Poll: Online Gaming Review Politics: Why does Killzone 3 have such bad reviews?

[IamSofaKingRaw]

Another thing I forgot to mention is that Sony has to take a lot of the blame. They were the ones who originally toted Killzone as "The Halo Killer", an unfortunate past that has dogged the franchise since its inception. Sony was responsible for pushing Killzone out the door buggy and unoptimized, and the immense hype has let the series down every time.

Guerrilla Games has gone in a very distinct direction with Killzone. They have their own vision on what the game should be, and they don't give a shit what other people think. Given time, and a lot less hype, Killzone could have quietly gone on to become a much better shooter.

Come Killzone 2, you have the 2005 fake trailer, then Sony again pushing a massive hype train, and you get the game built up to be something it isn't once again.

If Sony backed down, and just let Guerrilla make their own game and not force it into being a killer app, it wouldn't receive the flak it does. Sony promised a golden egg, while Guerrilla was content with making their own niche shooter.

Fake my ass

Spoiler: KZ2 realtime on right, CGI trailer on the left

[/spoiler]

KZ2 was great. People didn't like it because it played NOTHING like the regular COD or Halo. You actually had to be good at the game

 

[Sniper Team 4]

ALSO, WHY THE FUCKIN HELL DID THEY NOT MAKE COOP ONLINE?!

Question of the year right here ladies and gentlemen. This was the ONE thing that would have made me completely disregard the fact that both previous Killzones failed me miserably. I was so unimpressed with Killzone 2 that I literally gave it to a friend as a gift--and it wasn't Christmas or his birthday. So when Killzone 3 was announced, I was completely in the "Pass" camp, then I heard the rumors about co-op. "Oh. Co-op. There's a good idea. I can handle another Killzone game if it has co-op." For MONTHS no one could pin down whether it was online, or only split screen.
Then the game came out.
Split screen only.
Idiots.
At least that's sixty dollars I can save for something else.

 

[Wayneguard]

I have a suspicious feeling that Activision is fuelling a lot of the negative reception.

You may be on to something there. I'm not very knowledgeable about gaming industry politics but it seems like Activision's size and power have ballooned in the past few years.

 

[Zhukov]

...

Uh huh.

Yeah. Because people can't possibly hold a opinion different to yours for valid reasons. Like, say, their own experience with the game.

Nope, it's gotta be a big conspiracy.

Anyway, I played about 45 minutes of KZ3 on my friend's PS3. It was utterly unremarkable. Dudes shoot at you. You shoot them. Then you throw a grenade. Then you skip the painfully bad cutscene. Then you wish you could skip the painfully bad dialogue. Etc. Maybe I just happened to get a boring part though.

Oh, and my friend tells me she finished the campaign in about 5.5 hours. So yeah.



EDIT: Hang on a sec. What the hell are you complaining about anyway? It's got a metacritic score of 85. Hostile reception my arse, that's a really high score. That puts it even with Amnesia (Ha, what a joke!) and one point higher then the infinitely better Bulletstorm.

Y'know what, I think I should go make a thread about how the publishers of KZ3 have obviously been bribing review sites. Because there couldn't possibly be any other way for them to decide on such a ridiculously high score. Certainly not, y'know, based on their own experience with the game.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I've only ever played Killzone 2 (of which the multiplayer was loads of fun) , but I feel it just seems slightly behind its competitors. It was an overall good game, but just not quite as good as a Halo or Call of Duty.

I think this is ultimately because Guerilla doesn't have the blockbuster mentallity in the same sense that Infinity Ward and Bungie have. Guerilla is a Dutch studio and the Dutch are just not very good with theatrics. We have a saying over here in Holland; "Just act normal, then you're crazy enough."
We kind of look down at America and the way it handles showbizz (eventhough at the same time we're jealous of it) in the same way that America kind of looks down at Japan and the way that it handles its showbizz. We tend to make programs with a more down to earth and level-headed approach instead of the big bangs and fireworks from Hollywood. Yet its these fireworks that are needed to make big explosive movies and games.

The Dutch are missing this mentallity. So whenever a Dutch studio tries to make a Hollywood-type blockbuster, whether its a movie or game, it always kinda falls flat.

 

[Defense]

Anyway, I played about 45 minutes of KZ3 on my friend's PS3. It was utterly unremarkable. Dudes shoot at you. You shoot them. Then you throw a grenade.

Because there are an infinite number of other ways to go about doing a First Person Shooter.

Y'know what, I think I should go make a thread about how the publishers of KZ3 have obviously been bribing review sites. Because there couldn't possibly be any other way for them to decide on such a ridiculously high score. Certainly not, y'know, based on their own experience with the game.

I think it's not that it got a low review, but that games like MW2 got higher reviews overall despite being worse, and sites like IGN giving it a lower score than games like?well, Black Ops.

 

[TerranReaper]

...

Uh huh.

Yeah. Because people can't possibly hold a opinion different to yours for valid reasons. Like, say, their own experience with the game.

