Poll: Online Gaming Review Politics: Why does Killzone 3 have such bad reviews?

[pewpewz]

I've recently just finished the campaign for Killzone 3, and much to my surprise found it a lot better than what has been described on most game review websites. A lot of complaints over the gameplay actually seem quite exaggerated. Yes, there are problems (as with all games), but not as bad as some games I've seen with much higher ratings. It also seems that in a lot of these reviews the mention of the (stunning, mesmerising, gorgeous, divine etc.) graphics is merely an after-thought. I'm more than willing to accept that some people disliked the game - to each their own and all that - but it's quite ridiculous to see this game have such a negative reception when it clearly doesn't deserve them.

Upon reading a lot of these reviews, it seems that a lot of the critics have gone in to the game with "hate" already in their minds. To me (this may not be the case), it would seem that there's a lot of comparison between this game and its competitor "Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare" & "Black Ops", and I have a suspicious feeling that Activision is fuelling a lot of the negative reception. Don't get me wrong here, I'm definitely not saying Killzone 3 is the best game ever, and I'm not going to bash any other games... but I am just wondering if my suspicions are justified or it's just too early to tell. Gamespot was probably the website that shocked me the most, giving it 8.5 (the lowest "high" score possible) and making comments such as the story being "awful" etc.

Everything just seems a little biased...

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

Killzone is very underrated by the press when compared to its direct competitors.

However, I think Black Ops has a similar metascore. And I wouldn't really look for conspiracy in these scores.

Every game gets bashed for the story, even if it doesn't matter in the slightest.

I've played the demo, I'm in love with the game, I don't care for the reviews.

That's it.

 

[Netrigan]

I've only played the demo but the most obvious problem I see is that it doesn't really stand out in any way. The jetpack was cool but Halo: Reach just did it. The cover system is decent but I've already seena similar system in Call Of Juarez. Everything else (game mechanics, helicopter shoot-outs, story) was bog standard FPS stuff.

 

[vato_loco]

Already bought the game, fuck critics. Guerrilla knows what it does. They've proven they can do awesome games twice already, so I really doubt Killzone 3 won't be an awesome game.

Anyways, just the fact that GameTrailers removed their Microsoft© Dildo out of their asses and gave Killzone 3 a historic 9.4, is reason enough for me to get the game.

 

[pewpewz]

I've only played the demo but the most obvious problem I see is that it doesn't really stand out in any way. The jetpack was cool but Halo: Reach just did it. The cover system is decent but I've already seena similar system in Call Of Juarez. Everything else (game mechanics, helicopter shoot-outs, story) was bog standard FPS stuff.

Even still, everyone borrows from everyone. I think the graphics alone were cause enough to make this game stand out. The game also isn't single-player driven, and the meat is in the multiplayer. However the reviewers seem dead-set on only critically looking at the campaign and (as previously said) hating before they even started playing. I'm not really trying to win anyone over, but I do think that websites are being a bit "focused" with their reviews.

 

[Outright Villainy]

Well, if it's like Killzone 2, I can see why it'd have low scores.

That game was pretty bad.

 

[Ekonk]

Well, if it's like Killzone 2, I can see why it'd have low scores.

That game was pretty bad.

That game would have been absolutely great if the controls didn't make my ass pucker up with inconsolable grief.

 

[Netrigan]

I've only played the demo but the most obvious problem I see is that it doesn't really stand out in any way. The jetpack was cool but Halo: Reach just did it. The cover system is decent but I've already seena similar system in Call Of Juarez. Everything else (game mechanics, helicopter shoot-outs, story) was bog standard FPS stuff.

Even still, everyone borrows from everyone. I think the graphics alone were cause enough to make this game stand out. The game also isn't single-player driven, and the meat is in the multiplayer. However the reviewers seem dead-set on only critically looking at the campaign and (as previously said) hating before they even started playing. I'm not really trying to win anyone over, but I do think that websites are being a bit "focused" with their reviews.

