CVG reveiws killzone 2
- Thread starter johnman
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Is 8.7 a bad score? Geez...whats wrong with people thinking that below 9 is a bad game...I remenber the days of PS1 were a game getting a 8 was a "undeniable perfection of a game"..these days if its not hitting the 10 mark is an average score....And yes in this age you should comment on every aspect of the game, things it has and things that should have had.(Unless its something that would not make any sense at all like Bioshock not having Co-op.)Mazty said:
I pre-ordered and got it in the mail today, so some people have it at least.Dr Spaceman said:
To be honest, 8.7 is an excellent score and nothing to complain about. Hell, 7/10 isn't anything to complain about. If they want to be stupid and immature, let them. They're the ones who come off looking stupid.
The rest of the comment was this:Ravinak said:
"Anyway, I must admit, I've never been much of a fan of FPS, but this does look quite good."
And the Microsoft extreme hate makes it in my eyes not a joke. Also theres a conspiracy theory if its on the PS3=Shit Xbox 360=God like.
Some people see anything below 9 as bad mostly due to costs I'd think. You've played a lot of money for your console of choice, ditto for the games, you want to feel that you've got your money's worth I suppose. It's no excuse for rampant fanboyism though.
And about the Co-op thing. Looking for Co-op is the big thing now, as mentioned above, most games NOW have it, and use it well (like Left 4 dead), so to not have it, especially in a large-scale war game like Killzone 2 seems a bit silly.
Saying that though, 8.7 is still good, very good in fact, but after all the hype, most fanboys cry when it doesn't get infinity/10
And about the Co-op thing. Looking for Co-op is the big thing now, as mentioned above, most games NOW have it, and use it well (like Left 4 dead), so to not have it, especially in a large-scale war game like Killzone 2 seems a bit silly.
Saying that though, 8.7 is still good, very good in fact, but after all the hype, most fanboys cry when it doesn't get infinity/10
so it doesn't have co-op, so what, niether did COD 4 and that didn't stop it from getting high reviews, niether did Far Cry 2 or Crysis and Crysis Warhead, or Bad Company and Fallout 3, although Fallout 3 is more RPG but just for the sake of the argument, it is also a shooter
So why is Killzone 2 getting negative points for no co-op, none of the other shooters without co-op got marked down because of it.
other than that, its a pretty fair review.
8.7 translates as "really good" to me
So why is Killzone 2 getting negative points for no co-op, none of the other shooters without co-op got marked down because of it.
other than that, its a pretty fair review.
8.7 translates as "really good" to me
Quite frankly, co-operative gaming is now so ingrained in the genetics of shooters that it is much rarer for a game not to have it than to have it. The only other major shooters of the last few years that have no co-op are Call of Duty and F.E.A.R. 2, and the latter is a horror game and has the time slow mechanic which would both be incompatible with co-op gaming.Indigo_Dingo said:
If Killzone 2 had co-op, it's value to me would increase massively, because it would probably convince my regular co-op buddy to pick up a PS3, and I would play it that way, probably to the exclusion of playing it solo, which I have done with every other co-op shooter for the last few years.
Funny comments:
"Marked down for no co-op? What the ****!? Did Halo 3 have co-op? NO"
"How can you give a game negative marks for not having co-op!!!!! You can only review that content that's there. It's like someone reviewing mario and then deducting points for it not having machine guns!!!"
"Marked down for no co-op? What the ****!? Did Halo 3 have co-op? NO"
"How can you give a game negative marks for not having co-op!!!!! You can only review that content that's there. It's like someone reviewing mario and then deducting points for it not having machine guns!!!"
Christ. Will people stop saying this? COD4 was routinely criticized for its lack of co-op when it was released. I found this in an IGN review after literally 30 seconds of searching on google:Mazty said:
"The single-player isn't perfect. For starters, it's single-player. Co-op gameplay in shooters is quickly becoming the standard. Considering you spend almost the entire campaign with the same squadmates, the hope (and even expectation) for online co-op is not unwarranted."
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/832/832599p2.html
IGN is perhaps the most mainstream of mainstream critics, and even they criticized the sainted COD4 for its lack of co-op.
It seems a little odd to me that a squad-based FPS released in 2009 wouldn't have co-op. Not a huge deal. But regardless, CVG couldn't have deducted too many points if they gave it an 8.7.Mazty said:
KZ2 looks like a good game, but too many people are turning the game's reviews into a referendum on the PS3. Geez, as good as the game may be, it's still an FPS. The game is designed to be a huge seller, not an innovative risk-taker. That's bound to turn off a handful of reviewers at least a little bit.
ive played and completed it today 
it is a great game, imo the best exclusive on ps3 and best fps out there
it is a great game, imo the best exclusive on ps3 and best fps out there
Strangely, it doesn't make the little Master Chief in me hurt when I say Killzone 2 looks goddamn spectacular but there has been plenty of games that have looked amazing and havn't got perfect reviews in the end. I think PS3 fans should cool off a little, take a look at why it didnt get a perfect score and theyll see that it has nothing to do with its amazing graphics or gameplay. Iv heard lack of developed story and coop around, thats a fair thing to mark a game down. Visuals arnt everything.
For me, as an xbox 360 owner, Chronicles of Riddick: Assualt on Dark Athena and Aliens: Colonial Marines are the games I'm wetting myself over. Even if they get low scores I'm still getting them because thats a true definition of a fanboy, one who buys their favourite game despite reviews. Not the flameboys who foam at the mouth when their favourite games don't get the God of Games label stuck to it.
For me, as an xbox 360 owner, Chronicles of Riddick: Assualt on Dark Athena and Aliens: Colonial Marines are the games I'm wetting myself over. Even if they get low scores I'm still getting them because thats a true definition of a fanboy, one who buys their favourite game despite reviews. Not the flameboys who foam at the mouth when their favourite games don't get the God of Games label stuck to it.
I'm interested in getting it. I'll have to buy a wireless adaptor for my ps3 though which will be a pain (rent money? nah that's not important). I have Kingdom Hearts to finish first though... and uni goes back soon. Sigh. Too many things on. But I'll judge if the score given was fair when I get the game, and not before.
You can be a fascist communist. Fascism refers to lack of political and social freedom, communism is lack of economic freedom. Stalin was very authoritarian (not quite a Mussolini-style fascist, though) AND a communist, but I digress.GuerrillaClock said:
Yes, PS3 fanboys are really getting on my nerves. 8,7 is a bloody amazing score, specially when they say it's "spectacular from start to finish". If someone said that about my game I'd be crying tears of joy.
8.7 is a good score and those super fan-boys should read the whole review before getting mad. I cant wait to play thisGuerrillaClock said:
