• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Why is Killzone considered a mediocre franchise?

It's my weakness, like Fast and the Furious movies and Dan Brown movies.
I quite enjoyed KZ2 and 3, although 2 more than 3.

Good graphics, solid gameplay / mechanics, mediocre storyline and not told that well but not terrible. As a single player gamer, they are always entertaining.
 
ShinUltramanJ said:
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.
Click to expand...

Eh?

KZ2/3 came up short against all their major competitors last gen - they probably fared better in SP against BF3 but that's it. Why would i now put more faith in KZ4? It doesn't make sense.

Even if KZ4(or 2/3) is better than H4, that's great, but it's one game out of about ~8 others it's still behind. And even if there is no originality in H4, TF, or other where is it in Killzone?

Not that it matters because as i said, there are plenty of superior substitutes.

O/T: Did they even get cop-op campaign in KZ3? Is it down for SF? I felt like 2 really deserved co-op.
 
The series sells enough units to justify it's own existence (so far, though I think SF will benefit from being a launch title), so Sony will continue to fund Killzone projects while it continues to be profitable for them. If it fails to sell, see Resistance, then Sony will cut it loose.
 
I liked Killzone 2 but dont care too much for 1 or 3. It's an inconsistent franchise.

I think calling the PS4 game Killzone Shadowfall rather than Killzone 4 is a very intentional step. Sounds like they're trying some new things and mixing things up a little. If that game succeeds, I think we will get Shadowfall 2 rather than Killzone 5, as far as branding is concerned.
 
As someone who doesn't play a lot of FPSes, and more importantly doesn't have any real grasp of the little touches that apparently make one FPS vastly superior to another, Killzone 2 just felt like any old FPS to me. I remember hating the fact that I could only carry one main weapon at a time, that it was really weird that sometimes the camera would swing out from behind my guy's eyes during a cutscene, and this one scene where one of the guys in my squad who wasn't me or Rico died that was like a checklist of every terrible cliche from war movies ("I need a Medic!", "Don't you die on me!", etc).

That new PS4 Killzone looks more interesting, but it also seems like they've dropped every single thing that makes Killzone Killzone by setting it in a different place and era, having you fight guys without glowing red eyes and apparently totally changing the gameplay.
 
godelsmetric said:
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.
Click to expand...

If we're talking about the single player campaign, I'll say KZ2 is more like earlier FPS games, where a lot of the design and focus was still on killing enemies while making your way through a level. There are less set pieces, and more defined "the enemies are here and here, you need to go there" sort of level design. KZ3 on the other hand, is full blown modern shootbang filled to the brim with setpieces everywhere, and various stage gimmicks which try to make things more "interactive" but are really just make me feel like I have less control in how I want to tackle the stage.
 
After playing Hallo's on Legendary..... Kill-zone series looks very commercialized to me.
Looks like another COD clone with scripted events.AI in dis games are also down poor .
Played true every kil-lzone game (excluding handheld consoles).
They rly need to work out on that AI.
 
I think I always thought of Killzone as being a particularly low-quality-to-mediocre franchise because KZ2 came out at a time when it hadn't quite dawned on me that basically the entire FPS genre from here on out was going to consist of Call of Duty style iron sights, accuracy penalties while moving, ultra-low TTK, etc. Up until that point, Stalker was the only game I'd actually suffered through that used that sort of gunplay model (aside from about 90 seconds of the CoD4 beta), so I still thought it was a relatively unique mechanic that they'd copied wholesale from those other games. That was my first impression of the series, so I think the franchise has always sort of carried that stink around for me.

In hindsight, it's probably nowhere near the bottom of the list of ADS shooters that I'd play if I absolutely had to, but at the same time, including those mechanics are just an instant dealbreaker for me that makes an FPS unplayable, so it's unlikely that I'll ever really give it a fair re-evaluation.
 
Because they only have 2 good games out of 4. Or whatever the number is. And only one of those is a FPS.
 
Because all the Killzone games I tried or finished were mediocre to the core. The only redeeming factor being the interesting visual design of things.
 
