Killzone 2 gets a 9.9/10

[ElArabDeMagnifico]

Well, my expectations are that as long that it's decent it will get perfect 10's like any other game in this fucked up generation.

Bingo....?

 

[Jursa]

There's a penny arcade comic I stumbled upon yesteday: "Next time don't send us a copy of the game, just send the money and the rating you'd like."

 

[Eipok Kruden]

Exclusives don't have their own little world. They're reviewed just like the multiplatform games are. When someone reviews an exclusive game, they don't just compare it to other exclusive games, they compare it to every game. What you're saying simply doesn't make any sense.

Thus, when a Playstation 3 exclusive comes along and is compared to those port jobs, obviously it's going to seem a whole lot better. It was always developed and tested on the Playstation 3 from start to finish. Thus, they can afford to give it a ridiculous, 10/10 rating, because it's not like the gamers can tell it's anything other than "better" than most the games they play.

The game will be compared to the ports on the other consoles and the other console's exclusives. Like I said, exclusives don't have their own world and neither do all games on a certain console. What you're saying simply doesn't make sense.

 

[geldonyetich]

Exclusives don't have their own little world. They're reviewed just like the multiplatform games are. When someone reviews an exclusive game, they don't just compare it to other exclusive games, they compare it to every game. What you're saying simply doesn't make any sense.

Thus, when a Playstation 3 exclusive comes along and is compared to those port jobs, obviously it's going to seem a whole lot better. It was always developed and tested on the Playstation 3 from start to finish. Thus, they can afford to give it a ridiculous, 10/10 rating, because it's not like the gamers can tell it's anything other than "better" than most the games they play.

The game will be compared to the ports on the other consoles and the other console's exclusives. Like I said, exclusives don't have their own world and neither do all games on a certain console. What you're saying simply doesn't make sense.

Yet again, I'm wasting my time on people who cherry pick one thing out of everything I wrote and consequently don't bother to understand what I already explained.

Just forget it. Why do I waste so much time on forums? (No, don't answer that, I'm sure the answer would be embarrassingly revealing.)

 

[Shurikens and Lightning]

First, it is absolutely amazing how 9/10 times you can tell some one's post opinion from their avatar. (Assuming relevance.)
Secondly, who in the world says that scores are only based on 10 things? Scores more often than now are broken down into categories such as gameplay, visuals, sound ...etc each of which have a multitude of components to consider.

I had a 360 before a PS3, and a Alienware PC before that, and a gamecube before that, and a original xbox before that. So no Im not a Fanboy, I just find sackboy so damned cute in a manly straight way =\. Ive been meaning to switch my avatar for the longest time, Im incredibly lazy.

But ?/10 means that out of TEN things it got ? out of them. ?/5 means that out of FIVE things it got ? right. ?/100 means that out of ONE HUNDRED it got ? correct. Etc.

While you are right about the gameplay, visuals thing they need to put it in a numerical value which corresponds in that it got 9.9 out of the 10 required things from them. If a score went like this:

Gameplay:it was good but I think it could be better
Visuals:Meh
Sound:I liked it

OR

Gameplay:4/5
Visuals:3/5
Sound:5/5

It is easier to comprehend what he was thinking then trying to understand how good or bad meh is. If he used meh always, then it is the same as saying 3/5. Those components in your comment are represented in that numerical value as /10, /5, /100.

Im not saying your wrong or trying to cause an arguement, Im just trying to clarify what I said in my comment.

 

[Eipok Kruden]

Exclusives don't have their own little world. They're reviewed just like the multiplatform games are. When someone reviews an exclusive game, they don't just compare it to other exclusive games, they compare it to every game. What you're saying simply doesn't make any sense.

If by "every game" you mean "every game from every platform" you're certainly off. Many reviewers give different ratings on the same game on different platforms, not only because some ports are worse than others, but also because they're basing it on the relativity of other games out for that platform. A FPS released on a platform which is already FPS-rich is going to be under a lot more scrutiny. Also, sometimes the hardware capabilities and presentation are so different it doesn't make any sense to give them the same rating, for example comparing a Nintendo DS version to an XBox 360 version. (When this doesn't happen, it's usually just because it's easier.)

