290°

OXCGN’s Killzone 3 Debate: Would we STEAL IT for 360?

OXCGN:

Was Killzone 3 over-hyped? Nick & Alex discuss the pros-n-cons.

"We love other platform exclusives - especially those of us lucky enough to own the other platforms. However we know there are those who prefer to keep to their 360, so we often ask if a big exclusive would have been great on the 360.

"This time though we have two staff members take a look and debate the worth of Killzone 3 on PS3. It is often touted as the best exclusive shooter franchise on Sony’s platform- but is it more hype than reality? Read the animated discussion below."

Proeliator4835d ago

A definitely interesting read, and an interesting take on a review.

Much of what I felt about KZ3 was reflected there, even the short campaign... still a fantastic game though.

4835d ago Replies(8)
malandra4835d ago (Edited 4835d ago )

this guy is lying, it's impossible to finish KZ3 in under 4 hours

I would say that about 90% of the times I'm the player with most kills on any KZ2 or KZ3 MP match so I'm no noob and it took me around 7 and a half hours to complete the campaign, without skipping cutscenes, some sections I passed them without dying on other I died several times, on the level with the MAWLR I died only once

the campaign is longer than modern warfare 2, which took me 5 hours and 15 minutes the first time, but shorter than Bioshock 2 for example, which took me almost 9 hours

dragon824835d ago

My first play through on was on Trooper and it only took just over 5 hours if you add all the individual times up. That was on my first play through. I am sure if I wanted to I could easily come in under 4 hours on the easiest difficulty.

In my opinion game times should only be judged on the hardest difficulty.

Kon4835d ago

I love the Steal it series. Keep it up guys.

Nightfallen4835d ago

"Think more issues did become clearer over time, such as the annoyingly ‘weighty’ (read: artificially lagging) controls and the lack of replayability for the campaign."

In my opinion, if the multiplayer is good enough, replayability for campaign shouldn't be focused on when reviewed. The replayability is the multiplayer itself.

Other then that, interesting read. Always enjoyed these segments.

XboxOZ3604835d ago

'Replayability' is always referred to the SP side of a game. Meaning that does a game have the ability to engage the player more than once through the game in SP.

Whereas MP side of things can be played online with others as much as a player desires, and has no relevance on the storyline, the playability, the gameplay, the 'actual mechanics of the game.

The world in gaming does NOT revolve around Multiplayer, otherwise game developers would simply make a game full of maps, guns and not storyline, as that aspect is certainly NOT needed within the MP world.

If a story is engaging, and has more ways of getting through it than one linear fashion, then that denotes replayability.

It's whether or not a gamer has the willingness or paitence to play through a game several times in order to find alternative ways through or other ways of completing the game, or if there is incentives for him/her to go through it again.

Ie; to find, acquire and attain goodies that enable better weapons, skills and abilities, or simply neat awards/trophies etc.

bart9994835d ago

I kind of agree with this, Dead Space 2 was worth 3 playthroughs for me, on PS3 of course lol, but the MP was not my cup of tea, thus the game is very replayable, and that has nothing to do with the MP.

XboxOZ3604835d ago (Edited 4835d ago )

@ bart999

Thanks and bubbles for you.

There's many a game that has me playing it several times over. Not to attain the goodies hidden within, but for the sheer fact of trying to better my times, open the game up to other possible avenues and see what would happen 'if I went this way - or that'

The mark of a good game is how often a gamer will immerse themselves in the singleplayer side of the game.

It's easy to login to the multiplayer and play frag-mad-shootem-ups. But how willing are those gamers to actually try their utmost in bettering times and gain skills to make themselve better at what they can do.

Medal Of Honor's Tier One is just such an example.

The number of MP mad gamers that DO NOT PLAY that side of the game is huge to say the least. Yet those willing to test themselves time after time after time to get through a 30 min level without getting killed, and to do so UNDER the par time, shows that there is little willingness from certain factions of the MP gamers out there to really test themselves.

The Tier One aspect, while being online, is still totally SP, it pits you against others times, while still allowing you to play fairly without some clown trying to frag you indiscriminately - just for the heck of it.

MP is great - fun - but skill is gained through repetition and increased difficulty.

WHen a game, any game, gives you that ability, then it has replayability to pit you against yourself, and the clock.

Nightfallen4835d ago

I understand what you mean by replayability. Also, I much appreciate a single player campaign over multiplayer any day. Only the case with Killzone 2 that after beating it once, I felt satisfied because of a compelling multiplayer to keep me justifying the $60 dollars I payed for it.

