Wagram said: I actually consider the writing in the Killzone to be some of the best in the FPS genre, but hat may be because the writing quality bar is so low.

Bioshock, Crysis, Deus Ex and Black Ops had pretty good stories. Especially Bioshock had a great writing.

I hope it's more like Killzone 2.

Shinobi-san said: I just think the expectations were higher for a game like Killzone 3. I mean the game is really good, single player was relatively good, and the multiplayer was great, production values are high, its hard to fault the game. And its in one of the most popular genres at the moment..to me 2.23 m copies for a sequel which really improves greatly over its predecesor is not a good sign of strength for the franchise. I mean killzone 2 sold almost 3 mil, i doubt KZ3 will even manage to get there. Not to mention the game is critically acclaimed as well. So what i ask myself is why doesnt it sell as well as some of the other blockbuster shooters? .

If you've ever frequented the Killzone forums, you'll notice the community is split on their opinion of KZ3. Some say KZ3 is better, some say KZ2. I think KZ3 missed out on a lot of sales by attracting a new audience, while at the same time losing a chunk of it's core audience. (I personally loved KZ2, but can't stand KZ3. The controls just seem so inferior to KZ2. I know that's just my opinion, but A large group of KZ fans feel the same.)

Also, as a shooter, it really needs offline competitive multiplayer. It's like a requirement for shooters. Name me some shooters WITHOUT offline, competetive mp that sold well. Battlefield is one. What else? None. Now, name all the shooters with offline that sold well. Halo, Call of Duty, Gears of War, Left 4 Dead. And those are the biggest shooters out right now (excluding the aforementioned Battlefield).

Shinobi-san said: oldschoolfool said: Shinobi-san said: Euphoria14 said: DirtyP2002 said: Is it just me or have there been quite a lot Killzones lately. I don't get why GG keeps working on it. It is not even that popular. Move on to something else. This gen has thus far produced less (home console) Killzone titles than:   Call of Duty Forza Halo Mario Uncharted Gears of War Fable Assassin's Creed Need for Speed Resistance Mass Effect Just Dance     The list goes on. (2) titles in 3+ years isn't that bad, plus they consistently sell over 2M, which is hardly considered "Not that popular" since most games that sell less get sequels. I really liked the games but i agree with DirtyP2002, the games arent that popular, and after the bad experiences users had with KZ2, i dont see many going back to it. From a business perspective they need to drop KZ next gen and go with something new. So hopefully this is for current gen. define *not that popular* The game sold 2.24 million copies,it's obviously popular enough for them to make more sequels. If  you were talking about the last duke nukem game and maybe the last twisted metal game,to a certain extent,then you might have a legitmate point. I just think the expectations were higher for a game like Killzone 3. I mean the game is really good, single player was relatively good, and the multiplayer was great, production values are high, its hard to fault the game. And its in one of the most popular genres at the moment..to me 2.23 m copies for a sequel which really improves greatly over its predecesor is not a good sign of strength for the franchise. I mean killzone 2 sold almost 3 mil, i doubt KZ3 will even manage to get there. Not to mention the game is critically acclaimed as well. So what i ask myself is why doesnt it sell as well as some of the other blockbuster shooters? And imo its because of the bad experience people had with KZ2. Most gamers i speak to link Killzone with horribly laggy controls, personally i got use to it, but clearly im not the majority. And if i look at the sales of KZ3, people didnt seem to bothered to go back to it and it certainly didnt grow the franchise. I think Sony can allocate the resources of GG to a new IP for next gen...start something fresh, and go for a much bigger market instead of limiting your market to the ~2mil people willing to buy a killzone game. I just dont see the franchise having much growth. But hey if Sony is happy with 2mil sales then thats their thing. I just think they should aim higher given the resources that i assume is allocated to creating a game of such high standard.