I like Killzone.

The first one was janky but ambitious.

The second was great, looked amazing but still had to fight against perception after the CG 2005 trailer.

Shadow Fall looks amazing.
 
Maybe it's because the cast of characters are horrible one dimensional abominations with less likable traits than a retarded cucumber with phedofilic tendencies?

I mean, every time "Rico" or "Sev" opened their mouths in Killzone 3, I tried my best not to vomit with disgust over how dude-bro and completely moronic the characters sounded. Granted, that is a general problem in military shooters, but I found it to be so much worse in Killzone 3, to the degree where I instantly wanted to shoot Rico in the face when I saw him - and I'm a pacifist mind you.

Further more, the gameplay seems too heavily reliant on scripted sequences, where the player is supposed to do something specific, rather than experiment and emphasize creativity. This translates into less fun.

The one thing the games got is great enemy design, and Killzone 2 was an ok game I guess, with not too many of the above mentioned offences. In terms of quality, I don't think the series has or ever has had anything on it's competitors - a genre of games which I generally aren't very impressed with.
 
Also people getting super defensive. As a franchise it's mediocre but there are 2 great games out of the bunch. When i read the topic i took it as op asking to rate the series as a whole.
 
It's just one of many shooters and doesn't really have a unique selling proposition. It used to have outstanding visuals, but the core gameplay got more and more gimped after each sequel. I like the universe they created and I love the art design, but that doesn't help when one of the main characters is just plain annoying and you more and more get the feeling that you're actually fighting for the wrong side. When they first demoed Shadow Fall, I was just underwhelmed.
 
I've only ever played the first one, but it was an overhyped letdown at the time, and I've always thought the name of the franchise is insufferably dumb. Seriously, KILLZONE -- it's like a simpsons game title parody.
 
They're woefully boring games. There's like one really interesting encounter in KZ2, and none in the other two. They're pretty, and serviceable, but that's all.

The new one looks a lot more interesting though.
 
I love Killzone since the original one on PS2.

People hated/didn't like it at all but for me it was something truly great. (I have played Halo).

The different characters and selection along with the environment and Helghast captivated me.

Something I liked from the original Killzone that wasn't carried on to other installments was the use of different crosshairs for each different gun carried...

Something subtle I know but still.....:p
 
Franchise is second to few when speaking about controls and design, second to none when speaking of art, use of colors and technology.
I'm eagerly waiting for the new ps4 installment even if the latest gameplay video in the forest seemed the less inspired gaming session ever in this franchise...
 
I've played Killzone 1 and 2 and they didn't play any different than any other FPS I've played. Killzone looks nice, but the rest is mindnumbingly standard IMO.
 
Hmm...

Killzone 1 was an average shooter at best but was more grounded and had a btter player character than it's sequels (Jan Templar).

Killzone 2's Single Player was lacking but I wouldn't call it mediocre. It was (and still is) arguably the best looking console FPS with interesting locales, great A.I. and 2 of the best protaganists of the current gen in Visari and Radec. This is offset against poor characterisation, and a poorly constructed story that fails too take off with no explanation behind the history of the War unless of course you've read the great backstory hidden away and now removed from the Killzone site. Looking back on it the best 3 characters in the game
all end up dead?!

But the Multiplayer! IMO one of the best online experiences of the generation. Warzone with 32 players, Spawn grenades (When used properly), some pretty good map design and well balanced classes made for an experience that I personally found more enticing than CoD, Halo and BF (console versions). Oh and let's not forget about the trademark 'chirp'.

Killzone 3. Singleplayer was a marked improvement yet still has the same problems i.e. Uninspired and forgettable characters along with a meaningless story that again fails to draw from the amazing history and backstory that they created for the universe. This time the graphics are a bit more smooth in terms of aliasing (MLAA) and it containes a greater colour pallete etc. but I feel that this hurt the games art direction and lost the whole gritty feel that they went with in KZ2. Protaginists are laughably bad and I didn't find them interesting at all. The magic that was the 'Star Wars' inspired KZ2 protaginists couldn't be matched. The infighting amonst the ranks of the helghast was interesting but again the characters weren't. Mech fights, tanks etc were all interesting but served no purpose

I'm not even gonna mention the Multiplayer other than the fact that it was a massive let down apart from the new game mode.

