Ben-DutkaEarly review scores from major sources have already hit the Internet like a ton of bricks, and the lower-than-anticipated scores beg the question- does Killzone 3 miss the lofty mark?
It's a question we're not ready to answer just yet, but the 8.5s from GameSpot, IGN, and CVG, the 3.5 from Joystiq, and the 7 from GamesTM seem to stand in contrast to the 9 from OPM, the 10 from PlayStation Lifestyle, the 9.5s from GameZone and PSU, and the 9.4 from GameTrailers. So what to believe? Is this an elite AAA title or not? What are the complaints from those who don't see fit to award it a 9+ score? Well, I can tell you this- we have no idea, because we're not going to look. We don't go into reviews after reading everyone else's; that can taint the process. After writing the review and deciding upon an overall score, we might check out other sources and even allude to them in the review, but that's about it. Maybe that's why so many gamers have come to trust our reviews over the years.
But you know, perhaps there are plenty of legitimate reasons behind the 8-ish, "good but not amazing" scores. Guerrilla took the weight away; that defining characteristic from KZ2. Well, the weight isn't entirely gone, but KZ3 certainly feels more like any other FPS now. Or maybe it's just because Guerrilla aren't the greatest storytellers. So what's the deal? There's a significant difference between an 8.5 and a 9.5 and the review discrepancies have generated plenty of discussion. But wait…one last theory exists: many have proposed the idea that Killzone is essentially the whipping boy for certain critics this generation. In other words, it's the idea that no KZ could ever score over a 9…because it's called "Killzone."
In direct comparison to games like Call of Duty: Black Ops and Halo: Reach , where does Killzone 3 stand? Where does Guerrilla's latest stand in relation to the top-tier titles of the generation so far? Aren't those the question we're supposed to answer in our review? Maybe to some reviewers, it's more important to talk about the hype and how KZ3 compares to KZ2. For us, we'll stick to the present and the facts, and then see how it stacks up. If that's all right with you guys.
Related Game(s): Killzone 3
FYI, this article exists partly to keep everyone here from talking about the KZ3 review scores in other topics. 😉
Sorry Ben. I posted something about this in another topic. Feel free to delete it.
just watched the youtube video and it looks amazing. I can not wait to play this game
play the beta… its on the store
@kellet007
Thanks.This guy's review r very frank.
I just started playing the beta today and I am really liking it but am in to the campaign more. The youtube video showed some new characters that have me very interested in the story
ah, good, cause late yesterday I read some of the reviews….that the game didn't improve much from KZ2, and I was ready to bring it up here.
I don't think the beta is the best representation for the scores because I hear the multiplayer is still getting the praise it deserves. Personally I think it failed to improve on the one thing it had left, story and creating interesting characters.
Last edited by Teddie9 on 2/4/2011 1:51:12 PM
I wont say what any particular review site said but a trend that I have noticed is that games like Halo:Reach and Gears of War both have pretty bad stories but for those games you see the review sites brush it off, saying the story isn't that tight but your not playing a shooter for the story its for the game play and set pieces etc. Then KZ3 comes along and….apparently the opposite holds true. Marcus Fenix has the depth of my coffee mug, why can he get away with it but Sev can't? Most of Halos characters aren't that fleshed out either, but I guess that doesn't matter either right?
I like this sites reviews because I feel like its a friend telling me about the game, not some cocky pro gamer journalist who is teh own. I'm mainly tired of inconsistent journalism and the bias I see from the big review sites.
I gained this sites trust when they gave White Knight Chronicles the score it deserved. =)
Last edited by xenris on 2/5/2011 9:09:01 AM
I don't think the weight is the issue for the low scores. Everyone I read talk about how they got rid of "floaty" controls and it made it better.
The weight of microsoft's **** in their mouth is an issue though XD
The 3.5/5 from Joystiq was precisely because Andrew thought the game lost its Killzone-ness (plus a few other things).
Wait, doesn't this game come out on the 22nd? Why are review scores already posting? Didn't they have a review embargo?
BTW, never been too impressed with the Killzone series. Great games, just not my cup of tea, so I can understand the mixed results.
Professional reviews shouldn't ever get low scores because they aren't someone's cup of tea. That's how you know which sites are crap.
Agreed.
BTW, love the avatar, WEWM.
The embargo was lifted on February 3. Plus I ao think the early reviewers got a "review" copy, which isn't the final copy of the game. I wonder how much more polishing and refining continues to occur between the review code, "gold" code and any updates slated for the first day.
Thanks Hipster, my little homage to Bioshock. My own personal propaganda poster 🙂
Last edited by WorldEndsWithMe on 2/4/2011 2:28:24 PM
Review copies are often based off the gold master build; they just aren't retail discs.
Even 3 weeks before release, these review builds could very well be final code. It depends when the game went gold, but that usually happens almost a month before the release date.
Perhaps I'm being cynical but in general, most of the big establishment takes marks off ps3 exclusives it seems to me. Doesn't matter how great the game is, the exclusivity of it changes the reception it gets.
