Support NeoGAF

[velociraptor]

Killzone 2 is one of the best FPS games ever conceived.

The MP is untouchable.

 

[intheinbetween]

Because its PlayStation exclusive.

as Uncharted, TLoU, God of War, Journey, ICO/SotC, among other Sony exclusives that we know they're mediocre because they're PlayStation exclusives, right?

I played 2 and 3, didn't beat any of them I got bored. I gotta say I'm not a FPS lover, though I loved Bioshock and Bioshock Infinite

 

[xenist]

Yeah, that's it. Crysis is amazing and everyone who disagrees doesn't know how to play it.

Absolutely.

 

[AbandonedTrolley]

I think the simple answer is that it didn't match up to Halo or COD.

My personal opinion was that Killzone 2 was simply amazing. The single player campaign wasn't half as bad as some make out and the multiplayer was amazing. So many good matches back on that.

Killzone 3 was good, graphics took a change of direction, the 3D mode wasn't too bad in some sections and headache inducing in others. But certainly showed what the PS3 could do (I'm secretly hoping SF has a 3D mode) Never bothered with the MP after hearing awful things about it.

 

[Dr. Kenneth Noisewater]

Because it tries too hard to copy other franchises rather than doing its own thing.

 

[AOC83]

Yeah, that's it. Crysis is amazing and everyone who disagrees doesn't know how to play it.

Crysis is shit.

 

[PandaL]

Killzone 3 was a great game. The terrible spawn system killed the game.

 

[Hasney]

Mostly due to it's mediocre games.

It's weird, the Uncharted series never really jived with me but while playing it, I can totally understand why others love it so much. Killzone I just don't understand how it gets any praise at all.

 

[kevm3]

Killzone 3 was a great game. My favorite shooter behind COD 4: Modern Warfare.

 

[The_Hitcher89]

Because it tries too hard to copy other franchises rather than doing its own thing.

The controls, MP (in KZ2) and story are unlike anything else I've played :s

 

[velociraptor]

Crysis is shit.

Crysis 2 and 3 are fun.

Crysis 1 is boring.

 

[MagicWithEarvin]

Killzone 2 is one of the best FPS games ever conceived.

The MP is untouchable.

This.

The rest of the series just isn't that great, though. I've got high hopes for Shadowfall since the MP director of KZ2 is working on Shadowfall's MP, apparently. They need to show off some MP footage at GamesCom to really get me interested. As of now, my day one PS4 title is Battlefield 4.

 

[Andrew Korenchkin]

I thought Killzone 3 and the first game were both ordinary FPS games, but I think Killzone 2's sense of realism made for a unique experience. The controls, honestly, made the game tense and nerve wracking. There was something about the movement of the entire game that made it feel like a challenging, unique shooter.

There's also quite a bit of challenge in terms of strategy, not to mention there's some nerve wrecking tension fighting in close quarters.

 

[spisho]

The whole Killzone universe and what they've done with it seems rather boring. The setup for Shadow Fall seems even more dumb going from war between planets to suddenly two enemy cities side by side. I think it should have been a new IP.

Gameplay wise it also seems to lag behind other shooters rather than making its own innovations. While all other developers realize that simple shoot-bang isn't enough anymore and do something new and interesting Killzone still goes on merrily doing the same shit.

All the melee kills are also dumb as hell.

You mean like how CoD added a dog? Or perhaps you're talking about Titanfall, which is CoD with mechs. Killzone already did that.

Anyhow, add me as one of those who thinks 3 was underwhelming compared to 2. Since the most recent title wasn't that good, the series as a whole is met with cynicism. Same thing happened to FF after XIII. Conversely, Gears of War has been on a downhill slide ever since GOW1 and yet people still eat it up.

 

[Nocturno999]

I loved using Exos in KZ 3's MP. I really felt like a boss scoring kills inside the armor.
KZ2 MP was great but most maps were overcrowded and mostly turned into grenade spam fests.