Yes, Killzone 2 could have been much much better if it had multiple paths, choices and such in the story. But unless they are really major such as the karma choices in InFAMOUS, I still wouldn't have the feel to replay it.

This is why my statement began with "In my opinion." Because well.. it's how I feel.

XboxOZ3604835d ago

@ Nightfallen

Bubbles and well said.

I know ppl knocked Far Cry Predator, because it was so linear, yet I found more ways through different sections than was noted on many sites. In doing so, taking the time to explore, look for alternatives, I found little trinkets the developers had left under waterfalls, under bridges and warfes etc.

WOuld I have found those if I blundered straight through the 'normal' most direct route, certainly not.

But it shows the developers had put in place, elements that rewarded those who 'took the time' - something MANY gamers this era seem unwilling to do with games. Dedicate the time required to 'enjoy' the game as the developers initially designed it to be enjoyed.

WHen L.A. Noir and even Deus Ex hits the stands, there will be an outcry from disgruntled games across the board.

WHy, because the games are NOT the usual run-of-the-mill types of games, and most gamers will give the games about an hour or so, then write them off as 'useless' nboring or 'a fail' etc.

Yet they'll do themselves the biggest disservice they have done in ages if they do so.

Gamers need to look at games in a different light, and see what the developer (not the publisher) has conceived for them . . .a world that is open to interpretation and adventure, SHOULD you (the gamer) be willing to venture into that world, rather than glance over the top of it.

I have a library of over 90+ x360 games, and a similar amount of 1st-gen Xbox games. And I enjoy grabbing an old one, throwing it in the machine and trying yet another way through the game, or trying to beat a time I may have set some time ago.

Isn't that what gaming IS supposed be be about, enjoying ones self and having some fun.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 4835d ago
Washington-Capitals4835d ago

You completely missed what he was talking about there. That comment you quoted was in reference to killzone 2, not killzone 3. Way to fail.

Nightfallen4835d ago

I knew it was about Killzone 2, don't need to jump down my throat. All I am saying is that I didn't mind (in my opinion) that the single player wasn't really worth replaying initially after first playthrough (minus the intel/destroying helghast symbols), because the only initiative I had to pop that disc in was to play multiplayer. Over and over again for lots of hours of gameplay.

Besides, I have no idea what difference it makes whether about KZ3, or KZ2..

gaminoz4835d ago

I didn't like Killzone 2 except the cover system. Great game, yes, but felt too samey over the levels.

bart9994835d ago

I'm not going to come right out and call N.L an out and out liar, but completing the SP in 3.75 hrs on Normal, while in his own words, dying lots, and shooting everyone, essentially not just powering through, is implausible at best.

Otherwise, good article and debate.

For the record, my biggest issue with the SP is the care and cleverness that went into writing for Stahl as opposed to the writing for Sev-which was moronic at best.

MP for KZ3 is sublime and definitely worth committing to.

TheDivine4835d ago

I beat it in about 5 hours dying a few times. Maybe 6 hrs total. Way shorter than kz2. Epic action but i was dissapointed in the length. Multi is better but it has half the maps it should, cut out for dlc and i didnt preorder so i have to buy the 2 extras. Still great but it has a few faults.

bart9994835d ago

I didn't really track my first playthrough,I'm on my second but I'm a fairly experienced KZ2 player and now KZ3 player, and the figure quoted in the article seems difficult to swallow.

Agreed it's not perfect but still a great shooter

Barajas_2014835d ago (Edited 4835d ago )

waw, just waw, i couldn't expect more from a xbox site, the whole article just want to piss us off

XboxOZ3604835d ago

Yep, we hate the platform SO MUCH that we dedicate a whole section to the "Steal It For 360' on the OXCGN site. http://oxcgn.com/steal-it/

Thing is, most of those reviews are for great games, no matter WHAT platform you may have a 'preference' for.

Both reviewers own and love the PS3's, as well as their 360's, Wii's, iPhones/HTC's and PC's etc, they simply want to share their thoughts with others about how they found a certain title.

Alpha_Gamer4835d ago (Edited 4835d ago )

Yeah, it`s nothing to get upset over. Not only does it inform primarily 360 gamers to check out a game, it could convince a PS3 owner to go pick it up. I think the "steal it" articles are pretty good, keep up the good work.

gaminoz4835d ago

Lol why do they want to piss you off? Because they want to steal these awesome exclusives? That's called envy...lol.

