Killzone 3

PS3 review by Richard Murphy on 21st March 2011

Designers of futuristic first-person shooters are slowly running out of inspiration. It’s a sad state of affairs, and the creators of Killzone 3 know it all too clearly. In an attempt to make their new title stand out of the crowd, Guerrilla Games have taken what they know will sell and affixed a varying selection of bells and whistles to it. What we’re left with is a hollow shell of a boring military shooter, supplemented with jetpacks and other annoyances. Guerrilla should have focussed more on its core mechanics and plot as opposed to pebble-dashing its title with mediocre vehicle sections that have little to no rhyme, reason or pleasure attached to them.

screenshot

The plot centres around the misadventures of our two bumbling, vacuous protagonists – Sev and Rico. Whilst being more than proficient with curse words and inflammatory remarks towards their commanding officer, our duo fail to engage with the audience in any appealing way whatsoever. On many occasions I found myself trying to nudge the chubby machine-gunner off a building, so as not to have to listen to his ‘wisecracks’ anymore. Sadly, the portly bugger never quite goes over, and the torrent of nonsensical military inanity continues unabated. The narrative follows the remaining units of the ISA invasion force desperately trying to get back home after their failed insurrection of the Helgan capital. The overall tale in the Killzone franchise is not a bad one, but its direction and implementation is as atrocious as the most asinine of budget movie. As a race of people, the Helghast could be viewed as the victims of the franchise. Ostracised from society and forced to scratch a living on a barely habitable planet, it’s no wonder they’re angry at humanity. Unfortunately the themes which should present themselves with such a fanciful yarn are never explored. The Helghast are space Nazis, nothing more, nothing less.

Much of the story is focussed on the power struggle, which has presented itself due to the assassination of the Helgan leader - Scolar Visari. These sections of the plot are by far the most interesting, as they reveal snippets of the Helgan culture beyond the shaved heads and gas masks. Sadly we endure more time with the much less interesting ISA task force, who spend so much time squabbling and fannying around that any cutscene which features them becomes repetitious and aggravating. I felt I was cheering for the wrong side on several occasions. We follow our petulant heros as they struggle to find some semblance of aptitude and escape their hopeless situation. This leads to more varied environments that include a dense, dank jungle and a glacial weapons facility. Whilst the inclusion of newer environments does make for a pleasant change, the locales seem slightly forced. The jungle sees you silently-stalking Helgan troopers with stealth and precision, two intrinsic skills which are thrown out the window as soon as you’ve got to grips with them. This contextual approach to level design jars horribly with the rest of the game, and feels like an extended tutorial as opposed to something fresh and fluid.

screenshot

The core shooting mechanic in Killzone 3 is altered slightly from its predecessor. One of the more unique features of the Killzone titles is the heft and weight of its actions. Running over open ground, slamming into cover and aiming down the sights took effort and patience as your movements were slow and forceful. It was an interesting approach and gave the game a chunky, deliberate personality. With the sequel, this has been reeled in slightly and your movement feels all the more fluid and floaty. This means that the core mechanic of the game is much more instantaneously recognisable to FPS veterans. Whether or not you prefer this alteration is down to your preference, but ultimately, it feels more of an attempt to replicate the mainstays of the genre. Luckily for the developers mowing down wave upon wave of Helghast is still hugely entertaining, due mainly to the wonderful impact physics. Anything which makes this sadistic pleasure easier is a grand achievement in my book.

One of the most important aspects of Killzone 3’s universe is that the majority of its design seem realistic, or at the very least, feasible. This gives the environments a familiar yet exotic sheen to them which adds impact to the on-screen action. The design of Killzone 3, whilst not hugely original it is at least functional. One aspect of the design, however, that is absolutely astounding is the sound production. The breadth and scale of the score adds a sense of depth to the title, which seems lost on both the scriptwriter and the director. The music moves from bombastic-military pomp and circumstance to lonely, heartfelt string solos in a breathless heartbeat, underlining the frailty of our protagonist’s situation. This music carries the tone of the game much better than the hammy, predictable melodrama which unfolds on-screen.

screenshot

The wonderful score is matched by some of the best sound design I’ve heard in some time. The cracks, bangs and chimes of your arsenal sound suitably meaty, but it is the environmental effects that set the game apart. From the cacophonous-static humming of an arc-cannon charging to the buzzing roar of white noise propelled by a giant walking battle tank, Killzone 3’s soundscape is not only brutally immersive, but oddly believable. It’s this level of detail and polish that we’ve come to expect from the franchise, and sadly the quality of the audio only highlights the issues with the writing and direction.