 

[Canis lupus]

Because it tries too hard to copy other franchises rather than doing its own thing.

KZ2 was a pretty genuine experience.

 

[KKRT00]

KZ 2 was amazing gameplay wise for the most part. Encounters were really good. The only problem i had with this game was framerate and having to play it with gamepad.

Story is crappy as in most shooter, but universe is quite interesting. People call it mediocre, because its not getting 10/10 in reviews or its not COD alike clusterfuck enough, but its very good shooter.

 

[Blearth]

Crysis feels off to me (and I know a lot of people agree). I've played Crysis on the PC and Crysis 2 on Xbox and aside from visuals, they're very bland gameplay wise. Didn't bother to pick up Crysis 3, but I saw similar comments.

I'd argue that most of the big shooters out there have surpassed Crysis's level of gameplay.

Which shooters have surpassed Crysis's interactivity with the game world?

Which shooters have surpassed Crysis's level of mobility?

Which shooters have surpassed Crysis's large, corridor-free levels? (Minus the last couple of hours)

 

[AOC83]

Crysis 2 and 3 are fun.

Crysis 1 is boring.

2 and 3 are generic, lame, absolutely unexciting shooters bar any highlights with crappy AI, horrible art design and a terrible story.

 

[aygomyownroad]

I loved KZ2, the heavy controls made you feel like nothing else.

Played LZ3 with the move and shooter and it was fun but it didn't have the feel of the second one.

 

[duckroll]

I think there are good reasons why the franchise has less traction and is considered a mediocre brand. While the gameplay in KZ2 and KZ3 are pretty good, and the overall design in Liberation is fantastic for a handheld spinoff, the series at large doesn't really mean anything to most people. The narrative and overall universe design is weak and not particularly memorable. The actual writing in the games are terrible, and the characters are not interesting. There's no hook beyond it being an first party series which have space Nazis. That hook might be enough for some, but it's clearly not enough for many others.

I think what Killzone really needed (it's probably too late now, since the impression has been made) was a really cohesive concept for the world which naturally allows for lots of different and interesting stories to be told. There needed to be locations and events people actually cared about and wanted to see in future games. Instead, what we have are a series of games which are loosely connected by similar visual, but I don't think anyone really cares about who or why or how, especially given how poorly strung together the stories are.

 

[Artex]

I love the way the series plays. I'd say a lot of the negativity comes from people who began hating on it because of the infamous 2005 trailer for KZ2. That came at a time where it was cool to hate on Sony. Once it released and it actually looked and played very well, haters had to find something else to rag on it about.

The rest are just the hive mind going with the flow and not thinking for themselves; see: Uncharted 3.

 

[Hypron]

Then you have no idea how to play Crysis and should stick with linear on rails shooters that don't require any thinking.

I would be tempted to agree with this.

It's hands down one of the very best shooters released this gen. I can't take someone that says the game is shit seriously, and I instantly disregard their opinion about any other shooters, because we're obviously not looking for the same things.

 

[twofold]

Killzone 2 was one of the most mediocre games I've ever played in my life. I kept playing it in hopes that I'd finally see what caused others to fall in love with the game, but I never found it. The final level was godawful, too - I endured it only because I wanted to see the game through to the end, but it was painful going.

After my Killzone 2 experience, I've had little to no interest in the franchise. I might give Killzone:SF a look if the reviews are good, I guess.

 

[Spinluck]

Killzone 2 was great.

Hated the characters, and their jabbering, but damn was if fun and challenging.

It's pretty technically impressive for a console shooter imo, and it had fun enough online play to boot.

 

[LiquidSolid]

Personally, I hate how they keep changing the fucking formula with each installment. The first game was a decent team based old school shooter, KZ2 was a more CoD-ified shooter but with really unique gameplay and multiplayer, KZ3 was the same but without the unique gameplay and with weaker multiplayer and now KZ SF seems to be going semi-open world. I like the series but come on, make your choice and expand from there. If people don't like it, they can go play CoD/BF4.