I think I've read at least one review that claimed a big problem with the game was that it wasn't multiplat.
At least their honest with their bias.
Correction: I didn't mean that about KZ3, it was a different PS3 exclusive.
Spot on Smokey, spot on. You really hit the nail on the head there. It's getting increasingly tiresome to see the same sites marking PS3 exclusive games down. It's either a slightly biased agenda, or they are literally punishing games for being exclusive, although they apparently have no problem lavishing praise on exclusives for another HD gaming platform…
I only go here and ign and i don't find the ign review scores to be biased toward the 360, but i usually depend on this site for the more honest score.
Y is there a need to talk about those reviews when the public haven't even experienced the game yet.
Please people watch the Killzone 3 Review by a gamer who has already played the game at this Youtube Channel
Watch this review and get back to me.
youtube/ZeitgeistReview
To be fair the multiplayer beta is open for anyone that wants to try that. It wouldn't help on the story issue but whatever.
I saw the review and it was a very good review, been playin the beta and its awesome. jUst one thing trhough I have move and been using it in botzone (probably gtet my butt handed in Multiplayer with move) and move is way awesome, takes some time to get used to but its a great alternative.
Yeah in the review he said,the move function in Killzone 3 needs a little more work.
true, but its a lot of fun, you just gotta go to options and re-work it for you.
Maybe people are just First Person Shootered out?
As a KZ fanboy (I'll admit it) I would love to go off on the various forums/comments, but I am restraining myself because I have yet to play the game. It seems slightly unfair for me to attack people without actually knowing anything about the game. However I will be more than happy to when the game comes out and I bask in it's awesomeness.
Yeah right y do we care abut the review's if we still haven't played the game.So many people make this mistake and don't play the game.
Reviews are supposed to be indicative of the quality and thus inform the public as to where to put their cash.
@world
But the world is made up of mostly complaining idiots who bash on these masterpieces.
I would not have it so.
Well the way I look at it, the reasons we care are split 50/50.
50% is that it is what people look at to decide wither people will buy it. The other 50% is that it helps us rationalize our idea, that being KZ3 is pure awesomeness.
I love the beta i liek how they fixed the gun movment as it is like cod now. I find it a mixture of killzone universe with cod gameplay mixed in a bit. However this will be a purchase for me!!!!!! Framereate is poor however.
Titles that are top of their game, but are purely of a particular genre typically do garner a spectrum of such scores. Fans of the genre will recognize the excellence found therein, while others often will pick at things that are simply part & parcel of the genre: "It's too linear, "it's a pretty shooting gallery", etc… Moreover, reviewers predisposed to having such impressions are often swayed by them regarding other things. A fan will say the story and voice-acting is better, while a naysayer won't even take notice, or more even say the opposite. A person who enjoyed the mp of the prequel will appreciate and praise the improvements in the sequel's mp, where as someone who doesn't care for mp might not even try or consider the offering when assigning the game a score.
So with games like these, it's more telling to read the reviews individually, than to rely simply on the "general consensus".
However I must say the reviews are very fair. I must address the main issues of:
– Bad framerate
– Need more weapons to balance both fractions
– menu can use retouching
– more customizable
there is many more i can list but those are the ones i can think off the top of my head now. But really it is not a bad game and everyone should give this a try!
If the framerate comes out bad on the final product I blame 3D.
I haunt read one review about bad frame rate. All I've ears is praise that I never drops except in one circumstance. And most just let that go. But well see when it drops!
+1. Any framerate issues seem to be isolated to local two player co-op. Kind of understandable. And for the reviewers who did see the game in 3-D gave it praise and mentioned no framerate hitches.
Last edited by Xombito on 2/4/2011 2:45:50 AM
I don;t have 3-d i wish i did. However no matter what the beta had a bad framerate. Until I get my copy we'll see. I just hope the final product doesn't have it.
I'm not sure if you were having problems with your system or if the private beta had a bad framerate if you had access to it but I played the public beta just now and didn't notice anything wrong with the framerate. I mean, its no 60 frames per sec. but it runs pretty smooth to me.
For me, KZ3 is a D1P regardless of reviews and scores. KZ2 was one of the best PS3 exclusives that I experienced, so although I may sound biased (adding to that, I'm a Killzone fan), there's nothing anyone can say that will cause me to decide against buying it.
Right…I could care less for any other release before the summer if KZ3 isn't in my possession.
How much less could you care? A little? A lot?
I'm normally not a fan of FPS titles but I downloaded the beta and had a great time playing it. Controls feel very balanced and responsive; the pacing is quick but not too fast and it looks very good. Definitely gonna be a week 1 purchase.
I could really care less what any of the sites say. I remember when KZ2 came out and a couple sites gave it a low score and thats where all the traffic went. They know exactly what theyre doing. F*ck em. I just spent three hours in a Helgast snowstorm on a one map beta that was better than Black Ops entire broken multiplayer.
A MEN