By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
makingmusic476 on 20 February 2011
Edit Thread
geddesmond2 said:
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. 1. 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. 2. 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.

3. 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


The anger really wasn't necessary.

I realize most reviews have been incredibly nit-picky, and I get the feeling the game should've scored higher than it did (for example, the numerous complaints about the game "not doing anything new" or "not bringing the genre forward" while Black Ops got a pass on this).  I even said the game sounds "incredible on numerous fronts."

And in reality, most of the issues I mentioned (particularly those related to cutscenes) are pretty minor, and my point was that just a little extra polish would've fixed these right up, possibly propelling the game from Killzone 2's "really really good" status to Uncharted 2's " hands down game of the year" status.

As for the points I bolded and underlined:

1.  This is factually incorrrect.  The removal of features like the clan betting system and proximity chat in multiplayer attest to this.  There's also the fact they have to patch in custom games after release.

2.  Both Uncharted 2 and Resistance 2 had online co-op.  It may not have been story co-op, but that's entirely unrelated the decision to include online co-op.  Killzone 3 has co-op, and there's absolutely no reason it shouldn't offer that same co-op experience online as well as offline aside from the game's development time.

3. I've seen many people claim that there are certain sections of the game that were told via cutscene that would've been better told via gameplay, much like Half-life 2 often conveys major plot points directly via gameplay.  What's hard to understand about this? 

Imagine if you had watched the Poseidon fight in God of War III instead of participating via QTE.  Similar situation.