Anger over Edge's KIllzone 2 Review

[Inverse Skies]

Why is it that you feel that hype is directly likely to affect this title? Realistically, that would only really work if the first had been criticially well recieved, and not been a dissapointment to many.

I'd never even heard of the first one before I heard about this game (such was its lacklustre nature). It's probably because so many games are released across many of the consoles that when one is released which carries the 'exclusive' label people start to get really excited about it, especially when talks of 'really helping out the thusfar dissapointing PS3 sales' come into it.

Killzone 2 almost seems to have more intrigue and hype surrounding it than LBP even. The graphics probably have a lot to do with that. Add to that the early reviews of the game which already (as we've seen on this forum) have sparked a lot of debate and the game is already in the back of gamers heads without the first even being a hit.

 

[DeusFps]

I hope yahtzee rips this game apart just so he can do another mailbag showdown.

 

[Inverse Skies]

Just because reviewers are aware of the existence of a title that doesn't mean they are going to be especially generous with scoring it - why would you think otherwise? Did aareness mean everyone gave high scores to Too Human?

Any place which reviews games would have a fair idea of most of the so called 'killer' releases coming up. You can't argue that ever since KZ2's video was originally shown at E3 those few years ago intrigue has been growing about it, especially about its graphics. Most people (unless they're incredibly unbiased) would have already formed preconceptions of what they beleive KZ2 to be like based on what they've previously liked in games and which console they like more. That's just human psychology.

My argument lies in the fact that most places getting ready to review (or if they've already reviewed) KZ2 would be expecting quite a good game. Yes, what you say in that hype surrounding games does not always lead to good reviews is quite true (Mirrors Edge, Too Human, Haze etc). But KZ2 is almost (not quite) being seen as reversing the PS3's troubled fortunes, and any game which carries that label would automatically be expected to be very good, hence why most places would be expecting to give it good reviews.

Personally, I'm going to wait and see when I actually play it. I think it'll be quite good (preconceptions see? They're had to get away from) but, as I said before, I'm more curious as to see if it does help the PS3's flagging sales. If it does THAT then KZ2 is more than worthy of being the great title a lot of people already see it to be.

 

[Break]

He's saying that they're purposefully ignoring the game's benefits, and that Killzone 2's high quality is as solid and tangible a fact as "Bach was a great composer", or "The Godfather was a great movie". This is a game he has yet to play at any real length, and he's convinced that he's got a better idea of its strengths and weaknesses than a professional journalist who will have, at the very least, completed it once. Lovely.

I also like that he says that the content of the review doesn't actually matter, and that the number is the most important part.

PSX was the orignal playstation.

He was referring to the website title, but yeah. The PSX was actually a separate device entirely. It was more or less a reworked PS2 that included a DVD burner, and introduced the XMB as a central menu interface. The use of "PSX" to refer to the first edition PS1 is a perplexingly widespread error.

 

[letsnoobtehpwns]

If a review says that the your favorite game isn't the best game ever, why bother getting so pissed about it? All reviews are are multiple opinions, not your own. If you really love the game so much then why do you get so defensive when it is bashed in any way?
When i said "you" i mean everyone getting angry about the review.

 

[Inverse Skies]

You're issuing effect and cause to the wrong attributes. Its seen as the title that will signal the beginning of the end for the 360 because its an exceptionally high quality game. Realistically, if everyone had high expectations of the game then logically they would rip it a new asshole when it didn't live up to these expectations - the onlt way that situation would make sense is if an actually great title came out that had a large amount of hype but was rated lowly by everyone. By your logic everyone should have hated the game excpe tpeople who weren't aware of it.

Ahhhh, that's what this game is seen as doing. The end of the 360, (or the beginning of the end) Good luck to it in that regard, that's a very tall mountain to scale (not as tall as the Wii, but that's a different story).

I had considered the fact that if it didn't live up to people's expectations that people would bring it down a notch.... but isn't that exactly what happened here with the edge review? Can it not be seen that Edge, not liking the game when it was compared to the hype that surrounded it, has brought it down by giving it a score of 7 out of 10?

