The story is bad, the frame rate sucks, still 8,5.

Just read some Killzone 3 reviews. A common thing is that people are simply saying that the story is very, very weak. They are literally saying that it sucks. So, I just want to hear from you guys if you have great examples of games that the reviewer clearly thinks is worse then the grade they give to the product. Obviously - people are there because of the story and if that sucks it's very wierd that  it get's 8,5 which let's be honest - is not far of perfection. Share your crazy reviews here. I don't know if we're allowed to post which site it is that wrote the review, if so, then go ahead! :) 

The real appeal is the multiplayer, so the story doesn't matter as much as it does for a game like Mass Effect.

I totally respect that - but you can't really expect that out of a game like Killzone 3, in my opinion. If the story in Call of Duty sucked then OK - people are mainly buying that game for its multiplayer content. It is clearly not the case with something like Killzone. I just want to point out that I haven't played anything of Killzone 3, it just feels like people didn't wanted to loose their jobs by giving it a score too low. Reading some of these reviews the score seems more like a 7 or 7,5. And again - you should always read the review but we know how many people actually reads them...

Vaguely related, but I'm still posting anyways: 
 
My backlog is huge. Like, "I-own-10-sealed-games" big. So, that combined with my growing apathy towards online gaming has made me vow to not play a shooter online in 2011. I was going to buy Killzone 3, but if the story sucks and the meat is in good multiplayer, this may have turned into a rent, or even a pass. 
 
Still, let's be honest: the last few Call of Duty stories have been pretty bad, but it's still gotten high scores. Online can carry a game this generation.

KZ2's story wasn't very good either... all the good bits were on Killzone.com. I was hoping they'd incorporate more of the awesome fiction in it, but from the sound of it, that's not the case. Still, it's not a game I'm playing for the story and as long as it doesn't treat me like I'm a retard like MW2;s campaign, then it's fine with me.

I am literally buying this game for the multiplayer. The campaign could be Angry Birds for all I care.

" I am literally buying this game for the multiplayer. The campaign could be Angry Birds for all I care. "

I was hoping for a nice epic storyline here, perhaps I expected to much. I still look forward to picking it up and enjoying it however.

I dont give a fuck about the story in this game. As long as the act of shooting fools feels good in both single player and multiplayer, Im happy

This should be moved to the Killzone 3 Forum... 
title is abit misleading  
also, i read some, not too happy, also i dont like how they made it 'faster' and less sluggish, i really loved the weight to the guns, but now that thats gone...

" This should be moved to the Killzone 3 Forum... title is abit misleading  also, i read some, not too happy, also i dont like how they made it 'faster' and less sluggish, i really loved the weight to the guns, but now that thats gone... "

wait.. this isn't about Halo?
 
tee-hee
 
 
anyways, as far as story & setting goes, for those people who said that Gears and Halo was generic and bland, clearly never touched Killzone & Resistance.
 
GO RICO!

" @arcade78 said:

" This should be moved to the Killzone 3 Forum... title is abit misleading  also, i read some, not too happy, also i dont like how they made it 'faster' and less sluggish, i really loved the weight to the guns, but now that thats gone... "

I played the KZ2 demo and that sluggish feeling with the guns made me very intrigued and got me kind of interested in the game. If they made that faster in KZ3 then that kinda sucks. "

When it comes to the story for Killzone 3 all that matters to me is that I don't have to pick up for the horrible AI that controlled Rico. I am a Killzone "fanboy", there it is out of the way. I enjoyed the first one, and then really looked forward to Killzone 2. When I played the online beta for KZ2 I was hooked, the depth, the racking system that kept you coming back for more and on top of it all the skirmish mode that made sure that lengthy online play was never boring. I mean really, I didn't want to finish the story mode for one reason and one reason only, RICO!!! If i could have shot him in the face, left him for dead and finish the job myself I would have been a happy man. But alas, I could not, so if this alone is addressed in the story mode then it is a better game. Guerrilla Games has proved itself online and I am sure they will again in this game leaving it to be a must game for me. 
 
First DLC, have a full team of Rico's in the bot mode so we take pleasure in killing him!!   

