Killzone 2 gets a 9.9/10

[Shurikens and Lightning]

if it got a 9.9 then we know it's crap. No game is that close to perfect

If you dont mind cutscenes MGS4 delivers, Same with GTA4.

I think Killzone 2 can deliver a 9.9

BTW 9.9 doesnt mean perfect it means that if you pick 10 things about the game 9.9 of them deliver.

Something like 1000000000000/1000000000000 would be perfect. But thats impossible.

It'll definitly get 5 stars.

 

[Nifty]

I'm skeptical til I play it myself. Though I'm not silly enough to get caught in the hype. I'm extremely confident that this game will not live up to it.

 

[BiscuitWheels]

I'm dubious about a review already. It's WAY too soon. I'm looking forward to the game, a 9.9/10 a full month before the game ships? C'mon.

Also, is it me or are a lot of the people on the forum here just foaming desperate for Killzone to fail? There seems to be a distinct undercurrent of hostility towards the game. It's okay, guys. The PS3 is allowed to have a good game of its own.

 

[Raptoricus]

Hmm well I'd agree that there's no such thing as a perfect game (emphasis on PERFECT, cause yeah sure you can get a great game), but I really hope that it's as good as they reckon, I loved the first Killzone and hope this is as good (if not better, because as much as I liked it, I still have my criticisms).

 

[Rednog]

if it got a 9.9 then we know it's crap. No game is that close to perfect

If you dont mind cutscenes MGS4 delivers, Same with GTA4.

I think Killzone 2 can deliver a 9.9

BTW 9.9 doesnt mean perfect it means that if you pick 10 things about the game 9.9 of them deliver.

Something like 1000000000000/1000000000000 would be perfect. But thats impossible.

It'll definitly get 5 stars.

First, it is absolutely amazing how 9/10 times you can tell some one's post opinion from their avatar. (Assuming relevance.)
Secondly, who in the world says that scores are only based on 10 things? Scores more often than now are broken down into categories such as gameplay, visuals, sound ...etc each of which have a multitude of components to consider.

 

[geldonyetich]

PS3 game ratings are funny. Their game selection is so limited in PS3 exclusives that they've no real frame of reference to compare to. This gives them license to hype the snot out of the few that come along.

 

[TxMxRonin]

I'm gonna buy the game on release day no mater what reviews it gets. And if people don't like that then they can go fuck themselves.

 

[geldonyetich]

I'm gonna buy the game on release day no mater what reviews it gets. And if people don't like that then they can go fuck themselves.

Curses! My plan foiled! You win this time!

 

[riftinducer]

I'm dubious about a review already. It's WAY too soon. I'm looking forward to the game, a 9.9/10 a full month before the game ships? C'mon.

Also, is it me or are a lot of the people on the forum here just foaming desperate for Killzone to fail? There seems to be a distinct undercurrent of hostility towards the game. It's okay, guys. The PS3 is allowed to have a good game of its own.

I get your skepticism, but review code is already out for Killzone 2. The guys at the AU Playstation mag have had it for a while now (admittedly, this is the official mag, so what else would you expect). I know, because I regularly play one of the writers on R2, and he won't stop going on about it.

 

[geldonyetich]

PS3 game ratings are funny. Their game selection is so limited in PS3 exclusives that they've no real frame of reference to compare to. This gives them license to hype the snot out of the few that come along.

Ah yes, this tired old idea for why they get high ratings.

Matt from AUGamer has this to say.

Spoiler

[quote name='Matt' date='Sep 22 2008, 11:56 AM' post='55150']This is kind of a strange thing to say. I get the impression you're basically saying "there aren't any games on the Playstation 3". Which means I pretty much have to assume you have an Xbox 360 as well? I mean... if you have an Xbox 360 and a Playstation 3 and you're opting to buy all your game for the 360 that hardly suggests a dearth of games for the PS3. That means you're basically limiting the PS3 to only exclusives, while not limiting the 360 in the same way. It also means you didn't bother playing Haze, Uncharted, SingStar, Ratchet and Clank, Echochrome, Metal Gear Solid 4, Pixeljunk's Eden, PAIN, Buzz, or GT5: Prologue...

I'm not saying PS3 has a shitload of exclusives, but it does have some. There aren't all THAT many Xbox 360 exclusives either. More than PS3, of course, but "exclusives" aren't the only games available on a console.

Or, of course, maybe you don't have both consoles, and you just haven't gotten around to playing The Force Unleashed, Lego Indiana Jones, Devil May Cry 4, Grand Theft Auto 4, Race Driver GRID... in which case.. can hardly fault the PS3 for that.

[/quote]
That's not exactly an ironclad argument against the suggestion that Playstation 3 exclusives are rated higher because the rarity of said exclusives forms a poor frame of reference. It's more like he's acknowledging the exclusives are rare but thinks the frame of reference is in tact because he's completely oblivious to what being a port job means.

 

[Eipok Kruden]

PS3 game ratings are funny. Their game selection is so limited in PS3 exclusives that they've no real frame of reference to compare to. This gives them license to hype the snot out of the few that come along.