The script only occasionally peeps over the parapet of functional tango-talk and clichéd military bravado, and when it does, it’s not really worth listening to. This is a real shame, as the Killzone Universe is certainly an interesting one. Never - not once, do our brave protagonists question their involvement in the ongoing conflict. The ISA are defending an institution who caused the anger and resentment inside the Helgans. It’s a fascinating set-up and its potential has never been explored.

screenshot

Complementing the terrible story and script is some of the worst direction I’ve seen in a game of this magnitude. Cut scenes are dropped in seemingly at random and offer very little in the way of tension, drama or narrative progression, but instead break any sense of involvement you may have had with the game. I was shocked to laughter at certain points, as life-changing events were casually brushed off by an overly blasé lead character. It has an amateurishly unfinished feel to it, and it’s ugly viewing. Again, it’s a real shame, as the potential that this title has for an involving and heartfelt plot is clear to see, but unfortunately we are stuck watching boring characters doing tired things over and over again.

Killzone 3 has decided to shun some of its more unique elements in favour of a more Call of Duty-like approach. This is a massive, massive shame, as the hefty movement mechanic gave impact and intensity to firefights. Thankfully, some of this individualism has been retained and, while the visuals seemed to have slipped since the second title, they are still well detailed and occasionally spectacular. It strikes me that Killzone 3 is an unfinished game. Certain aspects of its production seem slightly out of place and peculiar. I only spotted a handful of new weapons in the single player, but then another selection of firearms available in the multiplayer. The campaign is short when compared to other shooters, and its plot seems to aimlessly weave its way around the new environments as opposed to the other way round. The enemy AI hasn’t developed any further and the inclusion of novelty additions, such as jetpacks, only compounds their stupidity.

screenshot

How has this happened? As a franchise, Killzone showed real promise due to the unique set up of its story. With this instalment, it appears the developers have attempted to mould the series into a cheap, generic clone of countless other shooters. Couple that with the attempts to appease the consumer complaints present in the previous titles, and somewhere along the way Guerrilla have forgotten to make a good shooting game. The core function of a shooter is to have varied and dynamic combat within the framework of the AI. If Killzone 3 had sorted this aspect of the game out I wouldn’t have besmirched the vehicle sections or other occurrences of novelty fan-appeasement.

Sadly, Killzone 3 misses the mark on too many occasions to be considered a good game. It’s at best a functional title that looks quite pretty. Lamentably, when compared to the masters of the genre, ‘functional’ just doesn’t cut it. Killzone 3 has done a great job of blending back in with the crowd. It’s precise, practical, ticks boxes and has been too quick to shed its defining credentials; credentials that made the earlier games a must buy for any enthusiast. Killzone 3 feels generic, rushed and greatly unloved by its creators. A huge, huge disappointment.

Five out of ten

Spread the word

Support Thunderbolt

About the author

Richard Murphy is a Staff Writer at Thunderbolt, having joined in January 2011. Richard runs his own gaming blog which can be found at richardmurphy.co.uk Get in touch on Twitter @RichJimMurph.

Comments

Philip Morton
21st March 2011

Obviously this article was paid for by Microsoft and was written purely to drive down the average score on review aggregator sites. ;-)
Calvin Kemph
22nd March 2011

Don’t listen to Phil - he’s clearly being paid off by Sony to write disparaging comments about Microsoft in any anti-Sony product reviews!
Richard
22nd March 2011

You can’t trust a word Calvin says! He’s been paid off by Nintendo to incite fanboy related violence between Sony and Microsoft factions.
Mugen
22nd March 2011

Nah phil he probably wont be, he just cant review and doesnt know what a good FPS is, considering he says homefront is better than killzone 3. and this site even gives BO a 9…. pathetic lmao.
mikemill
22nd March 2011

So on metacritic Killzone 3 has received 41 reviews of 90+, 28 reviews of 80+, and 10 reviews in the 70’s.

Then this clown comes along and drops a 50. What… are you just smarter then the rest of the video game publications out there?? You see something no else does? What a freaking joke. Your review is a joke and a sham.
mikemill
22nd March 2011

This website gave ODST a 9/10 and Halo Reach a 10/10…. but Killzone 3 is 5.

SHOCKER.

What a pathetic video game website. Go back to your Xbox Live and please stop reviewing PS3 games.
bobletto
22nd March 2011

I’m a Killzone fanboy, and I agree largely with this review. While I wouldn’t score it as low as five (the awesome multiplayer and the solid core mechanics of the single player are the game’s saving graces), I concur that this game could have easily been twice the game it is if the developers didn’t hire an acne-ridden adolescent with ADHD to be in charge of the story and presentation.
kimmy
22nd March 2011

Purely pathetic. Just downright low. Im guessing since your review is somewhat late against the multitude of others, you guys want to break the norm and draw the most attention by somehow creating the lowest score this game has gotten without any legitmate explanation as to why other than a glorified amalgamation of cliche killzone attacks.

Well if you would have pulled this crappy stunt earlier, you would have gotten tons more hits. But you still got mine. I couldn’t resist commenting on such an obvious shill.
Richard
22nd March 2011

Hi Mike. Thanks for reading. Firstly, I think it might be worth saying that I don’t have an Xbox 360, but have owned all the PlayStation consoles since their inception way back when. I also had a Sega Saturn and an Amiga 500 somewhere along the line, but lets not get into that.

