CVG reveiws killzone 2

[PhoenixFlame]

Part of this is the desperation with which fanboyism seeks to justify flaws or any kind of "fair and balanced" review of a game. This desperation grows as the market turns downward against whatever they're a fanboy of.

I'm a PS3 owner, and even I can tell that the PS3's titles this past year, with the exception of Metal Gear Solid and possibly Little Big Planet, are underachievers. They've sold decently but nowhere near the amount that should have been sold. As a result, Sony fans have takena beating over tons of media articles and tons of bloggish opinion that the PS3, compared to the other two consoles and with its enormously large price point, has not done as well as the 360 or the Wii.

I want the PS3 to succeed, and I think KZ2 is going to be a great hit that will help revitalize the system. With a price drop or a bundling down the line, the PS3 has a good chance of gaining a bit of ground while still remaining steady as the most technologically heavy of the 3 consoles. But I'm not beyond understanding nothing is perfect, either.

I encounter fanboys every day, and they are just as difficult if not harder to moderate than straight up trolls. But they are just as bad due to a simple lack of reason.

 

[johnman]

Fanboy quote:
"You absolute M$ loving slags. If this was on that broken piece of trash masquerading as a console with it's last hope being the pointless Alan Lakes, you'd give this undeniable perfection of a game 12/10. And it is undeniably perfect, even though it's a shooter, and I hate shooters, but it's on my beloved PS3 so that's different, isn't it, my precious?"

At the end there it just sounds like he was kidding. He was just making a joke right? Oh god please tell me he was! I don't want to completely lose my faith in humanity until the nukes start flying.

He was imitating a person on the forum called Sulivloom ( cant spell it) which the poster mentioned but was cut out in the quote. Neddless to say he is a massive ps3 fanbot

 

[Dr. UBAR]

The complete disconnect from reality that these people exhibit is staggering. Excuse me if I'm wrong, but is Killzone 2 even out yet? I mean, shit, no one outside of the developers and reviewers have actually played the whole game. Lots of games look impressive in the first ten minutes of a demo.

Maybe I'm overreaching, but it kind of seems like PS3 fanboys are reacting the same way Republican fanboys are: after nearly a decade of domination, they are now playing second fiddle and are absolutely losing their shit over it.

(Note: Not all Republicans, but pay attention to what pundits like Rush Limbaugh are doing, and tell me he's not totally losing his shit.)

Actually when you made that post, I was about 4 hours into the Killzone 2 campaign. Many Aussies would be further but I got it after school.

 

[caz105]

Why did it get marked down for not needing to change weapons very often?Am I the only one who doesn't understand this??

 

[Rational-Delirium]

Well PS3 fanboys were also angry when Little Big Planet only got a 9.0 on gamespot, and now they're doing it again. I haven't played Killzone 2 so I can't have an honest opinion on the review, but I'd say 8.7 is pretty good for an 'excellent' game. But I couldn't help but notice this comment on the site:

If i'm honest, its not a fantastic score for the best fps on PS3

I think it's a really good point. If this really is the best fps on the PS3, it should have gotten a better score than that. Maybe a 9.5 or so. I'm not trying to justify the PS3 fanboys, I'm just making an observation.

 

[Jumplion]

I've been playing Killzone 2 for a while, and I'm loving it so far.

An annoying thing I've seen with alot of these games on the PS3, every time there's this huge exclusive game for the PS3 (MGS4, LittleBigPlanet, Resistance 2, Uncharted, Killzone 2, blah-de-blah-blah, pretty much EVERY FUCKING PS3 game), there's always everyone who says "I don't get it" or "it looks stupid" or "i'm not interested in it" or "it's not special" or "who care about another [insert genre here]" etc....

Quite frankly, it's annoying -_-; People need to play the games to see for themselves, this seems to be the case with so many PS3 exclusives.

But now I'm just ranting to fulfill my inner fanboy, care on!

 

[Rational-Delirium]

That makes no sense. What platform the game is released on should not effect score, only the overal quality of the game itself and how it compares to others in its genre matters. 87% is a good score, no more needs to be said.

The only time platform should be a factor in review is if the game is multi-platform and if it varies in quality.

That wasn't my point. I'm saying that if a game can be considered the best in any league, then it should probibly have a score better than 8.7. Keep in mind Call of Duty 4 is a multiplat and is considered by many to be one of the best fps ever made, so I wasn't referring to exclusives only.

And keep in mind I haven't played Killzone2, so I have as much credibility as a seedless watermelon has seeds (which is to say I don't have much, and don't know how good Killzone2 actually is). I'm only adding my own 2cents.

 

[PirateKing]

I've been playing it for a while and it's definitely a good game. Amazing graphics. It's just kind of a shooter though. I had a lot more fun with the Resistance series.

 

[SteveDave]

This is some pretty good shit. Almost like what would happen if you made fun of Kurt Cobain on youtube.

 

[ElArabDeMagnifico]

Funny comments:

"Marked down for no co-op? What the ****!? Did Halo 3 have co-op? NO"

Hahahaha!

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

Um... since when is 8.7 a bad score?

Personally I'd give it about an 8.5, mostly due to the shit tastic story, annoying squad AI and lack of variety in the levels.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

Um... since when is 8.7 a bad score?

Personally I'd give it about an 8.5, mostly due to the shit tastic story, annoying squad AI and lack of variety in the levels.

All of those things make it sounds as an 8.0 game.

True enough I suppose. Though I don't actually give scores in any of my own reviews on the site.

