/08/2008
Offline
326 posts
 

Re: Killzone 3 already sucks?

Mar 9, 2011

I was bored of kz3 3 days after it came out... This game is the fastest game i have lost interest in... and i love the killzone series. Kz3 is just not worthy. It seems like different developers made kz3.

Please use plain text.
Message 14 of 73 (327 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Uncharted Territory
Registered: 08/29/2007
Offline
1605 posts
 

Re: Killzone 3 already sucks?

Mar 9, 2011

DaRk-MiNd- wrote:

I was bored of kz3 3 days after it came out... This game is the fastest game i have lost interest in... and i love the killzone series. Kz3 is just not worthy. It seems like different developers made kz3.


I was bored with it as well.  I think I lasted about three days then that was it, haven't played it since.  There is nothing innovative about this game, nothing to keep my attention.  I am pretty disappointed, I was looking forward to KZ3 for a while now.

Please use plain text.
Message 15 of 73 (327 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
First Son
Registered: 02/24/2011
Offline
9 posts
 

Re: Killzone 3 already sucks?

Mar 9, 2011

Quite honestly, the people out there saying that Killzone 3 is a bad game.... are just freaking bonkers...  I think it is perhaps the most groundbreaking first person shooter ever made.  The game was made to showcase 2 things, the Playstation Move, as well as Sony's line of 3-D Televisions (Which I do not own... but this game does make me with that I did).  They invested hundreds of millions in developing the technology that they have for sale now, they can't afford to not have Killzone 3 be a good game.  I think that the leveling up is fantastic, where if you are a SNIPER then you go after that class.  Perhaps you use the Engineer and build boxes and get as many points as possible by simply being a COG in the assault and using your LMG for close quarters battles.  I find that every class has enough possitives to them that however you like to play, there is a class there for you. 

     The one HUGE drawback however is PSN's lack of servers for online gameplay.  I have never had this many problems with a game since... well... BLACK OPS on the 360 which I thought was a piss pour game... if I didn't have everyone that I know in life playing it every freaking day for weeks on end after its release, I would have never prestiged as many times as I did. 

     If the campaign is too easy for you, start over and perhaps UP the damn difficulty!  If it's too short... take a step away from your console and slap yourself in the face with a wet cutting board.  Then remind your self that it is a 30 + Gigabyte game numbnuts!  What do you want for your money... Some people are just impossible to please. 

     I truly think that people who hate this game, simply were not prepared for a new version.  Lets face the facts.  It is incredibly difficult if not immpossible to best a game of Killzone 2's caliber.  Which is for better or worse what they tried to do.  In the land of DLC the game can always be expanded enhanced and or fixed.  Don't let the haters discourage you from getting this game, or just GAMEFLY it.  I bet we all have played a game or two that other people hated and found that it was a great game.  Much like how perhaps everyone hated a movie and you turned out to really like it. 

Please use plain text.
Message 16 of 73 (327 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Gaming Beast
Registered: 05/14/2009
Offline
2106 posts
 

Re: Killzone 3 already sucks?

Mar 9, 2011

fleinn wrote:

soundandvision77 wrote:

I've been having a blast with the multiplayer too.  Maybe they've geared the game towards more "casual" players, but if that means players who don't have time to spend hundreds of hours online on the same game, then yes it's more casual-friendly.

..kz2 had a much quicker unlock path, though. Unlocking the classes was basically a learning curve, introduction to the abilities. Then as you played the classes, you could combine them.

The ones who didn't like that weren't casual players - the main "complaint" on the forums was that there wasn't enough ranks and unlocks to "motivate you to play the game more". In truth - it was casual, but with depth. Where the interesting part of the game was the actual gameplay, rather than the unlocks and perks. You didn't get an advantage by ranking up, so everyone had a level playing field once they learned the rules, simple as that. I thought that meant it was a good game. Others, very loud others, disagree.

What we have now, in Killzone 3 (and KZ2 post patch) is something that adds more ranks, more point-grinding, and a longer linear upgrade path. So you end up with more powerful weapons if you play all day. For people who only play the game once in a while, it's going to take them a week or two to actually get the last turrets, or the weapons you want. Along with the severely overpowered abilities (such as cloak or disguise that doesn't break).

So if you just starting out, you're going to have a hard time keeping up -  even if you're a decent player. ..just like in COD.

I mean, I'm just asking - is that really more casual-friendly? ....To spawn-rape noobs.. until they grind enough experience to spawn-rape other noobs back..? Like has been said before - the problem with Killzone 2 was the presentation, not the actual game. Unlike with COD - where the presentation is great, and the actual game is atrocious.. KZ3 seems to take a serious stab at combining the two for some reason..