I don’t entirely understand why my giving Killzone 3 a 5 would equate to me being smarter than other videogame publications. I gave you my opinion, they give you theirs. One thing we do here is give you honest, independent opinions and I honestly didn’t think Killzone 3 is worth anything more than a 5. It’s lack of creativity and failure to engage with me is reflected in the score. The writers at Thunderbolt do not have a collective voice, but are individuals. It’s not a technique commonly used in videogame journalism, but it’s just how we roll!

I think this will eventually boil down to a number. Had I given this game a 6 then I’m sure we wouldn’t be having this conversation. I feel a 5 is a solid, standard mark. I’m sure some would say otherwise, but I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree.

You did, however, correctly describe me as a clown. My name is Jumbo the Tumbler and I can do weddings, kids parties, corporate events and bar mitzvahs.
Anthony
22nd March 2011

I don’t remember laughing so much at a comment thread. Thanks guys.
kimmy
22nd March 2011

Lol. First thing the guy does, lets the people know what system he has as if it gives people any reassurance that his “opinion” which is in the wholly minority in regards to official reviews holds any true weight whatsoever.

Had you been able to truly back up your score with a legitimate explanation it possibly would have been more believable, but in all honesty it wasn’t. Seemed like you guys were late out the gate with the score so you had to piece together something to get seen. Be real.

On this site all the Halo’s and Calls of duty’s get crowned with “perfections” and “near perfections”, but to say that such a game at best is simply a “functional title that looks pretty” is a total copout. (But your defense to that would be that you weren’t the one to review them eh? lol. Im sure they would be A LOT lower.)

Its no different from the ignorant and arrogant food critics seeking “tough-palate” attention who go to good restaurants with hard working staff and purposely give them less than stellar scores just so their name hits front page. There’s a name for it in journalism which I can’t seem to remember. “calling the row” or something like that.

So unfortunately, the way to guys seem to “roll” is quite in fact a technique used in not just videogame journalism, but usually where anything is reviewed. Critics of all kinds are guilty of it. And no its not simply “having an opinion that stands out from the herd.”

Let me cap it off by saying this is from my In “independent opinion”

Hell, the majority of the comments here are from your guys editorial staff making jest. Quite professional indeed.
Josh
22nd March 2011

I have yet to play Killzone 3, but I thought Killzone 2 was very, very average. Sometimes games that are pretty and accessible can still be cliche and just not very fun to play.
Legend
22nd March 2011

What about Multiplayer? 3D? Move support? Sony Sharpshooter Gun? Are you sure you’ve played this game????????????????????????????????????
JQQQ
22nd March 2011

Funny how you never mention the best part of the killzone franchise like MULTIPLAYER!!! Jeez, not even the move or how 3d looks? Do you really only own a ps3? And you review games but dont talk about move in killzone 3? Do you even own a move controller? Ok enough questions. Seriously though when mentioning black ops and halo and other stale shooters all you guys do is praise the multiplayer. Barely even mentioning the campaign modes, or saying the story was ok but this game gets a 9/10 cuz of its awesome MP. Screw you guys the campaign in KZ3 was lacking a little ill agree but a 5/10? And the MP is so good. I cant get enough of operations, a game mode thats not in any FPS out there and new to the table and you dont even mention that? This is the last time ill ever visit your site for an opinion on video games.
MEDzZ3RO
22nd March 2011

Your review is pure and utter boll***s. 5 out of 10 from the same site which game Halo Reach a 10?.
Killzone 3 is up their with the best shooters of this generation with the only downsides being no online Co op. Story is better then its predecessors and so is the online. This review is so biased it’s untrue. On what basis can anyone justify a 5 for this game when if you stand it up next to Call Of Duty, Battlefield and Halo it certainly holds its own.
MEDzZ3RO
22nd March 2011

Nobody buys CoD, Battlefield, Halo or Killzone for the campaign; it’s all about the multiplayer YOU FAILED TO MENTION properly. Black Ops campaign was no better or worse then Killzone 3s yet you gave it an 8? or is that something to do with it being on Xbox and PC?
You’re the only reviewer to score it as low as 5; is that not a hint to how wrong you are??!!
Worst part is this is actually included in the Metacritic and Gamerankings scores as a real review; WHAT A JOKE.
Play the game for yourself people, ignore this reviwer, make your own minds up. Indoctrinating people isn’t very nice….
james
22nd March 2011

If the ‘major’ review sites are more ‘credible’ than Thunderbolt, then why did the aforementioned ‘credible’ sites rate Civilization V so highly, when the game is quite clearly not functioning as intended and therefore broken?

Halo Reach is a 10/10 title any day of the week.

Oh, and I buy games for their single player campaigns - Battlefield, COD and Halo.
Philip Morton
22nd March 2011

People complain about 7 being the average score given to games, then cry foul when their favourite game doesn’t get a high score. Priceless.
anon
22nd March 2011

Nice, I agree with the review. I don’t play multiplayer, so I can’t comment on that, but the single player was a complete bore.

