Ads are gone. We're using Patreon to raise funds so we can grow. Please pledge support today!
Google+   Facebook button  Twitter button 
3DS | DS | PS3 | PS4 | PSP | VITA | WII | WIIU | X360 | XB1 | All
God of War III (PlayStation 3) artwork

God of War III (PlayStation 3) review


"With grandiose symphony and fiery passion, Sony's declaration is clear: this is an epic the likes of which the world may never see again. The game's opening moments plunge this brazen ambition into the hearts of those who've forgotten such fanciful dreams. A host of titans wage war against the gods of Olympus, and the chaotic path along which players guide Kratos is truly unnerving. The ground itself shakes, for that ground is the back of the titan Gaia. Parasitic serpents burst from Gaia's flesh to bar the Spartan's path; when the titan of Earth stumbles from the pain, Kratos hangs precariously with one hand but still must fight. His soul is only at peace during battle."



I loved the original God of War. I was pleased to discover that God of War III begins with an inspired montage depicting Kratos's tormented life thus far. With grandiose symphony and fiery passion, Sony's declaration is clear: this is an epic the likes of which the world may never see again. The game's opening moments plunge this brazen ambition into the hearts of those who've forgotten such fanciful dreams. A host of titans wage war against the gods of Olympus, and the chaotic path along which players guide Kratos is truly unnerving. The ground itself shakes, for that ground is the back of the titan Gaia. Parasitic serpents burst from Gaia's flesh to bar the Spartan's path; when the titan of Earth stumbles from the pain, Kratos hangs precariously with one hand but still must fight. His soul is only at peace during battle.

If only the game were as important as it pretends to be.

After the god of war died in the first game, Sony found themselves in a difficult situation. They just killed the god of war. How could there possibly be another God of War game? Sony needed to manufacture a new grudge to sell more sequels. The resulting enmity between Kratos and Zeus felt flimsy. It felt more like an excuse to extend the series than as a legitimate storytelling effort. The first episode captured Kratos at the most important moment of his life; the second episode was a fun but unnecessary extension, and this "finale", while abundantly glamorous, feels anti-climactic.

Running wild over the entire pantheon of Olympus is a gripping concept, but of all the gods, Zeus alone poses a challenge to match the original God of War's impossible battle against the . . . god of war. Ares was a monster. The original game erected a worthy challenge: a mortal standing toe-to-toe with a god. The grudge borne by Kratos towards his war-loving "savior" is the stuff of legend, and the path by which he ended that grudge surpasses many authentic myths. This time, Kratos kills so-called immortals by snapping their necks, cutting them with sharp blades, or punching them in the face. He kills them because they're there. Some of Kratos's mortal opponents are tougher. If victory over gods were so straightforward, why did Kratos need Pandora's Box to defeat Ares? If Kratos were so intent on childish rebellion, why did Sony take such lengths to establish his hatred for Ares?

Those questions don't matter if one simply asks for fun fights and cool scenery. God of War III is certainly fun and cool. When Kratos reaches a wounded foe, nearby soldiers quickly form a phalanx to protect their fallen master. Atop the broken buildings of Olympus, Kratos beheads demon dogs as the sun god fights a titan in the background. This is the kind of stuff I dreamed of as a child. It's the same kind of stuff we've seen in the prior episodes, but much prettier. God of War III is not just bold with its beauty, but magical in its details; serpentine gorgons now glisten with slimy luster as they squeeze their prey to death.

It's dangerously easy to be swept up by the gloss. It's dangerously easy to forget that once upon a time, all of this actually meant something. Now it's simply "fun". Something truly powerful has been transformed into "just a fun game".