 

[Tony Grande]

I honestly think that Playstation fans have a feeling of being wronged after comparing reviews to the easy give away 100% scores... In my opinion a game can never reach a full 100% in a review because the reviewer has to be somewhat objective in an opinion of a game. Sounds contradictory, but a reviewer cannot be anything other than subjective and still bear in mind that someone out there might feel that a certain aspect of a game shouldn't be there while another feels it should.

About Killzone 2, I think it's the exact score it deserves... Again my opinion (So fucking annoying that you have to emphasize this every single time) Edit: Maybe not necessary right here but in a general sense.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

I think alot of PS3 "Fanboys" are annoyed that Halo gets a universal 10/10 BEST GAME EVAR! ALWAYS! NO QUESTIONS! for free, where as Sony Titles are always scrutinized to the nth degree. I suppose it's a fair criticism, but Sony is also usually late to the party, with Killzone 2 feeling a hell of a lot like an Ultra Polished Sci-Fi Version of Call of Duty 4 rather than the great heir to a beloved series (Halo 3) or as a strikingly original product that will reshape the way we see gaming.

 

[Tony Grande]

I suppose it's a fair criticism, but Sony is also usually late to the party.

Could you explain why Sony is usually late?

I agree with it being an upgraded version of, in this case, Call of Duty 4. But isn't every FPS in a way an upgrade. With always few innovations, the genre is always trying to perfect each others innovations! There have of course been great improvements, but mostly on the Multiplayer part.

I thought I read that Killzone 2 now has ongoing servers where you don't have to return to the lobby if the game mode ends. How is that working out?

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

I think giving negative score for something that aint there but should is logic. Sorry but those comments are pure gold!

Really? I never once saw a review site take points off Bioshock or Call of Duty 4 because they didn't have co-op. You shouldn't deduct points for what isn't there.

Exactly. CoD4 didn't get slated for not having co-op, something no one can deny would have made it an even more enjoyable game.
That's where a lot of K2 reviews are going off the track and instead mark it down for not being perfect (as in not having everything including the kitchen sink) instead of giving it a score in comparison to what's on the market at the moment.
With almost all the reviews saying that the graphics are stunning, and the gameplay both on and offline is superb, surely a game with that kind of praise should be getting a good score all around.
It doesn't seem to make much sense to drop a game's score by a fair amount because of essentially nit-picking, not particularly good reviewing in my opinion.

The majority of CoD 4 couldn't have had co-op. Maybe if it had cutscenes, but it didn't.

Considering there was a set piece at the beginning and end of nearly every mission, they would have had to weave a second player into the action of the set pieces, which would have probably made that game take as long as KZ2 to come to us, and maybe not as immersive as it was.

And I know you didn't say it, but Bioshock couldn't have either, it wouldn't have made sense.

KZ2 was pretty much built for co-op. Perhaps they shouldn't have deducted points considering it was hardware issues that prevented them from including co-op, but either way it was originally meant to include co-op and perhaps the gameplay reflected that.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

Ignore the fanboism in the comments section. You know how fanboys are. Give their "perfect game" a low score and they'll go apeshit on you.

 

[RAKais]

I think giving negative score for something that aint there but should is logic. Sorry but those comments are pure gold!

Really? I never once saw a review site take points off Bioshock or Call of Duty 4 because they didn't have co-op. You shouldn't deduct points for what isn't there.

Exactly. CoD4 didn't get slated for not having co-op, something no one can deny would have made it an even more enjoyable game.
That's where a lot of K2 reviews are going off the track and instead mark it down for not being perfect (as in not having everything including the kitchen sink) instead of giving it a score in comparison to what's on the market at the moment.
With almost all the reviews saying that the graphics are stunning, and the gameplay both on and offline is superb, surely a game with that kind of praise should be getting a good score all around.
It doesn't seem to make much sense to drop a game's score by a fair amount because of essentially nit-picking, not particularly good reviewing in my opinion.

Superb gameplay and awesome graphics are NOT enough for a 10/10 if that's what you are implying.

A game worthy 10/10 needs to actually bring something new, Killzone 2 is as much of a candidate for a 10/10 as Halo CE was.

It's all been done before, what a game worthy a 10/10 needs is something extravagant. It should bring something new to gaming, be original at the very least.

But hey, 87/100 is almost 90/100 and that could be seen as 9/10, which is a great score. You should also read the previous comments, as someone already mentioned, Call of Duty 4 was before this co-op mania started.

Erm.. no, Killzone is not as viable to get the same scores as Halo CE.

At the time of Halo CE. It had amazing graphics, amazing gameplay and it brough FPS firmly on the table for consoles.

Killzone 2 looks amazing but its just like getting an old bike and cleaning it till its so bright it hurts your eyes to look at it. Looks good, but rides the same.

 

[ElArabDeMagnifico]

I think alot of PS3 "Fanboys" are annoyed that Halo gets a universal 10/10 BEST GAME EVAR! ALWAYS! NO QUESTIONS! for free, where as Sony Titles are always scrutinized to the nth degree. I suppose it's a fair criticism, but Sony is also usually late to the party, with Killzone 2 feeling a hell of a lot like an Ultra Polished Sci-Fi Version of Call of Duty 4 rather than the great heir to a beloved series (Halo 3) or as a strikingly original product that will reshape the way we see gaming.

So long story short, people demand and expect way too much.

 

[willard3]

I find it amusing that a lot of the people bitching that 8.7 is a "low" score are also the same people who complain that 7.0 is "too high" for an average game, because average games should get 5.0's, since that is exactly between 1 and 10. Right? Right???

Well, HERE COMES A NEWSFLASH, ESCAPIST READERS AND POSTERS. Most review scores out of 10 are treated like grades in school. An 8.7 is a B+. A 7.0 is a D (passing, but still pretty bad). Anything lower is a failing grade. This is why there are so many "high" scores.