The graphics were way worse than I was expecting - although Homefront quickly lowered the bar - but it was the story / writing which made the game god-awful.
Stew
22nd March 2011

Seriously, does the concept of existing opinions that differ from your’s really blow you people’s minds away? I mean if it’s one of your homies sure, that’s forgivable, but when someone goes out of his way to write up and post his on the internet, ZOMG witch burnings!!

But what really has me shaking my head are comments like this:

“Had you been able to truly back up your score with a legitimate explanation it possibly would have been more believable”

I feel this is where TB’s new disclaimer should be utilized:

“Thunderbolt is not responsible, nor holds any liability, for its readers’ misunderstanding of the use of certain vocabulary in its articles. Thunderbolt also fully acknowledges, and sympathizes, the inability of certain individuals in knowing how to read, or knowing how to move on with their lives when encountering disagreeable variables.”
Diago
22nd March 2011

A five is extremely harsh.

Me and my clan play this game every single evening.
BF2/AA/CSC/KZ2/MW2/BBC2/BO went before
Killzone 3 got released and nobody can grade this give game a five and have a serious debate comparing it to otehr games.

Kilzone 3 didn’t bring what i expected it to, ut its far! from a flawed game, its Multilayer is advanced, and mediocre video game players aren’t able to do much in this game, hence the weird reviews across the web.

8.5
What an idiot
22nd March 2011

You’re Dump ass and you suck! You only writing shit cuz you are just another noob in videogame industry.You better find yourself a different work because no one needs ppl like you reviewing games! Even for this you needs some skills and you don’t have it asshole.Peoples please stop reading these shitty site there are many way better.Sorry for spelling & gramma but my native language is Polish.
Stew
22nd March 2011

Your native language is in your chosen comment handle. ;)
Clown-lover
22nd March 2011

So on metacritic Killzone 3 has received 41 reviews of 90+, 28 reviews of 80+, and 10 reviews in the 70’s.

Then this clown comes along and drops a 50. What… are you just smarter then the rest of the video game publications out there?? You see something no else does? What a freaking joke. Your review is a joke and a sham.

.this.
SteveM
23rd March 2011

This review is biased to the core. The author is clearly an Xbox fanboy or anti-Sony who probably have not even played Killzone amongst many other games. I wonder how much is Microsoft paying you to put down “the best FPS game that’s ever made”. Killzone 3 is an epic game with excellent single and multiplayer gameplay. It is a technical show piece of what a truly epic game should be. It is the best first person shooter or one of the best out there at present and you’ll be an idiot if do not think otherwise. I’ve been playing non-stop since it was released.

It is no wonder no one knows about this site and with such bias reviews like these who would. You are a worst case of failure the industry has ever known.
Sean
23rd March 2011

Having only played the sp demo and mp beta I initially found the 5 pretty startling myself, but when I really thought about how much I enjoyed KZ2, or more appropriately, didn’t enjoy KZ2, that score doesn’t seem too far fetched.

With that said I enjoyed the demos for KZ3 and found them more fun than all the time I spent with 2. Although the shift to a lighter feel for movement and aiming shed some of Killzone’s distinct personality I found it made the game more exciting and fun. It’s an interesting trade-off, one that I’d be willing to live with. Especially since, as you mention a number of times in the review, Guerilla fails to capitalize on their own premise and set up.

And lastly, I think on some level it’s intentional, they want you to sympathize with the Helghan.
Ad
23rd March 2011

You clearly never played Killzone 1 or 2, or else you’d realise just how goddamned annoying Rico could be. Hell, in KZ3 he’s a polite young gentleman by comparison!
LOL
23rd March 2011

Rename yourself to FailBolt instead.
Muzzer
23rd March 2011

To the author. I feel that like many reviewers in the industry you seem to bring on problems for yourself. Your site like many others seems to take certain aspects of games and tick them off one by one. It’s also important that you and all your staff members review fairly across the board. This is apparent when I search your site to find Black Ops got a 9/10. It’s this that discredits your review as most things you tick off as average in Killzone 3 are blatantly apparent in Black Ops.
Killzone 3 SP player may not be the best but it’s no where near what you suggest. I can’t remember the last game that pushed the FPS genre forward but it’s as if every one out there is expecting Sony to do it.
Then there is the multiplayer, if you have mates and are good at gaming then Killzone 3 excels, on the other hand if you want the game to hold your hand, then COD is yours all the way.
JamesDew
23rd March 2011

Killzone 3 has a pretty weak campaign, no argument here. Haven’t really delved into the multiplayer, but I’m gonna guess it involves shooting people while trying to fulfill objectives of some sort.

If it makes people feel any better (even though it won’t) I thought Black Ops and Halo: Reach were pretty weak. And all the other Halos. And all the Call of Duties except for 4.
Stew
23rd March 2011

“Failbolt?” Did it take you all of 48 hours to think of that one?

@Muzzer: “I feel that like many reviewers in the industry you seem to bring on problems for yourself.”

What are these ‘problems’ that you speak of? If you mean having gangs of people on the net type expletives and talk down on our opinions then that opens up the can of worms on your personal EQ.

“Your site like many others seems to take certain aspects of games and tick them off one by one.”