Reviewers are often critical of games that don't forge any sort of unique identity. Most of the reviews I saw tended to be somewhat favorable, but it sounds like it's falling victim to Generic Shooter Syndrome. It's not different enough to really stand out and likely won't be a break-out games. Major hits tend to forge their own identity... then endlessly repeat the formula.

 

[Atmos Duality]

On its own merits, based on my time at my friend's:

Killzone 3 competently designed, looks great (and grey, etc), and the gameplay allows for a limited variety of play online. The single player campaign however, is short, bland, and totally devoid of character.

Compared to its competition: It's closer to a Modern Warfare clone. Its tone, its visuals, its style...all remind me of other recent shooters entirely too much.

This is why I imagine that it's getting low scores; it's a shooter that doesn't really have an identity of its own. It would probably thrive in a market where Black Ops, Halo, etc didn't exist, but that's not what we have.

When you have alternatives that do the same thing, and have been out for far far longer, it's hard to justify putting down 60 bucks unless you have some sense of brand-loyalty already (and I do know a couple Killzone fans).

 

[Defense]

Well, I didn't play it but Killzone 3 seemed more like an answer to previous problems than anything. The large variety with the short campaign also made it seem thinly spread, and the truly great parts of the game (the stealth in the jungle, which was never done again in the campaign) didn't last long enough. The story also seems poorly executed, but this is Killzone, so that usually happens.

This is why numbered reviews suck.

Well, if it's like Killzone 2, I can see why it'd have low scores.

That game was pretty bad.

They fixed almost all of the problems, control wise.

 

[SenorFuzzeh]

Its Cuz game reviewers are Biast.

Take Call of duty: Black Ops for example, they talk about how the stories really not that great and it gets repeatative... "But its still call of duty so we'll give it an 9.5!!!"

Killzone Is a great game, They've actually touched up on and improved the gameplay from the second one, While black ops practically changed nothing from MW2. Killzone3 has great gameplay mechanics and some of the best physicis in bodies Ive ever seen. I do how ever wish they'd show some helghast side to the story. But overall its still great,

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.267222-What-I-want-too-see-in-Killzone

 

[Soviet Heavy]

I like it. It is building off of Killzone 2's solid foundation, and improving the little niggly things like the sluggish controls.

The problem here comes from trilogy titles. When the second game in the series reaches new heights, ala Killzone 2 or Mass Effect 2, they are so blown away by the improvements that anything built on top of that just seems like a refinement instead of a revolution.

Take a look at the scores for some other games. Halo 2 was a revolution, Halo 3 a refinement. Hence Halo 2 had higher scores at the initial release. Same thing for Black Ops from MW2. Black Ops, apart from the shitty SP, is a much more refined shooter than MW2.

We grow complacent with the high quality set in the second act that the third is always a letdown. Blame it on our self fulfilling psyches.

 

[Nomanslander]

Because Killzone, when it comes to story, has a lot of potential. I find the Helghast to be one of the more interesting bad guys in games ever. Even though they're just space Nazis, they're done perfectly as such.

Only problem is they keep giving the story off to 3rd rate hacks to come up with a decent plot, and it's always a bunch of formulaic (not even good formulaic) military jargon.

 

[SenorFuzzeh]

Because Killzone, when it comes to story, has a lot of potential. I find the Helghast to be one of the more interesting bad guys in games ever. Even though they're just space Nazis, they're done perfectly as such.

Only problem is they keep giving the story off to 3rd rate hacks to come up with a decent plot, and it's always a bunch of formulaic (not even good formulaic) military jargon.

If they had built off the Helghast story alot more it woulda have been a very impressive story, but they just kind of set them as "bad guys, kill them"

 

[starkiller212]

Well, if it's like Killzone 2, I can see why it'd have low scores.

That game was pretty bad.

That game would have been absolutely great if the controls didn't make my ass pucker up with inconsolable grief.