For most people though, I'd guess that it's simply because the series isn't super popular in the US.

 

[Sojgat]

Because the series is terribly inconsistent in terms of quality. Even Killzone 2's SP campaign wasn't very good.

Killzone always seems right on the verge of becoming a truly great franchise. It's got fantastic style, but Guerrilla just keep on making missteps with various areas of the design.

I have high hopes for Shadow Fall.

 

[duckroll]

I love the way the series plays. I'd say a lot of the negativity comes from people who began hating on it because of the infamous 2005 trailer for KZ2. That came at a time where it was cool to hate on Sony. Once it released and it actually looked and played very well, haters had to find something else to rag on it about.

The rest are just the hive mind going with the flow and not thinking for themselves; see: Uncharted 3.

Please tell me more about this hive mind.

 

[Fi Fo Nye]

Killzone 3 soured people a bit, I think.

I loved KZ2 to death but the changes they made to 3's multiplayer...yuck.

Killzone 3 soured people A LOT, and it's exactly because of the abhorrable changes to the multiplayer... whoever designed or directed it should never be allowed to work for Sony again.

 

[Casimir]

I've never actually played a KZ game - what's the best one to go for (single player)?

Mechanics or Characters/Storyline?

If the former:

Killzone 2 > Killzone 3 > Killzone 1

*The only disconcerting thing about Killzone 2 is that in cutscenes, the player character is shown to be around the same height as everyone else. But during gameplay, the camera is fixed to a height of a man 2-3 feet shorter than everyone else.

If the latter:

Killzone 2 > Killzone 1 > Killzone 3.


General Notes:
*Don't play K2 on the highest difficulty. Your companion AI doesn't scale up with the enemy AI so in many situations they'll end up injured and repeating the same exact call for assistance over and over while your busy dealing with every enemy by yourself. (Killzone 3's difficulty was scaled down compared to K2.)
** In K2 Rico is Jar Jar Binks.

 

[velociraptor]

I think there are good reasons why the franchise has less traction and is considered a mediocre brand. While the gameplay in KZ2 and KZ3 are pretty good, and the overall design in Liberation is fantastic for a handheld spinoff, the series at large doesn't really mean anything to most people. The narrative and overall universe design is weak and not particularly memorable. The actual writing in the games are terrible, and the characters are not interesting. There's no hook beyond it being an first party series which have space Nazis. That hook might be enough for some, but it's clearly not enough for many others.

I think what Killzone really needed (it's probably too late now, since the impression has been made) was a really cohesive concept for the world which naturally allows for lots of different and interesting stories to be told. There needed to be locations and events people actually cared about and wanted to see in future games. Instead, what we have are a series of games which are loosely connected by similar visual, but I don't think anyone really cares about who or why or how, especially given how poorly strung together the stories are.

I think if KZSF is not a relative success then the series should be put to rest.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Yes, it is. Certainly relative to third and first party competition.

Like which competition? Halo 4 with the constant objective of "hit the switch"? Titan Fall's late to the party mech and jetpack use? Where's the brilliant originality that Killzone apparently lacks?

The bottom line is people need to be told what's cool via marketing. It doesn't matter how drab and uninspired your game is when it's plastered on Mountain Dew and Doritos, because it's now cool.

 

[Xater]

I think only half of the Killzone games are good and that's a problem.

Killzone 2 and Liberation = Good

Killzone and Killzone 3 = Bad

Shadow fall so far looks really good I think. Very interesting scenario and they seem to shake the gameplay up a bit.

 

[mickcenary]

Killzone 2 is one of the best FPS games ever conceived.

The MP is untouchable.

This right here.

Come to think of it, KZ2 and GoW3 are two games that simply cannot be judged on their single-player campaigns. Some of the best MP I've ever played and I will happily concede that the SP portions are boring, uninspired and in no way representative of the true magic of the gameplay. It is like playing two different games and frankly, it annoys the shit out of me that people will miss out on such games for this reason.