Ifone4835d ago

They probably fail to mention that like most of ps3 exclusives, they can't be done with the same Quality on xbox..

gaminoz4835d ago

I don't think that's the point. I think it's about if 360 fans would have liked it. Not if it is technically possible or not.

Show all comments (58)
190°

Sony shares big new PS Plus stat, but not the one we want to see

PlayStation Plus has improved the split of PS4 and PS5 players on its priciest tiers, but Sony continues to hide total subscriber numbers.

Read Full Story >>
theloadout.com
mandf15h ago

lol acting like it’s equivalent to ms numbers

Mr Logic15h ago

Uh...They're definitely not equivalent.

"Microsoft’s Xbox Game Pass service now has 34 million subscribers."

"the total number of PS Plus subscribers across all tiers was 47.4 million"

darthv7214h ago(Edited 14h ago)

That PSN number seems like it should be much higher... especially when you consider that PS4 alone has a sell through of over 117m. To not even be at least half that is rather interesting.

To the XB side, having 34m to an install base of roughly 50m (XBO sell through) or even 85m (360 sell through) is a greater percentage of unit to member ratio than PSN.

bloop11h ago

That's not the "gotcha" you think it is Darth.

darthv7210h ago

^^it's not supposed to be bloop.... it's just an interesting observation.

Einhander19728h ago

darthv72

"That PSN number seems like it should be much higher... especially when you consider that PS4 alone has a sell through of over 117m. To not even be at least half that is rather interesting.

To the XB side, having 34m to an install base of roughly 50m (XBO sell through) or even 85m (360 sell through) is a greater percentage of unit to member ratio than PSN."

Have you ever heard of a PC before? I hear they are pretty popular.

fr0sty2h ago

MS started lumping gold subscribers in with those GP numbers... keep in mind.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2h ago
shinoff218313h ago(Edited 13h ago)

What. Definitely more os plus subscribers but that makes sense due to actual console sales

Darth the difference between the bases are huge your right but you gotta think. Ps players buy more games, where as the Xbox base relies on gamepass for their gaming. So it makes perfect sense

darthv7213h ago(Edited 13h ago)

What makes perfect sense though? You say PS players buy more games... so then logically there should be more PS+ subscribers given the increased number of online multiplayer games in the PS4 generation alone. The PS4 was the first time that + was required for online play much like Gold was for 360 users.

Keep in mind we are talking subscribers, not simply XB/PS users. I assume you meant to say offline single player games, which is most likely true as well. That gen also saw a significant increase in games with an online component comparted to the previous gen.

victorMaje13h ago

I for one will be going back to essential at the next renewal. When I feel a game is good & right up my alley, I’ll check trusted reviews & just buy it.

jznrpg11h ago(Edited 11h ago)

I have the top tier until 2028 as they gave me a massive discount for all the years I had left but I’ll most likely go to essential as well. I buy my games but my kids do use the service occasionally. They do prefer to own their games as well since any game can leave the rental service at some point and they don’t like that idea. They mostly use it to demo games then ask me to buy games if they really like it.

RedDevils7h ago

For me, I will cancel it all together but unfortunately I still have it till 2030 lol

meganick11h ago

I would like to see Sony add a fourth tier of PS Plus for people who just want to be able to play games online without any of the perks like monthly games, store discounts, or anything like that, and it should cost $20 annually, $30 maximum. There’s no way I’m paying $80 just to play games online. Even the original $60 fee was too much, and I would often wait for sales to re-up my subscription.

P_Bomb7h ago(Edited 7h ago)

Essential is too expensive, I agree. We’ve got one Essential and one Premium sub. Dropping the Premium when it expires.

gamerz4h ago

Just let my subscription lapse for the first time since 2010. Will sub again every now and then for a month or so to access my old ps+ games but for me it's the end of an era.

DivineHand1253h ago

Let those numbers continue to drop because it is now too expensive. $80 per year just to play online. I noticed they didn't offer any discounts on the subscription or controllers during this year's days of play for the first time in many years and they will feel it when people choose not to renew.

My subscription will lapse next month and it will stay that way until further notice.

KevtheDuff8m ago

There were savings on subs and controllers here in the UK? I bought a controller yesterday in the sale..
It would be weird if those deals were not in other territories too?

300°

Sony Says The PS5 Is Its “Most Profitable Generation To-Date"

During Sony’s recent business segment meeting and investor presentation regarding its game and network services, the PlayStation company revealed that PlayStation 5 is the company’s “most profitable generation to-date.”

