Anger over Edge's KIllzone 2 Review

[TheBadass]

I'm not banned yet, because I make a valid point. Killzone 2 is not the polish for the PS3 that everybody's been waiting for since release. Sadly, some people seem to think this is me declaring to the world that the PS3 is a pile of festering suck and that anybody who even thinks PS3 and positive thoughts in the same brain are drooling morons who deserve to be stabbed several times, then torn apart by bacteria.

The truth is, I own a PS3, I'm still waiting for something to justify my purchase and I think the fanboys are drooling morons who deserve to be devoured by microbes.

Yeah, that's not the part that you should be banned for. And you know that, as at the very least you're not an idiot. It's the baiting, insults and generally incredibly pompous tone.

Also, for anyone interested in learnin' a bit more about the game (not worth its own thread) there's been a documentary on the making of Killzone 2: http://video2.gamekings.nl/20090120-Killzone2-special-full.flv

 

[Halo Fanboy]

While i agree with the outlash over this review being far overblown. The rush to defend this review when compared to the anger over proffesional reviewer's giving a perfect score to any game seems to lend credibility to what the article implies. People think lower scores are more truthful.

As for edge, they gave a 10 to Halo 3 so they aren't all bad

 

[Aardvark]

Yeah, that's not the part that you should be banned for. And you know that, as at the very least you're not an idiot. It's the baiting, insults and generally incredibly pompous tone.

Reading is required for correct internet operation. If only comprehension was equally necessary, I'd still be at a post-count of 300.

 

[Aardvark]

Spoiler: The post in question

That's your opinion and nothing more. Personally after playing the demo I think K2 is one of the best FPS' for a long time, much better than FEAR 2 and other FPS' on the market. It makes great/full use of the PS3 Cell B.E. and gfx. I see it as the beginning of a stream of great games. Killzone 2 isn't an indepth, thought provoking game, revolving around a mysterious plot or political tention. It's based in the Killzone, a brutal area of all out war. In war, there is no time for reflection, or a stop to see how the last bullet has made you a changed man etc, and that is something K2 is supposed to get across fabulously, a sense of battle & realism.
That's why Edge's review contradicts itself. The reviewer want's a realistic FPS, yet one with unrealistic character development, depth and involvement.
If the latest gfx, AI & a deep multiplayer won't float your boat, ask yourself, will anything?

Yes. Fun. If I don't enjoy the game, then I'm not using it to aid the buoyancy of my sea-going craft.

I found the same thing about F.E.A.R 2 and Resistance 1/2. Your game can be pretty and technical as hell, but if it's boring, I'm going elsewhere with my cash and opinion.

 

[Aardvark]

Well what is fun for you? Clearly it's neither graphics mixed with clever/piss-scary scripting (FEAR 2), nor multiplayer elements (30 vs 30, seemless mode transistions), or storyline (FEAR 2 again, lesser extent Resistance's) or technical feature. Seems that no FPS is going to win you over.
That's why I disliked Edge's review - the article was confused as to what he wanted from a game.

Doom was fun, Duke 3D was fun, ROTT was fun, Half Life was fun, Unreal was fun, Gears of War was fun. There have been others.

Realism is all well and good, but not when you sacrifice the fun for it.

Here's a general rule of thumb. If you've ever gotten angry with a post or review and the best you can come up with is an indignant, "That's just his opinion", then you're fanboy scum.

 

[Joeshie]

Oh my god. Another thread filled with butthurt fanboys that their precious exclusive game warranted one "decent" score.

Good lord. Mods, please ban the original poster.

 

[hippo24]

Oops I guess a review site had an opinion...better chastise them for it.

No really, Edge is a fairly respectable gaming site and unless a game brings something really really really good to the table, or something new and innovative, don't expect a good score from them.

Getting the score they did from edge without bringing more then a whisp of innovation, is actually quite an accomplishment.