If by "every game" you mean "every game on that platform" then that's exactly the point I was making when I said the frame of reference is distorted by port jobs. Most of the games you're going to see on the Playstation 3 were optimized first for the XBox 360. Often, the developers won't make the time to make sure the Playstation 3 plays it as well, because a lot more time was spent play testing and tweaking it on the console it was originally developed for.

Thus, when a Playstation 3 exclusive comes along and is compared to those port jobs, obviously it's going to seem a whole lot better. It was always developed and tested on the Playstation 3 from start to finish. Thus, they can afford to give it a ridiculous, 10/10 rating, because it's not like the gamers can tell it's anything other than "better" than most the games they play. (This is that missing "frame of reference" I was referring to.)

Alright, it wasn't fair for me to suggest that was implied knowledge. But if you're arguing against these fundamental truths, I'm probably not going to bother to argue back. There's no way I can force you to research how games are made.

There, I used your entire quote, happy now? What I said still stands. "If by "every game" you mean "every game from every platform" you're certainly off. Many reviewers give different ratings on the same game on different platforms, not only because some ports are worse than others, but also because they're basing it on the relativity of other games out for that platform. A FPS released on a platform which is already FPS-rich is going to be under a lot more scrutiny." I mean wow... You think you're right and I'm wrong and nothing is going to change that.

Yet again, I'm wasting my time on people who cherry pick one thing out of everything I wrote and consequently don't bother to understand what I already explained.

Just forget it. Why do I waste so much time on forums? (No, don't answer that, I'm sure the answer would be embarrassingly revealing.)

You didn't already explain that. Reviewers compare games to other games, not other games on that platform. An FPS on the PS3 is scrutinized just as heavily as one on the 360 or PC, that's why many of them get low scores. That's also why a few of them get high scores.

 

[geldonyetich]

There, I used your entire quote, happy now? What I said still stands.

If you think what you said still stands, you're still cherry picking. Your point, if I'm reading you correctly, is that a PS3 exclusive is not going to seem better than a port job because reviewers have complete objectivity. I just pointed out 3 or 4 reasons why this isn't the case, and if it was, it would be false objectivity at best.

So, if you want to make me happy (and gods, why would you, I'm not your professor) you need to do more than quote: read.

Or not. The Internet in general makes no real time for reading. They've got a perpetual information filter on that causes them to cherry pick out of habit. I'll forgive you for being yet another sheep in the flock.

 

[Eipok Kruden]

There, I used your entire quote, happy now? What I said still stands.

If you think what you said still stands, you're still cherry picking. I've got at least 3 or 4 solid counterpoints against the suggestion that a PS3 exclusive is not going to seem better than a port job. So you need to do more than quote: read.

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]

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.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

Reviews are just a way to tell indecisive consumers what to buy, or to tell 10 year olds what the next "addictive substance" is going to be. Why worry about what reviews say?

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).

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.

 

[Eipok Kruden]

Reviews are just a way to tell indecisive consumers what to buy, or to tell 10 year olds what the next "addictive substance" is going to be. Why worry about what reviews say?

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).

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.

 

[Kermi]

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.

 

[Eipok Kruden]

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.

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.

 

[geldonyetich]

Okay, lets take another swing at this.

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.

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."

If by "every game" you mean "every game from every platform" you're certainly off. Many reviewers give different ratings on the same game on different platforms, not only because some ports are worse than others, but also because they're basing it on the relativity of other games out for that platform.

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.

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.)

If by "every game" you mean "every game on that platform" then that's exactly the point I was making when I said the frame of reference is distorted by port jobs. Most of the games you're going to see on the Playstation 3 were optimized first for the XBox 360. Often, the developers won't make the time to make sure the Playstation 3 plays it as well, because a lot more time was spent play testing and tweaking it on the console it was originally developed for.

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.

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.

 

[Eipok Kruden]

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).

 

[Kermi]

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.

Ah, so it only counts when it's on the internet. Good show.

Thats not what Metacritic says - they say it got 10/10, or 100, or whatever, but full marks on its printed review.

That's the US magazine.

 

[FURY_007]

hears an original thought, play the damn game, then decide if it's good
/thread

 

[Eipok Kruden]

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.

Thats not what Metacritic says - they say it got 10/10, or 100, or whatever, but full marks on its printed review.

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.