Killzone 3 GAMEPLAY TRAILER!!

i think it looks preety amazing,the executions are awesome and its nice to see variety in the graphics,but there only one thing..rico.
-_-

I saw it on IGN this morning.

Fanboyism aside,it looks the exact same as Killzone 2 except with snow and jetpacks.Still looks great though.And the trailer was cool.

Ughhh...Rico.Cant he just die already?

The new combat looks better than in Killzone 2 but it still has the same sort of art style that i really dislike.

Looks brilliant. Cant wait to see more.

The trailer was made of awesome if it wasn't the 5 second Rico appearance.

Rico still alive? I think I will pass....lol jk but this looks sweet!

gonna be mediocre

im not going to lie, that trailer was epic.

WOW people really dont like rico. i thought he was ok... until he got garza and visari killed that is...

Doominator99 wrote:

im not going to lie, that trailer was epic.

WOW people really dont like rico. i thought he was ok... until he got garza and visari killed that is...

Exactly! HE IS A DOUCHE!!

Lol i gues the review scores will increase by like 5Points, if they let Rico die in the first mission^^. Name of the first mission: "Problem Solved". I would like to see that. Looks pretty cool, but im not sure if the advanced melee moves will work well. The end of the trailer reminds me of the end of the UC2 trailer, when the train is about to smash Nathan.

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

arnt god of war wrote:

gonna be mediocre

Oh im sorry i guess i Offended the people who like mindless shooters with nothing new to bring to the genera. i facedesk at you jubjub i facedesk...facefuckingdesk. gears isnt really immune to this but i hardly like gears and halo brought abunch of things and reach is just like a compilation of them all.

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Doominator99 wrote:

im not going to lie, that trailer was epic.

WOW people really dont like rico. i thought he was ok... until he got garza and visari killed that is...

Exactly! HE IS A DOUCHE!!

Hey hes not a douche!..... hes a douchebag

arnt god of war wrote:

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

arnt god of war wrote:

gonna be mediocre

Oh im sorry i guess i Offended the people who like mindless shooters with nothing new to bring to the genera. i facedesk at you jubjub i facedesk...facefuckingdesk. gears isnt really immune to this but i hardly like gears and halo brought abunch of things and reach is just like a compilation of them all.

I haven't seen anything innovativ in Reach yet, and you just hate Kz3 because its Killzone.

it is almost impossible to innovate in the fps genre anymore. the best developers can do now is add as much content as they can into da games

@Fank

Well it doesnt need too.Halo has already revolutionized a genre and has one of the best onlines out there(soon it will be Halo Reach online).

Plus they are changing a its campaign mechanics(levels are free roam and allow the player to use different stratagies),plus adding a bunch of abilities like Jetpacks,armorlock,stealth and sprint.

I wouldnt call that "not innovative"

HellJumper wrote:

@Fank

Well it doesnt need too.Halo has already revolutionized a genre and has one of the best onlines out there(soon it will be Halo Reach online).

Plus they are changing a its campaign mechanics(levels are free roam and allow the player to use different stratagies),plus adding a bunch of abilities like Jetpacks,armorlock,stealth and sprint.

I wouldnt call that "not innovative"

I would. Nothing is new about that, and thats ok for me. Im not the "I need da innovationz"guy, but you shouldn't bash Kz3 because its Killzone. Both games aren#t innovative

Fank wrote:

HellJumper wrote:

@Fank

Well it doesnt need too.Halo has already revolutionized a genre and has one of the best onlines out there(soon it will be Halo Reach online).

Plus they are changing a its campaign mechanics(levels are free roam and allow the player to use different stratagies),plus adding a bunch of abilities like Jetpacks,armorlock,stealth and sprint.

I wouldnt call that "not innovative"

I would. Nothing is new about that, and thats ok for me. Im not the "I need da innovationz"guy, but you shouldn't bash Kz3 because its Killzone. Both games aren#t innovative

Halo was innovative, WAS. There is no denying that Halo:CE set a standard for FPS's. Especially in that gen. But there is nothing innovative about Reach, same with KZ3. But does that mean it won't be a good game? No, but will be fucking great games, and I will pre order both of them. They don't need to be innovative to be good.

