Proud to not be on the COD hate bandwagon.


CRank: 12Score: 276780

User Review : Killzone 3

  • High detail graphics
  • Something different to the CoD rip offs like Homefront
  • Solid combat mechanics, although cover system needs work
  • Poor lighting model
  • AI don't use tactics to flush you out of cover
  • Untapped potential in destructibility, story and character interactions

Killzone 3 Review: A Doubters Perspective

Killzone 2 was a game that for me didn't completely satisfy me for any number of reasons. The campaign I felt was a little dull and repetitive, and while I enjoyed the multiplayer for about 10 hours I found it too frustrating to stay with for much longer. I awarded the game an 8.5/10, which looking back on my memories of the game feels a little high.

Needless to say when Killzone 3 was announced I wasn't excited for the game in the least, but I decided to try out the multiplayer demo (I refuse to call it a beta) as well as the single player demo. I enjoyed my time in the MP demo, although I certainly had my issues with it, even seeing fit to right up a blog about how I felt about it (which can be found here: The campaign demo left me less than impressed. So come February 24th, what did I do? I went out and bought the game, not expecting to enjoy it much at all but needing something to tie me over before Crysis 2 four weeks later.

My first impressions of the campaign where that I didn't feel immersed at all in the games setting or story. This is at odds with most people's experience, and I don't know if this was my low expectations getting in the way or if it was the harsh graphics and stiff controls, but the feeling was nonetheless there.

As I'm sure everyone knows, Killzone 3 is about the ongoing war between the Helghast and the ISA taking place on the Helgahn home world. You play as Sevchenko, an ISA soldier who is probably the strongest, or rather the least weak of the games characters. The story overall serves only to give reason to the shooting, which is a little disappointing but after Guerrilla's previous works not surprising. Let’s be honest if you're playing Killzone you aren't there for the story but there is certainly room in the narrative for something more fulfilling.

The biggest disappointment with the game is surely its reliance on fade out to canned cut scenes. It just completely breaks any immersion and serves no purpose other than to show off the cool but canned and rough looking set pieces. Crysis 2 is a perfect example of what Guerrilla should have done with the bulk of their cut scenes, first person realtime cut scenes! In that game they work so well to keep the game flowing freely, and they could easily work in Killzone as it is especially annoying when the game has to go to a disjointed third person cut scene for every minor thing.

Another major disappointment is that Rico didn't get a bullet in the brain. Quite frankly he is the most annoying character in gaming history. Every time Captain Narville gives an order you can predict that Rico will be pissed about it, and sure enough literally every time he is. The rest of the characters are more or less just as one track, although I actually kind of feel sorry for Sev for having to put up with Rico as a mate.

The actually gameplay is actually pretty strong. I did grow tired of the constant waiting for enemies to pop out of cover before shooting, but overall it is mostly solid. The guns are very inaccurate which comes off as a little odd to me given that the game is obviously set in the very distant future. It's also annoying that some of the guns like the bolt gun and an LMG in the campaign don't let you aim down sights which also hinders accuracy from medium to long range. The inaccurate and heavy feeling guns do at least serve to make the combat feel different to some of the other shooters released of late, so I'm not complaining.

The cover system needs some work though. What good is a cover system when the bulk of the objects you hide behind are lower than head height, meaning that you can still get headshoted? It’s an annoying design choice and I want it fixed, especially seeing as enemies have the ability to go completely in to cover as well as blind fire. You also can't push back into cover if you reload a gun while leaning out from it, you have to leave cover and then duck down to get out of the way of fire or wait for the animation to end, but which point it might be too late. On top of that it also doesn't let you push from one piece of cover to the next like in Uncharted 2 or if it does it is far from smooth.

The levels and the enemies have a good variety, putting you up against anything from a towering MAWLR which is strikingly similar to something from Resistance to your standard soldiers. You'll also fight jet pack wielding soldiers, soldiers that will rush you with melee weapons, tanks, drop ships and there is also a space combat section and the now standard FPS high speed vehicle level which sees you shooting enemy vehicles up in front of you. The only enemy that the game could really do without is the spider like things that explode near the end of the game. Why Guerrilla? They just don't fit in on a space ship and are annoying to fight. Plus why do they take so long to kill?

The AI is sloppy at times and thoroughly lacks the ability to get you out of cover. They don't advance on you, flank you or lay down suppressing fire, indeed the only method they have is throwing grenades, which they are deadly accurate with. As with most FPS games, the AI also unfairly target their fire on you, when they should be concentrating on silencing Rico once and for all.

This leads me into another annoyance. Why is there no grenade warning icon on the screen? It could be said that they are going for a hardcore approach here, but it simply doesn't work with some of their other design choices. For example, if you are very low on health both your vision gets very dark and removes all colours and your hearing gets dulled. This means that it is very difficult if not impossible to judge just where a nearby grenade is as bright lights and beeping emitted by the grenade is how you are meant to detect it.

