So, reviews doesnt add multiplayer into the score? lol what the hell

i'm enjoying the beta. add me if you're playing it psn: aikijuken

I'm not even going to bother to criticize this review. I really don't care what scores KZ3 gets. After playing the beta, I'm sold. The MP experience is where I'll spend the bulk of my time and I simply love it.

best grab hold of your flame shield. this isn't going to end well.

for the record, finally beat kz yesterday. at first found it kind of redundant but when i finished it i realized how much i loved it. hoping real bad that the sequel is better if not at least equal to k2.

all I know is that I can't get enough, it's kick ass & the melee kills R evil especially the thumbs in the eyes

I don't see why u ps3 fans are complaining for even if the game is sh*t u will still buy the game because its (((EXCLUSIVE))). Take a look at GT5 awful reviews 84 Meta patches, patches,patches but that still didn't stop 6 Million ps3 fans buying the game.

"As is often the case with games reviewed before release, I didn't get to fully test out the multiplayer before writing my review. I did take into consideration the fact that it exists and that it adds value to the overall package when deciding on my score -- it didn't exactly move the needle, but it helped. There were review sessions set up for members of the press, but the sessions I sat in on weren't fully populated, so it didn't feel fair to use that experience for the purposes of reviewing the online modes."

This really has to stop from these so called professional reviewers.

All these reviewers have no idea what theyre talking about! KZ3 clearly must be a masterpiece since everyone on N4G has been ranting on and on for weeks that its far superior to black ops! /s

Im a ps3 owner and dont WANT kz3 to disappoint. But ive had to deal with the anti cod bias here on n4g for weeks now, so im intrigued by the underwhelming critical response to it.

If you can't beat'm cheat'm .

Bet you if this was Halo they would have tried the Multiplayer a bit more.

GG should have renamend the game with Call of Duty: Killzone 3 to get a perfect score. It's so ridiculous! I'm playing the Beta at the moment and it's simply so much better than nearly every other FPS out there and they give it 3.5.

The majority of the gaming journalists who were sent the review code didn't bother getting fellow press members and playing online.

The people who did thoroughly test the multiplayer all gave it high scores.

So, basically, 90% of the press are too obsessed in getting the review done before embargo time that they don't try out the whole game.

The people who did try multiplayer out, most of their reviews isn't out yet... such as Kotaku's main KZ3 review, etc.

this is basically a review of the single player as the guy fully admits he didn't get to experience but went ahead a posted a review. seriously everyone knows that Killzone 3 is about the multiplayer just like COD. what if you were to review black ops without reviewing its mulitplayer?

gamepro gives 5/5 pretty much to everything
time to delete them from sdf reliable sites,if there are any left

I don't play a lot of online games, the only one I've really played on is Uncharted 2 but I played the Killzones 3 open beta multiplayer and I think it's great. Who cares about scores....Alan Wake didn't get the best of scores but I still think it's a brilliant game, I remember reading the Eurogamer review and it only give it 7 out of 10....but I still bought it, although the women reviewing Alan Wake only has reviewed causal games like Super Mario Galaxy 2

You review the game in it's entirity.

Recently eviewers are forgetting that, certain reviewers are lowering score simply because a game in the franchise isn't on that particular console, note Mass Effect 2... your reviewing the game in it's entirity.

I for example wouldn't review Fallout New Vegas and give it a 1/10 because I didn't get into the singleplayer but the multiplayer sucked now? So how come the inverse of that is fine to do?

After all these low scores - I will buy the game Day 1, as will many other KZ fans.

Based on our own experience, we will know what the so-called gaming journalists review quality is like. I have various COD games, and KZ2, R:FOM and R:2, GT3,4,5, MGS4, LBP1,2 amongst other 70+ titles for PS3.

So I will reserve commenting on KZ3 reviews until I played the game for myself. But at the moment - something is brewing. Either the game is crap, or there is an organized vendetta against PS3 exclusive titles in general. If this is a vendetta, then we will have to reply in the industry and stop this crap now.

