Then I have absolutely no idea what you're actually saying. Can you please explain it? Because I thought you were saying that reviewers only compare PS3 games to other PS3 games, not every game on every console.geldonyetich said:
Killzone 2 gets a 9.9/10
- Thread starter Eipok Kruden
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Going to have to give me about a half hour or so, I'm needed AFK, but I'll try to remember to come back and do that.
This man has his head screwed on right. Quite frankly reviews have rarely made a difference in what I buy to be honest (unless I hear the game is shitloads of buggy).Gamer137 said:
I still want to buy mercs 2 though, the online co op aspect sounded appealing to me, but I think I heard from somewhere it was rather buggy, anyone know for sure?
And by the way, killzone 1 said it would live up to the hype, and it didn't (which didn't matter to me, because I loved every part of it except the lack of local multiplayer) and this game has generated an unrealistic level of expectation, like Halo 3 did.
Obviously there will be a hype train and quite a few will board it. Wait for more reviews, and see how they stack up to each other. I personally couldn't care less because when I buy a PS3 I know that it will be better than killzone 1, and that is more than enough for me.
I have Mercs 2 for the 360 and it does have quite a few bugs, but they're easy to overlook when you've got tactical nukes. I don't care if someone's face doesn't load for a minute and it looks all crappy and pixelated cause that face is gonna be on the floor with the rest of its body the second I see it. Mercs 2 exists for you to unleash your rage. Wanton destruction, that's it. Don't expect anything more out of it when you go into it and you won't be disappointed.ChromeAlchemist said:
Right of the bat, this thread lies by calling a writeup on some website I've never heard of the world first review: not only would a reputable reviewer have held off until February when game reviews are permitted to be published, but the official playstation magazine in the UK reviewed it earlier this month - in actual printed media, which takes a hell of a lot longer to organise.
For the record, they gave it a 9/10.
So housekeeping aside, scores really stopped mattering. They're almost always linked to hype and how the reviewer personally feels about the game experience. There is no universal grading system and frankly I'm just sick and tired of people trying to pretend there is. No one knows what a game is going to be like until there's a much larger sample audience, or they play it for themselves.
For the record, they gave it a 9/10.
So housekeeping aside, scores really stopped mattering. They're almost always linked to hype and how the reviewer personally feels about the game experience. There is no universal grading system and frankly I'm just sick and tired of people trying to pretend there is. No one knows what a game is going to be like until there's a much larger sample audience, or they play it for themselves.
Like you said, printed media. I know about OPM's review, but I haven't read it so I don't really care. This is the first review I've read.Kermi said:
Okay, lets take another swing at this.
Point 1: "not only because some ports are worse than others"
The quality of different ports of games cross-platform necessitates a different rating if a reviewer is being truly objective. For example, if the Playstation 3 controller doesn't handle well a game developed for the XBox 360 controller, there should be an adjustment in the score. When there isn't a score adjustment, it's often because they didn't spend the necessary time and effort.
Point 2: "but also because they're basing it on the relativity of other games for that platform"
An experience reviewer knows from demographics that a console owner is unlikely to own other consoles or a PC, and consequently attempts to frame their review criteria from the perspective of a person who only owns that console. (Again, when this isn't done, it's usually a choice of lack of time and effort towards this.)
For example, nobody would blink twice if a Real Time Strategy game is made for the PC, but the RTS genre is relatively rare for a console, and so RTS are given a little bit of leeway -- unless the interface just plain makes the game painful to play.
There's many other tangents involved as well. For example, if a cell phone game were compared to an XBox 360 game, the poor cell phone game is going to be incredibly outclassed - the very best would be lucky to score above a 2.0. However, this is not the case.
(If you consider each example a point, we're up to about 6 counterpoints so far.)
I say that's "that's my point" because, if they are considered in the same light, then the fact that the cross-platform game is a less optimized clone will naturally make an exclusive seem better.
I won't elaborate far on this one, because your later posts seem to clarify that this was not your intended interpretation.
The final two paragraphs bring the two disperate intro paragraphs together into understanding what I was talking about earlier in terms of establishing a "frame of reference" in which an exclusive could be judged. Clearly, there is not a very clear one, regardless of what "Matt" in "AUGamers" says.
If it still doesn't make sense, well, I'm sorry. For life to make sense, you're going to have to try to meet it half way, or else swear off the literal definition of intelligence entirely. Maybe save this thread and come back in a few years or something. I'm not a television: I can't just blare the information right into your input hopper in consumer-friendly terms.