Ah yes, this tired old idea for why they get high ratings.

Matt from AUGamer has this to say.

Spoiler

[quote name='Matt' date='Sep 22 2008, 11:56 AM' post='55150']This is kind of a strange thing to say. I get the impression you're basically saying "there aren't any games on the Playstation 3". Which means I pretty much have to assume you have an Xbox 360 as well? I mean... if you have an Xbox 360 and a Playstation 3 and you're opting to buy all your game for the 360 that hardly suggests a dearth of games for the PS3. That means you're basically limiting the PS3 to only exclusives, while not limiting the 360 in the same way. It also means you didn't bother playing Haze, Uncharted, SingStar, Ratchet and Clank, Echochrome, Metal Gear Solid 4, Pixeljunk's Eden, PAIN, Buzz, or GT5: Prologue...

I'm not saying PS3 has a shitload of exclusives, but it does have some. There aren't all THAT many Xbox 360 exclusives either. More than PS3, of course, but "exclusives" aren't the only games available on a console.

Or, of course, maybe you don't have both consoles, and you just haven't gotten around to playing The Force Unleashed, Lego Indiana Jones, Devil May Cry 4, Grand Theft Auto 4, Race Driver GRID... in which case.. can hardly fault the PS3 for that.

That's not exactly an ironclad argument against the suggestion that Playstation 3 exclusives are rated higher because the rarity of said exclusives forms a poor frame of reference. It's more like he's completely oblivious to what being a non-exclusive port job means.[/quote]Exclusives don't have their own little world. They're reviewed just like the multiplatform games are. When someone reviews an exclusive game, they don't just compare it to other exclusive games, they compare it to every game. What you're saying simply doesn't make any sense.

 

[geldonyetich]

Exclusives don't have their own little world. They're reviewed just like the multiplatform games are. When someone reviews an exclusive game, they don't just compare it to other exclusive games, they compare it to every game. What you're saying simply doesn't make any sense.

If by "every game" you mean "every game from every platform" you're certainly off. Many reviewers give different ratings on the same game on different platforms, not only because some ports are worse than others, but also because they're basing it on the relativity of other games out for that platform. A FPS released on a platform which is already FPS-rich is going to be under a lot more scrutiny. Also, sometimes the hardware capabilities and presentation are so different it doesn't make any sense to give them the same rating, for example comparing a Nintendo DS version to an XBox 360 version. (When this doesn't happen, it's usually just because it's easier, not because they're being truly objective.)

If by "every game" you mean "every game on that platform" then that's exactly the point I was making when I said the frame of reference is distorted by port jobs. Most of the games you're going to see on the Playstation 3 were optimized first for the XBox 360. Often, the developers won't make the time to make sure the Playstation 3 plays it as well, because a lot more time was spent play testing and tweaking it on the console it was originally developed for.

Thus, when a Playstation 3 exclusive comes along and is compared to those port jobs, obviously it's going to seem a whole lot better. It was always developed and tested on the Playstation 3 from start to finish. Thus, they can afford to give it a ridiculous, 10/10 rating, because it's not like the gamers can tell it's anything other than "better" than most the games they play. (This is that missing "frame of reference" I was referring to.)

Alright, it wasn't fair for me to suggest that was implied knowledge. But if you're arguing against these fundamental truths, I'm probably not going to bother to argue back. There's no way I can force you to research how games are made.

 

[RAWKSTAR]

A reason why I don't read review and go by what I hear on the Escapist instead.

 

[ElArabDeMagnifico]

Well, my expectations are that as long that it's decent it will get perfect 10's like any other game in this fucked up generation.

Bingo....?

 

[Jursa]

There's a penny arcade comic I stumbled upon yesteday: "Next time don't send us a copy of the game, just send the money and the rating you'd like."

 

[Eipok Kruden]

Exclusives don't have their own little world. They're reviewed just like the multiplatform games are. When someone reviews an exclusive game, they don't just compare it to other exclusive games, they compare it to every game. What you're saying simply doesn't make any sense.

Thus, when a Playstation 3 exclusive comes along and is compared to those port jobs, obviously it's going to seem a whole lot better. It was always developed and tested on the Playstation 3 from start to finish. Thus, they can afford to give it a ridiculous, 10/10 rating, because it's not like the gamers can tell it's anything other than "better" than most the games they play.

The game will be compared to the ports on the other consoles and the other console's exclusives. Like I said, exclusives don't have their own world and neither do all games on a certain console. What you're saying simply doesn't make sense.

 

[geldonyetich]

Exclusives don't have their own little world. They're reviewed just like the multiplatform games are. When someone reviews an exclusive game, they don't just compare it to other exclusive games, they compare it to every game. What you're saying simply doesn't make any sense.

Thus, when a Playstation 3 exclusive comes along and is compared to those port jobs, obviously it's going to seem a whole lot better. It was always developed and tested on the Playstation 3 from start to finish. Thus, they can afford to give it a ridiculous, 10/10 rating, because it's not like the gamers can tell it's anything other than "better" than most the games they play.