That’s kinda part of the game reviewing process…

“It’s also important that you and all your staff members review fairly across the board.”

Before you go and tell a bunch of game journalists how to “fairly” do their job, ask yourself if you, as the reader, “fairly” gave any of the site’s written pieces any solid read through. You followed up this statement with how you looked up our review of Black Ops and noted its score ONLY; no arguments on what was written regarding that title. That alone discredits whatever argument you’re trying substantiate.
Richard
24th March 2011

I think some very interesting points have been raised here (some more eloquently put than others I might add.)

If it were up to me, I wouldn’t have scores at the end of reviews. It cheapens the article and most games can’t be summed up by a number, especially as we don’t exist in a world with a unified view on scoring figures.

What I do ask is that we all calm down a bit. Calling people names seems a little bit silly and puerile and I’m sure if we were in the same room you would construct your argument differently.
Ralph
24th March 2011

@Stew
I think what he was getting at with the Black Ops and Killzone 3 comparison was this:

“This contextual approach to level design jars horribly with the rest of the game, and feels like an extended tutorial as opposed to something fresh and fluid”

-Black Ops used the similarly forced stealth sequences in multiple locations aswell. The level whilst swimming threw a lagoon comes to mind.

“..it feels more of an attempt to replicate the mainstays of the genre” referring to the character movement.

-Black Ops again has got a very similar motion to it with a lack of any weighty feel what so ever, one that hasn’t changed for years. (Since CoD 4)

“The music moves from bombastic-military pomp and circumstance to lonely, heartfelt string solos in a breathless heartbeat, underlining the frailty of our protagonist’s situation”

- Black Ops was also very strong on the music incorporation side of things. The tracks were just as good.

“..predictable melodrama which unfolds on-screen.”

- Again, Black Ops is unsurprising; you can pretty much see the next staged event coming before it does.

“The script only occasionally peeps over the parapet of functional tango-talk and clichéd military bravado”

- All the machismo and clichéd set pieces and speech sections are very apparent in almost every level. Do I really need an example?

“..offer very little in the way of tension, drama or narrative progression” referring to cutscenes.

-Black Ops cut scenes have little narrative progression too and come in and out “randomly”. The mission where you’re in a town and have been following a friendly APC. Towards the end you get to a defensive position where you must fend of waves of enemies. Was the cutscene necessary it “broke any sense of involvement”
you had with the game. We all had no idea they were holding the position, here I was thinking he was selling ice creams..

“..visuals seemed to have slipped since the second title”

- Does Black Ops actually look better then Modern Warfare 2 or CoD 4 for that matter. Compare the PC titles of Black Ops and CoD 4 on highest settings. CoD 4 looks alot better.

“The campaign is short when compared to other shooters, and its plot seems to aimlessly weave its way around the new environments as opposed to the other way round”

- The Black Ops campaign is definately no longer then Killzone 3s. It takes inbetween 4-8 hours just the same. How many environments and years do you play in Black Ops?, WW2, Vietnam, snow, space, ocean, jungle..etc…; the whole story was a trip through different times and environments.

“The enemy AI hasn’t developed any further and the inclusion of novelty additions, such as jetpacks”

Call Of Duty AI has always been terrible. Killzones enemy AI in 2 was superb so big modifications weren’t necessary in the sequel. They will come and get you unlike the brainless CoD bots who do little more then shoot,cover and throw grenades. The AI seems to have remained unchanged since the original.
As for novelty additions, what about the ballistic knife, tomahawk and the crossbow?

“..generic clone of countless other shooters”

- Call Of Duty is the very definition of a modern genric shooter.

“I wouldn’t have besmirched the vehicle sections or other occurrences of novelty fan-appeasement”

- How many vehicular sequences were there in Black Ops? Off the top of my head I can think of a jeep, tank and an unnecessary Blackbird take off sequence.

“rushed and greatly unloved by its creators”

- Call Of Duty releases yearly and has a maximum of 2 years development time. I cannot count the amout of server errors and glitched the Call Of Duty franchise as a whole has. You only need to hit Youtube to see the extent of the issues.

Black Ops does have one thing Killzone 3 doesn’t and that’s a superb online Co op mode. That said, Black Ops servers are still awful using the peer to peer system whilst Killzone has near lag-free dedicated servers; also, graphically speaking Black Ops is one of the worst looking aaa fps titles on the market when compared to Killzone, Medal Of Honor and Battlefield. It’s running on what is essentially the same 4 year old engine CoD 4 used.
Does this do you or need I expand?; almost ever issue Killzone 3 has been attacked for is present in Black Ops is one way or another. In some cases Black Ops is worse (visually, A.I).
Stew
24th March 2011

Ralph, while it’s appreciated that you’ve outlined the comparisons between Killzone 3 and Black Ops that was NOT the core point that I was bringing to Muzzer’s attention. Totally different story, and I’m sorry that went right over your head.