Forget all of that. Imagine for a moment that the previous games never happened. From that perspective, God of War III presents an exciting and balanced adventure. It's progressively challenging but fair. After disemboweling centaurs and overcoming platforming puzzles, you'll find yourself trading sickle-chain blows with Hades. Perish and you'll begin at the boss fight, as checkpoints are frequent. Win and you'll earn a new weapon, soon followed by a small group of monsters upon which to test that weapon. Repeat with new scenery, progressively tougher puzzles, and a progressively tougher boss. God of War III follows a sound and safe pattern of game design. It's a far cry from the wild shenanigans of Bayonetta.

After weakening enemies with pelting blows from chains, arrows, or whips, many are vanquished via "quick time event" (QTE) sequences. Instead of flashing symbols in the screen's center, button cues are now relegated to the edges of your TV. This makes it easier to admire the action, but more importantly, the position of the cues matches the position of the controller buttons. If a cue appears at the right-hand side of the screen, you know it's a circle. If it appears at the left, you know it's a square. The QTE system is both fair and easy to follow.

Now it's time to remember that God of War and God of War II did happen. As mentioned above, the third episode is a fair and balanced game for newcomers. In other words, veterans won't break a sweat for the first few hours . . . and the aforementioned repositioning of QTE button cues is the game's most prominent innovation. After the gripping opening, God of War III stops feeling fresh; it settles into a familiar and easy pattern. That's the dilemma of a sequel: how does one build on the original while maintaining accessibility?

God of War III doesn't. Series fans may be bored by the initial lack of challenge, especially during the early "puzzle" sequences. Series newcomers won't understand why any of these things are happening. And I'm disappointed because I loved the original too damn much.

//Zig

Rating: 7/10

zigfried's avatar
Staff review by Zigfried (March 19, 2010)

Zigfried likes writing about whales and angry seamen, and often does so at the local pub.

More Reviews by Zigfried
One Chance (PC) artwork
One Chance (PC)

One Chance is a bad game for obvious reasons. The graphics are poor, the music is repetitive, the guy walks slowly, the story is silly, player interaction is minimal, and victory is achieved through repetition instead of mastery. Its claim to fame is that you only have one chance unless you game the syst...
Canabalt (PC) artwork
Canabalt (PC)

I view people who subscribe to the holy book of Canabalt the same way that Orson Scott Card intended readers to view Xenocide's Qing-Jao: as obsessive and deranged failures, compulsively tracing lines in wood until they realize they've accomplished nothing. Then they die.
Splatterhouse (PlayStation 3) artwork
Splatterhouse (PlayStation 3)

Once upon a time, all this blood and nudity would have been daring. I remember gasping in awe when playing the originals . . . of course, those were marketed towards pre-teens who couldn't even get into R-rated flicks. In today's world, hacking up misshapen beasts and grabbing softcore pics just isn't enough.

Feedback

If you enjoyed this God of War III review, you're encouraged to discuss it with the author and with other members of the site's community. If you don't already have an HonestGamers account, you can sign up for one in a snap. Thank you for reading!

board icon
zippdementia posted March 19, 2010:

Hey, this is an awesome review, Zig (though it almost feels cliche to say that to a Zig review).

I really like the approach you took. You didn't waste time explaining God of War or Kratos (cause what's the point?) and come at the game from a more critical view point, asking "hey, haven't we seen this before?"

It's easy to get wrapped up in the, well, wrapping that comes along with the God of War series. I, like you, have always loved the first game. The next two in the main series felt always like the first game only not as new. I think you've nailed the one flaw of the GOW series and you've done it without stretching for little things that would make this an unenjoyable experience.

Indeed, you say it is enjoyable (and it is) but you are critical of all the right things.

Except maybe you should've bitched about the jumping ^_^ It keeps killing me, !@#$!...
board icon
Stu_J posted March 21, 2010:

I really felt the need to register on this site just to comment on your review. So if your aim was to gain members and traffic by purposely writing a turgid and utterly misguided piece of drek then mission accomplished.
I'm curious, what was it about the game that made you feel it dissappointed? You are comparing No More Heroes 2 on the Wii to this game? Really look at that statement really think about what you are saying.