Nope, it's gotta be a big conspiracy.

Anyway, I played about 45 minutes of KZ3 on my friend's PS3. It was utterly unremarkable. Dudes shoot at you. You shoot them. Then you throw a grenade. Then you skip the painfully bad cutscene. Then you wish you could skip the painfully bad dialogue. Etc. Maybe I just happened to get a boring part though.

Oh, and my friend tells me she finished the campaign in about 5.5 hours. So yeah.



EDIT: Hang on a sec. What the hell are you complaining about anyway? It's got a metacritic score of 85. Hostile reception my arse, that's a really high score. That puts it even with Amnesia (Ha, what a joke!) and one point higher then the infinitely better Bulletstorm.

Y'know what, I think I should go make a thread about how the publishers of KZ3 have obviously been bribing review sites. Because there couldn't possibly be any other way for them to decide on such a ridiculously high score. Certainly not, y'know, based on their own experience with the game.

That's ironic, maybe they did have a good time playing the game? Of course, saying it's just you shooting people and them shooting you back is an extreme oversimplification, you can do that to any game and make it look bad and trivial. Although I wonder if the reviewers were solely look on multiplayer or single-player, because the meat of Killzone 3 is in the multiplayer.

 

[BVBFanatic]

ITT: People with bias complain about other people having bias.

 

[internetzealot1]

ALSO, WHY THE FUCKIN HELL DID THEY NOT MAKE COOP ONLINE?!

Question of the year right here ladies and gentlemen. This was the ONE thing that would have made me completely disregard the fact that both previous Killzones failed me miserably. I was so unimpressed with Killzone 2 that I literally gave it to a friend as a gift--and it wasn't Christmas or his birthday. So when Killzone 3 was announced, I was completely in the "Pass" camp, then I heard the rumors about co-op. "Oh. Co-op. There's a good idea. I can handle another Killzone game if it has co-op." For MONTHS no one could pin down whether it was online, or only split screen.
Then the game came out.
Split screen only.
Idiots.
At least that's sixty dollars I can save for something else.

WHAT?!
What the hell kind of decision is that?!
I can't even begin to comprehend the logic they were using.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

I've only ever played Killzone 2 (of which the multiplayer was loads of fun) , but I feel it just seems slightly behind its competitors. It was an overall good game, but just not quite as good as a Halo or Call of Duty.

I think this is ultimately because Guerilla doesn't have the blockbuster mentallity in the same sense that Infinity Ward and Bungie have. Guerilla is a Dutch studio and the Dutch are just not very good with theatrics. We have a saying over here in Holland; "Just act normal, then you're crazy enough."
We kind of look down at America and the way it handles showbizz (eventhough at the same time we're jealous of it) in the same way that America kind of looks down at Japan and the way that it handles its showbizz. We tend to make programs with a more down to earth and level-headed approach instead of the big bangs and fireworks from Hollywood. Yet its these fireworks that are needed to make big explosive movies and games.

The Dutch are missing this mentallity. So whenever a Dutch studio tries to make a Hollywood-type blockbuster, whether its a movie or game, it always kinda falls flat.

That is so true. It is SONY's fault for Killzone being where it is now. If they hadn't touted it as the "Halo Killer", people would probably be less critical towards the games. They're like the Fable of FPS's, except Moylneux works for the platform instead of the developer.

 

[Woodsey]

Killzone 3 Metacritic average for critics is 85, user score is the same.

Black Ops is 81, 87 and 88 (PC, 360 and PS3), with user scores of 4.2, 6.2 and 5.8 (same order).

I'm not one to base stuff off of scores (especially not averaged out ones) that much, but it seems it's been better received than the "biggest title of the year" (so sick of hearing that insisted on every fucking CoD game - how can you even give a shit people?!).

 

[Zhukov]

That's ironic, maybe they did have a good time playing the game?

Yes, that's what I was implying.

Please tell me you realise I was being sarcastic about the bribing thing.

 

[Netrigan]

I've only ever played Killzone 2 (of which the multiplayer was loads of fun) , but I feel it just seems slightly behind its competitors. It was an overall good game, but just not quite as good as a Halo or Call of Duty.

I think this is ultimately because Guerilla doesn't have the blockbuster mentallity in the same sense that Infinity Ward and Bungie have. Guerilla is a Dutch studio and the Dutch are just not very good with theatrics. We have a saying over here in Holland; "Just act normal, then you're crazy enough."
We kind of look down at America and the way it handles showbizz (eventhough at the same time we're jealous of it) in the same way that America kind of looks down at Japan and the way that it handles its showbizz. We tend to make programs with a more down to earth and level-headed approach instead of the big bangs and fireworks from Hollywood. Yet its these fireworks that are needed to make big explosive movies and games.

The Dutch are missing this mentallity. So whenever a Dutch studio tries to make a Hollywood-type blockbuster, whether its a movie or game, it always kinda falls flat.