The game will be compared to the ports on the other consoles and the other console's exclusives. Like I said, exclusives don't have their own world and neither do all games on a certain console. What you're saying simply doesn't make sense.

Yet again, I'm wasting my time on people who cherry pick one thing out of everything I wrote and consequently don't bother to understand what I already explained.

Just forget it. Why do I waste so much time on forums? (No, don't answer that, I'm sure the answer would be embarrassingly revealing.)

 

[Shurikens and Lightning]

First, it is absolutely amazing how 9/10 times you can tell some one's post opinion from their avatar. (Assuming relevance.)
Secondly, who in the world says that scores are only based on 10 things? Scores more often than now are broken down into categories such as gameplay, visuals, sound ...etc each of which have a multitude of components to consider.

I had a 360 before a PS3, and a Alienware PC before that, and a gamecube before that, and a original xbox before that. So no Im not a Fanboy, I just find sackboy so damned cute in a manly straight way =\. Ive been meaning to switch my avatar for the longest time, Im incredibly lazy.

But ?/10 means that out of TEN things it got ? out of them. ?/5 means that out of FIVE things it got ? right. ?/100 means that out of ONE HUNDRED it got ? correct. Etc.

While you are right about the gameplay, visuals thing they need to put it in a numerical value which corresponds in that it got 9.9 out of the 10 required things from them. If a score went like this:

Gameplay:it was good but I think it could be better
Visuals:Meh
Sound:I liked it

OR

Gameplay:4/5
Visuals:3/5
Sound:5/5

It is easier to comprehend what he was thinking then trying to understand how good or bad meh is. If he used meh always, then it is the same as saying 3/5. Those components in your comment are represented in that numerical value as /10, /5, /100.

Im not saying your wrong or trying to cause an arguement, Im just trying to clarify what I said in my comment.

 

[Eipok Kruden]

Exclusives don't have their own little world. They're reviewed just like the multiplatform games are. When someone reviews an exclusive game, they don't just compare it to other exclusive games, they compare it to every game. What you're saying simply doesn't make any sense.

If by "every game" you mean "every game from every platform" you're certainly off. Many reviewers give different ratings on the same game on different platforms, not only because some ports are worse than others, but also because they're basing it on the relativity of other games out for that platform. A FPS released on a platform which is already FPS-rich is going to be under a lot more scrutiny. Also, sometimes the hardware capabilities and presentation are so different it doesn't make any sense to give them the same rating, for example comparing a Nintendo DS version to an XBox 360 version. (When this doesn't happen, it's usually just because it's easier.)

If by "every game" you mean "every game on that platform" then that's exactly the point I was making when I said the frame of reference is distorted by port jobs. Most of the games you're going to see on the Playstation 3 were optimized first for the XBox 360. Often, the developers won't make the time to make sure the Playstation 3 plays it as well, because a lot more time was spent play testing and tweaking it on the console it was originally developed for.

Thus, when a Playstation 3 exclusive comes along and is compared to those port jobs, obviously it's going to seem a whole lot better. It was always developed and tested on the Playstation 3 from start to finish. Thus, they can afford to give it a ridiculous, 10/10 rating, because it's not like the gamers can tell it's anything other than "better" than most the games they play. (This is that missing "frame of reference" I was referring to.)

Alright, it wasn't fair for me to suggest that was implied knowledge. But if you're arguing against these fundamental truths, I'm probably not going to bother to argue back. There's no way I can force you to research how games are made.

There, I used your entire quote, happy now? What I said still stands. "If by "every game" you mean "every game from every platform" you're certainly off. Many reviewers give different ratings on the same game on different platforms, not only because some ports are worse than others, but also because they're basing it on the relativity of other games out for that platform. A FPS released on a platform which is already FPS-rich is going to be under a lot more scrutiny." I mean wow... You think you're right and I'm wrong and nothing is going to change that.

Yet again, I'm wasting my time on people who cherry pick one thing out of everything I wrote and consequently don't bother to understand what I already explained.

Just forget it. Why do I waste so much time on forums? (No, don't answer that, I'm sure the answer would be embarrassingly revealing.)

You didn't already explain that. Reviewers compare games to other games, not other games on that platform. An FPS on the PS3 is scrutinized just as heavily as one on the 360 or PC, that's why many of them get low scores. That's also why a few of them get high scores.

 

[geldonyetich]

There, I used your entire quote, happy now? What I said still stands.

If you think what you said still stands, you're still cherry picking. Your point, if I'm reading you correctly, is that a PS3 exclusive is not going to seem better than a port job because reviewers have complete objectivity. I just pointed out 3 or 4 reasons why this isn't the case, and if it was, it would be false objectivity at best.

So, if you want to make me happy (and gods, why would you, I'm not your professor) you need to do more than quote: read.

Or not. The Internet in general makes no real time for reading. They've got a perpetual information filter on that causes them to cherry pick out of habit. I'll forgive you for being yet another sheep in the flock.