Okay so I just completed Killzone 3 a few hours ago and I'm a little dissapointed by the singleplayer.
Frankly I never felt like I was pulled into the story nor could I give a darn about most (or perhaps any) of the characters. They never really felt like they were fleshed out and none of the Helghast characters come close to the mood set by Visari. There was maybe a few points in the game where I was interested in seeing the ISA's survival, one being the the jungle level.
What's worse is that the jumping back and forth from directly after Killzone 2 to 6 months after that in the first half of the game makes it hard to get into the story. I'm also wondering the whole point to the whole '6 months' thing anyway. I'm thinking they used the '6 months later' setting to give continuity to the new redesigns for ISA characters returning from Killzone 2. Speaking of Killzone 2, I remember the story flowing a little better and I recall the theme of a massive invasion made the ambiance of the levels feel a little more intense while you had to wait till the later half of Killzone 3 to get to the really intense level atmospheres.
The ending (and probably numerous action sequences) felt rushed too which seems to be something that a lot of first person shooters seem to have in common and that's a shame. I don't want Kojima's spew of exposition, but it's like many games can't seem to nail the pacing of events.
---
As for multiplayer. I've already covered numerous points during the multiplayer beta. Mainly I think I'm torn. I enjoyed Killzone 2 and put a lot of time in the multiplayer and it was more unique while it's like Killzone 3 seems to have conceeded to providing a little more of a Call of Duty experience (which is a series I've grown rather tired of).
I get some changes like improved aiming and removal of spawn grenades (for the cluster fuck factor) for example, but stuff like the matchmaking, kill-streak perks, removal of players/squad play, lower health/spring, overuse of brutal melee and other differences bug me.