IN this game they've introduced tweaks and fixes the small number of issues that resided within the first two games. It's one of the most beautiful games ever created, graphics and scale are just mind blowing. To give it 7 is utterly astonishing. This isn't an attack on you personally god knows everyone is entitled to their opinion but you are simply wrong, i concede people could maybe stretch to giving this game 8.9 or 9 due to familiarity but 7?!?!?

Yes it's the same type of game as the first two, you were expecting what exactly? Unchartered 2 which I loved and critics adored was exactly the same as the first. Which reminds me, there so many new types of control and camera angles that the game just shines out amongst the samey, generic bullcrap out today.

I'm not a fanboy both consoles on the market (the wii is nothing more than a child's plaything) But you clearly must be, either that or this game really isn't your thing. The thing that really ticks me off is that your crappy review is knocking the accumulated score of the game which deserves far far more!

Please stop.
board icon
wolfqueen001 posted March 21, 2010:

Ugh. Here it comes. The rampage of the N4G Playstation 3 fanboys.

We are in every right to write a review based on our opinions of a game. Just because these opinions don't agree with the so-called "majority" doesn't make them any less valid. Indeed, it makes them more valid because they're willing to point out flaws that a non-biased individual looking to perfect a game would appreciate. I would rather read a review honestly critiquing a game for its merits than a nothing-but-praise joke that doesn't discuss any issues that someone can potentially have. For example, if I read a 10/10 GoWIII review saying nothing but "lol Kratos is awesum! I love his super gorey attacks and magicks!" then bought the game expecting nothing but only to find that it does contain some inconvenient features (i.e. awkward jumping) then I'd be heartily disappointed in both the review and the reviewer. So go away please if you can't open your mind to other people's opinions and accept the fact that not everyone who writes something contrasting your own views has some sort of secret agenda.
board icon
zigfried posted March 21, 2010:

No More Heroes 2? What are you talking about? I did not mention No More Heroes 2. I did mention Bayonetta in one short sentence as an example of what this game is not. Some people may interpret that as an insult, but for people who disliked the craziness of Bayonetta, it's a compliment.

Perhaps you read the wrong review entirely and mistook it for mine. Since the review you read was "an utterly misguided piece of drek", that's likely the case. I desperately try not to write those.

The purpose of this review was not to garner hits through shock and awe. I assure you that I would be much more shocking and . . . awe-ful . . . if that were the case. The purpose of this review was to express my opinion of a new game while that opinion is still relevant to potential buyers. My enjoyment of God of War 3 was certainly less than the first game, possibly less than the second, and the game presents content that has become tired and -- more importantly -- so unnecessary that it desecrates what once was special.

You discuss scores as though they can somehow be "right" or "wrong". If you look here, you will see that the average user review rating for the original God of War is 8.4. If you look here, you will see that the average user review rating for God of War 2 is an 8.

Taking those progressively declining ratings of 8.4 and 8.0 into account, how exactly is it that a game which is not as good and certainly not as interesting, must objectively score an 8.9 or higher? Are you seriously saying it deserves a high score because it's beautiful? There are a lot of beautiful games out there. It's very easy to become acclimated to beauty. That's why the best "beautiful" games keep raising the bar as the adventure progresses. God of War 3 does not.

I'm going to pretend you did not actually cite "new [computer-controlled] camera angles" as a reason for awarding this game a high score. Regarding "so many new types of control", I suggest you go back and play the original God of War for a refresher on what is new and what is not. Even better, I suggest you expand your horizons and play more action-adventure games in general. You'll not only discover that God of War 3 isn't special, but you'll also spend your time in a far more productive manner than registering for websites simply to express the tired opinion of: "pretty games deserve high scores".