Halo minus the multiplayer: 4-hour campaign with awful graphics, laughable story and setting (purple aliens with colourful weapons, really?), generic run and gun gameplay
Gamepro? 5/5

Forget that. Check out Gamepro's Halo ODST review
http://www.gamepro.com/arti...
Let me spoil it for you: 4.5/5

Why is he comparing it to BioShock? BioShock isn't an FPS in the truest sense. It's more an adventure with explorable maps that just happens to have a first person camera. It even has backtracking and an rpg skills/items/weapons infrastructure.

Simply having a first person camera doesn't make you a first person shooter as we've come to know them (COD, Battlefield, Resistance, Halo, Medal of Honor). Fallout, Oblivion, even driving games have first person views. Socom isn't an FPS period.

And he didn't review the online?! Wtf! He said he didn't think it was fair to look at it because the sessions he sat in on weren't fully populated...but apparently it WAS fair for him to rush score only half a game and boot it up on metacritic. I mean...omg! Have some integrity and wait an extra week or two to review it then.

I know people that buy COD ONLY for the multiplayer and never even touch the campaign. Let's get off the campaign dead horse here reviewers and focus on where people will be spending most of their time. He says "get your hate mails ready". What's the point? If he reads the way he reviews, he'll never get past the first sentence anyways.

Problem is that if you put in a SP, you have to expect it to affect the review(since SP is like 1/4 to 1/5 of the game). So, even if multiplayer is the "masterpiece" as some of you say(I haven't played the game yet so I dont know...), the SP may be lacking considerably which would explain all of the 8-9/10 scores. You people cant assume based on the multiplayer that the singleplayer is just as good.

I really wouldn't agree that it deserves a 7 though. It seems that the MP is excellent so that would at least get the game up to an 8.

Ok people. This is a very pretty popcorn movie translated into a video-game, just accept it. Like gears, halo, gta, me, cod.

they gave godfather 2 5/5 weirdddd

Mario ,Halo ,GTA and the Call of Duty's always get a free review pass.what a shitty era for game journalism we're living in today, seem like people nowadays hate a little challenge nor improvement in their games.Don't let them kill the gaming industry like they did with our 80's & 90's music.

"As is often the case with games reviewed before release, I didn't get to fully test out the multiplayer before writing my review. I did take into consideration the fact that it exists..." -Gamepro

WTF? Did he just say? Move along folks, this review is a joke. REALLY.

I usually like gamepro but damn. come on man!!! killzone games are single play and multi player. multi player is 50% of the game and to some 100% of the game so how the hell can u leave that out of this review? thats soooo huge. so i guess the score will be 5/5.

do people buy call of duty games for the single player? lol hell no. its all about the multi player. i still to this day never beat cod4, modern warfare or black ops single player.

reviewers need to get their sh!t together. they are so unreliable these days. especially when it comes to ps3 exclusive games.

The biggest joke is their name's GamePRO. Sony should stop sending discs to all those idiots. What a waste of money.

I read the review, he obviously doesn't like the game as much some of you guys do, no big deal. Killzone just doesn't do it for him. This kind of reviews remind you that 'reviews are only opinion based on the writer'.

"There were review sessions set up for members of the press, but the sessions I sat in on weren't fully populated, so it didn't feel fair to use that experience for the purposes of reviewing the online modes"

Yet he did deem it "fair" to pass judgement on the whole package without fully playing it?
Staggering ignorance!

Some people are stating that the reviewer did not score the MP of the game,but thats not true!"As is often the case with games reviewed before release, I didn't get to fully test out the multiplayer before writing my review. I did take into consideration the fact that it exists and that it adds value to the overall package when deciding on my score - it didn't exactly move the needle, but it helped"IT seems he have taken the MP in considerations on the final score!What it seems is that he is not a MP player or the servers were empty!!On the other hand not everybody is entitle to like the MP aspect of games!A review its a personal opinion!