I disagree. I found the gameplay to be totally bland and repetitive, the story was absolutely god-awful, and the graphics weren't really that impressive. What I've seen of KZ3 doesn't indicate that much has changed, so I doubt I'd like it any more.
OP, that's just my opinion, but maybe those reviewers felt similarly. People thinking differently from you does not require a conspiracy to explain.

 

[Nomanslander]

Because Killzone, when it comes to story, has a lot of potential. I find the Helghast to be one of the more interesting bad guys in games ever. Even though they're just space Nazis, they're done perfectly as such.

Only problem is they keep giving the story off to 3rd rate hacks to come up with a decent plot, and it's always a bunch of formulaic (not even good formulaic) military jargon.

If they had built off the Helghast story alot more it woulda have been a very impressive story, but they just kind of set them as "bad guys, kill them"

Pretty much. Give me a story where I'm the Helghast trying to conquer the galaxy and create an empire of evil....lol

I guarantee if the developers went that route the games popularity would increase 10 fold.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Another thing I forgot to mention is that Sony has to take a lot of the blame. They were the ones who originally toted Killzone as "The Halo Killer", an unfortunate past that has dogged the franchise since its inception. Sony was responsible for pushing Killzone out the door buggy and unoptimized, and the immense hype has let the series down every time.

Guerrilla Games has gone in a very distinct direction with Killzone. They have their own vision on what the game should be, and they don't give a shit what other people think. Given time, and a lot less hype, Killzone could have quietly gone on to become a much better shooter.

Come Killzone 2, you have the 2005 fake trailer, then Sony again pushing a massive hype train, and you get the game built up to be something it isn't once again.

If Sony backed down, and just let Guerrilla make their own game and not force it into being a killer app, it wouldn't receive the flak it does. Sony promised a golden egg, while Guerrilla was content with making their own niche shooter.

 

[jpoon]

I found the singleplayer game to be just a hair better than I had expected, I expected total shit and got a steamy pile of poo. The mp will help but I really wish they had made the singleplayer a lot longer. ALSO, WHY THE FUCKIN HELL DID THEY NOT MAKE COOP ONLINE?!

 

[Fenring]

On its own merits, based on my time at my friend's:

Killzone 3 competently designed, looks great (and grey, etc), and the gameplay allows for a limited variety of play online. The single player campaign however, is short, bland, and totally devoid of character.

Compared to its competition: It's closer to a Modern Warfare clone. Its tone, its visuals, its style...all remind me of other recent shooters entirely too much.

This is why I imagine that it's getting low scores; it's a shooter that doesn't really have an identity of its own. It would probably thrive in a market where Black Ops, Halo, etc didn't exist, but that's not what we have.

When you have alternatives that do the same thing, and have been out for far far longer, it's hard to justify putting down 60 bucks unless you have some sense of brand-loyalty already (and I do know a couple Killzone fans).

I foresee you getting a lot of crap for saying that, but I think you're completely right. Killzone is just kinda... bland. I haven't played Bulletstorm, but just looking at some of the media, it looks different from anything I've seen for a while, and has a completely different tone then most games (besides Serious Sam, Duke Nukem, and other older comedy games). Bulletstorm may not be to original at its core, but it goes in a new-ish direction. Killzone seems to start in bland, then continue down a bland path. At least the path looks nice.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

I'm sure Killzone 3 is a perfectly competent game (If not a very good game for it's genre)...

However, I have a sneaking suspicion that people are prejudiced against it from the start due to the whole thing about the "Good Guys's" all depicted as clean, all american heroes, while the bad guys are, umm, how can I put this... Oh yeah. ALL FUCKING BRITISH! Made particularly insulting by all then Nazi imagery, I mean I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure we weren't on their side in WW2.

I've only ever played the first in the series and I actually thought the gameplay was really good, but I didn't finish it because the way the story is handled just pissed me off too much.