//Zig
board icon
Stu_J posted March 21, 2010:

As I mentioned I'm not a 'Fanboy' I own both a 360 and a PS3. I happen to enjoy as many series' on the 360 such as Mass Effect, Halo and Fable just as much as any on the PS3. The fact that he didn't give it 10 isn't the issue. He certainly isn't the only one not to give it a full 10. It's the 7/10, this and you'll be lieing if you don't concede that this is true, is a score reserved for run of the mill titles, your typical generic hack slashers for example. To say that it's too much like the previous game is a backward remark, it has no gravity or sense in reviewing a game which is the third of a triology . Things were never going to get radically different, i feel that done enough to keep it fresh and intense throughout. 7/10 is an insult to such a polished game that has very few flaws.

To be so stubborn in the reviewing of a game is not a strong trait for any critic. Lord knows the one thing you MUST possess is a sense of fairness and this review simply isn't fair. I assume then that every single sequel including final fantasy, pokemon or any other game that even slightly mimics its predecessors will be heavily marked down.

The puzzles were as interesting and at times difficult as the previous titles, the gameplay far superiour to both games, an accomplishment in itself. Everything about the graphics has already been commented by every reviewer on the fucking planet.

It's not simply a matter of camera angles. The first game as you seem to adore was fundamentally flawed in the gameplay department. Gliches were many and the lack of any useful powerups made the sense of accomplishment less than it really should have been. That being said it's still an incredible game. The second edited and fixed these issues and whilst not perfect it's certainly up there. The third once again does the same. I mention No more heroes becuase you have that game a 7 in a separate review, to even have those two games on the same platform for scores is ridiculous. The average score according to gamerankings by the way is 9.2 or 92 depending on your reviewing scale. Making your poultry 7 seem all the more ridiculous.

You can think me a fanboy if you must, but if this series and this game was a 360 exclusives I'd be blurting out the same hyperbolic praise as i am now. A laughably amateurish review.
board icon
honestgamer posted March 21, 2010:

Hi, Stu! Thanks for sharing your feedback for the review. Contrary to what seems to be the going opinion over at N4G, we don't score the games that we review on HonestGamers with some secret agenda of steering people away from the PlayStation 3 and we don't post them to lure N4G folks to post on our site. We score games the way we do because we feel that they deserve them.

What would you think of God of War III if it played precisely the way it does except that the graphics were completely unmemorable? Judging by your comments, you would enjoy it a good deal less. That's something our reviews tend to speak to. Games get uglier over time and then you're left with what lies beneath the shiny, polished surface. Your comments imply that you could understand the game perhaps going as low as a 9/10, which is frankly an absurd statement. A '9' isn't a low score. It's an exceptionally high score, especially since a score of 5 is the average. Did you stop to consider that maybe not everyone will think that this game is one of the greatest of all time? Apparently not.

But this isn't really even about score. This is a case where one of us--the guy that reviewed it, not necessarily the whole site--didn't like a game that you did. You're concerned about us bringing down the average because that might prevent the PlayStation army from growing, because you see this review--and perhaps this site--as some sort of attempt to nullify any weapons that Sony has with which to fight this grand console war.

We, on the other hand, see games as games. We play them on all systems and we recognize that no genre is exclusive to one platform. A reference to No More Heroes 2 would be perfectly reasonable when provided within the proper context, even though Wii's graphics aren't as good as PlayStation 3's graphics. Think about that for a minute. We're covering games as games, regardless of platform. A game either is worth playing or it isn't. We're here to say whether or not individual games meet that criteria. God of War III, as it so happens, does meet that criteria... but that doesn't mean that it gets a pass on the things that it does wrong. We'll continue to point those things out in the games that we review and we'll continue to rate them accordingly.

