Really don't understand the arguements. This is the reason why other fanboys bring up and scoff at people calling Killzone a Halo-killer.
Had that premise never been made in the first place, i think people would be judging Killzone less harshly then they do now. I'm speciifcally speaking of other gamers, not reviewers.
Speaking for myself, as someone who'se so far only poured 3 hours into the multiplayer, and have finished the campaign.
I can see why reviewers didn't like the story, I see - i believe i do - where the developers were trying to portray. Problem is - without spoiling anything - it's A) rushed and parts of the story are abrupt and B) No consistently real good presenting of the narrative.
The story is certainly better then KZ2, at least it's paced better. The premise of KZ3 and KZ2 are both interesting, but where the KZ2's premise is 'heroes' (don't consider any side in this universe to be good guys, they're just a lot less bad but i would not say good) invading the bad guys homeplanet, they almost immediatly abandon using that interesting premise. KZ3 manages to do a decent job of showing problems in KZ3, like the Helghast infighting, and problems going on for the ISA - soldiers trapped on a hostile enemy planet.
Gameplay wise, it's much better, feels a bit like Battlefield Bad Company 2, in terms of how quickly you can move around. It's maybe a shy slower, but good enough and less clunky feel to everything.
Only thing i think the Killzone story has really lacked despite all of their improvements, has been severly lacking in fleshing out it's universe with an good presentation, and good character-driven narrative.
as far as art design, i really dug it. I don't think a lot of the stuff is possible (most obvious the jet pack, at least the way it's arranged) namely because as an engineer, certain basic things kinda go up like red flags for me sometimes. However that said, still looks very cool, from the flying bots, jet packs, the MAWLR, and the various other vehicles.
Also i did genuinly liked the music in this one.
As far as multiplayer goes, i only wanna speak about Operations, the rest of it is rather traditional multiplayer as we come to expect it. Operations is what i kinda wish Rush Mode on Bad Company 2 to be more like. Yes it is essentially the game boils down to defend X objective while the attack tries to take/hold/destroy them. but the touch of cinematics of showing off the best and worst players is very very nice and a bit addictive, even if it gets a bit repetitive. The whole process of trying to take or defend an objective and being reward with a cutscnee of your character in it is pretty rewarding.
If anything i'd put the Guerrilla Games people and just have them make Sony's games good looking for other studios and leave the other studios doing the creative process.
Having played Halo's singleplayes (except Reach and ODST) i'd say the Halo universe has done a better job presenting it's universe to interested players then Killzone has. By that i mean, what the hell is going on, why are you fighitng X people, what is the history of this problem (if your going to war there is generally a reason for it, or a series of reasons).
Never been interested in Halo's multiplayer, nothing wrong with it, just not my cup of tea, just like how i don't like most of the FPS's from the 90's (PC guys feel free to now behead me). Just a matter of tastes.
both Killzone and Halo are set in Sci-Fi, howeve one tries to aim gritty bloody, while the other aims at the sleek shine of the future (until the Flood gets involved).
P.S. Hated Killzone 2, i am - surprisingly - really enjoying Killzone 3.
Log in to comment