GDN: Killzone 3 Review

Killzone 3 outdoes KZ2 by a half point and earns that Gold medal. While the environments are horrible at time and the graphics could be better, the gameplay really shines even if it could use a few more tweaks and a bit more development time. If you love Killzone, you’ll love it, if you like FPS, you’ll most likely find something you like here.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Bits-N-Kibbles2830d ago

A bit whiney of a review for a 9/10.

SasanovaS19872830d ago

graphics could be better hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahah daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaam

talltony2829d ago

Really ugly environments are juxtaposed with great cut scenes but all round, faces are freakish. It feels like they purposely made some textures to make the game more difficult instead of designing them more realistically."

LoL seriously????

r3p3lst33ltj32830d ago

When I read that the environments are horrible just like the textures, with graphics worse than killzone 2, I just stopped reading:-)

Nivalis2830d ago (Edited 2830d ago )

Trolling for site hits with harsh comments, without the nuts to actually give it a low score?, I think so.

frayed2829d ago

I'm starting to despair at these too-numerous-to-count gaming news/blog site reviews.

It seems some of these sites choose a purposely provocative line to sell - 'horrible environments', 'graphics could be better' - and then turn out a score that is fair but completely bizarre given the irritated/condescending tone of the reviews.

Sure, Killzone 3 is a 8 or 9 out of 10 game (given my impression from the betas and demo) and most people agree that the shooting and action gameplay is great - it is, after all, an action game. But I find it annoying when reviewers make a meal out of such subjective issues as 'story', 'length' and here, even 'graphics'.

The game has a story. It has a narrative structure. Whether it's your cup of tea. Whether it works for you or not. Well, that's subjective. I still meet plenty of people who just don't care for the original Star Wars (I'm not making a comparison directly here), but it's because they're not fans of the genre, and they wouldn't be stupid enough to state categorically that it had a 'bad story'.

More and more, I'm getting the sense that gaming websites are run by hobbyists who never learned a principle lesson of critical writing. You have to present your personal response to the material,sure, but its worth can't be decided by your personal taste. Rather, it must be held up against the wider context of the art-form (medium) it represents.

For example, in Killzone 3s case, from what I've seen, one might argue that its plot is not original, as it is just another war story (not unlike many other shooters - COD et al), and that it is clichéd, given that it is ultimately a tale of super-weapons and evil villains. But one would also have to come to the conclusion that it presents these elements well, and that the voice talent alone make the show worth the price of admission.

And what annoyed me in the first place about this review: saying this game has poor graphics because you are not a fan of the art-style is utterly foolish. The graphical prowess of Killzone 3 is obvious in terms of its numerous post-process effects and level of detail. If it's too dark or rusty for your tastes then that has nothing to do with it. Please stop writing and start paying more attention to your games in general.