@BigKurz8

Damn I really agree with you, I love the PS3 but this place over loves it. I don't care for XBOX but this place over hates it. I hated KZ2 and couldn't wait to sell it, I quite liked the KZ3 beta demo though, the aiming has really improved.

fuck gamepro i stop reading the mag back in like 93 i never like the way they review they shit but anyway killzone 3 beta is allustrious

I do not mind when "so called reviewers" are trying to point out flaws in the game but I have problem when they do not apply the same standards to other games they review, and the "same flaws" are overlooked.

after playing the open beta, I really like it not because of the most gorgeous graphics a console FPS has to offer, but because it FEELS different. fresh, unique.

this review is full of fail.... omg

This is not about the low score but the inability to judge a game with truth. That includes all parts of the game...and includes the ridiculous heavy comparison with other FPS...
Never trust reviewers.....

And so you reviewed the game without adding for the multiplayer? The part that anyone that buys the game is concerned about got left out of your review? Wow.

multi player is just single player with out the story.

Hmm. Seems it's not really the score people are complaining about, but rather the haphazard way the review was written.

Comparing it to games that are practically from a different genre, not knowing the difference between FPS and TPS, goading for hate mail, refusing to play the MP, omitting features like MOVE and 3D, and of course having standards for one game that other FPS's aren't held accountable for.

Complaining about story and formula (hi L4D), that there's no prone in KZ3 (hi Battlefield), complaining that grenades don't have carbon-copy COD proximity indicators and weapons take longer than a second to reload (hi real life). :p

He says the control scheme is awkward...when it's the SAME as 95% of shooters on PS3. L1 to aim, R1 to shoot, square to reload, R3 to melee, triangle to swap weapons, X to jump, L3 to run. What do you want? You can also try MOVE but the review makes no mention of it. In fact, in the comments he says he deliberately ignored it because it's not a MOVE game but instead has MOVE functionality.

Way to go GamePro. If you put half as much effort into playing modes and trying out features as you do into making excuses, you'd at least be amateur. You've been around since I was a kid. I expect more from you.

The reviewer Tae K. Kim admits his biases in his review.

"I always overlook Killzone when I think about first-person shooters, even though I like it more than I like the other franchises I forget about, like F.E.A.R., Resistance, and SOCOM. For whatever reason, it never left much of an impression, despite the fact that I've now played every installment. In fact, the lasting impression I have about the franchise is that the bad guys were not too subtly portrayed as Nazis... in spaaaaace."

"Sadly, I don't think Killzone 3, which is the best one so far, is going to change how I perceive the franchise."

"but the fact is, Killzone isn't as good as those other franchises, and it doesn't define the genre in which it competes"
_____________________________ _______________________

So the FPS that introduced the cover system perfectly into the genre has no weight or relevance in helping define the genre?

For the reviewer to not have experienced the multiplayer AT ALL, he admits to only have half of the knowledge of the product he is critiquing. Since the multiplayer plays completely different than the Single Player, Tae's review by default is largely irrelevant.

He essentially sat in a Ferrari, looked around the cockpit, cranked it up, was only allowed to drive it around the lot @ 30mph, and decided to critique everything including the speed. How do you review a game in its entirety when you have literally only experience it in sample? People playing the demo on PSN have just as relevant or more valid opinion than this guy.

Being that I am playing the demo myself, I can verify for myself that it is a Day ONE purchase and nothing less.

But what is the most sad is when he called Killzone 3 the "Best One So Far", he tends to forget in his score that Gamepro gave the Lesser Killzone2 a perfect 5 Star score. So by his own admission, his score makes no sense. Unless he is insisting that fellow reviewer Patrick Shaw is a moron and Killzone 2 deserved a 3 Star score or less. But again, Patrick Shaw was reviewing a full product, so who seems more credible?

Oh, and can someone inform this "professional" gamer that Socom is not a FPS (damn amateurs)

http://www.gamepro.com/arti...

This guy didn't even play the multiplayer? How did he get his job?

What is with this reviewers trying to slow the pace of all major PS3 exclusives. They seem to nitpick every little detail in all the latest releases by Sony lately. The story is all they can talk about, but COD, and MW stories are not mind blowing at all. Yet they receive favorable reviews. The COD, and MW franchises are not as good as they use be. IMO they are garbage. The main problem with this review is where is the part for the multiplayer? Its just like the reviews of GT5, give the game low scores, but they've only played part of the game. KZ just like BFBC deserve to be at the top.

