Killzone review (IGN)

7.5 Presentation
Killzone offers a minimalist's menu but a fair amount of options. Progressive scan output would be nice, but that omission doesn't hurt the title and its cohesive feel, even if it does start abruptly.

8.0 Graphics
Killzone boasts incredible art direction. Every level is stylish and appropriate while every character and gun is meticulously detailed. Then again, it's also slow running and loaded with glitches.

9.0 Sound
Amazing music and some very crisp, very believable effects are brought down only by repetitive voices and bad dialogue. Brought down, but not by much. Terrific audio job, Guerilla.

7.0 Gameplay
Here's where it gets sticky. The AI is terrible and the scripted combat isn't very exhilarating. But then it looks and sounds so good it's often possible to get lost in the war.

8.0 Lasting Appeal
Provided the technological deficiencies don't bother you, Killzone offers a solid multiplayer mode that happens to be plagued by the same problems as the singleplayer game.

7.5 OVERALL:
(out of 10 / not an average)

Source: IGN
------------------------------
:?
 
Oh wow.. that was unexpected! Well, to clarify - I was always skeptical of this game, but I thought IGN would have given it a 9.9, even if it did suck :p
 
Polarbear53 said:
Were people hyping the A.I. a ton or am I just making that up?
No, you were not making that up. I recall that (along with other things) being praised, mostly by major PS2 fans. They raved about bots capable of flanking you, taking cover, etc. I always found it funny, actually, because everything I read about why KZ's AI was so great was done to near perfection in Halo. But most of the huge PS2 fans were oblivious to that fact. Now, it seems, Guerilla did not do so great a job as Bungie did.

And that's too bad. Fortunately for PS2 owners, this news could not come at a better time. They're getting GTA:SA, R&C:UYA, MGS3 and GT4 this year. KZ would have been a great addition, but Sony was by no means depending on it to carry the PS2.

After Shellshock: Vietnam and Killzone, I have to question Sony's investment in Guerilla. It doesn't seem like a smart move so far. Further time will tell, I guess.
 
bbot said:
Killzone...Halo-killer. No.

Maybe you should play the game yourself before deciding that, eh? ;)

Funny how people bash IGN for giving over-inflated scores, yet when they give a high-profile PS2 title one that clearly isn't, suddenly they're the bastion of credibility... :rolleyes:
 
bbot said:
Killzone...Halo-killer. No.

Halo "killer" would be pretty much every FPS on the PC :)

On the consoles there is only 2-3 impressive FPS games, Goldeneye and Halo... and i might be alone on this, but i was surprised by Turok on the N64, i think it was very good and the control scheme worked!
 
Why do I feel like Killzone has been the game chosen to be crucified?? Just by reading the beginning of the review, it feels like IGN needed a game to bash to regain their credibility after handing out 9s so easily.
 
Guden Oden said:
bbot said:
Killzone...Halo-killer. No.

Maybe you should play the game yourself before deciding that, eh? ;)

Funny how people bash IGN for giving over-inflated scores, yet when they give a high-profile PS2 title one that clearly isn't, suddenly they're the bastion of credibility... :rolleyes:

Hehe well they are over inflated scores but thats just because people view games that get less than 8's bad since thats worse than a B in school. They have always been decent for getting a general idea whether a game is worth looking at or not.

But more on topic this doesn't seem a huge surprise really about Killzone. It seemed to be getting a little more hype than seemed to make sense based on little fact. People need to learn not to hype themselves up based on graphics and what developers say. Hopefully with games like Fable people are finally learning that a little.

Hmmm, now I'm wondering is the next Time Splitters still coming out next January and hehe will that be good :p.
 
After Shellshock: Vietnam and Killzone, I have to question Sony's investment in Guerilla. It doesn't seem like a smart move so far. Further time will tell, I guess.
I was saying that from the day I heard about the acquisition. For hell's sake, Sony wouldn't buy such kickass developers as Criterion (now EA has them) or Insomniac, yet they bought such completely unproven team as Guerilla. Why? Is Killzone really that much marketable?

Btw, you forgot AC5, Jak 3 and This, on your list ;) PS2 really has a very good holiday release schedule (not to mention the PStwo as another wildcard)
 
marconelly! said:
I was saying that from the day I heard about the acquisition. For hell's sake, Sony wouldn't buy such kickass developers as Criterion (now EA has them) or Insomniac, yet they bought such completely unproven team as Guerilla. Why? Is Killzone really that much marketable?

They didn't bought Guerilla, they just have an exclusive publishing deal, AFAIK.
 
Halo might not look as good as a PC FPS, nor does it have as many scripted sequences where you gotta follow rails to see some action sequence heavily inspired by some WWII movies. But it has very good gameplay dynamics and AI, and this is why it has something almost unheard of in PC shooters: replay value.
Now, Halo2 adds some more gameplay stuff (like the dual weapon use), even better AI, and Bungie had the time needed to build more levels, too. I guess it'll make it better in the end. Shame about the graphics, though... there's only so much an Xbox can do.
 
One thing that did stand out the most in this game that I noticed right off was the AI (of course those came before the reviews). It some places, the AI was too sensitive and in others, they were less responsive. A good example would be a short mission as Lugar. I notice that even when peaking around a corner,no matter how steathly you were, the AI would notice you immediately, even though they weren't looking in your direction. On another occasion, Lugar snipes one of the leading baddies in the head, while the one following five feet behind remains unaffected by the soldier that has just fallen infront of him.
 
I am extremely dissapointed. But I'll wait for reviews from other sites like Gamespot etc. Anyway I am getting this game. KZ may still sell like The Getaway despite average reviews.
 
And also whether MS is taking a huge gamble on H2 only this holiday season. They are putting all eggs in a single basket.
 
I'm not defending the people who were looking foward to this game nor do I care for its genre, but it does seem like this game (or at least the author) went in with low expectations of the game, judging by his review. Everything he mentions in every single part of his review is being compared to either Halo or Halo2. This is only my opinion, but I believe he may be a Halo fan.
 
Yeah, 1.5 million pre-orders is quite a gamble Deepak. :rolleyes:

Seriously, the entire Xbox project hinged on the success of Halo. It stands to reason they'd stick with it until something bigger gets developed.
 
Johnny Awesome said:
Yeah, 1.5 million pre-orders is quite a gamble Deepak. :rolleyes:

Seriously, the entire Xbox project hinged on the success of Halo. It stands to reason they'd stick with it until something bigger gets developed.

I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but I'm serious. Now, maybe the game did have a lot of flaws, but as you said, Halo 2 has 1.5 million pre-orders. I am very aware of very insecure Halo fans that may come down on you hard if you disrepect this game in any way. Just reading his review, Halo came up way too much in their. Now, I may be wrong. Maybe the game is a piece of crap, but his review comes off a little lopsided with Halo popping up way too much. Again, I'm not even into this genre, let alone looking foward to purchasing the game, but something doesn't seem right at all about this review.
 
Back
Top