Anger over Edge's KIllzone 2 Review

[Lord Krunk]

A playstation fanboy site, run by fanboys, dedicated to fanboys.

Who would have guessed that they would be mad when the closest thing this system has come to a stand-out exclusive, that justifies the hideous expense and lack of content, gets a review calling it like it is, a lacklustre title?

Very true. I wonder what the PS3 is going to do now their 'Killer App' is mediocre. I mean, sales might surprise, but don't hold your breath.

Just remember who's coming (and staying, it seems) last on the Generation 7 Console ladder.

EDIT: Just ignore Indigo_Dingo. You all know he's trolling this thread, why feed him?

 

[Woe Is You]

Or you could have read the post I quoted. That might clear things up.

Heh, that would be assuming that just about every post you make related to the 360 wasn't like that. Everybody here knows about your irrational hate towards Microsoft and anything related to them (Which, coincidentally, makes your "appreciation" of the PC as a gaming platform rather hilarious. Just sayin'.)

But that 600 word rant demonstrates exactly what's wrong with having a numerical scale in reviews. A case in point: a single word of the actual review isn't even mentioned in the whole tirade. Apparently that part of the review doesn't matter.

 

[Inverse Skies]

Stop using the word hype. Stop it, stop. It is an empty words that you keep throwing around whenever you need to back up following Edges statistically signifigant review without any form of evidence to go on.

I'm sorry, but when a game is stated as 'being the beginning of the end of the 360' (your words) its hard not to call that sort of reasoning hype. Lets just say that the interest surrounding this particular game is fairly high seeing as it's a PS3 exclusive and one which is already seen as such a good game.

Is edge's review statistically significant because so many other reviewers have been full of praise for KZ2? In that case write it off as an anomaly and ignore it, it's obviously not the consensus opinion out there. I'm curious as to why you've called it a 'statistically significant review' though. Just because something is 'statistically significant' doesn't mean that it's large or important, it just implies that something is different in concordance with other obtained results. If you're using it in that context then I understand, but it seems like you've thrown the phrase in there with little consideration to the meaning behind it.

I didn't say I was giving it a 9/10 - I said that was what the website in question were saying in their article. I don't have a score for the game, as I haven't played it. I'm saying they have played it, they do know exactly what they are talking about. You seem to be working under the assumption that this was just a random group of fanboys on the net who felt the need to bash a magazine review they disagree with, instead of one of the more respected (and balanced, if you'd bothered to actually look at some of their other writing) Playstation-centric websites on the net saying that they gave the game a lower rating for reasons irrelevant of the game itself.

It's quite interesting reading the review actually;

(PSX Extreme Quote): 'If it's your job to be faithful to your readers, you are not allowed to do things like this. You are not allowed to indulge your massive ego in an underhanded attempt at getting attention.'

Basically what they're saying is that they're not allowed to give KZ2 a score like that because of... what? Because they think the game in question is very good? I hope edge didn't do it for publicity, that would lose them all crebility and intregrity as journalists and reviewers. But if it is there honest opinion, then we can't say that it's necessarily wrong. It's obvious that people are going to disagree with the publicity surrounding this game, but saying 'you're not allowed to do things like this?'. If it's their honest opinion there is no reason they can't.

(PSX Extreme Quote): 'They don't lie to the consumer to get some sort of underground "elite cred." I don't care what your system is for reviewing games; if you're scoring on a scale of 1 - 10, there's no way on earth KZ2 gets a 7 in direct comparison to the other products on store shelves. I'm sorry, it just doesn't.'

Why? If they thought the inherent flaws were that bad as to lower the score that much then there is no reason they shouldn't give it a 7, especially as (as an FPS) they thought it was a much poorer quality to others currently available.

But this is really starting to go around in circles. The rest of the article is actually quite good, and yes it is true that consumers look to reviewers as a credible source of information and that by deliberatly misleading them they are doing a disservice to them. But have they really? Reviews are subjective personal opinions, no reviewer is truly objective. Put simply it's one persons opinion against another. That's all.