Killzone Liberation was a brilliant portable game but as has been said it is oftne forgotten due to the fact that it was a PSP game and also because it was a top down shooter.

Realistically both upcoming games look really solid but we still haven't seen anything to suggest better characterisation and an improved campaign in terms of story and presentation. Improve on these along with better pacing for Shadow Fall and bring back The core of what made KZ2's MP so good. Forget about what CoD and others are doing and become unique again.

Mediocre? I think not, but destined for greatness? We'll see.
 
KaiserBecks said:
It's just one of many shooters and doesn't really have a unique selling proposition. It used to have outstanding visuals, but the core gameplay got more and more gimped after each sequel. I like the universe they created and I love the art design, but that doesn't help when one of the main characters is just plain annoying and you more and more get the feeling that you're actually fighting for the wrong side. When they first demoed Shadow Fall, I was just underwhelmed.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more.

I was really hoping KZ1-3 was the "ISA Trilogy"

You know, the Helghast were pretty much lost/extinct at the ending of Killzone 3. Somehow, that gave me hope the next Killzone would be the start of the Helghast Trilogy. You being a key soldier trying to take back what is yours (Vekta) with the remains of the helghast army.

And then Shadow Fall happened. It could still be good though... I hope.
 
I really want KZSF to blow me away. Excellent MP and unique SP with characters who are INTERESTING is what I want. If they can't deliver that then it's probably time to put the series on the back burner and get GG on a new IP.
 
The decent characters die, the annoying ones make it into the next game. That's my main complaint and that's why I never can get really excited for a Killzone game. Quality had improved dramatically from KZ1 to KZ2 though, just not in the character department.
 
As far as KZ2 & 3 go, people are still sour over the 2005 video. That is my guess. Even though the game delivered on visuals, some folks still get pleasure from talking it down.

Really, complaining about swearing in a FPS? Come on now. Rico is that thug we love to hate. :)

They need to put Liberation on the PSN(PS3 version) for everyone to play.
 
Killzone 2 has been the only standout game in the series, it stood out because of its bleakness and fantastic MP.

KZ3 was awful and from what I've been seeing of Shadow Fall that will be a pretty unremarkable game too. Like I've said before GG have great tech and gunplay but their story telling is woeful, their characterisation is weak and they do not push the medium forward.
 
Killzone 1 has a lot of problems. The checkpointing is really bad. The audio is super sloppy (can't really tell if enemies are above/below or on the same level). Visualy design is poor (can't really tell HGH from ISA from medium distance and up). And it kinda looks and feels still like a WW2 game, only the enemies wear masks, and there's some ship flying above your head every 30 minutes to remind you it's sci-fi.

Halo 1's SP campaign is mostly awful of course, but at least they got the playability right: you never lose more than a couple minutes progress until the next checkpoint; you can clearly tell enemies from friends by the color-coding, stark silhuette differences, constant audio cues etc. And it's not as if Killzone 1's campaign is particularly absorbing either. So if you pit these two against each other as direct competitors, you have one functional, playable mind-numbing drag versus a game that's barely playable.

So the series had a really rough start, with or without considering its contemporary competition.

Killzone 2 is glorious, both SP and MP.

Killzone 3 is good in SP, though definitely weaker than 2. And the design changes in MP turned off a good deal of the most active Killzone 2 players.
 
I've played through Killzone 2 and 3. Finishing 3 was a chore, the level design was just an utterly boring experience.

For me, Killzone just hasn't ever nailed the 'feel' I want from a console shooter. It's not 'heavy' like Halo and it's not twitch fast like whatever the last CoD game I played was (MW2?).
 