Realistically that is exactly what has happened here - and look at the result. The fanboys have been getting on this forum and complaining about the review of a game they haven't even played. You have done the very same thing yourself. I can't quote it as it's in the other forum, but you yourself said 'It's not worthy of the 7 out of 10 they gave it'.

Preconceptions.

How do you know it is worthy of 9 or 10 out of 10? None of us have played it. You and me down here in Aus will have to wait even longer before it comes out (unless you've got an import copy on order). The only way you can justify the statement I've quoted above is by saying that you let the hype and glamour surronding this game colour your expectations before you even had a chance of playing it.

Don't feel bad about it. We all do it. It's only natural for us to get excited about things we think we'll like/enjoy. And I do agree with you, I think KZ2 will be quite a good game. Also I'm quite confused as to this particular statment...

By your logic everyone should have hated the game excpe tpeople who weren't aware of it.

My thought process this entire time has been stating that most people have GOOD expectations of the game (except die hard 360 fanboys, but we'll ignore them for this discussion) and are expecting quite high things of it. I'm not quite sure where you're coming from there, some clarity would really help the situation.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that the majority of people who have played the demo for KZ2 or have been keeping an eye on it would be expecting a good game. I am. I know you are as well.

 

[Break]

He's saying that they're purposefully ignoring the game's benefits, and that Killzone 2's high quality is as solid and tangible a fact as "Bach was a great composer", or "The Godfather was a great movie". This is a game he has yet to play at any real length, and he's convinced that he's got a better idea of its strengths and weaknesses than a professional journalist who will have, at the very least, completed it once. Lovely.

You're operating under the theory that they also didn't get a preview copy of the game.

True. Checking it over, it seems more likely that he has played it a substantial amount. I was put off by his comment that "we all know that Killzone 2 is one of the best FPS' ever made", which smells unpleasantly like fanboyism.

Still, it's already been mentioned, but when the hell did Edge Magazine ever need to seek attention? It's the biggest gaming-based print publication in the country. He'd have been far better off attacking it for trying to act elite and cool by giving a popular game a good score, instead of textually masturbating over it for a couple of pages.

 

[Inverse Skies]

You seem to be operating under the thory that the r4viewers are just gonna skip the third step, and write their reviews based solely on the hype.

Not in the slightest. My argument is that most reviewers are expecting a good review and some of them (ie those that review solely for PS3 or those who have a deep liking for FPS's) are going to let their reviews be slightly coloured by their preconceptions of the game. After all, with comments such as this...

Its sort of at the point where the die-hard 360 fanboys are gushing with praise for the game (i.e. about a month ago) that the game transcends that level of sorta-kinda good to absolute classic.

Can it not be said that said, if you reviewed the game, then your view of it would automatically be coloured? (After all, you haven't even played it yet). I find it very hard to believe that you would be full of anything put praise for this game. THAT's the preconceptions I have been talking about. Some reviewers will not give it an unbiased review simply because of the idea they have already built up a preconceived idea in their head of what they believe the game will be like. You can't honestly say that you haven't done the same thing yourself.

That being said, not all review places are going to let their reviews be coloured by the hype surrounding this game. Edge obviously hasn't. But some are. Unfortunately it's just human nature, people are always going to act more favourably to things they like or things they THINK they'll like. You think you'll like this game, sorry love this game, and therefore anything you say which is gushing in praise either before of after you've played the game stems from the preconceived ideas you've already built up about it.

Simple psychology, really.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

7/10 is still a good score. What is wrong with people? Even X-Play (which I hate) admitted that Killzone 2 was completely generic (story-wise), and the Australian Gamer people really tore into it in their last podcast. Twilight Princess got an 8/10 from Gamespot, and everyone whined about that... Except me, because I think they actually gave it 2 points more than it deserved.

Killzone 2 is a hype monster right now. Give everybody a few weeks (or until the next Yahtzee review), and suddenly will see a bunch of "hey, I just realized how much KZ2 sucks right after YZ said so" topics.