One of the big complaints people had about KZ2 was that you could unlock everything too quickly, so they didn't feel much incentive to keep playing after a few weeks. I recall seeing that complaint many times in the forums. GG apparently listened to that complaint, and went a little too far in the other direction. If you play Warzone you can actually increase a full rank step every 3 or 4 games, but with Guerilla Warfare there is just no ranking up at all. I would appreciate it if they double the amount of XP you got every time you rank up, or at least make Bodycount give you more XP since most people prefer straight up team deathmatch anyway. Objective games are fun if you're in the mood for it, but most people want to play a first person shooter simply for the "shooting" part, and not so much for running around with flags or whatever.

As for spawn-rape, that was a way bigger problem in KZ2, by far. I haven't seen any spawnrape occur in KZ3 yet. The spawns in KZ3 actually flip around. In Bloodgracht, I'll start off spawning in the Helghast side, and halfway through the game, I'm spawning from the ISA side of the map. And taking away spawning on squad leader actually helps prevent spawnrape as well, since you still have to run from your spawn location to get to the action (the only good result of removing spawning on squad leader). Spawnrape was actually one of the things I absolutely hated about KZ2. I went back and played it a few days ago, and there I was in Radec, with my team completely spawnraping the other team. It was boring, and must have been frustrating for the other team.

Please use plain text.
Message 17 of 73 (327 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Uncharted Territory
Registered: 12/19/2008
Offline
2109 posts
 

Re: Killzone 3 already sucks?

Mar 9, 2011

Yes. It is the sad truth. Killzone 3 is NOT a good game.

I wanted to like this game, I really did, but there were so many things in KZ2 that made it unique that Guerilla just threw out of the window to appeal to the CoD crowd.

First of all, let's start with the SP:

The biggest problem is that it is REALLY short. The game's campaign only took me about 5 hours to complete.

The characters have no depth to them.

The voice acting sucked.

The ending was just awful.

And probably the most retarted thing of all, although insignificant, is that the Helghast.... ummm.... starfighter turned from red to blue just because the ISA were sitting inside it. Seriously? Is there an: "ISA" option in the Helghast ship which turns the ship blue?

And now that were done with the story, here are my complaints with the online:

The map aren't really well designed because they are quite unbalanced.

The class balance is just TERRIBLE. The Tactician and Marksman are overpowered, the Infiltrator is somewhat powerful, and the Medic and Engineer are quite underpowered compared to the other classes, except that the Medic get's the best bot in the game, and the Engineer gets the beastly STA-3 LMG.

There is little to no teamwork in the game, it's just a giant pack of lone wolves that do nothing but fend for themselves in most situations. This is the game's fault because the game does NOT encourage teamwork.

The game encourages camping. Who the hell suggested that a class can carry a maximum of three proximity mines that usually kill in one hit and are damn near invisible?

Those are my major problems with the game. Killzone 3 is not the game it could've been, it's a giant letdown. And anybody who doesn't accept that is either a CoD fan, or is simply in denial.

Please use plain text.
Message 18 of 73 (327 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 03/26/2008
Offline
6512 posts
 

Re: Killzone 3 already sucks?

Mar 9, 2011

Jsnows007 wrote:

people dont like it cause they arent good at it so they bash it. either way there will be people to play with so who cares

Or maybe it's the fact that KZ3 is a downgrade from KZ2 in alomost every way?

Please use plain text.
Message 19 of 73 (327 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Uncharted Territory
Registered: 01/13/2010
Offline
1853 posts
 

Re: Killzone 3 already sucks?

Mar 9, 2011

Lottaseamen wrote:

If the campaign is too easy for you, start over and perhaps UP the damn difficulty!  If it's too short... take a step away from your console and slap yourself in the face with a wet cutting board.  Then remind your self that it is a 30 + Gigabyte game numbnuts!  What do you want for your money... Some people are just impossible to please.

My problem with the campaign is not so much its ease as some of the gameplay itself. Increasing the difficulty does nothing to improve the totally underwhelming ending battle. If anything, it just makes it more annoying since it's simply harder to complete. I also personally hate the on-rails sequences, so again increasing the difficulty is not an improvement.

The size of the game in GBs also has little to do with the length of the campaign in time. Most of that is for the graphics, which is certainly top notch. I didn't find the Killzone 3 campaign any shorter than other modern FPS games, but they're all too short these days for my tastes.






Please use plain text.
Message 20 of 73 (327 Views)
Reply
0 Likes