The first two paragraphs I wrote examine both possibilities because I wasn't sure what you meant when you wrote, "When someone reviews an exclusive game, they don't just compare it to other exclusive games, they compare it to every game."Eipok Kruden said:
In this paragraph, I consider that what you're saying is that "reviewers compare PS3 games to every game on every console," to which I reply, "you're clearly off" and go on to explain some examples.Paragraph 1 said:
Point 1: "not only because some ports are worse than others"
The quality of different ports of games cross-platform necessitates a different rating if a reviewer is being truly objective. For example, if the Playstation 3 controller doesn't handle well a game developed for the XBox 360 controller, there should be an adjustment in the score. When there isn't a score adjustment, it's often because they didn't spend the necessary time and effort.
Point 2: "but also because they're basing it on the relativity of other games for that platform"
An experience reviewer knows from demographics that a console owner is unlikely to own other consoles or a PC, and consequently attempts to frame their review criteria from the perspective of a person who only owns that console. (Again, when this isn't done, it's usually a choice of lack of time and effort towards this.)
For example, nobody would blink twice if a Real Time Strategy game is made for the PC, but the RTS genre is relatively rare for a console, and so RTS are given a little bit of leeway -- unless the interface just plain makes the game painful to play.
There's many other tangents involved as well. For example, if a cell phone game were compared to an XBox 360 game, the poor cell phone game is going to be incredibly outclassed - the very best would be lucky to score above a 2.0. However, this is not the case.
(If you consider each example a point, we're up to about 6 counterpoints so far.)
In this paragraph, I consider if perhaps what you meant was cross-platform games on the PS3 were considered in the same light as same-platform games exclusively developed for the PS3.Paragraph 2 said:
I say that's "that's my point" because, if they are considered in the same light, then the fact that the cross-platform game is a less optimized clone will naturally make an exclusive seem better.
I won't elaborate far on this one, because your later posts seem to clarify that this was not your intended interpretation.
The final two paragraphs bring the two disperate intro paragraphs together into understanding what I was talking about earlier in terms of establishing a "frame of reference" in which an exclusive could be judged. Clearly, there is not a very clear one, regardless of what "Matt" in "AUGamers" says.
If it still doesn't make sense, well, I'm sorry. For life to make sense, you're going to have to try to meet it half way, or else swear off the literal definition of intelligence entirely. Maybe save this thread and come back in a few years or something. I'm not a television: I can't just blare the information right into your input hopper in consumer-friendly terms.
The PS3 controller and the 360 controller are practically identical in layout. Controls for a shooter on the 360 work perfectly for a shooter on a PS3 so I don't know what you're on about there. And sure, games on cell phones should be reviewed compared to games on other cell phones. Handheld games should be reviewed compared to other handheld games, but console RTS's are compared to other RTS's. Red Alert 3 may be great compared to other console RTS's, but its poor controls (being a console RTS that attempts to use the controller to set waypoints and order units to attack) make it a mediocre RTS that can get extremely frustrating at times. Same with Universe At War. EndWar, on the other hand, uses a great control scheme that bypasses the inadequacies of the controller and almost completely eliminates micro-managing. However, EndWar's control scheme lacks the precision of a mouse and keyboard and thus it isn't nearly as good as RTS's on the PC. Console RTS's are not (for the most part, at least) rated differently than PC RTS's. Same goes for shooters. Of course, the limitations of a certain console should be taken into consideration. The Wii can't possibly achieve the same graphics the PS3 and 360 can, but people know that when they buy it (if they don't, they're retarded). A cell phone can't possibly achieve the same graphics as a Wii (another thing people should know). However, for the PS3, 360, or PC, all games should be compared to all other games. That way, people can decide which console they like more as they're all capable of very similar things (although the PS3 is better than the 360 as far as hardware goes and a good PC can send them both running back to their mothers).
The OPM gave Killzone 2 a 5/5 so I don't know what people are talking about. How is a 5/5 a 9/10? And for all those people that say they've seen really horrible reviews for Killzone 2, SHUT UP ALREADY! You can't prove it, you can't link the reviews, you're just whistling pixie dust out of your collective arse. You know Indigo, it's a very sad day when people can say a reviewer gave one score when they gave another one. Why don't people actually do some research instead of just spouting off fanboy inspired bile.Indigo_Dingo said:
No, it isn't that it doesn't count, it's that I hadn't read it at the time I posted this topic since I don't get any gaming magazines. And oh, you were talking about OPM UK's review. Nevermind then. Disregard my previous post.Kermi said:
Official Playstation Magazine UK's review of Killzone 2
Page 1: http://item.slide.com/r/1/56/i/wNkAWazH2j-gJDiiH1yktz_GgMDSHTDp/
Page 2: http://item.slide.com/r/1/35/i/DJQWmsrU2D8Ii_90Lk6Zv8IlTKZYI1Mg/
Page 3: http://item.slide.com/r/1/125/i/hJzkMGor0D-cyYVXU7tVNHCaAOFNIQr0/
Page 4: http://item.slide.com/r/1/72/i/iAHf4f5-4z-_w7tkEXbxG6OWXpF1yhuO/
Page 5: http://item.slide.com/r/1/82/i/eEmDGB2ovj_aJabCkXGrmhucfcTFM68H/
EDIT: The US mag's review of Killzone 2: http://www.onthexbox.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11838 Yes, the poster is a horrible fanboy, just ignore it and read the review.
