By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
geddesmond2 on 20 February 2011
Edit Thread
makingmusic476 said:

Yes, some developers can make absolutely amazing games in only two years.  Naughty Dog are a good example of this.  However, most developers aren't quite so able.

To give a few examples:

  • Insomniac:  Released an incredibly underwhelming Resistance 2 after only two years, and switched to a three year dev cycle for Resistance 3.
  • Epic:  Released a somewhat underwhelming Gears 2 after only two years (it was mainly the multiplayer that had issues), and switched to a three year dev cycle for Gears 3.
  • Bungie: Has always taken three years to develop each mainline Halo game.
  • Valve:  Valve Time?  Lemme know when the announce Episode 3.

I think, just like the other big games in the cinematic shooter market, Killzone 3 should've had three years in the oven.  Or at the very least 2.5.  Everything I've read says the game is incredible on numerous fronts, but it has a few issues that could've (and should've) been rectified with some extra development time.  Issues like:

  • Cutscenes with weird audio mixing (almost no bass)
  • Weird transitions between cutscenes/gameplay
  • Cutscenes that people have said should've been playable ("should've been more like Half-life 2" I've heard)
  • Offline co-op but no online co-op
  • Missing features from multiplayer (patching in custom servers?  what the hell?)

Granted, I haven't actually played the game yet, but this is how I feel after having read various reviews and previews. 

Does anybody who has already played the game feel similarly?


Holy shit dude, before you make threads on games needing more development time play the dam game first. Don't make assumption based off any of these reviews. Half the reviews contradict themselfs while the other half just nip pick away at the title and some have even mentioned things like "you need to hold the crouch button to stay in cover which gets annoying" even though if they searched through the dam options they'd see a setting to have crouch set as toggle or hold.

If KZ3 did have another years development you'd be reading reviewers that downplay the game for its long development time like the way GT5 was downplayed. This game has improved in nearly every single way it can over the last game in the series.

Just to clear up some of the points you mentioned. If this game took 5 years to make you'd still have only offline co-op. For the same reasons that Uncharted 2 and Resistance 1 and 2 didn't have online story co-op is probably the same reason KZ3 doesn't have it. It might be to complicated to include.

Cutscenes that should be playable????If they could be played then they wouldn't be cutscenes?????

Audio mixing in cutscenes????? The demo seemed alright too me and if a reviewer wasn't trying to nick pick at the game then I don't know how a reviewer would pick up on something like that.

Again with the weird transition between cutscenes and gameplay. I don't have a clue what they mean but its all just nit picking really.

If the game looks good to you then Just play the dam game and make up your own mind based off it. Easy