(PSX Extreme Quote): 'For your sake, just ignore it'

Excellent advise in this particular manner. If you don't think edges review was correct, so be it. But to call their credibility into question? That's going a little far in this case. After all, the publicity they've obtained has mostly been negative, why bring that upon yourself by deliberatly fabricating a false review?

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

Te He He... I love fanboy ranting. *snicker*
I feel... So much lighter, it always brightens my day reading flawed arguments.

 

[Mrsoupcup]

There was a thread exactly like this not long ago.

Repeat threads, the cancer of The Escapist.

I hate new guys.... please use the search button. (if its for badges none gives a f#@%)

 

[Inverse Skies]

I used that phrase because you kept saying this was the game an exclusive the Ps3 desperately needed. I was trying to make a point, which you seem to have clearly missed.

And because it directly shows hypcorisy in reviewing, as every FPS on the market has these exact same problems, without hthe sparkle that Killzone 2 has, and yet they don't recieve scores of 4 or worse.

My word does the PS3 need this exclusive. That's one reason I'm so interested to see just how it does do in the marketplace and if the PS3 receives a shot in the arm as a result. That sounds a lot better than 'the beginning of the end of the 360' don't you agree?

It IS interesting as to why this particular game received a 7/10 when you correctly point out that 'it has a lot of the same flaws' as FPS's do. Prehaps after playing through so many of them and expecting such great things out of KZ2 they were really let down by it and hence gave it the bad score? We probably shall never know. It still doesn't justify calling their credibility into question as journalists. Hypocritical? Maybe a little. But if their reasoning is solid then there is no reason as to why they couldn't give KZ2 a score such as they did. Opinions vary, just look at our long string of posts.

As I've said, I think it'll be a pretty good game. As to whether it will reverse the PS3's troubled fortunes? We shall have to wait and see.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

pffft

What an utter wanker!

So what if a magazine gave Killzone 2 a 7 and House of The Dead: Overkill an 8?

Get over with it or you in denial about how good the game is?

I know almost nothing about house of the dead: overkill save the fact that there is an ad for the game on the back of a game informer sitting in my bathroom. It features screens and art of fairly generic characters with bullet points that state things like "A mysterious agent" and "A stripper with TWO deadly weapons". I honestly cannot determine if this is a case of a legitimately bad ad or a cunning attempt intentionally generate a bad ad. If it's the latter, then I must simply say bravo.

With regards to the Edge review of Killzone 2, my thoughts are many. First, it doesn't matter WHAT score it's given sales will remain unaffected either way because everyone who matters have already decided that it's great (The same trend happened with Halo 2 or 3 you'll recall, though I am unaware of any bad review scores there). Second, there are lots of games that I've enjoyed that probably warrant a much lower score than that. Sins of a Solar Empire, where the hell was the depth I was promised? Depending on how things are measured (and keep in mind the score is subjective regardless), a solid game could easily return a low score. One can write a technically perfect paper (i.e. there are no errors in grammer, logic, structure etc) but still receive a bad grade because the content was poor (the inverse is true as well). Sins was a great game in a lot of ways but there are a LOT of flaws to be found once the novelty wears off. Third, a dissenting voice is always welcome, even if you don't agree with it. Might there have been some mysterious malevelont forces at work? Maybe. Or maybe the reviewer simply thought with all honesty that the game was simply not worth higher than 7.

 

[Inverse Skies]

No, it doesn't - that is my point.

The point is that they actually said it themselves - there is no concievable form of reasoning that you could justify, with the precedent of reviews, giving Killzone 2 a 7/10 - they actually said that in the article.

Curious. Upon reading the review again with a little bit more scrutiny it looks to me like they disliked the unoriginal story and characters so much that bought the whole game experience down.

EDGE: 'Worst of all,‭ ‬Killzone‭ ‬2‭ ‬doesn?t just default to the genre?s worst impulses some of the time‭; ‬it does so whenever the fateful question?s asked:‭ ?‬What now,‭ ‬Sarge‭?'.

