It all started with the "Ballet of Death" video. I had no idea what Killzone was. As soon I saw that video I thought "Humm, maybe I will get this game". I was really impressed by the animations and graphics. It was still a FPS, not my favorite type of game, but I thought about checking it out. My main interest was the multiplayer, because I didn't own any multiplayer game that I really liked on the PS3 back then and because of that I always played multiplayer on the PC.
Then came the reviews and the fanboys right after. The media bashing made me skeptical. Could it be that this game was bad? Many reviews brought up issues like ugly fire, ugly textures, bad AI, bad story, bad six axis controls, etc. The hype effect really started to diminish in me. I started wondering if there was some truth to it. Well, it is not possible to form an opinion based on YouTube videos, so I was anxious to play it and see it by myself.
Then I played the game...
...
...
I can review it with one word: "F**K!"
A review in ten words: "F**K! F**K! S**T! F**K! F**K! S**T! F**K! S**T! F**K! F**K!"
IT IS THE BEST FPS EVER MADE.
This game was so unfairly criticized, so unfairly bashed. I don't take too seriously when people accuse the media of "bias", but come on, this time they have no excuse. The game is a masterpiece. It is not the best PS3 game, because that is MGS4, but comes in second place.
Let me elaborate on that.
THE GRAPHICS:
The visuals are stunning. Unlike some reviews that claimed that the fire was "fugly" and there was "ugly textures" I couldn't see a single place where it was a problem.
These consoles have limited resources. The video memory is limited, so they need to keep the texture resolutions at a certain size. Because of it lower resolution textures can be found in any game. The problem is not if a game has them, but if the textures are really bad. That's not the case with Killzone.
The fire is just fine. Some reviewers took a half point because of it, but the flame-thrower throws a flammable liquid, not just a flame. So IGN really screwed up this one.
THE GAMEPLAY:
The game is breath taking from beginning to end. It is one of the few games that makes you feel like in a real conflict. Your heart beats faster and you really get stressed at certain points.
The atmosphere of chaos is pretty good and so is the filth in all levels, but what really stands out are the Helghast. There are plenty of them, attacking you from two or three directions at once. You can't stay too long in one place, even if you are behind cover. You are constantly looking around you for Helghasts.
The AI is really aggressive, especially as you progress into the game. The first two levels aren't difficult at all, but as you progress you start seeing some real challenge even on normal difficulty.
Some people complained that the Helghast didn't have good AI (some extreme fanboy sites). All I have say is: they didn't pass the academy level. From that point on you can try to be funny, but it won't be easy even on normal difficulty.
Lots of times happened that many Helghast ran towards me. I would kill two or three of them and then another one would still reach me and kill me with a knife. Why? Because the clip emptied and there was no time to reload. This is one of the few games where I actually needed to switch to the handgun, not because I was out of ammo, but because I had no time to reload. Killzone is that intense.
What really sets this game apart from the others of the same genre is the war simulation. Unlike usual FPSes, where you are the "lonely warrior" walking through corridors and killing demons/combine/big daddies, you name it, here you are in a real war. Call of Duty does something similar, but Killzone is a lot more intense, with more things happening and with a smarter AI. It makes it the most immersive FPS so far and the most engaging single player campaign ever made.
The six axis controls are used only in a few places, but they don't few "tacked on" like Gamespot mentioned. They feel ok. They aren't something that will change the genre, but it is a creative way of using the six axis. It just works and that's what matters for the player. Shame on you Gamespot (again)!
The cover mechanics is an interesting addition. Unlike games like Gears of War where there's no intensity to the fight, you won't be safely guarded behind anything. You will need to move quickly as you go. So the cover helps, but it doesn't get in the way. It is an innovation that was largely ignored by the media. No other FPS implemented cover this way, this is the first time, and it worked very well. (Other FPSes would jump to third person when behind cover, thus completely destroying the immersion).
THE STORY:
Killzone has more story than the entire Call of Duty series combined. Do you see any fanboy whining about the lack of interesting characters or lame story or even the dialogue in any of those games? Yes, neither do I. Shame on you, reviewers!
FPSes aren't about story, they are about action. That's why the story is a simple tool, but not the main attraction. And Killzone does well in that department. It is not fair to compare this game to MGS4 or any other game with more complex and engaging story because this is not what this genre is about. If you compare it to other FPSes then you will see that it is on par with everything else and better than many others (Doom? Call of Duty?).
This game is too frenetic. They could have slowed it down a little by adding more story and cutscenes. But after playing it I understood that they are building it strictly around the perspective of Sev. That's why you don't see long cutscenes of things happening elsewhere (like MGS4). You only see what Sev sees, and as a soldier your job is to follow orders.
In this aspect Killzone is no different than Gears of War. In Gears you play the entire game and has no idea what the Locust are, why you are fighting, how is the world in that universe, etc. All you know is your mission and you follow through. The same happens with Killzone.
CONCLUSION:
Why are Playstation 3 games analyzed through a microscope and every pixel out of place is enough to take points from it? Why games like GTA or Halo get good scores no matter what? This is getting really old.
If you actually read the reviews in sites like IGN and many others you will notice that Killzone was compared to a personal idea of perfection, of how the reviewer imagined a perfect game should be like, not the reality. It wasn't compared to the current state of FPS games and console technology.
If it had been compared to the current generation of FPSes, then they would have no excuse but to give it 11 out of 10.
This game is well worth the price of the Playstation 3.