I freaking love KZ2. Especially the hardest difficulty. Love the feel of the battlefield (especially the battle on the bridge). Love the feel of the movement. Love the Third-Reich-esque helghast designs. I thought it was the best single player FPS this/last gen. KZ3 not so much....
 
I don't know. I rarely play FPSs (outside of "special" ones like the HL series), but I really enjoyed both KZ2 and KZ3. Much more interesting than the CODs of the world to me.
 
My assessment:

KZ1 was billed as a "Halo killer". When it released and was an interesting but heavily flawed game it got shredded for it. The system horsepower gap alone doomed it versus Halo.

KZ2 was their a very strong attempt at the genre, but has a few serious stumbling blocks. First was the pre-rendered E3 video that created a lot of negative backlash before the game was even out. Then upon release what we got was a corridor shooter with good AI and a high level of visual style and polish, but still a corridor shooter. No one plays Battlefield or CoD for the single player, they all go straight online or rush through the ~5-6 hours of single player to then go online. No one judges those games by the single player alone. KZ2 instead put a lot of work into trying to be Halo from a campaign standpoint, but Halo isn't a corridor shooter and therefore KZ2 wasn't really competing on the same footing.

When it comes to FPS games a corridor style single player campaign basically means it's good for one play through to 90% of gamers out there, and most will get bored with the repetitive shooting gallery encounters before finishing that. A strong single player campaign needs to take the good AI they had in KZ2 and instead put it in a larger, more open world like Halo did where strategy and mobility allowed you to out-manuver your opponents. Killzone: Shadow Fall is doing this from the looks of the videos.

One thing they did with KZ2 was nail a unique online experience. It was never going to pull in the CoD or BF gamer because they're busy playing CoD and BF. But it had it's own unique feel and developed a worthwhile following on it's own as a result.

This is where KZ3 knee capped the franchise with the established fan base. They tried to reach out for the CoD audience with the multiplayer and in the end soured the loyal fans they already had while gaining none. This isn't too different from what 343 tried with Halo 4's online, and why doesn't come close to the online community the previous Halo games had.

In short the first game was a promising but flawed proof of concept, the second over-emphasized a single player mode that is the weakest part of the sub-genre (corridor FPS), and the third destroyed all the positive momentum they had built with the second's online multiplayer.

Its not too different from how Sony botched the SOCOM franchise honestly, just in a more condensed fashion than KZ. Confrontation was the promising but very flawed overture by a non-Zipper team, meanwhile Zipper put out MAG that was effectively their KZ2 where it carved out some unique online space for itself, but then they went and did SOCOM 4 which tried to CoD up the franchise.

This basically killed the SOCOM franchise unfortunately. Killzone has seen strong enough sales at retail to keep it alive and it looks like Shadow Fall is going to repair a lot of these flaws. The new world design looks much more open and vertically interesting while the designer of KZ2's multiplayer is supposed to be back for KZ2, making it seem clear that Sony got the message from fans.

As a result it has real potential on both the single and multiplayer fronts. It'll be very interesting to see how it turns out. Guerrilla Games has the talent to make an exceptional FPS game, they just keep making one or two weak ground level design choices that no amount of good design thereafter can retroactively fix. So far they look to have avoided that with Shadow Fall.

What I would really like to see a FPS franchise try, especially one like Killzone where they do care about the single player campaign, is to go all out on your multiplayer with the first iteration, then follow it up with the sequels being single player campaigns with map packs and add ons for the original multiplayer. I don't like how FPS games keep asking these large audiences of online gamers to migrate with them when anything more than modest tweaks will likely only disappoint the fan base. This would also allow you to release the follow ups at more like $40 retail and really move a lot of copies.
 
Aaron said:
Because Rico sucks.
Click to expand...

Story and characters in Killzone are pretty hit and miss (really a miss except Stahl). Backstory of Helghan is great but between Rico and Sev...it's like two randomly generated douche soldiers that I wouldn't care if they died a fiery miserable death

Still looking forward to KZ SF, looks like they are doing some new things with the drone and no more goddamn Rico finally (?)
 