EDGE: 'But without the first game?s ambiguities,‭ ‬a sense of humour or even an ounce of‭ ‬intrigue,‭ ‬its story stinks.‭ ‬It?s so slight you could play the levels in random order to‭ ‬little ill-effect,‭ ‬and it assumes knowledge of everything and everyone,‭ ‬not once recognising the real-world echoes of its premise:‭ ‬an allied invasion of an enemy‭ ‬the allies themselves created.‭'

EDGE: 'The dialogue is functional,‭ ‬the motives obvious'

These quotes here make it seem like the story was a poorly written and uninspiring one (especially when they compared it to the first game) with little character development or characterisation which does little to make you inspired and engaged in the characters or their plight. I seem to remember gametrailers having a similar problem.

Characters and story can ruin a game. If I were to give a reason as to why this game received a 7 I would put it down to that.

 

[scotth266]

I say PFFFT! It doesn't matter, as all reveiws are subjective. Personally I think that Gears 1 didn't deserve the high scores it got from most reveiwers(it felt UNFINISHED, a word that burns my editorial soul) but Gears 2 did, due to the fact that it felt like the developers improved on what the original was.

Oh, and Indigo Dingo, you are being a flamer. No one cares about what you post when over 90% of it is utter tripe. Just so you know

 

[EzraPound]

Uh... Edge is arguably the best game magazine out there, in the sense that they assess games on the basis of innovation, not categorical superiority. Not to mention the writing's actually good, and they're usually ahead of the curb in terms of discerning what games are apt to be relevant in the future:

Final Fantasy X: 6/10 Crit. Average: 92

"Sequential software that labels itself next-gen should provide next-gen opportunities, not just exaggerate the mistakes it made on the last version."

DOOM 3: 7/10 Crit. Average: 87

"It's impossible for your heart not to race as you sweat out the fright of its peerless audio design, chattering voices and muffled sobs endlessly scraping at your senses."

Mario Kart Wii: 6/10 Crit. Average: 82

Having sacrificed racing integrity in "Double Dash" to side with social silliness, Nintendo has turned 180 degrees into an awkward halfway house.

Red Alert 3: 7/10 Crit. Average 82

It may not satisfy armchair warmongers used to Supreme Commander?s intimidating depths, but RA3 never threatens to take itself that seriously, and nor would you want it to.

Meanwhile...

Killer 7: 8/10 Crit. Average 74

It?s difficult to shake the sensation that Killer 7 is an important production, as paving for future creative leeway if nothing else. But its likely love/hate status is testament to just how adamant it has attempted to be in its flair for extraordinary presentation.

No More Heroes: 9/10 Crit. Average 83

It can be a little basic in places, and it isn?t a ?paradigm shift? in any sense, but it is proof that games can love their roots and use the quality of being a ?game? to give form to their stories ? and excel at it.

 

[Copter400]

I'd like to believe the Penny Arcade guys, who depicted it as Moses releasing his people. I'd like to think my PS3 brethren are getting good games, too.

 

[Dr Spaceman]

I always wondered what would tear the Internet apart. Maybe too much Youtubing. Maybe the Cylons. Hell, maybe even the world's growing addiction to Internet porn. Turns out, it's simply a game magazine giving a "low" score to a highly-hyped game.

Jesus Christ almighty. People need to get over this. It is absolutely remarkable how personally people are taking this review. Like someone gave their child a 7/10 in life.

 

[sirdanrhodes]

There was a thread exactly like this not long ago.

Repeat threads, the cancer of The Escapist.

I hate new guys.... please use the search button. (if its for badges none gives a f#@%)

Badges are just there, they don't do anything.

 

[CyberAkuma]

They are a lot of these obnoxious asshols out that always complain about games getting lower scores than they expect.

F.E.A.R 2 experienced the same problem [http://www.n4g.com/pc/News-278808.aspx] woth their share of fanboys.
Seriously. The level of stupidity is just astonishing. The fanboys should just stop jamming their heads up their asses. Killzone 2 got great reviews from all other sites and magazines.
The game is great. Who the hell cares?!