If you really have a lot to say on the subject and you're capable of organizing your thoughts into a quality review, we have a lovely user reviews section and would welcome your perspective. In the meantime, continue enjoying God of War III. I haven't played it yet but it looks like it could be pretty sweet.
board icon
Stu_J posted March 21, 2010:

"But this isn't really even about score. This is a case where one of us--the guy that reviewed it, not necessarily the whole site--didn't like a game that you did. You're concerned about us bringing down the average because that might prevent the PlayStation army from growing, because you see this review--and perhaps this site--as some sort of attempt to nullify any weapons that Sony has with which to fight this grand console war."

Utterly untrue! I have no bias either way, the reason I am annoyed it's bringing the score down is because I happen to think it deserves such a high score as the majoirty of reviewers have been giving it. It' has jack all to do with PS3 or xbox360. It's annoying to see such a hard working team such as Santa Monica get their efforts knocked by a review, especially if I find that review to be uninformed and misguided in how it judges said game.

Also I don't go onto N4G don't know where that's coming from, you guys clearly have some sort of beef with the PS3 but frankly I'm not bothered. The truth and the majority of sensible reviews will rise to the top.
board icon
zigfried posted March 21, 2010:

Reviews are for expressing opinions and informing consumers about final products, not for rewarding the effort that went into that product. The final product is a good game, better than Darksiders, but significantly short of the inspired excellence that would earn a high rating from me.

Clearly, you believe that God of War 3 is excellent. Based on Gamerankings' all-time top ten list, I presume that you also believe Grand Theft Auto 4 to be even more excellent.

I'm afraid we'll have to disagree on both counts.

//Zig
board icon
honestgamer posted March 21, 2010:

Sorry, I sort of leapfrogged from someone else's assumption and I shouldn't have done that. We tend to hear from N4G folk whenver we post a review for a PS3 game that rates it below a 9 (or sometimes a 10), so I hope you'll understand why the assumption was likely made in the first place.

I agree that it can sting to see a game that you love receive a low score from an outlet that seems to have missed the point, but I don't believe that to be a case here. Our reviewer has a history with and strong knowledge of the series, as well as a solid appreciation of what it can do right (and what it has done right in the past). There's no one better to evaluate the quality of this newest installment.

Personally, I wish nothing but the best for the people who work to make games. I respect their efforts and I appreciate them, as does Zigfried. At the end of the day, though, this isn't an elementary school where everyone in contention gets a ribbon or consolation prize. Blockbuster games come out at $60 and when consumers are asked to part with that money for a game, they deserve to know just what to expect. They don't want to hear that they should buy a game because the developers tried hard. They need to hear that the game kicks ass and provides $60 worth of entertainment, and they need to know when it doesn't.

The focus for HonestGamers reviews is simple: we want to let readers know whether or not the game being reviewed is worth its asking price. We want to provide a review that gives information so that the reader can know whether he or she in particular is likely to enjoy the title. We're not concerned with what other critics thought about the game. We're concerned with what we think and we're going to do our best to explain why in a manner that allows the reader to say "I'd probably feel the same way" or "He was bothered by things that wouldn't bother me so I'd probably like it more than he did."

My thanks for your earlier comments was sincere. We aren't striving for violent reactions to our reviews, or even gushing praise. We're trying to foster open, honest discussion about games and reviews. I'm sorry if it seemed otherwise.
board icon
zippdementia posted March 21, 2010:

Stu, I love the fact that someone disagrees strongly enough with a review to come over here and post. Why don't you write a review of the game yourself and then you can even-out the score for the game? That seems the most productive use of your time.

That is, if you actually care about this issue and aren't just typing for the fun of exercising your fingers.
board icon
Suskie posted March 21, 2010:

And so it starts. I don't know why you guys are wasting your time trying to reason with this guy. Have you no understanding of fanboy logic?

Stu, you're going to have to face the fact that whether you like it or not, you are a fanboy, if not of PS3, then of God of War III. A more sensible (and older) person would realize that the accumulated GameRankings average for God of War III has no effect whatsoever on one's ability to enjoy the game. Though I'll give you credit for being more straightforward than the Uncharted 2 guy, who actually tried to act intelligent.