Fank wrote:

HellJumper wrote:

@Fank

Well it doesnt need too.Halo has already revolutionized a genre and has one of the best onlines out there(soon it will be Halo Reach online).

Plus they are changing a its campaign mechanics(levels are free roam and allow the player to use different stratagies),plus adding a bunch of abilities like Jetpacks,armorlock,stealth and sprint.

I wouldnt call that "not innovative"

I would. Nothing is new about that, and thats ok for me. Im not the "I need da innovationz"guy, but you shouldn't bash Kz3 because its Killzone. Both games aren#t innovative

See,things dont have to be new to have innovation.And If you think about it,Halo Reach does bring a new thing

Halo experience+Jetpacks+Sprint+Entire new campaign(including mechanics)+armor lock+Stealth+Class's=NEW

If you disagree,tell me a game that has all of those things combined?Oh thats right,thre isnt any.

Where did I say Killzone on my last post?

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Fank wrote:

HellJumper wrote:

@Fank

Well it doesnt need too.Halo has already revolutionized a genre and has one of the best onlines out there(soon it will be Halo Reach online).

Plus they are changing a its campaign mechanics(levels are free roam and allow the player to use different stratagies),plus adding a bunch of abilities like Jetpacks,armorlock,stealth and sprint.

I wouldnt call that "not innovative"

I would. Nothing is new about that, and thats ok for me. Im not the "I need da innovationz"guy, but you shouldn't bash Kz3 because its Killzone. Both games aren#t innovative

Halo was innovative, WAS. There is no denying that Halo:CE set a standard for FPS's. Especially in that gen. But there is nothing innovative about Reach, same with KZ3. But does that mean it won't be a good game? No, but will be fucking great games, and I will pre order both of them. They don't need to be innovative to be good.

killzone 2 did some innovative things aswell like first person cover system, 5 game modes in one match and it set new standards for swearing in games
Killzone 3 will just improve that and add stuff like first person melee kills (i dont think i have seen a game that does that)

But i hear there will be less swearing

Doominator99 wrote:

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Fank wrote:

HellJumper wrote:

@Fank

Well it doesnt need too.Halo has already revolutionized a genre and has one of the best onlines out there(soon it will be Halo Reach online).

Plus they are changing a its campaign mechanics(levels are free roam and allow the player to use different stratagies),plus adding a bunch of abilities like Jetpacks,armorlock,stealth and sprint.

I wouldnt call that "not innovative"

I would. Nothing is new about that, and thats ok for me. Im not the "I need da innovationz"guy, but you shouldn't bash Kz3 because its Killzone. Both games aren#t innovative

Halo was innovative, WAS. There is no denying that Halo:CE set a standard for FPS's. Especially in that gen. But there is nothing innovative about Reach, same with KZ3. But does that mean it won't be a good game? No, but will be fucking great games, and I will pre order both of them. They don't need to be innovative to be good.

killzone 2 did some innovative things aswell like first person cover system, 5 game modes in one match and it set new standards for swearing in games
Killzone 3 will just improve that and add stuff like first person melee kills (i dont think i have seen a game that does that)

But i hear there will be less swearing

The cover system was nothing innovative, yes very few FPS's had it, but for how bad the cover system in KZ2 was I wouldn't even consider it innovative. I never used it because it was just horrible. But yeah, some of the mechanics and feel of heaviness in the game hasn't really been done, and the 5 game modes in the online (which was fucking awesome). But those things aren't innovative, innovative means it changes the genre as a whole. Like games will follow after for all of gaming in the future. Same goes for Reach also, it has new stuff, but is it innovative? No

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Doominator99 wrote:

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Fank wrote:

HellJumper wrote:

@Fank

Well it doesnt need too.Halo has already revolutionized a genre and has one of the best onlines out there(soon it will be Halo Reach online).

Plus they are changing a its campaign mechanics(levels are free roam and allow the player to use different stratagies),plus adding a bunch of abilities like Jetpacks,armorlock,stealth and sprint.