But if anything, I’m sure Richard will give your xmas list of info a look over and will address them at his earliest convenience.
doan
24th March 2011

“What are these ‘problems’ that you speak of? If you mean having gangs of people on the net type expletives and talk down on our opinions”

You put your review out there to the masses, to be displayed bud. You guys shouldn’t be suprised that people are going to have judgements that wholly don’t coincide with the negative opinion you guys rated on this title. If its your attempt to stand out and be seen from the masses, being that usually independent gaming sites are tough getting noticed page views, then you guys should really try another route. Shit like this does more harm than good.
Stew
24th March 2011

“You put your review out there to the masses, to be displayed bud.”

Wow really? I thought we were using pigeons this whole time. Thx for clarifying that.

“You guys shouldn’t be suprised that people are going to have judgements that wholly don’t coincide with the negative opinion you guys rated on this title.”

Trust me, we’re not lol.

“If its your attempt to stand out and be seen from the masses, being that usually independent gaming sites are tough getting noticed page views, then you guys should really try another route. Shit like this does more harm than good.”

Nobody’s “attempting” anything. There’s no dastardly plans on trying to stand out or be recognized or get showered in cristal. A writer didn’t like a game, he shared why. That’s it. If something so simple has hurt you so much then…we’re sorry? Wait, are we? lol.

And what route would you propose? To just sell out and agree with the masses? Ignore our own rights to have an opinion or dislike something? Did you even read our site’s mission statement before trying to make some kinda counter argument? Do you really have any idea of what you’re talking about? Do you or anyone here need a tissue?
Richard
24th March 2011

Ralph, my good friend Ralph, that was very impressive, but unfortunately I won’t be attempting to re-address your concerns. I didn’t review Black Ops on this site, but I do share some of your comparisons. To be honest, I didn’t care very much for that game either. Fancy that!
Benjamin
24th March 2011

To have another take on what could possibly be a sale or not should be something that’s appreciated, not assaulted. A game’s amassed score based on the opinions of other sites is not something we’re interested in focusing on. we deliver a take - an opinion, so that you might be better informed when you consider what’s important to you in a game, not what you think should be important to us. If anything, this review adds to the pool of what one might consider when choosing to invest in the game, be it to encourage or not, and that is a respectable task for Richard to have pursued.

Cheers.
PS3_Wimp
24th March 2011

I totally agree with Ralph, there are ridiculous double standards in gaming reviews today.

The almighty COD series (which I play and enjoy all the time) and Halo series seem to automatically receive perfect or near perfect scores solely based on the name on the cover. The nitpicking that is given to the Killzone series by some reviewers is just unbelievable.

As Ralph showed, practically every “flaw” mentioned in bad reviews for Killzone 3 can easily be found in 10/10 Black Ops, but of course somehow are emitted from the review. I also love how all the bad reviews for KZ3 don’t mention anything about the multiplayer other than “its good” or that it has the feature included. The main selling point for COD yet is somehow forgotten from KZ3? It is one of the biggest selling points for the game as well and is AMAZING. Reviews like this just irritate me, the game truly does not deserve it, it is an amazing game. Is it perfect? No, does it deserve a 50% score? No.

I am all for different opinions, but the double standards now a days is truly sickening.
Matt Wadleigh
24th March 2011

How sick did you get?

Knock it off with the hyperbole; this is a game review.

As the reviewer that gave Call of Duty: Black Ops a 9/10 (no one here mentions the 7/10 our staffer gave the PC version of the game, which is one of the lower scores around), I feel I should make one clear distinction - I reviewed Black Ops. Richard Murphy reviewed Killzone 3. I liked Black Ops quite a bit. Richard Murphy didn’t like Killzone 3. I explained in my review of Black Ops why I liked the game and I’ll admit there were shortcomings, but I still feel that Black Ops was one of the best 2010 releases. Richard didn’t like Killzone 3. He did focus heavily on his time with the singleplayer portion of the game, but that doesn’t mean that this review is without merit. Richard has very clearly laid out his gripes.

To those that keep bringing up our Call of Duty reviews, or our Halo reviews, as points against this review, you need to bare in mind that our reviews are written by different staff members. Thunderbolt is not a machine that churns out content; it is a collective of dozens of writers who have come and gone over the years that want to share their opinions on games. We all have very different taste in our games and our own opinions, just as you do.

I’ve only rarely ever commented on a review that I disagreed with, but when I do so, I try to do so based on what was written in that review and not by bringing in outside arguments. If you want to fault this review for certain things, that’s fine, but bringing in Call of Duty and Halo and every other shooter that we’ve ever reviewed is not the way to go about it. Richard didn’t like Killzone 3 and I loved Black Ops. Some of you loved Killzone 3 and hated Black Ops.