Page 1: http://item.slide.com/r/1/56/i/wNkAWazH2j-gJDiiH1yktz_GgMDSHTDp/
Page 2: http://item.slide.com/r/1/35/i/DJQWmsrU2D8Ii_90Lk6Zv8IlTKZYI1Mg/
Page 3: http://item.slide.com/r/1/125/i/hJzkMGor0D-cyYVXU7tVNHCaAOFNIQr0/
Page 4: http://item.slide.com/r/1/72/i/iAHf4f5-4z-_w7tkEXbxG6OWXpF1yhuO/
Page 5: http://item.slide.com/r/1/82/i/eEmDGB2ovj_aJabCkXGrmhucfcTFM68H/
EDIT: The US mag's review of Killzone 2: http://www.onthexbox.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11838 Yes, the poster is a horrible fanboy, just ignore it and read the review.
I changed my avatar to a Helghast stormtrooper yesterday so people would know that I'm not a 360 fanboy (look at my IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD topic).Pyronox said:
ACtually, no. The PS3 is capable of so much more than the 360. Look at Gears of War 2 and compare it to Killzone 2. The guys at EPIC games say they pushed the 360 to its limit with Gears 2. Sure, the 360 can probably do better, but probably not much better. It will never get anything approaching Killzone 2. And about that "graphical comparison" thing... I was too busy being depressed to laugh at how pathetic it is. Surrealist is such a blind fanboy, it's just sad. Halo 3 is by no means the "360's Peak Potential."Pyronox said:
halo 3 got 100 person in early reviews
so did far cry 2 ( i love far cry but it doesnt deserve a 94 from pc gamer)
world of goo got an 80 in early review ( only game that deserves a 9.9)
and who really cares i love lego star wars and it schould get a ten if i reviewd it but it doesnt matter wat i care or wat people care its wat u care!
so did far cry 2 ( i love far cry but it doesnt deserve a 94 from pc gamer)
world of goo got an 80 in early review ( only game that deserves a 9.9)
and who really cares i love lego star wars and it schould get a ten if i reviewd it but it doesnt matter wat i care or wat people care its wat u care!
It's times like these that I wish I had a PS3... looks amazing and will probably live up to the hype.
To be perfectly honest, I don't see why people care so much about the scores that games get in reviews. All that I care about is that it's a decent enough game that I can enjoy playing it and not finish it in some crazy time. I can't wait to be able to play it, unlikely as nobody I know actually has a PS3 afaik, most are 360 fanbois which is why I bought one. Want a blueray player so may actually buy one but who knows.
It also recieved a 5/5 in the official playstaion magazine review. Imo, official reviews never count for me, they all seem to give very biased reviews, ignoring flaws and longetivity. Happens on all consoles though.
It looks great, graphics look most likely best i've seen seen on a console etc. I just hope gameplay issues weren't forsaken for graphics/atmosphere. I still can't take any FPS on consoles seriously, I despise playing them with an analog stick, I don't mind third person shooters or action games but FPS make me want to drill my own head in with a tooth which I have plucked from a squirrel. Too used to using a mouse I guess. But then again i couldn't play the game on my PC.
PS Comparing Halo 3 to Killzone 2 graphics wise. Really, how low can you go.
It also recieved a 5/5 in the official playstaion magazine review. Imo, official reviews never count for me, they all seem to give very biased reviews, ignoring flaws and longetivity. Happens on all consoles though.
It looks great, graphics look most likely best i've seen seen on a console etc. I just hope gameplay issues weren't forsaken for graphics/atmosphere. I still can't take any FPS on consoles seriously, I despise playing them with an analog stick, I don't mind third person shooters or action games but FPS make me want to drill my own head in with a tooth which I have plucked from a squirrel. Too used to using a mouse I guess. But then again i couldn't play the game on my PC.
PS Comparing Halo 3 to Killzone 2 graphics wise. Really, how low can you go.