Top
110°
7.0

GameCentral: Killzone 3 Review

GameCentral writes "It may be one of the best looking first person shooters on any console, but does the new Killzone have the personality to make it truly memorable?"

The story is too old to be commented.
Hitman07692800d ago

okay interesting opinion, lets see how you back it up!

plb2800d ago

That's easy. I'm sure they deducted points for lack of zombies.

MNicholas2800d ago

were just bursting with innovation and personality.

thereapersson2800d ago (Edited 2800d ago )

Why do people - who are insistent on having an aversion to a franchise - review a title with the expectation that somehow, another installment in the series will change their perspective on things?

If you ask me, to be taken seriously, one must actually show that they lack a pre-conceived bias or preference to something else.

Also, why are people now saying that the controls make the game feel "unoriginal", when to begin with, the original control "weight" that was adopted in Killzone 2 was one of the biggest complaint-magnets?

BTW, I wasn't aware that Nazis were outcasts, struggling to overcome those who oppressed them in the first place? Because that's what the Helghast are doing. Then again, comparing the Helghast to the Nazi regime is the trite, "cool" thing to do if you don't actually want to bother learning about the story in the Killzone universe. Why do I even bother giving these people the time of my day to read their shallow articles?

Cenobia2799d ago (Edited 2799d ago )

@thereapersson

The Germans took a lot of heat for the first World War. They were basically responsible for almost all of the debt and 100% of the blame. This obviously caused the country to suffer, which causes civil unrest. This is a very large reason for why the Nazi's were able to rise to power. After WWI they probably felt very much like outcasts who were unfairly blamed for the entire war.

Killzone is basically a retelling of the story from a new perceptive (at least that is how I have always seen it). Obviously they have gone a different route since the initial story was established though. They also haven't done anything as evil as concentration camps (yet), which makes it harder to demonize the Helghast and easier to understand their side of the story.

I do agree that these 7/10 reviews seem like a double standard, but I will have to play it first before I judge it.

kenpachi2800d ago

i really don't know why they bothered reviewing it they have already admitted they don't like the series and would rather play Black ops instead.

Inside_out2800d ago (Edited 2800d ago )

.
First, let me just say that I like the Killzone franchise and bought a PS3 just for Killzone 2. I also bought KZ 1, day one and still think that KZ 1, game play wise, offers more than what the series has become...now let me Rage on this a bit...

I've played both the multi-player beta and the sp ( spent HOURS ) demo, watched a bunch of video's and listen and read alot of what Herman as well as others have had to say...this game is NOT a 7 out of 10 game...PERIOD. EVERYGAME will have aspects to it that will not be every one's cup of tea BUT this is starting to get out right dumb now.

When I see a 7/10, it tells me the game is not worth much more than a rent and the multi-player alone in KZ makes it a definite buy. Anything lower than an 8 tells me the game has a game breaker flaw that will ruin the experience and I just don't see it with this title. You can skip the cut scenes, which seem to be the worst part according to reviews.

The review itself is actually well written, albeit mean spirited at times...lol...and funny enough, I agree with everything discussed EXCEPT the controls aspect. I think the feel of the controls in KZ 3 is the best the series has ever had. KZ 2 is broken to me...I actually loaded KZ 2 ( again ) to try and play it ( again ) and it's even worse than I remember...O_o...the graphics even looked worse...all this tech breakdown of games is ruining the experience now...lol

I could cut this game up all day and far worse than what has been discussed here but I won't because I'll be standing in line tonight ( hoping for a midnight launch nearby ) to pick up my copy and plan on playing straight thru the campaign. If the game is less than I expected, I'll trade it for Bulletstorm ( Gears 3 beta ) or Crysis 2 and I'll be happy to tell everyone I did so.

BTW...it's the insecure fanboys telling everyone that this game is some sort of breakthrough that is causing the reviews to come back so low as it's being compared to the best the genre has to offer...NO game will win that battle.

NoobJobz2800d ago (Edited 2800d ago )

I wouldn't waste your time trying to prove it's not a 7/10. You do know for some people it will even be lower than that don't you? There will be scores all across the board. There will be scores of 0-10 and every person is going to be different. The only difference is most people aren't gonna write a review about it. There is actually no way to prove a game shouldn't be a 7/10 because in the end, isn't a games review based on opinion?
So if you think it deserves a 9 or 10, that's just fine. There will be tons of people that agree with you. But you also have to respect the others who won't like the game.

As for me, I'm waiting to get my hands on a final copy before my final judgement. And if just by chance, I don't end up liking it( which I doubt), I won't need you telling me I should think otherwise.

InTheLab2799d ago

I agree with you but..let's forget the score for a minute and focus on the written review. It's not the worst I've seen but it does sound like he/she had a score in mind and wrote a review based on that score.

The reviewer brought his own personal baggage into this review bringing up the hype surrounding Killzone and K2 with movie quality graphics and both being the "Halo Killer". The controls were to weighty but that made K2 unique. The controls were improved to some degree in K3 but somehow that's a bad thing. It sounds as if he/she had their mind made up before playing the game. The reviewer also brought up the often mentioned "space nazis" nonsense which tells me he knows nothing of Killzone's story or cared to learn. Or how about those faceless bald space marines?

Since the reviewer clearly dislikes the entire franchise and considers it to be generic, Killzone 3 receives a generic score. He mentions in a negative light how good the game looks but failed to mention how the game plays, the weapons, boss fights, the constant 30fps which few console games can match, the maps (some of which sound amazing, but you'd never know if this site were your trusted source), or anything else outside of his issues with the single player. Notice how the reviewer wrote less than a paragraph on the mp? If you don't like a franchise, why would you waste time with it's current mp?

I honestly don't care about the opinion of one site, but this review reads exactly like all the others that fail to inform readers of how good, bad, or somewhere in between Killzone 3 is, and that's not fair to gamers.

There needs to be some standard for game reviews and not just because Killzone 3 got a mediocre score. This isn't the first nor the last time we'll see this type of half assed review. There's no balance between subjective and objective.

I think it's irresponsible to lead readers on like this reviewer has and what's really sad here is that any blogger with a site can drag a once respected medium into the sorry state it's in today.

beavis4play2800d ago (Edited 2800d ago )

that was one of the worst crafted reviews i've ever read. not to mention it was created from a preconceived bias against the franchise.
this being approved just continues to illustrate how poorly contributors function on this site. something this badly written should never have been approved.

kharma452799d ago

UK's fourth biggest newspaper.

Show all comments (26)
The story is too old to be commented.