" @xyzygy said:

" @arcade78 said:

" This should be moved to the Killzone 3 Forum... title is abit misleading  also, i read some, not too happy, also i dont like how they made it 'faster' and less sluggish, i really loved the weight to the guns, but now that thats gone... "

I played the KZ2 demo and that sluggish feeling with the guns made me very intrigued and got me kind of interested in the game. If they made that faster in KZ3 then that kinda sucks. "

I just don't understand what people saw in a game that controlled in a really clunky way AND also had all the enemies be bullet sponges... Had the game felt more tactical, I would have enjoyed that feel, but as it was, it felt too much like I was just slow and all the enemies were super soldiers, taking a billion shots.  Huh. Seems to me like they shouldn't have leaned so heavily on the MP. This sucks because the story trailer got me actually excited for the game. Other than that I had no interest at all. "

This reminds me of the leaked Marvel vs. Capcom 3 review by some idiotic English video games site Playr. 
 
Unfortunately, it was removed but the gist of it is... "we don't know dem fighting gams we just like to play as x mans and street fighters. a simple challenge is hard and I ignore the simple setting. not enough stages is a BIG NO NO NO FOR MVC3. 'bad camera' is bad too. ALSO DIS ISNT SMASH so 8/10. WATS AN EMBARGO, SOMETHING LIEK CARGO?"

Apparently the gameplay is pretty top notch though.

The story of all the KZ games so far have been pretty weak. A bunch of war movie cliches with a future coat of paint. That said, I found the shooting really satisfying in KZ2 and the multiplayer was surprisingly good. I could see the same in KZ3.

I think my view of a perfect game doesn't really match with what the industry sees as one, which I get. I liked the Killzone 2 multiplayer as a "jump in and play ten minutes" multiplayer. When it comes to E-sports, if you can put it that way, it's just way to much. So the question is, what is a perfect Killzone game? Let's be honest, if this game had a story at all it would be the greatest shooter ever, and that's my problem. The shooting is the most important part about first person shooters, and I am just trying to see a logical point how something with bad frame rate in multiplayer and also bad story can get 8,5. They are two scenarios here,
 
If they are judging the content of this game and not what's there and not - 8,5 doesn't make sense.  
If they are judging this game as a game compared to other shooters alike - 8,5 really doesn't make sense.   
 
Again - I love Killzone and this wasn't really something against the game because I am sure it's great. But these kind of reviews are way to common sites through out the internet. Giant Bomb is by far THE site to go to when it comes to reviews when it comes to this and I think that all of us can agree with that. 

Single player in Bad Company 2 was crap but the multiplayer redeemed it.

I think you are missing that a single-player campaign can be fun and entertaining to play through because of the gameplay even if the story sucks. If you ask me, that's the case with more than 90% of the games out there.

If there is one review publication that I trust (at least more than the others) it is Game Informer (I find Giant Bomb to be quite honest too); I shall wait and see what they say, though I feel that if you liked KZ2, then 3 should be fine. I cannot trust GameSpot's reviews...
 
I am waiting for the day where most games take pride in their story and writing, and I know some games have excellent writing, but I do also agree that if Killzone 3 had a top notch story, it may well be the best FPS out there. The "supposed" framerate issues are barely there apparently, and it is only because the game runs so well that when they do happen it is noticeable. 
 
I did hear that the story is a bit better than KZ2 though...
 
I guess judgement shall be made when I actually have the game playing and a controller in my hand.

" Just read some Killzone 3 reviews. A common thing is that people are simply saying that the story is very, very weak. They are literally saying that it sucks. So, I just want to hear from you guys if you have great examples of games that the reviewer clearly thinks is worse then the grade they give to the product. Obviously - people are there because of the story and if that sucks it's very wierd that  it get's 8,5 which let's be honest - is not far of perfection. Share your crazy reviews here. I don't know if we're allowed to post which site it is that wrote the review, if so, then go ahead! :)  "

Only problem I have with that score is that I demand periods between the numbers not commas.

Here's the deal with game ratings that go on ten point scales. 1-6 are discounted because no game ever gets them, which makes 7 "Terrible" Once you wrap your head around that, it all starts to fall into place. 8's are also bad. Anything below a 9.5 isn't worth getting. 9.9s are perfect games, but they don't get that 00.1 because the reviewer was upset about the developer or publisher not saying hi to them at the parties. Starting to make sense?

" Only problem I have with that score is that I demand periods between the numbers not commas. "

Uh oh fanboy alert. 
 
Watch out everyone! :D

FPS' in general never have that great stories (there are obviously exceptions).

" @elko84 said:

" Only problem I have with that score is that I demand periods between the numbers not commas. "

Yeah I agree. This is giantbomb.com not giantbomb.de. "

I don't play games for story. I also don't play them for multiplayer. Back in the day, you could make a game with practically no story and have both single and multiplayer being awesome at the same time. Now, you tend to get one good and the other half assed. I'm fine with that because I recognize which games are great single player experiences and which are more focused on multiplayer, but I hope that in the future we will see more games specializing instead of trying to be jacks of all trades. Either you're trying to be the next COD, or you're trying to be the next Vanquish. Going for both results in getting neither right.

