-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Killzone 3 Review Thread [Update: Reviews In OP]
- Thread starter Sn4ke_911
- Start date
PalaceBrother
Member
DancingJesus said:
You're not the reviewer, you're you.
Some people (crazy moon people) think The Royal Tenenbaums was not the greatest movie ever made. If I had relied on a trusted reviewer's opinion then I may never have seen it.
My point is just that you shouldn't let a "trusted source"'s opinion disappoint you. Opinions are inherently unique to their owners, and everybody's got one. Play the game and form your own thoughts on the game. Don't get hung up on what you were hoping someone else might think of the game.
DancingJesus
Banned
PalaceBrother said:
That defeats the entire purpose of a review. It acts as a guide to aid you in purchasing decisions. After playing numerous games that have received high marks from a particular website and agreeing with them, they begin to build a a good rapport with the reader. Is it the end all be all? Of course not, just a general guideline.
If it was IGN or Gamespot, I could give two shits less. But say, GiantBomb or Joystiq, they have a bit more of an ounce of credibility in my book.
That being said, I just watched the GT review and the graphics are jaw-dropping. Plus, I'm a sucker for jetpacks!
palpabl_purpura
Member
The above is from the Sony PS blog. KZ3 will in fact NOT feature online co-op. How could Guerilla be stupid enough to fuck this up AGAIN. I felt so angry at being lied to by Sony and GG that I canceled my pre-order.
Always-honest
Banned
yup, laughing in your face here.H_Prestige said:
PalaceBrother
Member
DancingJesus said:
I understand where you're coming from, and I don't want to belabor this point...I think we just have different views on when it is appropriate to use the word "disappointment".
palpabl_purpura
Member
Zophar said:
You are the one who cant read. It says "online, split-screen co-op"
palpabl_purpura
Member
Synless said:
That doesn't make sense. How can "online" be a feature? Online what?
ConradCervantes
Banned
IGN review said:
What in the fuck, Guerrilla? Again?
RedRedSuit
Member
ConradCervantes said:
Meh. It wasn't even a big deal in KZ2.
It's not worth playing for the set pieces and action alone?subversus said:
Personally, despite the criticisms of the overall story, many of the reviews have noted that the voice acting and characters on the Helghast side are quite good. It seems as though many of the scenes are actually quite good, but the overall tale itself isn't anything special.
Oh, come on, it's hardly a big deal. A small hiccup here and there for an otherwise seamless experience? Even the most technically impressive PC games suffer from worse. Metro 2033, for instance, has loading screens pop up regularly that, while short, still take longer than the pauses in Killzone 2.
fistwell_old
Member
My expectations have nothing to do with how games are being developed. Guerilla did not come over to consult me on matters of narrative or ask me what i was expecting of kz3. I was talking about the reality of modern fps games. There is no reason a shooter has to have a flimsy story, they just happen to have flimsy stories somehow, complete with silent protagonists and/or mailed in "shocking" twists. Should i have high expectations it wouldn't change a thing. And said enthusiast journo is certainly entitled to have high expectations, but that's only a reflection of his lack of knowledge of the subject matter.NullPointer said:
BruceLeeRoy
Banned
Have you already posted impressions or a review Shurs? Your taste is relatively similiar
to my own
to my own
plagiarize
Banned
there is no 'entire purpose' of a review. some people write reviews as guide to potential purchasers and some people write them as individual critical analysis.DancingJesus said:
either way, if you know what you're doing you'll learn where the opinions are coming from and form a matrix in your head of where your tastes and opinions of individual parts of the review differ from the writer. and note i said 'the writer' and not the site.
what i would consider a 'well written' review is one where i can tell if i'm going to like the game or not, no matter what the opinion of the writer was. i've known from plenty of good reviews that the game wasn't for me, and i've known from a handful of bad reviews that a game was indeed for me.
the notion of a score is stupid. marking a game down a set number of points for a given flaw (say, bad story) is essentially meaningless. how you or i or anyone else would weight that bad score is entirely a matter of opinion.
i don't care if a shooter has a good story or not. i love it when one does, but i could still give 10/10 to a game that had a crap story. i do appreciate a review saying that a game has given flaws and strengths because i know my own opinions on such matters well enough to know if that given flaw is going to detract from my experience.
but it doesn't matter if it detracted from the reviewer's experience or not. that's irrelevant to me.
i honestly find reviews more interesting to read after i've played a game, taking them onboard in the 'critical analysis' aspect. i almost never use them to help me to decide if i want to buy a game or not personally... but both types of reviews have value, and neither is objectively right or wrong.
EagleEyes said:
6 hours? What the....I expected ore tbh. I know 6 hours tends to be the defacto we'll rip you off for your money length these days with shooters such as COD etc, I hate it. I want at least 8-10 hours minimum. 10-12 I feel like I'm really getting my money's worth, though a little on the longer side.
NullPointer
Member
6 hours with 70 of those minutes being cinematics?
Sounds like you, as usual, are full of shit.Keikoku said:
GAMES TM
"From a single-player point of view at least, Killzone 3 is the biggest disappointment of the year so far. It does have a few exhilarating moments, and it can probably still just about claim to have the best graphics ever, but it fundamentally plays more like a formulaic Call Of Duty clone than a successor to the current generations most intense, visceral FPS."
Also, the lower review scores don't make sense. They're downrating the game for having a terrible story yet this standard is not applied to the Call Of Duty or Halo games.
I would have assumed it would be something like the bad MP or the lack of online co-op, not a weak story.
The lack of online co-op is unforgivable IMO. I will pick this game up later than now.
GameTrailers review looked really good but I still gotta spend a lot of time with the new "beta" to figure out if I want this. The best thing about KZ2 was how much objectives and winning the match were emphasized. Obviously what got released today feels a lot better than the Alpha and seems like a finished product but I'm just not interested in yet another multiplayer game like COD or Reach where people just run around and kill each other in objective modes. The new scoring seems to allow it and the fact that people on the losing team get a 1.25x bonus (you got none in KZ2) means even fewer people are going to give a shit about winning a match. :-\
Not really concerned what reviews are saying about the story since they never seem to care how bad the stories are in COD and Halo. The multiplayer and whether or not people are focusing on objectives is the dealbreaker to me.
Not really concerned what reviews are saying about the story since they never seem to care how bad the stories are in COD and Halo. The multiplayer and whether or not people are focusing on objectives is the dealbreaker to me.
REMEMBER CITADEL
Banned
-viper- said:
That's because Halo games don't have terrible stories.
Of course PC version. Like I said, the loading screens are short, but they pop up constantly and take longer than the short pauses in Killzone 2.subversus said:
I doubt it's worse than Call of Duty, but I suspect Halo does it better.
At least Killzone 3 appears to have great performances for some of the characters.
MikeE21286
Member
Is there (or is there gonna be) a Killzone 3 reviews thread?
If this is it can someone edit the OP with the reviews
If this is it can someone edit the OP with the reviews
~Devil Trigger~
In favor of setting Muslim women on fire
same.TEH-CJ said:
maybe later
REMEMBER CITADEL
Banned
-viper- said:
Granted, I haven't played Reach yet, so maybe that's an exception.
NullPointer
Member
The story elements in the Long Night of Solace level alone are ten times better than how you're describing the game as a whole. But hey, opinions and all that, so I won't harp on it.-viper- said:
REMEMBER CITADEL
Banned
-viper- said:
Granted, I haven't played Reach yet, so maybe that's an exception.
Mooreberg said:
No? Halo series' stories are by no means Pulitzer's material, but for space opera blockbusters they're pretty good.