It’s the top slide of the presentation, showing that in its first four years, the PS5 generation has already hit $106 billion in sales, having almost caught up to the PS4’s total $107 billion generated.

Operating income for the PS5 generation has also already surpassed that of the PS4, having now reached $10 billion.

ApocalypseShadow2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

I wouldn't doubt it. They released a high quality system. A lot of high quality games from themselves and their support of 3rd party developers and indies. They released many high quality remakes and remasters. They released a high quality GaaS game going against the naysayers thinking Sony would abandon single player games. And they most likely are profiting a lot more than PS1, PS2 PS4 and the loss leading PS3 that drained all their profits.

Now, I'll wait to see what's cooking tomorrow. But can you use some of those profits to better support your high quality VR headset? Because, by supporting it, you can sell more games and more systems and make more profits?

jznrpg2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

I want RPGs for PSVR2! Good ones of course

shinoff21832d ago

If it had some rpgs I would buy right fking now. It looks dope and alot of fun, but it's biggest game resident evil 4(maybe) I've got no interest in. I'm not a fan of racing games, even with that metro game coming i was never much into that series. Rpgs would be fantastic.

MrNinosan2d ago

Lemme know if ya wanna play some Zenith 🙌
Bought it at release, but haven't played it more than 1-2 hours but for sure on my "todo list".

Cacabunga2d ago

Normal when they released mostly cross gen games so far. That’s a lot of money saved..
We haven’t seen what PS5 can do yet. 4years in and PS4 games still look great to me. The gen leap isn’t quite there yet.

--Onilink--2d ago

The interesting metric for me is the $106billion in operating income/profit (not sales as mentioned in the article) reaching the same as the PS4 did with only half the consoles sold.

In particular because they all are supposed to be making the most per hardware sold after a few years when manufacturing costs are down.

So even putting inflation aside(and the higher console price), it is interesting that they could reach PS4 $ with just half the consoles sold.

Maybe there is more to the metric thats whats seen at face value, but they have clearly been making a lot more money than before on the software side (with also less games released I suppose, given its only been half the generation so far)

VersusDMC2d ago

The bulk of the money has to be coming from the 30% cut on all games and microtransactions. Especially on all the free to play juggernauts like genshin, apex, fortnight, etc.

--Onilink--2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

@Versus

They are definitely making a lot on that for sure (which the $70 price increase factors into as well), but its not like many of those games werent around for the PS4 too.

They might be counting the gen as a whole and not just PS5 itself (so extra profit from PC sales, whatever that may be)

PS+ price increase and different tiers probably amount to part of that too.

But in general, its still quite a surprising metric. Half the time, half the consoles sold, less first party games released so far and still already making more of a profit than last gen is quite something, and as mentioned, there is probably more to it that we dont know, after all, since we are talking about operating income, all the expenses they have also factor into it, so it is also possible that they have found ways to significantly reduce that + all the means of increased revenue that appear to be factoring into the equation

All in all, just an interesting situation from a business perspective

porkChop1d 23h ago

It's for the whole generation, so it would likely be including PC. They also make much more profit on digital sales vs retail, and digital is far more prominent these days. The generation also started at the height of COVID when everyone was home, spending far more money on gaming/hobbies. It makes a lot of sense for this gen to be more profitable.

Abnor_Mal2d ago

This will surely shut up all the new trolling accounts trying to spread lies and non facts in other articles comment sections before this article is posted.

Hofstaderman2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

Obscurely, those trolls or troll will not show in these articles as the truth is contradictory to his or their orchard-sized daily dose of copium and hopium.

Tacoboto2d ago

Or... They're intentionally trolling you guys specifically. Because they know it upsets you so easily.

Name-dropping Orchard, after this many months? How long has it been and he's still in your thoughts?

Elda2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

I'm quite sure the individual is reading these positive comments downvoting & seething at the same time. Edit: It just downvoted my comment...lol!!

Hofstaderman2d ago

No I'm entertained by this individual. I love unhinged people, they are so interesting lol.

repsahj2d ago

Wow! I am super impressed that in just 4 years, ps5 already caught up to the PS4's. Congratulations.

JackBNimble1d 9h ago

That happens when half of your games are cross platform. I'm still waiting to see what the ps5 is capable of, because they sure haven't pushed any limits.

And where are all these ps5 exclusive games?

sagapo2d ago

Not really surprised as Sony barely has any competition at the moment.