I'd keep talking, but I'm already in danger of giving this guy more attention than he's worth. Y'all are way ahead of me.
board icon
pickhut posted March 21, 2010:

Hey, did someone mention Bayonetta in this topic? :D

Cool game.

"The fact that he didn't give it 10 isn't the issue."

"...the reason I am annoyed it's bringing the score down is because I happen to think it deserves such a high score as the majoirty of reviewers have been giving it."

???
board icon
wolfqueen001 posted March 21, 2010:

That's why these people are so cute, pickhut; they never realize they're contradicting themselves.

Anyway, I finally read the review, Zig. Nice work. This is exactly the kind of review I was looking for since I found myself wondering, upon the third release, just how samey the game was going to be compared to the others. I remember starting GoWII a while back and beating probably not even a quarter of it before my controllers decided to be gay and not work properly, thus making timed platforming things impossible. Through all that, I felt that the game seemed almost exactly like the first only now Kratos is fighting for the titans, he seems to lack some of his more awesome combos from the first game, and they introduced some (admittedly awesome) Pegasus and Colossus elements. Now, I'm not sure how GoWWII concludes and probably won't until I can buy some new controllers, but through that whole experience, I was kind of just waiting for the sort of empty feeling like "alright, when's something new going to happen" kicked in.

That being said, I can't be certain how disappointed I would've been, or even was until that point, or how it would have affected my opinion of the game, but I did get the same sentiment that you seemed to in this third installment. It's all just good to know. So thanks.
board icon
Genj posted March 21, 2010:

Zig's allowed to give it as low as an 8.9, pickhut.
board icon
Suskie posted March 21, 2010:

I'm not sure how GoWWII concludes

God of World War II?
board icon
Ben posted March 21, 2010:

This is not directed at everyone in this thread, but:

A person can disagree with a review if he wants to. He might have been slightly harsh with his words in his first post and his argument may be a little thin, but what is so wrong with enjoying a game?
board icon
Suskie posted March 21, 2010:

I'm not even getting into this with you, Ben. His opinion is irrelevant. It's how he's acting about it that's getting him shot at.
board icon
Felix_Arabia posted March 21, 2010:

Stu_J, your handle is pronouncd as "stooge.". Think about that.
board icon
zigfried posted March 21, 2010:

Ben -- There's nothing wrong with enjoying a game, whether others consider it to be great, good, or bad. I imagine everyone here has their own reason behind whatever they said, and that includes Stu.

In my case, he called my review utterly misguided, amateurish, drek, and asked me to please stop. If I register on another site and insult a review, I would fully expect the author to defend his own work. Even moreso if I asked them to stop writing. (That doesn't mean I've never insulted people, and I'm not calling Stu evil or anything like that... I'm saying it makes sense for authors to stand up for their own work)

I don't know if I'm one of the people you're referring to, so perhaps this entire explanation is unnecessary... my goal was not to tear down a game he loves (I don't believe I did) but to respond to a blatant attack. The high road can be very dull, especially when I've spent the morning trying to remove a squirrel from my basement and need to vent.

Yes, the squirrel is still there.

//Zig
board icon
radicaldreamer posted March 21, 2010:

A person can disagree with a review if he wants to. He might have been slightly harsh with his words in his first post and his argument may be a little thin, but what is so wrong with enjoying a game?

I deleted my first post because I was afraid of undermining the tolerant and reasonable space that Jason and Zig are trying to create, but the fact of the matter is that this is exactly what this guy is not doing. He thinks his opinion (which is also the opinion of the majority) is fact, and he's not allowing Zig to disagree with him or give it the score that Zig thinks it deserves.
board icon
zippdementia posted March 21, 2010:

I originally wrote a post that pointed out all the contradictions in Stooge's arguements, but I ultimately decided, as well, that I would rather give the guy a chance to actually write a review and put all this bashing energy to better use.

