[link=http://us.playstation.com/games-and-media/games/killzone-3-ps3.html]Killzone 3[/link] is as close to faultless as online shooters get. The single-player could still use a slight bit of work, but its errors pale in evaluation to the quantity of amusement that the multiplayer offers. I don't believe the PlayStation 3 has yet had quite such a rounded, pleasing package as this, with this point of enhancement and clean, trouble-free, unpretentious action.
Killzone 3 VS Killzone 2
- Thread starter GerrySmith04
- Start date
I personally prefer Killzone 2 more than the third. First of all, the menu. The menu in Killzone 2 fit to the "destroyed and war-ish" theme. It was easy to access, and looked over all very good, and good colours of choice. Killzone 3's menu is however, amazingly ugly in comparison to the Killzone 2. It is red... Simply red, the music played while browsing is awful, and it is just so away from "killzone" it could possibly get.
Second of all, singleplayer. I really enjoyed and loved with all my heart the levels in Killzone 2 same as the movement. It was hardcore, tough and it made you really get that war is a bitch. The variations wasn't many, and for the record, I liked it. The campaign was dark and filthy. I believe that Guerilla Games listened a little too much at the fans when they were pledgin and begging for variations. Now we got it, a jungle in Helghan.. hm, really? Sorry, but that is just a big no for me. Helghan in Killzone 3 doesn't feel like Helghan. The movement was also something a lot of people disliked and compared to the Call of Duty series. I think the movement was the most realistic in a game this far. Think about it, you have a buckload of ammo, guns, grenades, etc on you. Of course you move that slowly! In Call of Duty: Black Ops (for an example) you can run faster than Usain Bolt. It feels a little to fast for me. I am young, and I haven't been in a war (obviously) but running as fast as they do in 'blops' with all that ammo (,etc) on you doesn't feel realistic. Any how, this isn't about Black Ops, but Guerilla Games truly have cod-ified the series, which according to me is a shame. Graphics isn't such a big part of the game, but you have to say Killzone 2's graphics rocked. Killzone 3's graphics however is notably not near as good as they were in Killzone 2, that because of the 3D technology. I mean, a majority (something as 97 %) will not play with a 3D tv, I think it was pretty unessecary to add it in, also as it made the game look worse. Now multiplayer, I admit.. multiplayer wasn't the strongest part in Killzone 2 but it was amazing. It wasn't like all the other games in the market, it stood out. Now, I haven't actually played multiplayer in the full version of Killzone 3 but from what I saw at the beta, it is cod-ified. Points popping up in your face when you kill someone? Perks?
Needless to say, I think Killzone 2 is the better game. Now I can only hope Guerilla Games get back to the good times, in Killzone 4.
Second of all, singleplayer. I really enjoyed and loved with all my heart the levels in Killzone 2 same as the movement. It was hardcore, tough and it made you really get that war is a bitch. The variations wasn't many, and for the record, I liked it. The campaign was dark and filthy. I believe that Guerilla Games listened a little too much at the fans when they were pledgin and begging for variations. Now we got it, a jungle in Helghan.. hm, really? Sorry, but that is just a big no for me. Helghan in Killzone 3 doesn't feel like Helghan. The movement was also something a lot of people disliked and compared to the Call of Duty series. I think the movement was the most realistic in a game this far. Think about it, you have a buckload of ammo, guns, grenades, etc on you. Of course you move that slowly! In Call of Duty: Black Ops (for an example) you can run faster than Usain Bolt. It feels a little to fast for me. I am young, and I haven't been in a war (obviously) but running as fast as they do in 'blops' with all that ammo (,etc) on you doesn't feel realistic. Any how, this isn't about Black Ops, but Guerilla Games truly have cod-ified the series, which according to me is a shame. Graphics isn't such a big part of the game, but you have to say Killzone 2's graphics rocked. Killzone 3's graphics however is notably not near as good as they were in Killzone 2, that because of the 3D technology. I mean, a majority (something as 97 %) will not play with a 3D tv, I think it was pretty unessecary to add it in, also as it made the game look worse. Now multiplayer, I admit.. multiplayer wasn't the strongest part in Killzone 2 but it was amazing. It wasn't like all the other games in the market, it stood out. Now, I haven't actually played multiplayer in the full version of Killzone 3 but from what I saw at the beta, it is cod-ified. Points popping up in your face when you kill someone? Perks?
Needless to say, I think Killzone 2 is the better game. Now I can only hope Guerilla Games get back to the good times, in Killzone 4.
Killzone 3, everything seems to flow better in KZ3.
KZ3, no question. It is an improvement in every way.
Killzone 3. The action ran alot better and I felt the game was more enjoyable.
I kinda like KZ2 more than KZ3, and it's only becuz of the online. I like that you could mix and match your skills, you could make your own rooms, being able to spawn on the squad leader, spawn grenades and I liked KZ2 maps better. KZ3 on the other hand, have no reason to have squads. But I do like the way you level up in KZ3
I like Killzone 3's play style much better then the clunkiness of KZ2. I really miss the bigger maps though.
The only thing I miss in Killzone 3 is the tactical spawns of the Tacticians...
Only if you can carry more grenades... Here is a present from Visari
-R1Alcatraz
-R1Alcatraz
I honestly didn't expect a 3rd KiLLZonE... Havok surprised me on that 1...
-R1Alcatraz
-R1Alcatraz
Killzone 2 is at least a million times better. The multiplayer is amazing, simply amazing. Especially since KZ3 totaly ruined my favourite play style, sniping. They took away that spotting power and it just sucked.
amorican
Super Star
Single player: Killzone 2
Multiplayer: Killzone 3
Multiplayer: Killzone 3
Killzone 3.
I can see why people who spent so long adjusting to (the brilliant) Killzone 2 could find it hard to keep up with the changes for 3. But lets get one thing straight, Killzone 3 is an improvement upon just about everything that was wrong with 2. The movement is still Killzone, it's still heavier than every other shooter out there. But it's controllable now, more so than KZ2 ever was. Even with maximum sensitivity and High Precision (a patch GG put out when they realised their aiming wasn't right) ON it was still a little bit awkward... though plenty playable.
I loved KZ2 deeply and passionately, I love/d KZ3 more.
I can see why people who spent so long adjusting to (the brilliant) Killzone 2 could find it hard to keep up with the changes for 3. But lets get one thing straight, Killzone 3 is an improvement upon just about everything that was wrong with 2. The movement is still Killzone, it's still heavier than every other shooter out there. But it's controllable now, more so than KZ2 ever was. Even with maximum sensitivity and High Precision (a patch GG put out when they realised their aiming wasn't right) ON it was still a little bit awkward... though plenty playable.
I loved KZ2 deeply and passionately, I love/d KZ3 more.
Killzone 2 multiplayer is light years ahead. They did an ok job with Killzone 3 single player, i liked it more than KZ2. But i buy KZ for online, and KZ2 is way better.