My first experience with Killzone was with #2 a few months back, and played it to completion. It's... well, it's decent as first person shooters go, the graphics are astounding, the AI is actually pretty good and, give it credit, it sometimes has some pretty cool boss battles (certainly a lot better than many other FPS games). But everything else just seems pretty uninteresting. Don't give a shit about the characters, the plot, the setting - it just feels like their attempt at making a Halo killer by copying the epicness, without making it its own thing.

I think it lacks a distinct personality, to me. Or maybe the 2006-2007 era GAF hype made me feel let down by the experience, which I know I shouldn't let happen but it did. Either way, I'd hardly consider it one of gaming's greatest franchises, not by a million miles.
 
I don't understand how people can say Crysis has mediocre gameplay. I think Crysis 1's gameplay has yet to be matched. Great AI, cool abilities... you can play it like the fucking predator himself.

About Killzone, I think the series is slightly above average. There is Killzone 1 which is kind of forgettable. There is Killzone 2 that had great graphics, sound but a quite average campaign with forgettable characters and a story that stopped being cool once the intro was done. The multiplayer of Killzone 2 isn't good either. Its like they put Battlefield gameplay into cramped Gears of War maps. It doesn't work out well 90% of the time. They just put everything but the kitchen sink into it, like drone and respawn nade classes. Map design was like funnels where everyone spawn raped. Thats never good.

Killzone 3 was a worse version of Killzone 2. Worse campaign and multiplayer overall. I always wondered if there really weren't studios around that could make much better games when given the time and budget GG enjoyed.

Shadow Fall looks amazing and I was surprised by the freedom you'll apparently get, but because Guerrilla's past I've yet to see if it turns out to be a classic.
 
Blearth said:
mj-laughing.gif


Call me when a shooter surpasses Crysis's gameplay.
Click to expand...

I've been calling for years. WHY WON'T YOU PICK UP.
 
SkylineRKR said:
I don't understand how people can say Crysis has mediocre gameplay. I think Crysis 1's gameplay has yet to be matched. Great AI, cool abilities... you can play it like the fucking predator himself.

About Killzone, I think the series is slightly above average. There is Killzone 1 which is kind of forgettable. There is Killzone 2 that had great graphics, sound but a quite average campaign with forgettable characters and a story that stopped being cool once the intro was done. The multiplayer of Killzone 2 isn't good either. Its like they put Battlefield gameplay into cramped Gears of War maps. It doesn't work out well 90% of the time. They just put everything but the kitchen sink into it, like drone and respawn nade classes. Map design was like funnels where everyone spawn raped. Thats never good.

Killzone 3 was a worse version of Killzone 2. Worse campaign and multiplayer overall. I always wondered if there really weren't studios around that could make much better games when given the time and budget GG enjoyed.

Shadow Fall looks amazing and I was surprised by the freedom you'll apparently get, but because Guerrilla's past I've yet to see if it turns out to be a classic.
Click to expand...

I played some Crysis 2, got it free with a PS+ trial and it was boring as fuck, couldn't be bothered with it. Much prefer KZ's atmosphere and gunplay.
 
velociraptor said:
Killzone 2 is one of the best FPS games ever conceived.

The MP is untouchable.
Click to expand...

The thing that I liked that they did was mix up the modes within a single MP match. I wish somebody who knew how to do competent shooter mechanics stole that idea.

Additionally, the fact that KZ2's voice communication was broken long after launch, and the matchmaking was entirely useless for putting together players of equal skill, made the whole thing a non-starter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Poll
Killzone died for this...
2 3 4 5
248
2K
Kamina replied
Final Fantasy 7 Remake director explains why Part 3 being multiplatform release won’t compromise quality; PC is considered the lead platform
6
250
Gaiff replied
Why Fidelity is Ruining Graphics
47
600
IAmRei replied
'Did Not Work': The First Descendant Considered a Failure by Its Developer
11
274
Reizo Ryuu replied
Capcom teases that Pragmata might have a future as a franchise
Opinion Game Dev  2
51
174
Fahdis replied
Top Bottom