The last issue I'll bring up with the campaign is how lame it is in several sections where it basically shows that the main characters are indestructible. At one point Sev is piloting a stolen jet pack when it is struck by a piece of debris from something he just blew up, causing it to break spectacularly (obviously this happens in another third person cut scene). This results in Sev taking a rather hard landing which surely should have dislocated a shoulder, cracked a collarbone, given him concussion or done his back in, if not all of the above. On top of that he is then struck by a tsunami which again you would expect to leave him crippled upon being slammed into something metallic behind him. However, not even a scratch is suffered. Likewise Rico and Sev and separately that annoying woman with the rather daft face paint are part of pretty severe crash landings on one of the open top transporters the ISA use. Again, you would expect them to be dead, but actually they suffer no ill effects. Guerrilla clearly put these things in just to look cool as they couldn't be bothered actually making them have an effect on the game, which is very unsatisfactory.

But I will say this for the combat; it is at least intense with decent pacing and good variety. It may take notes from Call of Duty's textbook but the two games don't feel alike and that is refreshing. I did actually enjoy my time in the campaign, despite the many issues I have outlined above.

The graphics are always perhaps the strongest talking point when it comes to Killzone games, and it’s easy to see why. They really are impressively detailed, with clustered environments and reasonably sharp textures. But you guessed it, I don't like them. The lighting for one is decidedly bad. Why is it that as I write this I am in a room with a bright ceiling light which is subsequently lighting up the entire room. Yet in Killzone 3 you can be in the same situation yet the light source will only light up a small circle of say 3 meter diameter on the ground, leaving the rest of the room in utter darkness. Bring on Global Illumination Guerrilla, your game needs it. I also feel that the dull environments make it difficult to pick out targets as they blend in to the monotone colours of the world too much. They are otherwise impressive though, aside from the lighting they are probably the most technically impressive graphics I've seen on consoles, even if it is all pre-baked. You’re take on a ‘forest’ is unfortunately as dull as the rest of the games environments, which is a bit of a letdown.

They have introduced an element of destructibility to the environment with some buildings and some cover being destructible. But I would have liked them to take it a step further. Wouldn't it be great if they made all of the little concrete block that enemies hide behind able to crumble under sustained fire? Of course it would, and it would in turn give the enemies another way to get you out of cover other than throwing those damn grenades. Lost potential that should be capitalised on when the inevitable Killzone 4 rolls around.

Summing up on the campaign, it has good variety in terms of weaponry, enemies, level design and core combat mechanics. It is however let down by weak characters, a very abrupt ending which could have been so easily expanded upon to add emotional impact, amongst other annoyances. It’s of moderate length, taking me 270 minutes to complete (plus more time for retries obviously), which is really all you can expect from an FPS these days. Oh and one other thing, the next time I play a game which re-uses a segment of its campaign but changes the events, I will snap the disc. Pathetic Guerrilla, and just shows that you couldn't be bothered crafting a proper introduction.

The multiplayer is arguably the main component of the Killzone experience, but I include my thoughts on it here merely to accompany a score down below.

There are about 8 or so maps and a couple of game modes included, with the classic Killzone 2 Warzone returning, this time accompanied by Team Deathmatch and a more story driven Operations mode. There is good variety in weapons and skills, and each of the maps has its own play style and feel to it, even if some of the larger maps tend to be a bit boring on TDM.

My user blog that I linked to up the top contains a very in depth look at the multiplayer based on the demo they released, and I don't feel like going over my thoughts again. After all not much has changed. There is still the one minute intermission where all you can do is vote on a map (why can't you view leader boards, stats etc?), there is still no way to know if a nearby player is going to be able to revive you or not (for example in Bad Company a medic is displayed as such on the mini map if you need a revive, something sorely lacking here), and it still all feels rather unbalanced.

On the plus side, there is plenty of content here to keep you engaged with the game if you enjoy it, even if it has failed to keep me captivated. Guerrilla do seem intent on supporting the game for some time to come which is a good sign, however I think they should make some more drastic changes to the gameplay than they have so far in the first 6 updates.

On top of this you can also play the multiplayer maps against AI controlled bots for practice, although as with all modes similar to this the AI doesn't behave as a human opponent would which kind of defeats the purpose. There is also Move and 3D support, neither of which I have tried out, although I may try out Move in the future if I feel like getting raped.

So should you buy it? My recommendation is maybe. If you enjoyed Killzone 2, you'll likely enjoy this. If you didn't enjoy Killzone 2, you likely won't. There are a lot of FPS options releasing this year and KZ3 is far from the strongest, but it is still a bit of fun if you are looking for something a bit different to CoD or a bit better than Homefront.

Textures are highly detailed and environments are packed with objects. On the down side, the lighting is quite unrealistic, and the busy environments can actually hinder the gameplay by making it hard to pick out details like enemies. Still needs more colour!
Soundtrack is limited but good, main themes especially so. Some of the voice acting is quite sloppy (the annoying woman in particular) but for the most part solid, and occasionally a character will be talking but mid sentence they will skip to their next line, this even happening in two cut scenes.
Solid gunplay and core mechanics. Enemy AI doesn't utilise any tactics and have an over reliance on grenades to get you out of cover.
Fun Factor
Again the gameplay is quite solid but the constant fade to black to canned third person cut scene completely ruins the flow of the game. It’s also frustrating when you shoot down an airborne enemy which sends them straight for you, then explode killing you completely unfairly.
Classes generally lack balance, but there is a good variety in guns, abilities and maps. Graphics are still highly detailed online, and lag is a non issue which is a relief after playing CoD. Lacks thought though, some minor things could be changed which would much improve the feel of the game.
The story is too old to be commented.
Emilio_Estevez3577d ago

Although I can't agree with everything, it's well thought out, nice review.