Believe it or not, this the way the world works.
JamesDew
24th March 2011

Isn’t it a little hypocritical to get all huffy over how some game franchises get a pass with high review scores, and then turn around and get angry when somebody gives one a lower score?
Stew
24th March 2011

@PS3_Wimp: Maybe if you didn’t think too much into video games you wouldn’t get so sick. Tissue?
Jezza
24th March 2011

The human rach fortunately has an array of different opinions. This is a good thing.
However, surely when reviewing something you need multiple opinions and reviewers to give it credibility? otherwise it’s just one persons word over another.
Outside arguements come in if the methodolgy seems wrong, in this case it does when compared to other reviews regardless of who did them. The source remains your site not the one person who reviewed the game. The overall score doesn;t matter but the methodology used to review one game and another is inconsistant and thus gives one product more of a chance then another.
You cannot review a game having only played what is essentially half the package for a duration of time. Killzone 2 wasn’t campaign orientated so why should Killzone 3? The other two mentioned game reviews had both the campaign and multiplayer commented on and both like Killzone 3 are strongest in those departments.
Just seems rather biased and unfair to have different review techniques from game to game on a professional site such as this.
I think it’s worth pointing out that professional reviews are meant to be their account of the game from every aspect, to give the public the genral idea of what to expect. I don’t see a specific “Killzone 3 campaign review” anywhere in the heading but “Killzone 3 review” instead. So where’s the multiplayer portion then?
Rather misleading….
Ralph
24th March 2011

@Richard
Good to hear. The overall score isn’t important to me I just find it bizarre the marking scheme seems to differ from game to game.
Oh Well!
Guymar Dudikoff
25th March 2011

This thread is hilarious. I enjoyed the “This commenter was clearly paid by so and so” bit, and I think I enjoyed seeing Stew get a little mean there even more. I don’t get to see game reviewers beat up on the readers enough, and I think we need to see more of this. Now there’s an idea for a piece!

As far as games getting high scores automatically, I know it’s an issue. You know what they say about opinions. Whenever a game comes out, I always read all reviews. If there’s not at least a 7 or 5 in there somewhere, something is amiss.

I’d much rather read a review about a game that’s supposedly terrible and be pleasantly surprised than read a review about how this game is the greatest since sliced bread and then find out it’s a mediocre piece of tedium.

You can’t be a game critic if you’re not, ya know, critical of SOMETHING, right?
Stew
25th March 2011

I’m all for a good debate, but once people start cussing and throwing around unfounded accusations, it just all goes out the window.

Then there are those who consciously KNOW that when it comes down to the concept of opinions, there’s really nothing that can be said to change someone’s mind. In which case, such readers desperately try to make “points” in hopes of coming off as someone who has some shred of intelligence… but end up looking no better than the the slander makers, they just fall under the same category as those who can’t keep their emotions in check, and they sacrificed their better brain use in the process, tsk tsk.

Regarding how some “genius” here tried to compare Richard to a clown: What do you call people that keep relying on the same method of action in hopes of incurring a new result, and get laughed at at the same time? Clowns. I believe this is also the definition for the word ’stupid’. And that’s pretty much what a lot of these commenters are exhibiting themselves as, point blank.

The only reader here who made a valid opposing argument is Jezza. However, not so sure how the multiplayer aspect would’ve impacted Richard’s experience. When it’s all said and done though, seriously, like fighting games, shooters are praised more for their multiplayer aspect than anything else. Thus technically speaking, such gamers are only praising such titles for half of their worth.
Richard
26th March 2011

Mr. Jezza did indeed do himself proud with his remark. Ultimately, I feel we’ve reached a tipping point in the function of the FPS. I’ve always seen multiplayer as a great added bonus, much like special features on a DVD, but apparently the community sees otherwise.

Contrary to popular belief, I spent a decent amount of time on the multiplayer in KZ3 and didn’t find it terribly interesting. Like the singleplayer it managed to suitably mimic many popular FPS but not progress past its peers (I feel a theme developing).

It had solider classes, weapon loadouts, poor level design and very little communication or teamwork going on. It was fun for a while but then it got boring… a bit like playing with a pogo stick.

But hey, some people really like pogo-sticking, so good on y’all.
Richard (the other one)
26th March 2011

@Jezza

“However, surely when reviewing something you need multiple opinions and reviewers to give it credibility? otherwise it’s just one persons word over another.”

Reviewing games doesn’t work like that from my experience here and from hearing about what happens on other sites. IGN, Gamespot, Giant Bomb, whatever site it is. One person will write the review, not a collective group. I’ve heard discussions with the editors of these and many other sites where one person has reviewed a game and loved it while a few other staff members have slated it. That’s the way it works: one person’s opinion against another. If all of the staff at Thunderbolt had to come together and collective write a review together we’d never get anywhere!
Stuart Edwards
26th March 2011

Wait, people still throw their toys out of their prams when it comes to defending their ‘own’ console, still?

My god, it astounds me that people in this day and age genuinely believe anybody cares as much as they do about the portrayal of such a vendetta. If this review genuinely makes you angry then you’re in for one painful adult life, when you get there.

Why should we base our scoring on the norm? The norm is full of highly inflated opinions, by people who have to play such an array of shockingly dull games that, when something ‘functional’ like Killzone 3 comes along, it’s a gift from the heavens.

Function =/= quality. Every novel has an intricate plot, but it doesn’t mean it’s memorable.

