CVG reveiws killzone 2
- Thread starter johnman
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Killzone 2 has a attracted a quite a strange amount of fanboyism for a game that doesn't that different from Halo or CoD or Half Life or any other shooter for that matter.
The problem is that with so few exclusive and low sales PS3 fanboys seem to being pinning all their on this game to make their console popular. After MGS4 and LittleBigPlanet both took a stab and missed at saving the console I can imagine they're getting a little desperate.
The less major game reviewers (aka the ones haven't sold out and aren't scared of fanboys) have all been saying the same thing "It's not bad but it's not great either"
The problem is that with so few exclusive and low sales PS3 fanboys seem to being pinning all their on this game to make their console popular. After MGS4 and LittleBigPlanet both took a stab and missed at saving the console I can imagine they're getting a little desperate.
The less major game reviewers (aka the ones haven't sold out and aren't scared of fanboys) have all been saying the same thing "It's not bad but it's not great either"
I am so sick of that argument at how "MATHAMATICALLY NO GAME CAN BE PERFECT!#%!#%#!"Codgo said:
(loosely) basing this interpretation of how "NOTHING CAN BE PERFECT", does that mean that even though I got every question right on a test, I get a 95 because I'm not Einstein? What about when I write an essay and I do everything right and exceed expectations, I get an 80 because I'm not as good as Shakespeare since he's "perfect"?
Einstein and Shakespeare are benchmarks for good science/literacy. I can't compare myself to them because they were geniuses, but maybe someday I could gain their level of stature and then be able to be compared to them. Until then, I'm compared to other people in my own level and I get a 100 because what I did was very good.
(I am almost positive that the above analogy was horrible >_>; )
I'm sick of everyone saying that "10/10 = 100% AND NO GAME IS PERFECT THEREFORE NO GAME IS 100%N AND NO GAME SHOULD EVER GET IT!"
So what? You want every really good game to forever get a 99%? That's just stupid.
This is how I've always interpreted 10/10's; It's a really good game.
The standards of that reviewer have been raised in the particular genre.
Unless something comes by that is better than the previous game he gave a 10/10 to, his standards will remain the same and he won't give 10/10s to just an "average" game.
Of course, this is assuming that all 10/10's mean something. As you said in your own post, all of the "official" magazines will toss out 10/10's all the time to some good games.
I'm not saying any game deserves a 10/10. Most websites/magazines give out their 10's in different ways, IGN has only given straight 10/10s to about 14 games or so?
Whatever, I'm just sick of everyone saying that it's "MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR PERFECT GAMES!#^!#^" when they're the same people who say "It's just their opinion!"
This is, well, just plain idiotic.
Who cares? The game got a reveiw that was good! Hell, when I see 8/10's and above I think that the game is a must-have.
In the end, it's just a bunch of spamming fools determined to hate anyone who dares to not give their console's latest killer app a 10/10.
Who cares? The game got a reveiw that was good! Hell, when I see 8/10's and above I think that the game is a must-have.
In the end, it's just a bunch of spamming fools determined to hate anyone who dares to not give their console's latest killer app a 10/10.
The funniest thing is that in a couple of weeks, we'll all be discussing the next big game, and Killzone 2 will be gathering dust on our shelves along with all our Wii games, and no-one except these rabid fanboyz will even give Killzone 2 another thought.
Only by Xbox 360 mags, I'm pretty sure I recall the word "disappointing" thrown around a bit.Mazty said:
You can say that again. I remember a Nintendo magazine here in Aus giving Perfect Dark a score of 101% (ludicrous in anyones mind, how can a game score over 100%?), then later on saying Conkers Bad Fur Day was a better game. Needless to say I lost all respect for them after THAT effort.Codgo said:
Wow...Ok, cool down a little. I didn't think you where idiot enough to sink to this level. You like the game, thats fine, this is the situation as I see it. I can understand why you'd disagree with me but if do at least try to get your point across. Don't just tell me to fuck off. It's not a great arguement.Indigo_Dingo said:
Eh, this part;SomeBritishDude said:
"The problem is that with so few exclusive and low sales PS3 fanboys seem to being pinning all their on this game to make their console popular. After MGS4 and LittleBigPlanet both took a stab and missed at saving the console I can imagine they're getting a little desperate."
That set him off.
Personally, I completely disagree with you right there, as time and time again people have disproved that statement over and over again.(*coughcoughResistance2Killzone2MGS4LBPUnchartedWarhawkManyPSNtitlesratchet+clanktonameafew[/loud cough]*) And also, personally, I think it was extremely snark of you to moan out "Ohh, PS3 fanboys are soooooooooo desperate that they don't have any games to play so they want a mediocre shooter!"[/exaggerated voice]
BUT, I wouldn't have done what Indigo did. Though i'd probably start to have to since I am the #2 of the fanboys.