Tachyon_Nova3577d ago

Thanks, I try and write more in depth reviews than the standard N4G user review so I'm glad someone appreciates it.

Reading through the review again I realize I've been quite negative where as I actually enjoyed the game. That's probably just because I feel that Killzone could be truly great with a bit more thought into the finer details, and the the finer details are really were Uncharted succeeds so perhaps they could get onto ND and have a chat about that.

@ GameOn - I really struggled to be anything but frustrated with Rico. At the end he seems to have some sort of emotions towards the chick but it isn't explained which sums up the entire games story really.

@ Dinkel - no I haven't played those 2 games, only the PS3 releases. If they add something to Ricos character which makes him more likeable then I'd be glad to go and get them.

dinkeldinkse3577d ago

I have beaten all four of the Killzone games several times and I have never had a problem with him. He is a crazy asshole, but he has been like that in every game. It is just weird that after Killzone 2, a bunch of people think he is worst character ever.

To the people that hate him, have you ever played Killzone or Killzone: Liberation?

Game0N3577d ago

I know right, whoever thinks rico is an asshole seriously hasn't played killzone 3 because hes transformed and much more likeable this time around.

Inzo3576d ago

I agree, if anything it was Narvil that ticked me off most of the time.

shikamaroooo3577d ago

me 2 i like reco *spoiler* so what he killed visari he saved sev

ABizzel13575d ago

I agree I have no real problem with Rico. Yeah he's an asshole, and he's been one since Killzone 1, but he's been in war for 4 freaking games now. It's his job to kill the enemy. What is he suppose to be, picking daisies and drawing rainbow's. Rico is hardened by war.

If I have any complaint about Rico in the new games, it's that he swears too much. There's no need for it, and it doesn't make you look like a tough guy, especially in games.

As the others said, in KZ3 I hated Narvil so much more than any dislike I had for Rico. The bastard just wouldn't shut the f*@# up and listen. I would have liked it so much more if it was Rico punching Narvil in the face.

But overall I have to say KZ3 had a weak story, which is a complete shame, because everything else to me was oh so good.

They could have developed a better relationship with Rico and Jammer to soften Rico's edges some and make him a more like able character, and it could have provided some insight into why Rico's as hardcore as he is.

They could have shown the Helghast in a different light. It could have been one side wants to go to war, the other side is tired of the war like in Killzone 1, and why haven't we seen any Helgahn people other than the countless soldiers trying to kill us.

The story should NEVER jump around in time in a shooter without a reasonable cause, because it just breaks the story, especially when you do it more than once or twice.

The story was a real let down after seeing the story trailer, but KZ3 is still a great game, since like everyone seems to say it's the gameplay that matters.

dinkeldinkse3575d ago

I really wish Templar was not killed off in KZ2. He was literally Rico's only friend and the one person that Rico would actually listen to. Not to mention, he was not a pussy.

Inzo3576d ago

I dont understand your comment on the cover system needing work seeing that its one of the few FPS games that has it, also saying the environment is to busy thats like saying war is like taking a stroll through the suburbs.

Game0N3576d ago

awesome analogy, this review is full of nitpicks.

BrianG3575d ago (Edited 3575d ago )

I'm playing through the game now on elite and the A.I. are definitely giving me a run for my money at some points. They actually are flushing me out of cover by flanking me, grenades, and plain rushing. I just got passed the Icy Incursion level, the A.I. was a pain when the 3 jetpack enemies attack you.

Other than that a solid review. Haven't noticed the lighting issue you mention, I'll try to take notice to that.

EDIT: also you should try the Move out with this game if you have it. It is well implemented. Once you get used to it you'll find you are aiming quicker than you would with the DS3. Just make sure you set your rotation settings and dead zone right so you don't have a difficult time turning.

awesomeperson3575d ago

"reliance on fade out to canned cut scenes. It just completely breaks any immersion and serves no purpose other than to show off the cool but canned and rough looking set pieces."

Isn't that EXACTLY what IGN said :P (well along the lines)

I didn't actually have a problem with that during the campaign, I only really realised after I went back and re read the review after playing it through.

Tachyon_Nova3575d ago

Not really, I had a look at the IGN review just now to see what you mean, and this what they said:

"This liberal use of fading between scenes, along with the occasional hiccup when loading, broke me out of the experience repeatedly, exacerbating the generally boring story."

The point that our reviews share, that the cutscenes break immersion is totally true, that is why we both mentioned it.

I don't see how you couldnt have noticed it to be honest, its like in Bad Company 2 where they fade out for everything, its uncessessary and actually negatively effects the experience.