ZombiesTT Killzone 3 Post

Why Killzone 3's multiplayer is far superior to Killzone 2's multiplayer

This is a follow up to my other thread about why kz3's sp is better than kz2's:
http://community.killzone.com/t5/Killzone-3-PS3/Why-kz3-sp-is-far-superior-to-kz2-sp/m-p/1138443
Oddly enough, the kz2 trolls argued that sp wasn't kz2's strong point but rather it's multiplayer. So I decided to make a similar thread.

* Operations: I think most would agree that Operations mode is a nice addition to Killzone. The cutscenes are well done, etc. The only complaint I have seen is that there aren't more Operations maps. I do believe the production costs for this mode are a bit too high to be viable but a very good mode nonetheless.

* Separate Guerrilla Warfare: Many people would say that in Killzone 2 you could just make a bodycount only game and it would be the same as kz3's GW. This isn't true. GW has dynamic spawning, which means that you don't have a single spawn base. This therefore makes it much harder to spawn camp.

* Better player models: Some like the kz2 models while others prefer kz3. The difference in quality is negligible but what is significant is the animations of these models. In kz2, the models had problems climbing up stairs, running etc, where they looked like they were dancing ballet on the tips of their toes. This does not occur in kz3.

* Unranked custom games: kz2 players always complain about this. In kz2 you could make a custom game with varying rules and have your performance ranked. This encourages players to point boost. In kz3, there are also custom games, but they are unranked to prevent exploitation. Kz2 fans don't like this (I wonder why).

I had to sit through a kz2 that lasted over an hour because the creator set the time limit on each objective to 30 mins. People are stupid. When you give them power they do stupid things. I couldn't leave the game because all the ribbons I unlocked would be lost. Which brings me to the next point.

* Better skill unlock system: In kz3 you get points in every game and this contributes to your overally xp. Enough xp would allow you to level up, and get unlock points for all skills in the game. In kz2 you had to play as a particular class to unlock 8 ribbons to unlock a new skill. In each game you can only acquire 1 of each ribbon. So if I had to endure and hour long game, I wouldn't walk out with much, but I had to stick to it or I wouldn't leave with anything at all.

* Map variety: kz2 had a bunch of urban maps. You have a bunch of buildings and walkways in between. In killzone 2 there is a forest map, snow maps as well as the traditional urban maps. There is even water effects, rain and snowfall.

* Vehicular combat: In kz3 there is the addition of exos and jetpacks in multiplayer. I don't know of any other mp fps game that has friggin jetpacks! Not to mention that the jetpacks handle very well and they aren't overpowered (long range, low accuracy). Jetpacks also give maps vertical depth and more dynamic gameplay than kz2.

* Better weapons: And here is where the kz2 players would argue that kz3 caters for a casual crowd because the weapons are better. kz3 simply makes each weapon more useful in combat, as opposed to kz2 where only a few weapons are useful. Does anybody use a sta52 over a m82 in kz2?

* More weapons: Simple point: kz3 has more weapons and they are better. Now we have silenced weapons and each class has 3 primary and 3 secondary weapons to choose from.

* No assault class: The only class change I have ever seen in a kz2 custom game is the removal of the assault class. Probably because of the rocket spam or double armor or super speed. kz3 has no assault class but it does have 2 classes with rockets. Why is this balanced? The infiltrator and tactician start off with one rocket (no extra ammo) and cannot withstand more damage than any other player. Infiltrators have a faster and unlimited sprint but nowhere near as fast as the assault class.

* Brutal melee: meleeing in kz2 is a pain, especially since you clip through the enemy. Killzone 3 has a more realistic melee kill.

* 1 repairable turret: in kz2 each engineer could build 3 turrets and they were **bleep** tanks. This was a problem because there is a limit to how many turrets each team can have. In kz3 each engineer can have only one turret, but it can be repaired. So you no longer need to look at your poor short-circuiting turret, completely helpless.

