One of the PlayStation 3′s flagship franchises is Killzone. Currently on its second iteration, Killzone 3‘s highly anticipated February 22nd release date is quickly approaching. However, seeing how the game has yet to come out, prospective buyers may be wondering how good the game will be and if it will actually be worth a buy.

Well the Official PlayStation Magazine has just posted their score of the game giving it a perfect 10/10 in a review in their March issue. While you won’t be able to read the full review until you pick up the issue, below is an excerpt:

Killzone 3 takes a blade, jams it into a Helghast’s eye socket, and twists it

Sounds pretty promising. But then again, it’s the Official PlayStation Magazine and Killzone 3 is one of the PlayStation’s only exclusives so we’ll have to wait and see how the game is for ourselves. And don’t worry, we won’t be dazzled by the snazzy 3D graphics – or will we?

via playstation.blog

Over a year ago we told you that Sonic’s Ultimate Genesis Collection was on its way featuring a whole slew of classic titles for you to run through. Well, I headed over to my local GameStop looking for a game under 20 bucks with a high level of re-playability and happened upon none other than Sonic’s Ultimate Genesis Collection.

Now I’ve played a ton of the games on here (which we’ll talk about in a minute) but I figured why not and slapped down the plastic because what could be better than a compilation of such classic titles. Upon examination I noticed no game list but some updated features include ‘enchanced HD graphics, ‘unlockable content’ and ‘mega multiplayer fun’. Awesome.

Turns out, the game is exactly what it is; a compilation of classic Sega titles. This, of course means there will be no ridiculous graphics like found in Crysis 2 (obvioulsy) but some argue that these games are much more fun than newer generation titles. Whatever, like them or not, with 40 games, there is something for everyone. Of course, there’s the entire Streets of Rage trilogy with all sorts of side scrolling beat em’ up action, Sonic, which I shouldn’t even have to tell you about, and other titles like Phantasy Star and Vectorman 2.

Hit the break for more.

READ ON »

After almost a year of building up hype and anticipation for Battlefield Heroes, EA released the game last week to little or no fanfare — even the press release was bleak, at best. Not always a good sign to what used to be a highly hyped title.

In case you don’t already know, Battlefield Heroes takes the Battlefield franchise in a new direction, with a new art style, and more importantly, in a free direction. The game is available for download and play for everyone, and is supported by advertising and micro transactions. There are two teams: the Nationals (read: Nazis) and Royal Forces (Brits). The three classes, The Soldier, The Gunner and The Commando (a sort of spy/sniper), can be highly customized, although on a purely cosmetic level. Special gear is sold via micro transactions, and isn’t really worth the money unless you want to show off (and many do). However, the micro transactions, the items users can buy, do not give any clear advantage over those who don’t purchase these items (besides the “quicker leveling up” items, and general stuff that you can get simply by playing the game), which is always a good way of keeping things balanced.

The game features only three classes and a few maps, not a lot by any standards, but when it’s free it’s acceptable, as long as the gameplay is good. Speaking of the gameplay, the game has some serious balance issues, both class wise and weapon wise. For one, it’s easy to camp and spawn kill players, either as a sniper, or even soldier, as simple weapons such as pistols are usually just as accurate as sniper rifles. As for the maps, they tend to quickly get boring and repetitive, and one can hope that EA will keep expanding the amount of maps available for the game, and hopefully, expand with some better maps the the original ones. Having said that, the maps are fairly balanced, true to the Battlefield nature.

One of the features that is bound to be subject to criticism, and rightfully so, is that when you create a character, you have to stick with that character. You cannot respawn as another class, like in all previous Battlefield games. It’s very annoying, especially for Battlefield veterans who are used to mixing things up during a match, however…

This game is not for Battlefield veterans or other hard core action/FPS titles. Battlefield Heroes is a game for the youngsters, above all. It seems like a game EA created in order to broaden the Battlefield brand, instead of making a game that’s fun and enjoyable. Granted, Heroes does have its strong points, the strongest one that it’s free — but even then it quickly gets boring and repetitive. Despite the detailed statistics and rankings (another classic Battlefield feature) and the customization features, the gameplay is simply lacking the great fundamentals that have made the Battlefield franchise.

While most series thrive on innovation and change, advancing storylines to greater degrees of complexity the Dynasty Warriors series strides the line between stagnation and enjoyable familiarity with great success. Though not as universally loved as some series it definitely has a huge cult following. The newest release for the series follows the formula they’ve established so far: a new Dynasty Warriors title is released with some alterations to gameplay, improved graphics and possibly some extra characters. Then they release the Empires update which is designed to provide a more strategic gameplay experience.

Here’s the basic rundown on the Dynasty Warriors series for anyone unfamiliar: you (and possibly a friend) play as warriors in feudal China and spend your time plowing through hordes of opponents on a variety of battlefields. Many characters have story modes which are held together by text explanations and cutscenes, though this is a fairly optional experience as the game is in no way detracted from by skipping them. The battles are rather epic as your characters are generally larger than life, featuring heavily stylized costumes and bearing powerful weapons allowing you to sweep aside entire groups of enemy soldiers in a single swing. As you progress through battles you improve your character, gain new and superior weapons and collect horses.

The Empires games play differently than the rest of the series. Gone are the cutscenes and detailed stories where you simply go from one battle to the next. The vast majority of the game is still centered around the epic conflicts, but you’re allowed to do things at your own pace. You begin a campaign by choosing your time period which only affects which factions will be the most prominent.

READ ON »

Team based cooperative gameplay has always been popular. Whether you’re joining with friends to become the greatest fake band of all time or shooting up aliens with a buddy across the country, gamers have often gotten by with a little help from their friends. Yet nothing equals the sheer joy of smashing your friends into a grim digital pulp and dancing on their electronic graves.

That’s the idea behind Worms, one of the most recent additions to the Playstation Network. It’s already been out for Xbox Live Arcade for more than two years but its continued success prompted a port. It’s actually even older than that, with the original Worms having debuted on PC in 1995. After remakes and spin-offs the game landed as a remake on these two current-gen systems.

READ ON »

In general, reviewers judge games as they are. If a game receives a significant patch that fixes a glaring flaw that the game in question may have had, it wont affect the score which the game received. A good example would be Lair and how the poor controls destroyed the experience, and although those were patched, the game was not re-reviewed. A little while ago, we reported that one of Fable 2′s major features, online co-op, would be added in shortly after the game launched. So what does this mean for Fable 2′s review scores? Peter Molynuex took it upon himself to personally, via letter, ask reviewers to take the significance of online co-op into account.

“I have a favour to ask you — we build this game not only to appeal to gamers like yourself, but to appeal to anybody. So please, please, please, please, please find somebody who doesn’t play games, watch them play it and see how their world turns out, because I think it’s only when you see those differences that the unique experiences comes through.”

While he clever avoided asking reviewers to actually pretend that online co-op was available. Whether reviewers will go through with doing this “favor” for him remains to be seen, but I for one don’t think that providing a letter requesting to, essentially, ignore a fault that the game has is a respectable move to any degree.