4 stars - by Jeff Gerstmann.

" @Snapstacle said:

" @elko84 said:

" Only problem I have with that score is that I demand periods between the numbers not commas. "

Yeah I agree. This is giantbomb.com not giantbomb.de. "

Snap 

SPOILER WARNING: Click here to reveal hidden content.

stacle

"

who the fuck cares about the campaign ? Many people I know don't go for the campaign in most FPSs. 
a side note : I HATE KZ franchise .

No they are saying the story is bad and the framerate sucks but the game overall is good therefor they are giving it 8.5.

"Still, let's be honest: the last few Call of Duty stories have been pretty bad, but it's still gotten high scores. "

If i get it, it'll be for the MP anyway. KZ2's campaign wasn't that great so I'm not expecting KZ3's to be either.

Reviews like this just prove the 5 point scale works better. 
 
Killzone 3 is a 4 star game. None of that .5 bullshit. It's a solid game, with some minor shortcomings. 4 stars.

It's not weird at all, man. Games like Killzone and Call of Duty could ship with no single player at all, and still get reviewed good. Story isn't everything when it comes to dumb, arcadey shooters. The graphics and gameplay are probably great, it probably deserves that 8.5, and even if it doesn't, WHO FUCKING CARES HOW GAMESPOT REVIEWS KILLZONE!!

 Hey as long as the shooting and multiplayer are still awesome then I'm game.
 
I don't really care much about the Killzone "fiction" anyways. I'll I need to know is space Nazis and Rico is a dick.

In a modern FPS, all the story really needs to be is, "Go shoot bad guys," and if the gameplay is good, then the game doesn't need to have a story on par with something like Mass Effect. 

'Game Trailers' said the story was average, but said everything else was awesome. Started watching the IGN review and turned it off as the guy reviewing was talking non-sense about what matters. Shame though as the story was the clincher for me, and probably the most criticised thing about KZ2?.. so don't know how Guerrilla missed that?! I won't be picking it up because of that, I still play KZ2 and don't really have the hunger for more of the same.

You realize we are talking about Killzone here? The story of the series is horrendous from the very first entry. If you are playing Killzone for the story then you are, well, just plain stupid. If we were talking about an RPG then I could see where you are coming from, but this is a shooter. The point is to shoot things. A good story is a nice bonus, and really elevates a game from the 8 range to the 9 range, but I have fun with shooters even if the story sucks. I mean look at Modern Warfare 2. That game got near perfect marks and the story makes no sense whatsoever. Halo 2 had a horribly told story that barely was coherent but again got near perfect marks. Sorry to burst your bubble, but most games aren't about the story. They are about the gameplay. Like I said, a great story can really help pull things together, but it isn't required for an enjoyable game.

FPS?  

Good gameplay. 
Good story. 
 
Pick one.

According to Kevin Van Ord's gamespot review the story sucks, he says that the cutscenes took him time that could have been used to frag more Helghast but then he states that only the villains are likable characters so, those villains voiced by awesome actors only appear during the cutscenes he first said he hated, there is a contradiction, if you hate the cutscenes you can't like its characters performance.  
He liked a lot the gameplay, the graphics, the AI, the multiplayer. What can Guerrilla do to please this dude?, it's an FPS, you shoot  and blow up stuff and from time to time cutscenes appear to fill in the story gaps, what are these nonsensical reviewers expecting?, we all agree the main characters sucked in KZ2, they can't change their personality and the voice actors , it wouldn't make sense if they did.
The first game story sucked, cutscenes were short and shallow, the hero and the squad were annoying as hell but now this time(reading a lot of reviews) Guerrilla paid a lot more attention to the Helghan side of the story, the flag side of this franchise, space nazis being evil.

I wonder how many people played TimeSplitters for the story...

look for "the best of gametrailers" video on youtube for my idea of what reviewers are like

" The real appeal is the multiplayer, so the story doesn't matter as much as it does for a game like Mass Effect. "

It's a good game.
 
But it's not a great game.
 
Multiplayer will keep you all happy but in my opinion - if people just wanted to play this game for the multiplayer, then they would be demanding that the game should either be a lot cheaper or that the multiplayer should be standalone DLC.
 
Personally - this game still fails to win me over as a fan of the PS3. I have a friend who loves his PS3 for Uncharted and Killzone but...meh - maybe it's because my hands are enourmas and that I will never be able to enjoy a game with a PS3 control pad....who knows lol