Look back at some of the 8s and 9s that publications have given games over the years and then really think about it. Is a game like Star Wars Battlefront or Kameo really in the top 20% of games you’ve ever played? Unless there’s a major connection that makes you fall utterly in love, probably not.

Wake up and smell the coffee before you burn your tongues.

(Also, I gave Halo 3: ODST and Halo: Reach their scores. I also believe I fully justified them and you can contrast them against my other reviews, if you do so feel the need).
Stew
27th March 2011

I so still think it’s awesome that there are two Stew/uarts here.
Benny
27th March 2011

I really think staff members shouldn’t get involved in this crap.
atam
31st March 2011

Nothing but a joke review.
Hom
1st April 2011

Completely agree, Benny.
Tim
10th April 2011

I think it’s terrible what some people say in these comments, but what is even worse is when writers for sites like this try to “better” them by responding in such a bad way also. It’s becomes a race to the bottom then, and you end up having no respect for anyone. If you write for this site I suggest you try to set an example, even if others are not willing to follow.
Rich
11th April 2011

I actually didn’t like this game, I too thought it was dull and uninspiring. It just felt half finished with a very short campaign, I played it on normal and battled my way through the city, escaped and made it to the jungle, that is all well and good but because of the way the cutscenes interrupt the game you don’t know when one level ends and another starts, this led me to believe that the whole city part was one giant level since most previews I read cooed on about their sizes. I was left feeling bitter when I discovered that not only had I completed half of the game but I had done so in under an hour! I’m not one to rush games but I definitely felt cheated.

Multiplayer isn’t my thing and it was just the same as KZ2 but with robots… great(?).
24 players compared to 32 from KZ2 with a generic class system. But what hacked me off is the fact that the game came with so few maps and then they had the damn cheek to charge you extra for maps that were in KZ2! Not new maps, old maps that they should put on there anyway! I felt for £40 I got half a game and got my money back.

To me the multiplayer is extra and should NOT be the main selling point, I think it is a total sell out for developers to concentrate solely on multiplayer and a sign that they just can’t be bothered, The singleplayer gives them the opportunity to show us their prowess at programming and weaving a good story but it seems as the years go on developers will just do what is easy for them, more generic, boring, uninspiring multiplayer FPS games.
Daniel
22nd April 2011

It’s obvious you are stupid, Killzone 3 is a wonderful game and is much better than COD. So you are just a loser not seeing how good this game is….
cmtprkl
30th May 2011

for those who born at the same decade as counter strike , don`t comment..

all i wanna say is that if i ever compare this killzone 2.4593 built 2.12 with bad company , 5 would be sooo generous..
Logan
12th July 2011

I’m sorry, but your review was incredibly senseless. You mentioned over and over how bad the story was, and yes, I can agree that it was lackluster. But I would also say that it’s not much worse than black ops, which got a much better score. I think that the games INCREDIBLE soundtrack and atmosphere are enough to make up for the story’s shortcomings. But the biggest and best part of any modern FPS of today is the multiplayer. Killzone 3 has some of the best multiplayer modes that I have seen in a very long time. (WHICH YOU COMPLETELY FAILED TO MENTION BTW!) I also caught one comment where you said that Killzone 3 was a step backwards graphically, and all I can ask is how? Give me one scene in killzone 2 that looks better than any scene in killzone 3. All in all, I’m left utterly speechless on how you thought this game deserves of a 5/10, especially when this site has given games as bad as call of duty: black ops an 8/10.
Calvin Kemph
14th July 2011

Logan, all our reviews are subjective, based on the author’s experiences with the games. We also gave Black Ops a 9, but looking at reviews only as numerical things removes all the meaning those numbers have.
Jeff Dunbar
28th August 2011

today i’ve finished sp, this game simply put is “by retards for retards” most idiotic story & characters in the game’s history. 5 is fair enough. mp will not save it. It’s a shame.
Jeff
7th January 2012

Yea i beat the SP on hardest dificulty in one night, sure its short but it doesnt mean its not a good SP, i didn’t like however, the non-mentioned MP. The MP is not some generic rip off of CoD, theres no killstreaks you can’t put 50 damn things on your weapon i use the engineer class with the LMG n my friend uses medic we stick near each other n pretty much can’t be stopped. Sure there isn’t the customization like in other games, but who really needs hundreds of different colors for your weapons, or face paint, ya just need to go out there n kill bitches, I have no lag or any problems with the online, so the fact he left all that stuff out is kinda shitty. Overall there isn’t any reason this should get a 5/10.
JPM
29th January 2012

Richard If I were in the same room as you i would punch your face so hard you would change careers you idiot thanks to your immature Sony hatred KZ3 is 84 on metacritic if you would have never reviewed it would be a 85 or 86 thanks you retarded Microsoft SPED
Richard
29th January 2012

Yeah, those two extra Metacritic points would have made all the difference…
Stew
29th January 2012

What’s the matter JPM, you mad?
JamesDew
30th January 2012

Killzone 3’s multiplayer was nothing to write home about and neither was its single player. It was bland in every area.