To its fans, the strength of Killzone 2 was the visceral intensity of its combat, and the way that built and built to unprecedented levels as the game went on. Is this necessarily a bad thing? Has something been lost along the way? Sure. In fact, with its settings, its action sequences and its greater reliance on cinematics and massive action set-pieces, it actually feels a lot like Call of Duty. The odd thing is, however, that when you take all these changes together, Killzone 3 no longer feels quite like Killzone. Movement, meanwhile, is now faster, more instantly responsive and more fluid, without that sense of fatigue that characterised the old Killzone 2 experience. All the same, there’s no question that both put a lot of players off. They’ll even argue that the movement is part of Killzone 2’s unique, gritty feel. Fans (including the writer) will argue that they liked the guys on a mission feel and the way the single player campaign built momentum. Ask most people what they didn’t like about Killzone 2 and they’ll say (1) the lack of variety in the campaign and its scenery and (2) its intentionally slow and heavy movement. We can see where some of the problems lie. Everything that Halo: Reach was to the Xbox 360, Killzone 3 is to the PS3. True, Killzone 3 isn’t all that innovative and the plot isn’t much to write home about, but it’s a superb first-person shooter. Judging by some of the miserable carping going on, it appears that it’s no longer enough to be a visually stunning, technically accomplished, hugely engrossing action game, packed to the rafters with dizzying spectacle and violent sound and fury.
(Pocket-lint) - It shows how far console shooters have come that some critics have already labelled Killzone 3 a disappointment.
0 kommentar(er)