 

[Vic20]

Its not, at least in my book!

 

[twobear]

Killzone 2 was one of the most mediocre games I've ever played in my life. I kept playing it in hopes that I'd finally see what caused others to fall in love with the game, but I never found it. The final level was godawful, too - I endured it only because I wanted to see the game through to the end, but it was painful going.

After my Killzone 2 experience, I've had little to no interest in the franchise. I might give Killzone:SF a look if the reviews are good, I guess.

This is exactly, TO A TEE, how I felt playing KZ2: the feeling that I was playing just to get it over with, thinking the last level was one of the worst things I'd ever played (I saw someone the other day say it was one of their favourite things in gaming--wat?)

I put the game down for about a week when I got to the refinery level to play through RE4HD, then came back to it and thankfully there were like, two or three more levels I think? And then the already bad plot came to a not-at-all-satisfying conclusion, and the game has been gathering dust on my shelf ever since.

 

[Sid]

GG should have expanded upon KZ2 with big open environments,60FPS etc. instead KZ3 had a completely new direction and so does SF.

 

[daniels]

Compare to call of duty or halo its simply has not enough marketing to make it truly AAA and get does juice 10/10.

 

[psrock]

Killzone 2 did not play like COD, and people complained so much about the controls. It was just annoying. But to me it was so refreshing to have a shooter feel so different, the environment feels so amazing, the only drawback was the writing.

Sales is really why people always put it down, as there was so much hype but not great sales numbers compared to other shooters.

 

[Alex]

Dull, extremely straightforward design. It's a tier below most of it's direct competition and I don't even find those games particularly enthralling either these days. It's just such a me-too franchise and being of the element it is, that's rough. It's a shame Shadowfall looks to be the same boilerplate nonsense, it was a good chance to expand it's horizons.

 

[Aguirre]

in comparison to Halo, it clearly was inferior... but now, i rate killzone higher.

 

[duckroll]

GG should have expanded upon KZ2 with big open environments,60FPS etc. instead KZ3 had a completely new direction and so does SF.

KZ1, KZ2, KZL, KZ3, KZM, and KZSF are all different types of games. Some in more ways than others. In terms of trying different stuff with the game design each time, KZ is like the FF series of shootbangs. It's really kinda weird.

 

[Violater]

Its just like Crysis. Super graphics, mediocre gameplay.

Pretty much sums up my feelings.

 

[Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew]

Call me when a shooter surpasses Crysis's gameplay.

Calling.

 

[twobear]

Killzone 2 did not play like COD, and people complained so much about the controls.

Reading these kinds of comments make me wonder if the people have actually played COD though. KZ2 was more sluggish, yes (sorry, more weighty), but virtually everything else, from gameplay design to level design, was more or less copy-pasted from COD.

 

[DarknessTear]

I've tried to play Killzone 2 but the shooting mechanics always felt really awkward to me. I have the game sitting there in my collection and I just haven't seriously played it.

 

[Himself]

in comparison to Halo, it clearly was inferior... but now, i rate killzone higher.

Especially with the reveal of the OWL and missions design for Shadow Fall. Gameplay wise it was easily the most interesting FPS at E3.

 

[Coolwhip]

Not many FPS aren't mediocre franchises.

 

[Casimir]

KZ1, KZ2, KZL, KZ3, KZM, and KZSF are all different types of games. Some in more ways than others. In terms of trying different stuff with the game design each time, KZ is like the FF series of shootbangs. It's really kinda weird.

And completely terrible. Because the game design changes so completely, the franchise is unable to cultivate a solid base of players/potential future consumers.

 

[CaptainTiptop]

I think the first Killzone being labelled a 'Halo killer' and being kinda shitty has always put a stain on the franchise.

Although Killzone 2 and 3 were both pretty great, definitely not mediocre.