there is no guarantee that a new ip will do better anyway

Jay520 said: Shinobi-san said: I just think the expectations were higher for a game like Killzone 3. I mean the game is really good, single player was relatively good, and the multiplayer was great, production values are high, its hard to fault the game. And its in one of the most popular genres at the moment..to me 2.23 m copies for a sequel which really improves greatly over its predecesor is not a good sign of strength for the franchise. I mean killzone 2 sold almost 3 mil, i doubt KZ3 will even manage to get there. Not to mention the game is critically acclaimed as well. So what i ask myself is why doesnt it sell as well as some of the other blockbuster shooters?   .   If you've ever frequented the Killzone forums, you'll notice the community is split on their opinion of KZ3. Some say KZ3 is better, some say KZ2. I think KZ3 missed out on a lot of sales by attracting a new audience, while at the same time losing a chunk of it's core audience. (I personally loved KZ2, but can't stand KZ3. The controls just seem so inferior to KZ2. I know that's just my opinion, but A large group of KZ fans feel the same.) Also, as a shooter, it really needs offline competitive multiplayer. It's like a requirement for shooters. Name me some shooters WITHOUT offline, competetive mp that sold well. Battlefield is one. What else? None. Now, name all the shooters with offline that sold well. Halo, Call of Duty, Gears of War, Left 4 Dead. And those are the biggest shooters out right now (excluding the aforementioned Battlefield).

I prefered KZ2 as well If you check out my game collection you would see i gave KZ2 a 9/10 and KZ3 8/10.

That one point i took away was because of the controls, which i absolutely do not buy was a design decision. It was delayed input, so i dont see how any can actually say that they prefer a delayed input?? Unless we are talking about something else? And for many people, not just the guys on the Killzone forums that input lag is unplayable. Add to that online lag and well...yeah.

Killzone 3 kinda fixed the lag input, but the game lacked in some areas. I know the single definately wasnt as good as KZ2's (which i thought was amazing!). One of the only games that i feel truly recreates the feeling of chaos and urgency that is connected with a warzone. The mp i know was also changed to be more accessible to people, which is something i liked about it cos im noob :)

Irrespective though, i dont see the franchise ever selling anything significantly more than what  it currently does ~2mil. And like i said in my prev post, given the time, and resources placed into the games surely the sales expectations are higher. I wasnt really giving my point of view from a gamers perspective but rather from a sony business perspective. Although i dont know much about business :P

AndrewWK said: Wagram said: I actually consider the writing in the Killzone to be some of the best in the FPS genre, but hat may be because the writing quality bar is so low. Bioshock, Crysis, Deus Ex and Black Ops had pretty good stories. Especially Bioshock had a great writing.

I've yet to play Deus Ex, but the others there I can't say I was fond of at all. Crysis wasn't bad though.

Half Life is pretty good when it comes to writing.

Shinobi-san said: Jay520 said: Shinobi-san said: I just think the expectations were higher for a game like Killzone 3. I mean the game is really good, single player was relatively good, and the multiplayer was great, production values are high, its hard to fault the game. And its in one of the most popular genres at the moment..to me 2.23 m copies for a sequel which really improves greatly over its predecesor is not a good sign of strength for the franchise. I mean killzone 2 sold almost 3 mil, i doubt KZ3 will even manage to get there. Not to mention the game is critically acclaimed as well. So what i ask myself is why doesnt it sell as well as some of the other blockbuster shooters?   .   If you've ever frequented the Killzone forums, you'll notice the community is split on their opinion of KZ3. Some say KZ3 is better, some say KZ2. I think KZ3 missed out on a lot of sales by attracting a new audience, while at the same time losing a chunk of it's core audience. (I personally loved KZ2, but can't stand KZ3. The controls just seem so inferior to KZ2. I know that's just my opinion, but A large group of KZ fans feel the same.) Also, as a shooter, it really needs offline competitive multiplayer. It's like a requirement for shooters. Name me some shooters WITHOUT offline, competetive mp that sold well. Battlefield is one. What else? None. Now, name all the shooters with offline that sold well. Halo, Call of Duty, Gears of War, Left 4 Dead. And those are the biggest shooters out right now (excluding the aforementioned Battlefield). I prefered KZ2 as well If you check out my game collection you would see i gave KZ2 a 9/10 and KZ3 8/10. That one point i took away was because of the controls, which i absolutely do not buy was a design decision. It was delayed input, so i dont see how any can actually say that they prefer a delayed input?? Unless we are talking about something else? And for many people, not just the guys on the Killzone forums that input lag is unplayable. Add to that online lag and well...yeah. Killzone 3 kinda fixed the lag input, but the game lacked in some areas. I know the single definately wasnt as good as KZ2's (which i thought was amazing!). One of the only games that i feel truly recreates the feeling of chaos and urgency that is connected with a warzone. The mp i know was also changed to be more accessible to people, which is something i liked about it cos im noob :) Irrespective though, i dont see the franchise ever selling anything significantly more than what  it currently does ~2mil. And like i said in my prev post, given the time, and resources placed into the games surely the sales expectations are higher. I wasnt really giving my point of view from a gamers perspective but rather from a sony business perspective. Although i dont know much about business :P

