The orange-eyed deathtroopers return for another dance, but is this rogue affair over too quickly?
Format: PS3 Dev: Guerrilla Games Pub: Sony Out: 25/02/11 Players: 1-2, 2-16 online
Killzone 3 is the return of the one that got away. In 2009, an extremely attractive girl came into your life and took you for a wild ride over the following months; but there was always that nagging feeling in the back of your head that this wasn’t going to last. She was a commit-o-phobe, much more interested in looking good for the rest of the guys. So you part ways, always thinking what would’ve happened if she’d stuck around.
Fast-forward two years, and she’s learnt the error of her ways. She’s back again, wanting to give you another shot. But she’s learnt a lesson or two since last time.
The game takes place in the fallout from the previous iteration. Scholar Vasari was killed and Helghan revenge is very much on the cards, as you’re cast back into Sev’s shoes. A mind-numbingly simple plot, that’s made up for by an intensive combat experience.
More than before, Killzone 3 is an emphatic blitz on the senses, throwing everything at you in one elegantly designed piece of destruction. If you know Guerrilla Games, you’ll understand the infinite attention to detail in things that you may not even notice. The scale is epic: huge landscapes are traversed to an operatic soundtrack; we’re wandering into Michael Bay territory here, both for the good and ill.
What this leads to is a somewhat bittersweet single-player experience, that falls victim to its own linearity. The AI performs well, but within the extremely constricting landscapes, you can never see the full capabilities of your hellish foes. Simple exploits, such as keeping a distance so all your enemies run through a narrow choke point just begging you to mow them down, plague the vast majority of the key battle scenes. Not to say this ruins the game, as we’ve come to expect this somewhat from the FPS genre, but I would’ve had a much better involvement if the AI provided more competition, even on the hardest difficulty.
You feel this relationship falling back into old habits, as the game impresses you, visually and audibly, at every corner. But it just never feels up-to-scratch gameplay-wise. It feels weighty, don’t get me wrong, there is a significant amount of heft to your control, but there’s just something missing. It’s that unidentifiable quality that makes the likes of Call of Duty and BioShock a step above the parapet. That subconscious immersion in a game, Killzone contradicts with a poor story and clunky gameplay.
Obviously, story mode – which can also be approached in split-screen co-op for the first time – is only half the offering. Multiplayer is still an inviting concept, not many identifiable changes have been made to the dynamics. Warzone is still the mainstay of multiplayer: multiple game modes linked together in a one-hour romp. A much more long-term investment, however it feels less worthwhile due to limited out-of-game bonuses based on a levelling up system that’s merely for show.
The beauty of multiplayer are the maps on offer, interesting concepts of dimension and scale. A commendable mix of horizontal and vertical combat makes the competitive online world a much more enjoyable place then the short-lived campaign. However, in comparison to other popular shooters, Killzone 3 tries too hard to copy with very little fresh to speak of. An imitator, rather than an innovator.
So then, just like before, you part ways, agreeing that the time you had together was fun, but short-lived. I can guarantee for the limited amount of time that it takes to experience all the game has to offer, you will love it. Guerrilla Games have managed to make a fantastic solidifier to the trilogy, encompassing every strength (and every pitfall) that Killzone is known for. Shame, though, that the thrill should be so fleeting.
Jason England
Tags: fps, guerrilla games, killzone, multiplayer, playstation move, shooter, sony
You’re freaking insane man. This beta was digital crack and you’re complaining about the length of the campaign as if an FPS campaign is supposed to be 15 hours long? I could hear it now: “such a beautiful sounding a looking game, but alas it’s just too long for me to endure..” This is the best FPS out and you’re nitpicking bullshit and comparing it to Bioshock and COD which it shyts on btw lol… this “review” reeks of casual immaturity.
no offense but the fact that you have lumped call of duty with bioshock removes all credibility with me, unless of course you are refering to mw and back and not waw forward…
@ Duplissi: World at War onwards marks the beginning of Call of Duty’s condemning status as an annual upgrade. This was written in mind of the razor-sharp, yet long enduring multiplayer mode that was introduced (and implemented the best) in the original MW. Killzone 3 attempts to utilise some of the systems used in the previously mentioned shooter, and brings a different twist to the endurance of the genre (Warzone: keep you playing instead of waiting in menus and lobbies after every 7-10 minute match). But it just didn’t have that element for me that kept me. This isn’t an insult of the game: its cracking, a befitting end to the trilogy. However, I just didn’t feel the need to be committed to this on a long-term, like I felt with MW. Hope that clears it up.
@Malcolm Little: This review is an opinion. You have a different one. Don’t take personal offense as if it’s your first born child, I’m glad you enjoyed the beta so much.
I know FPS campaigns have a shorter lifespan; but even by these reduced standards, I still found it to be too short and lingering on every word of a clumsily implemented story. The combat is ridiculously intense (awesome), and its an experience to be enjoyed, the review doesn’t criticise that in anyway…except for the downsides that come from making a game the Michael Bay-way. But the levels are constructed in such a linear way that you’re not given a dramatic challenge, and the game’s over before the fight-or-die tension really kicks in. If a game is beautiful in looks and sound (and gameplay…the most important part), then you wouldn’t have a problem investing your time if said game was a long one, so that criticism wouldn’t exist to be honest. If you want to engage in a debate, Michael, then Platform are here with open ears; but don’t go questioning credibility or maturity, when you’re clearly not showing it yourself.
p.s it’s spelt shits*. Don’t literate the Nottingham accent.