Chances are it won't work and Suskie will be proved right, but tolerance is never a poor virtue to have.
board icon
Genj posted March 21, 2010:

Zig, the old fashioned spring-loaded rat/mouse traps are not very humane, but with a bit of peanut butter should take care of your squirrel.

Yes, I know this from experience.
board icon
Ben posted March 21, 2010:

I didn't intend to have a go with my post. Sorry if it came across that way. Honestly, I'm not siding with Stu, and it's actually nice to see that people have each other's back. I was just surprised that so many had come to Zig's defence given that Stu's comments were directed at Zig. Some responses were constructive, and that's fine, but a couple seemed to be fueling the fire.

Zig - My post wasn't aimed at you at all. You certainly have the right to respond to any criticism as the author of this review. I'd do the same in your situation, so don't worry about it.
board icon
zippdementia posted March 21, 2010:

It's easy, Ben, for people's comments online to be taken in a manner different from what they were intended. Me and Suskie do that to each other all the time, but I'd like to think that we all have each other's backs when the chips are down.
board icon
radicaldreamer posted March 21, 2010:

Honestly, I have the same kind of reaction when people do this on bigger sites where the reviewer being crucified is some industry insider whose work I don't even really respect. Scores of people do it on gametrailers.com. The average gamer just thinks his opinion is fact and gets completely bent out of shape when even one person scores his favorite game even a single point lower than what he thinks it deserves. It's one of the most pathetic things imagineable.
board icon
zippdementia posted March 21, 2010:

Hey, Zig... do you think they are setting up for a sequel with the ending? If you fear spoilers, I suppose you could HGmail me your thoughts. I am interested in hearing them!
board icon
wolfqueen001 posted March 21, 2010:

God of World War II?

That is an awesome idea. You should pitch that as Sony's next idea. Or design it yourself even! Kratos can rip apart Panzer tanks with his bare hands or something. XD

Anyway, I just subbed a bunch of screens for this game. There are manticores as enemies! That's awesome. Although this fact doesn't change anything I've already said.
board icon
zigfried posted March 21, 2010:

Zipp: No, I don't.

//Zig
board icon
zippdementia posted March 21, 2010:

In that case, someone dropped the ball somewhere along the line.

I've actually heard that a lot of the ending was cut and may be released as free DLC.
board icon
zippdementia posted March 22, 2010:

The more I read this review, Zig, the less inclined I feel to write a review myself. You say it all so well. Maybe I'll do another "concurence, but..." like I did for Half Minute Hero. There's a few other things that could be said, but nothing that would fill a whole review.
board icon
Suskie posted March 22, 2010:

If anyone feels that my post was too harsh, then I'll invite you to give that Uncharted 2 thread another glance. How long did that conversation go on for, and what did it ultimately accomplish? I don't blame Venter or Zig for trying to be diplomatic about this given their positions as head of the site and writer of the review, respectively, but everything about how this fellow is presenting himself tells me he's not worth the effort.

People like this don't get turned. They don't suddenly come to their senses and apologize. They either stick to their guns to the bitter end or they run off and hide. The latter is the most we can hope for.
board icon
Masters posted March 22, 2010:

best.topic.evar.


By the way, great review, Zigfriend. It's very difficult to convey what it is you're saying here and NOT sound like you're just bashing a game because it's number three in the series.
board icon
zigfried posted March 27, 2010:

So, a while back, IGN rated God of War 3 with a score of 9.3 and pretty much gushed over it.

They just posted a set of "second impressions" from the rest of their editorial staff. Out of all the editors (ten or so) there was one who unequivocally loved it. One of them clearly disliked it. Among the rest, there is a strong sense of reserved endorsement: words like "solid", "standard", "I've outgrown Kratos", and "God of War [1 or 2] was better" abound.

The only purpose of this post is to point out that people are already coming down off of their GOW3 high. Within a single year, those high 9 -and-10 scores that the game supposedly deserved are going to look pretty silly to the world at large. That's my prediction!