Yeah, there was lag, but you could tell that in KZ2, the players moved intentionally slower, aiming was intentionally slower, and accuracy was significantly lower. The overall pace of KZ2 was much slower than KZ3. I think that's why me and many others preferred KZ2. KZ3 is so fast. It doesn't give you time to think. One of the things I loved about KZ2 was how it required so much skill to get a long ranged kill, and only with certain guns. However, in KZ3, it seems like even an SMG can kill you from afar. Quickly too!

o_O.Q said: there is no guarantee that a new ip will do better anyway

If sony goes into it with that mentality then yeah they certainly wont do any better

But come on...surely they can back themselves to create a game that sells better. And i think given the right circumstances, they can do it. A new GG IP on a PS4 should do the trick. Using whatever new gimmick Sony comes up for their PS4 it should do really well. I just feel the main issue here was the first impressions most people got after playing KZ2, which hurt the franchises long term selling capability.

And yes there will always be a degree of risk with a new IP, but if they dont take those risks then they cant really do any better. Its like settling for mediocrity (not that the game is mediocre, just the selling potential).

Also given sonys financial position they really need games that sell better, im talking like atleast uncharted levels ~ 5 -6 mil.

Jay520 said: Yeah, there was lag, but you could tell that in KZ2, the players moved intentionally slower, aiming was intentionally slower, and accuracy was significantly lower. The overall pace of KZ2 was much slower than KZ3. I think that's why me and many others preferred KZ2. KZ3 is so fast. It doesn't give you time to think. One of the things I loved about KZ2 was how it required so much skill to get a long ranged kill, and only with certain guns. However, in KZ3, it seems like even an SMG can kill you from afar. Quickly too!

Certain things was done intentionally but the lag input was not one of them. I just cant see how that improves on the gameplay? I mean its lag input! push button now - action takes place later than it should. No ways im believing thats a design decision.

Edit: i think the measured input lag was at close to 200ms. A game like mario brothers is at something like what 60 - 80ms? Call of duty is also in a sub 100ms region. Most games of this gen have been just slightly over 100ms...but close to 200 o.O its insane. Not sure how they actually allowed that. I figure they were pressed for time and really went crazy with the visuals, so then intentionally slowed the game down and sacrificed controller responsiveness. I mean really how long did it take to turn around -_-

Wagram said: AndrewWK said: Wagram said: I actually consider the writing in the Killzone to be some of the best in the FPS genre, but hat may be because the writing quality bar is so low. Bioshock, Crysis, Deus Ex and Black Ops had pretty good stories. Especially Bioshock had a great writing. I've yet to play Deus Ex, but the others there I can't say I was fond of at all. Crysis wasn't bad though. Half Life is pretty good when it comes to writing.

I don´t know if you like first person shooters, I usually hate them but Bioshock was one of my favorite games. You should really give it a try, you won´t regret it.