* No spawn grenades: ah yes, spawn grenades. Time for the kz2 flames. In kz2 a tactician could throw a spawn grenade anywhere to allow the entire team to spawn at that spot. This creates 2 problems: 1. The grenades are almost always placed in an area very close to, or sometimes inside the enemy's base. I'm sure 16 guys standing outside your door waiting for you to try to exit turned off many gamers. The other problem is that grenades can be camped by enemy players, causing you to die as soon as you spawn. Yes, there is a spawn cam that doesn't always work, and I mostly blame the tacticians for this, not so much the grenades themselves.

Killzone 3 has tactical spawn points (TSPs). These are fixed locations that can be captured by tacticians. Once your team holds the tsp, you can spawn there. There is a small period of spawn protection, and the bonus of a mortar beacon is often there. The advantage of tsps is that 1: you know exactly where you are going to spawn and 2: spawning players are a distance away from the enemy's spawn, making camping a bit more difficult.

* No classesless class: kz2 had the basic soldier which was chosen if you wanted to use the sta3 (again this points to the problem of only a few good weapons). Selecting this left you without any abilities. kz3 gave the sta3 to the engineer so that you could at least be helpful to your team instead of going for just kills.

* Improved medic class: How many people actually use the medic's health pack in kz2? I've seen a fair use in lower level games but high level players almost never choose medic. In kz3 the medic has a healing aura which is better since health regenerates anyway. Also a medi-droid is a nice addition. Plus, you don't have to switch to another device to revive someone.

* Better map design: The kz3 maps are better designed overall (with the possible exception of corinth highway which I personally dislike). In kz2 the base turrets could be destroyed and the enemy could literally get into your spawn. Imagine this combined with the assault class + rocket launcher. Not only could you get into the enemy's base, but there were areas that were not guarded by turrets, where a spawn grenade could be deployed.

* Balanced pistols: In kz2 I killed a guy using the default pistol. I guess this is a good thing since we don't want it to be useless. However this guy was so far away, all I could see was a red dot. I didn't even know if that was a person! I fired a couple shots and he was dead. kz3 makes primary weapons better than secondaries, just like they should be (except perhaps a well used vc9).


Now let me go over some of the points I am sure will be brought up as cons:


* kz2 has better stats: A lot of these stats are useless information. Nobody is going to check your profile to see your stats.

* kz2 has a server browser: First of all, this gives you the choice of 5-10 servers. Only 1-3 of these will be close to full. Matchmaking would put you into those games anyway. Secondly, the reason I use server browsers in PC games is to choose the one with the least ping. Kz2's server browser does not show ping. kz3's matchmaking puts me in a game in under 5 seconds, and I haven't had a close to empty game recently. In the case where it puts you in an empty game, leave and join another! There are many games running simultaneously!

* kz3's marksman is overpowered: It may appear that way but oddly enough this isn't true, and I am sure GG's stats reflect this. In a 1v1 fight, yeah a MM has the advantage. But a team of 12 vs 12 is more efficient with other classes.

* kz2 sold more than kz3: this doesn't say anything about the quality of kz3 or the number of players online. Because kz3 is a direct sequel to kz2, players who played the second instalment but didn't like it would have chosen not to purchase the third.

* kz2 got higher review scores: kz2 was a much hyped game and it was a highly original title upon release. It improved on the poorly reviewed killzone 1 and was the ps3's only real competitor at the time for microsoft's huge titles like halo and gears of war. Killzone 3 made many improvements but because it wasn't an original title, the reviews were a bit lower.

As a comparison, take the Gears of War series. GOW 1 was very original in artstyle and gameplay and it got massively positive reviews. GOW3 was a huge improvement in every way, yet it got lower scores. Why? Originality. It was a better game but didn't impress as much as the first did.
Cliff Bleszinski was understandably upset:

'You know I didn't quite gather it. I don't want to come across as defensive. How do I phrase this properly? When people rather Gears 2 higher than Gears 3, it kind of upset me because I know Gears 3 is a better game on every level'

I'm sure that I've forgotten some stuff. I'll add it later if I feel like wasting more time.