The author is open to your comments... http://www.gamepro.com/foru...

wow a review that only used the story of a fps game, ignoring the element of multiplayer. Yo people i might just do a god damm article on were the people who review games a cheap and pretty much corrupted. 3.5 on KZ3, im not bugging cause of the score im buggging cause the points they give on the game which seems meaningless since on other fps they dont even mention it at all. comparing to COd BO its greater on my perspective of a whole game longer story with the same style , multiplayers actually plays the same that review surely didnt mod the buttons to hes liking, no prone? so what in BFBC2 doenst have prone either and it plays liek a pro and the story pretty much sucked and still got a 9 and what not. So for real people its like they looking for minor faults they dont like about the game and give it a sucky point, yo reviewers give a score about on how it plays , on how it moves, how it tells the story and what not ect.

it seems like they choose a heroin addict whos never played a game in his life to review these games.

My one issue is this: if there's an embargo for reviews and review dates, why in the world do you HAVE to give your review right after that? This is not a 4 hour single player game ONLY. It has an online component. Is someone going to fire these guys if they wait and play the multiplayer first? That is the only excuse I will accept for people giving shoddy reviews (I don't care if they're negative or positive, they just HAVE TO BE THOROUGH).

I guess it's nothing new though. This is not only happening here, but in the real news and everywhere else. Good info doesn't sell; quick (quicker than the "other guy"), criticizing news does.

Killzone 3 multiplayer is an EPIC FAILURE !

This dude fails right out of the gate when he says "Sadly, I don't think Killzone 3, which is the best one so far, is going to change how I perceive this franchise"...if its better than KZ2, it already has succeeded. Loser.

Killzone again pls 🥺

Gratz Guerilla, amazing Studio and engine, love Decima!

I was never a huge fan of Killzone, but thoroughly enjoy Horizon. Guerrilla are superb developer and easily up there with the best of the best.

Need a killzone 2 remake from the ground up.

One of the most creative studios out. I hope they keep it up.

Great studio, loved the Killzone series, I wish they would do a remake of the first three games. Horizon is a real step up and truly put Guerrilla Games on the map.

Too bad I never got a chance to play Shellshock: Nam’67 would have loved to try that game out back in the days to see what were their beginnings.

Bring back killzone (maybe in 3rd person perspective)

It would fantastic to see what they could do in Killzone after the lessons learned through Horizon.

Or heck, give us even a short linear FPS from the people who designed Cauldron THETA in the Burning Shores expansion. Even just flying into it (after gliding around and finding its opening amongst the lava and Sunwings perched around it, with other bigger machines just along the path toward it) was an incredible experience.

Great work until now. Keep on this path

Hope they get the opportunity to create a new IP this gen as well.

Forbidden West is awesome, It’s pretty damn big compared to Zero Dawn and it takes a little while to get your skills up and get the equipment you need to fully explore the game (not going to spoil it) but once you do those things and start fighting the big ass machines it really is amazing. Some cool side quests to where you hold the fate of peoples lives by your choice and the cauldrons look amazing. Lots of skills , combos, special moves and add ons for your weapons so you can approach fights many ways. Looking forward to the name game but I wonder how/if Silas will be a part of it or not ? Sad he’s gone.

Killzone games weren’t the best shooters but damn did they look purty!!!!

Killzone 2 remade with the multiplayer

20 years of mid-tier games and they are trending down.

I'm hyped for whenever Horizon 3 releases but Killzone 1 needs a remake BAD and 2 & 3 need remasters. Criminal those games are stuck on PS3.

Hold up

Horizon: Zero Dawn sold 24.3 million
The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild sold 29.81 million

With the way journalists have been consistently saying BotW overshadowed Horizon you’d think the gap between an entry in a new IP and a longrunning one would be bigger Even if you want to include however much the Wii U version of BotW did, both series still did impressive numbers

I never want to hear that Horizon is an overlooked franchise ever again

i really loved the atmosphere and idea of killzone. i hope they revisit it at some point because it always had so much potential.

Bring Back Killzone please or at least a KZ2 remake with MP.