Show all comments (47)
150°

Sony CEO says although AI "has been used for creation," it's "not a substitute for human creativity"

"AI is not a substitute for human creativity. We position it as a technology that supports creativity. Creativity resides in people. We will continue to contribute to people's creativity through technology," the CEO said.

Read Full Story >>
gamesradar.com
1nsomniac8d ago (Edited 8d ago )

...not yet but 100% within the next 10 years!

..Then Sony will use it like the drop of a hat. They're no different to the others.

isarai8d ago (Edited 8d ago )

They used to be 😞 sure it was always a business, and money's always the priority, but they used to have a very strong stance on supporting artists and creativity. "Dont f#@k with the artist" was a phrase they touted a few times back in the ps1-ps3 era, a philosophy carried over from their music branch PlayStation was created from. It's not COMPLETELY gone, but it's barely there compared to what it was back then, i just want them to return to that.

Eonjay7d ago (Edited 7d ago )

I am highly encouraged by their statement about human creativity. "Dont f#@k with the artist" is exactly what they are saying. But at the same time, I don't think people understand that Sony is a corporation. If they don't realize growth, they don't get to exist. When you say 'Sony', you are talking about a bunch of investors. To speak about them any other way is a illogical and incorrect. They haven't changed. They have been a group of investors since they became a public business.

isarai8d ago

Ugh, i really wish people would stop gambling people's livelihoods by turning a project/game into their political soapbox. Im all for statements and having your own opinion, but there's more people working on this than just druckman, ham fisting your political beliefs onto just seems inconsiderate for everyone elses job security when it can result in a failure due to people avoiding it for that reason.

I play games for escape, im so tired of nearly every AAA game blatantly dragging real world issues to shove in my face when I'm trying to take a break from it all. They don't even bother to be subtle about it, quite the opposite, it's blasted and force fed to you and it's just getting exhausting

Einhander19727d ago

People are taking a whole interview and cutting it down to clips that make him look bad and take what he actually was saying out of context. For example he also said things like this AI has "ethical issues we need to address"

-Foxtrot7d ago

@Einhander

Why defend him at this point?

It’s not taking things out of context, he said what he said.

Old ND would never talk about soulless AI taking over so many creative things they are well known for. The whole “ethical issues” is just a good PR spin people who push this crap fall back on to make their statements not seem as bad. So many AI lovers do this.

AI has no place is so many creative based things.

Einhander19727d ago

Well yeah, because everyone else is using it so they need to stay competitive. It's the same as paid online, they didn't want to go that route but their competition was making so much money they needed to add paid online just to keep up.

RaiderNation7d ago (Edited 7d ago )

AI will never replace humans in game development in terms of conceptualizing new games. Humans still need to come up with the ideas and what they want to implement. However much of the day to day menial coding could be AI driven to reduce production time and team size. I could also see AI being used for bug testing/optimization that could lead to better quality games at launch. I'm actually very optimistic about how AI can positively impact game development.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 7d ago
XiNatsuDragnel8d ago

Good statement but hopefully this holds up

NotoriousWhiz7d ago

People that aren't software developers just don't understand the benefits of AI. People who's only exposure to A.I is the Terminator movie and other related sci fi films won't understand the benefits it provides.

It's not about replacing human labor. It's about making human labor easier.

Many years ago, I had laser eye surgery done. It was performed by a robot. The doctor took my measurements and calibrated the machine to make sure it would do what needed be done. And then the robot corrected my vision in 10 seconds.

15 years later and I still have 20/20 vision.

Eonjay7d ago

AI in and of itself is not a 'bad'. Money is bad. Money is evil, and corporations will do whatever they can to get more of it. They will find ways to implement AI to replace as may jobs as possible. This isn't even up for debate. It is the charge of the corporation to maximize returns for the investors. They have no choice. I'm a developer and I know that my job will absolutely be replaced. Therefore, I have decided to become an AI dev. AI has a lot of potential to help us solve problem on a scale most can't even imagine. The issue, as ever is that our monetary system only ever allows us to focus on greed and fiscal growth.

But I am a pragmatist. Perhaps an AI model can be built to help protect us from our most dangerous instincts and habits. And perhaps Congress can pass laws to protect us from people who would use AI to manipulate and control us (spoiler: they wont).

RaiderNation7d ago (Edited 7d ago )

Progress is inevitable. Nobody driving cars today is complaining that the horse and buggy is no longer around. Yes, some jobs will be lost but guess what? With innovation comes new job opportunities. It's how the cycle of the job market works.