Not to mention that Killzone blatantly stole from Kerberos Corps. You wonder how they thought of such awesome stormtrooper designs? They didn't.

 

[theklng]

if i had to write a review i'd give killzone 2 a 5/10 because it doesn't deserve more. i own a ps3. i don't get how these average borderline crappy games get so high scores, it really boggles my mind. perhaps it is because the western populace has degenerated into a huge blob of casual fratboy-esque 13 year olds. and whether you own the console or not, you have the same people on your side regardless: the 360 has halo/gears of war, and the ps3 has killzone 2 and resistance.

i blame consumerism.

EDIT: i dare say that whatever is in the demo is the entire gameplay of the full game packed into 10 minutes of game. it's not going to get better, there is nothing else to it, there never was and there never will be. the game wasn't meant to be different or special, it was supposed to be your run of the mill fps. granted, with better graphics and a cover system and perhaps vehicle sections, but it's still in the god damn same boat as every other bad fps released the past 5 years.

i used to love fps back when they were worth playing. games like these aren't.

 

[Inverse Skies]

What do you think coloured those preconceptions? The demo. If you asked me to write a review on the demo, I'd say the gameplay held together greatly, the visuals and AI are stunning, but the weapons variation seems to be artificially choked, wherein the difference between the 2 major weapons is almost unnoticable. Dialogue seems good, but the voice acting seems kinda lacklustre, with a distinct lack of feeling behind it. Thatsaid, some of the character reactions - like a friendly diving away if you hold a grenade too long, or one commenting that you're jumping at shadows if you unload a large amount of ammo in an empty area - seems like smaller touches that really make it hang together well. The physics are quie good and ragdolls are quite good. Overall I feel that the positive aspects of the demo are far more important to the experience than the negative ones

The game definitely has flaws, no-one is dening that. The issue is perspective - they're just not as important as Edge made out, not enough to keep it out of a 9/10 rating. Thats the argument that PSXextreme was making.

Prehaps edge was expecting so much of this game that the actual experience let them down somewhat? They seem to have put a heavy emphasis on storyline (which really, in todays FPS world no storyline is even remotely original). Prehaps said flaws in game WERE important enough for edge to drag its score down? After all, sometimes it is the little things which can truly bring a game undone (or make a great game, as your mini-review up the top said, the little things like the friendly diving away - nice touches.) The person who reviewed it (providing he has intregrity) has in all likelihood given his honest opinion of the game, and if he felt the inherient flaws present were enough to drag it down who are we to disagree? After all, playing a demo is different to an actual game (Mirrors edge springs to mind here).

Wasn't there a discussion thread just yesterday about how previews can often colour someones view of a game then prove a let down when it actually comes around? Also the demo doesn't count, it's not the actual finished product (although admittedly it was very good and KZ2 shouldn't differ too much from it).

However my point still stands, you've automatically given the game 9/10 (at least, this could jump even higher upon your actually playing it) based solely on the demo of said game. You've already formed the ideas of the score you believe the game is worth based NOT on the actual game, but a) the demo b) the hype surrounding this exclusive title and c) the fact that you adore your PS3.

You can't argue that the score of 7/10 that edge gave it is wrong when you haven't played the game itself. You're letting your bias show through there. A bias formed entirely on what you think the game should be based on your preconceived ideas of it. Bias shouldn't enter a debate such as this one, it does whenever consoles and particulary console wars are discussed which is a shame.

Basically you can't legitimately say their score is wrong until you've played the game yourself. Sure you can disagree with it, vehemently so if you so choose. But saying it is wrong? That can't happen until you've played the game my friend.

 

[Inverse Skies]

Dude, you haven't played the game yet. You've played one level from it. That's like reading the first chapter of The Wind In The Willows, and trying to judge the whole book from it. The dudes at Edge have played the game. All of it, both single and multiplayer. Until Killzone 2 comes out and you play it in its entirety, who are you to tell them how they should be scoring?

Exactly my point.