//Zig
board icon
hmd posted March 27, 2010:

Zigfried did not like No More Heroes 2 as much as I did.

In other news, Zigfried I hate you you are dead to me, you hear!?

I've never played a God of War before. I probably should, assuming I can find one of the first two for like ten bucks or something or wait for the remakes to go down in price. Whatever.
board icon
zigfried posted March 27, 2010:

If you're going to play the first one and have composite cables, the PS2 version is better. For the PS3 remake, they didn't put the CG sequences into high-def, so it looks really weird when it switches from pretty gameplay to ugly movie scene.

I wanted to show "Man the Meat" to a chick I know, but I had already sold NMH2 for rum money. If only I had waited a week!

//Zig
board icon
zippdementia posted March 27, 2010:

Upon besting God of War III, I was totally in agreement with your review, Zig. I kind've felt the same way I did when I watch my cousin buy NBA2Kxx every year and just feel like I'm seeing the same game with prettier graphics and slightly smoother controls.
board icon
randxian posted March 27, 2010:

A more sensible (and older) person would realize that the accumulated GameRankings average for God of War III has no effect whatsoever on one's ability to enjoy the game

Yep. That in a nutshell states all that really needs to be stated.

I wonder if the Stu_J was just some sort of joke account. I don't think he's really a fanboy; I think it's some 15 year old with too much time on his hands who decided to start some ruckus.

Nothing he said made any sense. He never addressed Zig pointing out him erroneously citing a No More Heroes reference. As Felix astutely noted, his name is pronounced as "Stooge." Plus he hasn't replied back. Maybe the high school football team stuffed him in a locker somewhere.

Oh, and for the actual feedback. The only problem I have is Zig's problem seems to be with story issues. While story can help augment a game, there are several acclaimed franchises with more plot holes than swiss cheese. Maybe that doesn't make it right, but I feel too much of the review focuses on story and not enough on the actual mechanics. On the other hand, he did give it a 7, so it's not like he took off a bunch of points. No big deal, I suppose.
board icon
zippdementia posted March 28, 2010:

I would bet that Zig would say that there wasn't any gameplay to cover, at least nothing that hasn't been covered in two previous games.

Really, nothing's changed in God of War III. The moveset is only slightly different.
board icon
zigfried posted March 28, 2010:

Actually, I would say that I did cover the mechanics. Look at the last half -- those are the parts that are easy to forget. I think Randxian is saying the review feels imbalanced, not that I failed to discuss them.

Once a game reaches competency, analysis of technical merit isn't particularly useful or memorable to me; that's when I look for analysis of content. Questions like "If victory over gods were so straightforward, why did Kratos need Pandora's Box to defeat Ares?" and "If Kratos were so intent on childish rebellion, why did Sony take such lengths to establish his hatred for Ares?" point beyond simple plot holes. They point to a lack of intensity and emotion that was present in the original.

Some people will forgive their absence because the game is flashy and fun. That's what a score of 7 is for: flashy and fun games. But a truly excellent action game needs to offer something more meaningful (and I'm not talking about story when I say that).

//Zig

You must be signed into an HonestGamers user account to leave feedback on this review.

Info | Help | Privacy Policy | Contact | Links

eXTReMe Tracker
© 1998-2014 HonestGamers
None of the material contained within this site may be reproduced in any conceivable fashion without permission from the author(s) of said material. This site is not sponsored or endorsed by Nintendo, Sega, Sony, Microsoft, or any other such party. God of War III is a registered trademark of its copyright holder. This site makes no claim to God of War III, its characters, screenshots, artwork, music, or any intellectual property contained within. Opinions expressed on this site do not necessarily represent the opinion of site staff or sponsors. Staff and freelance reviews are typically written based on time spent with a retail review copy or review key for the game that is provided by its publisher.