I wouldnt call that "not innovative"

I would. Nothing is new about that, and thats ok for me. Im not the "I need da innovationz"guy, but you shouldn't bash Kz3 because its Killzone. Both games aren#t innovative

Halo was innovative, WAS. There is no denying that Halo:CE set a standard for FPS's. Especially in that gen. But there is nothing innovative about Reach, same with KZ3. But does that mean it won't be a good game? No, but will be fucking great games, and I will pre order both of them. They don't need to be innovative to be good.

killzone 2 did some innovative things aswell like first person cover system, 5 game modes in one match and it set new standards for swearing in games
Killzone 3 will just improve that and add stuff like first person melee kills (i dont think i have seen a game that does that)

But i hear there will be less swearing

The cover system was nothing innovative, yes very few FPS's had it, but for how bad the cover system in KZ2 was I wouldn't even consider it innovative. I never used it because it was just horrible. But yeah, some of the mechanics and feel of heaviness in the game hasn't really been done, and the 5 game modes in the online (which was fucking awesome). But those things aren't innovative, innovative means it changes the genre as a whole. Like games will follow after for all of gaming in the future. Same goes for Reach also, it has new stuff, but is it innovative? No

Wrong

It depends on what the game is and how much it is adding too it.If a game adds a tiny couple of new features,then it aint really innovative.if a game add lots of big features such as Halo Reach,yes it is new

Plus,Innovative doesnt = New.But many people dont understand that

Doominator99 wrote:

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Doominator99 wrote:

im not going to lie, that trailer was epic.

WOW people really dont like rico. i thought he was ok... until he got garza and visari killed that is...

Exactly! HE IS A DOUCHE!!

Hey hes not a douche!..... hes a douchebag

Yup...Rico sucks...

Fank wrote:

arnt god of war wrote:

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

arnt god of war wrote:

gonna be mediocre

Oh im sorry i guess i Offended the people who like mindless shooters with nothing new to bring to the genera. i facedesk at you jubjub i facedesk...facefuckingdesk. gears isnt really immune to this but i hardly like gears and halo brought abunch of things and reach is just like a compilation of them all.

I haven't seen anything innovativ in Reach yet, and you just hate Kz3 because its Killzone.

im pretty sure i spelt that right and im pretty sure that means its all the ideals from previous halos in one halo game with some things improved.

Doominator99 wrote:

it is almost impossible to innovate in the fps genre anymore. the best developers can do now is add as much content as they can into da games

no its just devs are lazy and people like you think it is impossible when really its not that hard to come up with one new thing.

HellJumper wrote:

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Doominator99 wrote:

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Fank wrote:

HellJumper wrote:

@Fank

Well it doesnt need too.Halo has already revolutionized a genre and has one of the best onlines out there(soon it will be Halo Reach online).

Plus they are changing a its campaign mechanics(levels are free roam and allow the player to use different stratagies),plus adding a bunch of abilities like Jetpacks,armorlock,stealth and sprint.

I wouldnt call that "not innovative"

I would. Nothing is new about that, and thats ok for me. Im not the "I need da innovationz"guy, but you shouldn't bash Kz3 because its Killzone. Both games aren#t innovative

Halo was innovative, WAS. There is no denying that Halo:CE set a standard for FPS's. Especially in that gen. But there is nothing innovative about Reach, same with KZ3. But does that mean it won't be a good game? No, but will be fucking great games, and I will pre order both of them. They don't need to be innovative to be good.

killzone 2 did some innovative things aswell like first person cover system, 5 game modes in one match and it set new standards for swearing in games
Killzone 3 will just improve that and add stuff like first person melee kills (i dont think i have seen a game that does that)

But i hear there will be less swearing

The cover system was nothing innovative, yes very few FPS's had it, but for how bad the cover system in KZ2 was I wouldn't even consider it innovative. I never used it because it was just horrible. But yeah, some of the mechanics and feel of heaviness in the game hasn't really been done, and the 5 game modes in the online (which was fucking awesome). But those things aren't innovative, innovative means it changes the genre as a whole. Like games will follow after for all of gaming in the future. Same goes for Reach also, it has new stuff, but is it innovative? No

Wrong

It depends on what the game is and how much it is adding too it.If a game adds a tiny couple of new features,then it aint really innovative.if a game add lots of big features such as Halo Reach,yes it is new

Plus,Innovative doesnt = New.But many people dont understand that

qft truth and edit for emphasis