Oh, and we flip the 6 around in 2006
I'm really sick of sharing a planet with people who actually care about video game review scores.
Seriously. People need to just shut up.
Seriously. People need to just shut up.
I hate fanboys in that their arguments never seem to be based on a logic train I can follow.
A legitimate gripe would be something like (using halo as an example) "How do you justify a perfect score when you cite deficiencies in your review"? I'm picking out a logical problem with the facts of the review. Namely, a perfect score implies perfection in a game, ergo it should not have any imperfections.
Instead you get things like "How can you give a game negative marks for not having co-op!!!!! You can only review that content that's there!" This reminds me of the game Sin, which if any of you remember had a famous lauch day bug that left the game, literally unplayable after a short time in the game. While the problem was rapidly resolved and a patch was delivered, at the time (circa 1998) internet connectivity was far from a guarnteed proposition in the average American household. The first few hours of the game were incredible, and based on the content delivered it was a stellar game, yet many reviews made note of the fatal bug and marked the game down accordingly. According to this logic, such a review was out of order, because as the content was inaccessable, it ought to be simply disregarded. In a more direct case, I believe recent market trends have demonstrated that people desperately WANT to see co-op in their shooting games, almost as much as they want to have an adversarial mode for shooting one another. The major shooters that have launched in recent memory (Gears of War 2, CoD 5, Mercs 2, Army of Two . . . ) all featured cooperative play and as such the fact that it is lacking in Killzone should come as a surprise to many, and it would certainly affect my immediate decision to buy the game (if I knew anybody witha PS3 that is).
A legitimate gripe would be something like (using halo as an example) "How do you justify a perfect score when you cite deficiencies in your review"? I'm picking out a logical problem with the facts of the review. Namely, a perfect score implies perfection in a game, ergo it should not have any imperfections.
Instead you get things like "How can you give a game negative marks for not having co-op!!!!! You can only review that content that's there!" This reminds me of the game Sin, which if any of you remember had a famous lauch day bug that left the game, literally unplayable after a short time in the game. While the problem was rapidly resolved and a patch was delivered, at the time (circa 1998) internet connectivity was far from a guarnteed proposition in the average American household. The first few hours of the game were incredible, and based on the content delivered it was a stellar game, yet many reviews made note of the fatal bug and marked the game down accordingly. According to this logic, such a review was out of order, because as the content was inaccessable, it ought to be simply disregarded. In a more direct case, I believe recent market trends have demonstrated that people desperately WANT to see co-op in their shooting games, almost as much as they want to have an adversarial mode for shooting one another. The major shooters that have launched in recent memory (Gears of War 2, CoD 5, Mercs 2, Army of Two . . . ) all featured cooperative play and as such the fact that it is lacking in Killzone should come as a surprise to many, and it would certainly affect my immediate decision to buy the game (if I knew anybody witha PS3 that is).
If you can develop an objective system for measuring the quality of any medium (I don't want to make the task more difficulty by specifiying video games) then you might have an argument. At the end of the day, a score is nothing more than a ruse that presents the assumption that there was some sort of objective basis for the conclusion (it has numers, numbers come from math, math cannot lie, therefore numbers are truth!) when it's nothing more than an arbitray evaluation on the overall impact of a product on a particular reviewer of body of reviewers. When I see a perfect score, I do not assume that the game is absolutely perfect - in fact I don't even assume that the reviewer thought it was perfect. That said, when a game is given a perfect score the implication IS perfection.Jumplion said:
To be honest, I simply prefer a review that ends with a recomendation, either to purchase, rent or ignore. Assuming I can find a body of reviewers who's opinion matches my own often enough, then I have what I went looking for - information about a product I'm contemplating purchasing. Games like Killzone 2 and Halo 3 represent a different side of this spectrum. Everybody already knew EVERYTHING there was to know before either game launched even if they were only loosly following "the buzz". When reviews of either game dropped no opinions were changed. The halo fans were going to buy halo 3, the halo haters were going to decry it on every outlet, and the rest of us just step back and try to keep out of the intermittant sprays of saliva. Killzone 2 just gives us a more recent glimpse at the scenario. People were girded for internet combat weeks before the game shipped, and at the end of the day I'm fairly certain their efforts were for naught. The game sold well (disheartening to the non-believers), but failed to penetrate the most militant opposionists (a blow to the faithful). Set time back a millenia and I'd say we could have a crusade with such fervor.