Again, only played the demo, but it is filled with the sort of theatrics that are the hallmarks of blockbuster games. Big manly men shooting the shit out of things in all its pyrotechnic glory. Seriously, right up there with Gears Of War and Call Of Duty on the presentation front.

What is lacks is the hook. That special something that says YOU'RE PLAYING KILLZONE!!! If Activision ever decided to do Call Of Duty: Future War, I'd imagine it looking and playing exactly like Killzone.

Just off the top of my head, I see two major creative problems. Not technical problems that could be solved by lots and lots of cash being thrown at a project. Problems caused by a crucial lack of imagination in the pre-production phase.

Weapons: standard issue Modern War gear. Sadly, most weapons don't have much character and one gun looks remarkably like another to the average person. Not only are the weapons boring, but they look anachronistic by being so closely modeled on what would be historical weapons in their time period. There's a reason why the really successful sci-fi military shooters give their weapons a sci-fi make-over.

Villains: Nazi Aliens. The approach works. Doctor Who's Daleks are based on them. Starship Troopers used their look for certain characters to add a satirical bent to the production. Nothing says bad guy like appropriating a bit of Nazi attitudes and/or attire. Killzone makes the mistake of channeling it so hard that they essentially become Nazis In Space.

 

[TerranReaper]

That's ironic, maybe they did have a good time playing the game?

Yes, that's what I was implying.

Please tell me you realise I was being sarcastic about the bribing thing.

Ya, I caught on to it after my post, but didn't bother to edit it out or anything.

 

[dWintermut3]

I think the reason reviewers often crack a game harder than genre fans for being too similar to other titles is related to their job, mostly.

I buy a few games a month in a busy month, maybe 20 or so games a year. Reviewers can cover that many in a month.

So for me, it's not a deal-breaker if it's a little bit too much like every other game out there in the genre or if it doesn't set itself apart. I haven't played its competitors, every single one of them.

If you're a professional or even highly-active amateur reviewer... by the time you reach the 7th generic cover-based semi-realistic shooter you just want it to stop for the love of all that's holy. That tints your opinion.

 

[Defense]

That is so true. It is SONY's fault for Killzone being where it is now. If they hadn't touted it as the "Halo Killer", people would probably be less critical towards the games. They're like the Fable of FPS's, except Moylneux works for the platform instead of the developer.

Did Sony ever call it a Halo killer? Just wondering.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

That is so true. It is SONY's fault for Killzone being where it is now. If they hadn't touted it as the "Halo Killer", people would probably be less critical towards the games. They're like the Fable of FPS's, except Moylneux works for the platform instead of the developer.

Did Sony ever call it a Halo killer? Just wondering.

Yes, back in 2004 Sony dubbed the first Killzone its "Halo Killer." It was rushed out to stores to try and take sales away from the soon to be launched Halo 2. Unfortunately, this rushed the game, and it was nowhere near as good as Sony had promised. Guerrilla pretty much had no say in the matter. I don't think they enjoyed the pressure being put on them.

 

[Redgethebat]

This kinda iritates me, because it's the whole "but the game isn't very original, with nothing particularly unique about it" argument, which really bugs me. Okay that's true, this game isn't all that original, but it's incredibly well polished, including some really nice detail and use of sound and colour.

And if that doesn't cut it, then why does the Mario series get a free ticket? Nostalgia?

 

[Defense]

Yes, back in 2004 Sony dubbed the first Killzone its "Halo Killer." It was rushed out to stores to try and take sales away from the soon to be launched Halo 2. Unfortunately, this rushed the game, and it was nowhere near as good as Sony had promised. Guerrilla pretty much had no say in the matter. I don't think they enjoyed the pressure being put on them.

Link please? Because I'm trying to find it but everyone said that a gaming magazine referred to Killzone as a Halo killer.

 

[pewpewz]

Y'know what, I think I should go make a thread about how the publishers of KZ3 have obviously been bribing review sites. Because there couldn't possibly be any other way for them to decide on such a ridiculously high score. Certainly not, y'know, based on their own experience with the game.

I think it's not that it got a low review, but that games like MW2 got higher reviews overall despite being worse, and sites like IGN giving it a lower score than games like?well, Black Ops.

Thanks very much for pulling this back on topic - as I said in my original post I don't think this is the best game ever and I'm not saying that anyone who disagrees must be some conspirator! However, compared to other games released this year in the same genre it seems to have a much lower score even though I'm sure everyone can agree it is MUCH more finely polished. Maybe saying "bad reviews" wasn't the best idea, but if you read the negative critiques it's like they're playing a completely different game. Some of their comments are what I would have written for Black Ops...

To take another case in point of gaming review politics: when GTA Chinatown Wars came out, one website gave it a pretty harsh review, but a couple of months later the review was pulled and the writer apologised saying he had "misjudged" the game. A few days later a new, much much more favourable review came out.

To re-phrase my initial question: do you think game publishers have a strong influence over the reviewers on games websites, and if so, should it be acceptable/allowed?