 

[Aardvark]

What? Your fanboy scum to say a review is subjective?

You're fanboy scum to arc up over it.

Though you can get away with the first three words of that sentence.

 

[Replica]

I wonder if any of these angry posters have actually played through and completed Killzone 2 yet. If so I would love them to point me to a time machine that I can use as well so I was able to play unreleased games and form opinions about them and then cry about review scores.

 

[Talendra]

"it's good, but there are better titles out there for your money."
Pretty bold claims there. Besides 7 is quite a reasonble score in my opinion.
Also the last paragraph fits as a discription to that article, every reveiwer has there own opinion and that is why they have multiple reviews. I actually quite prefer when someone is hard on a game and reveals all of its flaws. most reviewers now days seem to be way too leniant, and I like to see the full picture and know just what game I am spending my money on first.

 

[Bob_F_It]

I find it hard to care about this because I pay little attention to scores out of 10; I read the meat of the review so that I know what there is to like and hate.

 

[Aardvark]

Obvious troll is obvious.

Obviously not.

Let's review, shall we?

Killzone 2 = Another bland PS3 title. The reviewer called it as he saw it.

Anyone who arcs up at that and calls him out for his own opinion, which is the very basis of a review, has some kind of emotional vested interest in this game, otherwise they wouldn't feel the need to defend it. In short, a fanboy.

If a game is good, then reviewers will sing its praises from the mountaintops and castle walls. Otherwise, you'll get a mix of reactions, ranging from advertiser-biased to honest, but the last thing anyone is going to do is deliberately disparage a game for the sole purpose of gaining a reputation as someone who disparages big-name games, regardless of quality. There's nothing to be gained from it.

Nobody needs further explanation than that, unless they missed the point by such a wide margin that they invented their own point, then ran around trying to convince everybody else that their point is the right one. You know, like you've been doing since you started posting.

 

[Aardvark]

He did. He didn't call it bland though. As has been stated, he thought it was a good game, an amazing technical achievement, but the story stank. I've made it known that I don't like games getting needlessly high scores, but that doesn't mean I instantly believe everything is shit, and neither should you. Killzone 2 is still, by all accounts, definitely worth a play, even according to Edge, and well worth its time on your PS3. Wait until you play the game through until you start moaning about how much it sucks.

Demo, son. Free in the PAL regions. If the demo doesn't sell me on a game, nothing will.

You've yet to actually comment on my view of the review, and instead just troll and belittle anyone who disagrees with you.

You're new to this reading thing, aren't you? Try reading them again. Slowly. If you still haven't gotten it, click

Spoiler: Here

I believe the lot of you are on par with flat-earthers, who insist on arguing in the face of logic and reason. Because the Earth looks flat from the ground, anybody who tries to convince you otherwise must be part of the conspiracy. Similarly, the game is the best looking title for the PS3 thus far and the one that has shown the most promise as a clear standout. You've accepted this view long ago and you're sticking with it regardless of what other people, who are paid to give honest opinions of things say, and you will defend to death, even going so far as a strange belief that the whole thing is part of one man's desire to be known as the guy who gives bad reviews to good games. Two things shoot down this little conspiracy wall you've built up. 1. Review wasn't bad. 2. That sort of reputation is pointless. There's nothing to be gained from it. Only fanboys reads a review because they want to read someone demolishing a game for the sport of it. The rest of us want some guy's honest opinion before we sink cash into it ourselves. Then when you have the company putting road blocks between you and getting your hands on a playable demo, honest reviewers are even more important.

 

[Programmed_For_Damage]

I actually quite prefer when someone is hard on a game and reveals all of its flaws. most reviewers now days seem to be way too leniant...

I'm finding this as well. There have been an absolute glut of titles getting 90+%; they can't all be that great. 90% is meaning less and less these days, it's the equivalent of the old 75%. To paraphrase Zero from The Incredible; when everything is exceptional, then nothing is.