Share this article:
 Digg.com Facebook Google Bookmarks N4G Gamerblips del.icio.us Reddit Slashdot.org StumbleUpon How can you give a game negative marks for not having co-op!!!!! You can only review that content that's there. It's like someone reviewing mario and then deducting points for it not having machine guns!!!
I just hope your score was based on what you played, and not on what you didn't play You didn't give it a 9/10, oh dear you know the accusations of beng biased will come soon.
Must admit this title is looking nice. A pretty fair review in my opinion, although this paragraph has piqued my interest the most "For the stunning single-player campaign alone this is a game worth getting very excited about. Killzone 2 is the loudest blockbuster on PS3 and the first must-have FPS of 2009 for PS3 fans." especially the part in bold. Looks like I will be trying to pick this up sooner rather than later. Im sure its de riguer to shout first or something similar... So "thirst"... Cod 4 didn't have co-op either. My god, this is going to get hundreds of posts. If this had been an Xbox360 exclusive this would have got 9.7 or 10.
I wish CVG had got an impartial reviewer not an obvious xbot fanboy.
Only time will tell if the overall experience truly deserves that score.
Oh and now MGS4 has a good story does it. I thought when the review came out it was slated for the long cut scenes.
Doesn't really matter either way as I am have it pre-ordered. You absolute M$ loving slags. If this was on that broken piece of trash masquerading as a console with it's last hope being the pointless Alan Lakes, you'd give this undeniable perfection of a game 12/10. And it is undeniably perfect, even though it's a shooter, and I hate shooters, but it's on my beloved PS3 so that's different, isn't it, my precious?
Anyway, I must admit, I've never been much of a fan of FPS, but this does look quite good. It's fair in my opinion. You have squad members with you throughout the game so it should have been implemented. If i'm honest, its not a fantastic score for the best fps on PS3
I was hoping at least a 9.2
Oh well, i'm getting this game anyway :lol: Rico is on his own in large parts of the game, separated from the rest of his squad.
Im curious to know how they reviewed the multiplayer game with no one else in it. If any reviewer scores down a game for something it doesn't have they are pathetic. Someone gave the Mario example and I'll say it's like scoring down Gears of War because it doesn't have zombie horde mode. I'd say just on the technical side this game deserves a 12/10. Being the most polished of any console game. Just because it doesn't innovate doesn't make it a bad game. What it does it does better than any game. Some of u guys are unbeliveable.
1)8.7 is not a bad score, ur acting like it got a 3 out of 10.
2)U guys says their fanboys but ur just as bad.
3) if they were xbox fanboys why would they have a multi platorm site? inb4lock I'm guessing they were up against other journalists and Sony employees.
Is there a reason Rico's on his own? I think the thing you have to understand is by no means is 8.7 a bad score but by being a "AAA" game people do expect it to be more and judging by the polish and quality of this game it does deserve more. Also, when reviewing 10/10 does not mean the game is perfect but more as a "this game is really incredible" and a "gaming bliss on all the senses". I personally haven't played but seeing other reviews this game lives up too. Its also a sad truth that the American gaming media will score down this game because of it being a Ps3 title. how can they give the best fps that score, when CoD4 got much more?! doesnt matter if its cross platform.
CoD4 had no coop. CoD5 did. 5 was guff, it could have 16 player coop, it'd still be shit to play. would you mark it up because it was shit to play with others?! of course not.
look at haze. nuff said. Good score but i dunno how you could have found taking down a scarab in halo an OMG moment which is more like a pain in the ass moment with tht retarded driver killing you over and over. I also have to agree with tht guy above abt lowering a score due to there being no co-op which is like lowering a score because it doesnt do everything you want it to. The reviewer probably wanted to lower the score because you dont have 20 types of grenades as well.
+ can people stop saying a game doesn't innovate coz NO shooter has done so for a very long time (unless u wanna talk abt multiplayer). how can they give the best fps that score, when CoD4 got much more?! doesnt matter if its cross platform.
CoD4 had no coop. CoD5 did. 5 was guff, it could have 16 player coop, it'd still be shit to play. would you mark it up because it was shit to play with others?! of course not.
look at haze. nuff said.
****ing cvg this site slows to a crawl everyday on a regular basis causing double triple and quadruple posts. IGN US gave it 9.5. It's a good game so why should you care whether it gets a 8.7 on this site, that's still a good score IMO.
I only use these scores as guidelines, anything rated 7+ that I'm interested in will end up in my collection. That fraction of a percent makes all the difference eh?
It's a great score for what's believed to be THE most visually impressive console game ever. I agree that marking it down for lack of co-op is just stupid, but come on guys! they even ran an interview on here saying why it was too hard to implement coop after people thought it was going to feature it and cvg posted a new item basically saying coop would feature.
sour grapes? they even ran an interview on here saying why it was too hard to implement coop after people thought it was going to feature it and cvg posted a new item basically saying coop would feature.
sour grapes? »
I don't take review scores as fact because if i did i would have missed out on a lot of great games (I loved God Hand). Most people don't actually read the reviews and only see the score. Based on that alone it may affect the sales of the game which in this case would be bad because Guerilla does deserve great sales so they can continue to bring us quality games. Like i said 8.7 is not a bad score. Despite being on the lookout for quality PS3 fare, my interest in sci-fi first-person shooters has reached saturation point. Even for great looking ones.
Roll on MadWorld. Something refreshing, both in visuals and gameplay. I remember that now. Shame on you CVG!
Anyway, lack of co-op means nothing to me anyway, as long as the SP is done right I'm fine. Marked down for no co-op? What the ****!?
Did Halo 3 have co-op? NO
Did COD4 have co-op? NO
Did Half-Life 2 have co-op? NO
Were those games marked down for not having co-op? NO.
What the hell? Fire the reviewer. I thought Halo 3 did have co-op but then I'm not a Halo fan so cannot be sure. Oh dear... Halo 3 had co-op man, 4 players too. I don't think Half-Life 2 could've worked as well as it did with co-op to be honest, that was a true SP game. In KZ2 you're taking part in a war, so you should have a squad and unless it's explained during the story as to why you're alone, there's no excuse.
I'll give you COD 4 though! 8.7 is a decent score, but the negatives are just wierd.
I cant think of any point in Halo were I am forced to change weapons. I pretty much completed all three of those games with Plasma Rifles.
I dont understand marking it down for having no co op. I kind of understand in that he means that most shooters nowadays have it, but if one doesnt have it then why should that mean the game loses marks? Many shooters dont have split screen multiplayer anymore, but Ive never seen a reviewer mark a game down for that.
Its just a bizarre thing to do. If co op is that important, then why did COD 5 score less than COD 4? Its like marking PGR down a few points because it has less modding and tuning options than Forza - it just doesnt mae sense.
It doesnt really matter to be honest, but I just felt I needed to comment on this because the score doesnt seem to match the words in the review. i couldn't agree more with this comment.
cvg ******s if this was on the xbox they would say it was to good to be put into numbers but on the ps3 they find and niggle at all the little problems until they blow it out of all proportion like the bunch of xbot women they are. I kinda get what you're saying, but some of your comparisons don't make sense. PGR against Forza for instance, some people prefer to jump in rather than spend time tinkering with cambers and gear transmissions; Totally different style. COD 5 IMO deserved less because of its WWII setting (boring) and this was stated in alot of reviews.
Plus I'm sure you never took down a Wraith or Banshee with a Plasma Rifle! Wow, the integrity of this site has taken a nosedive of late, and not just regarding this pathetic review.
I am sick of reading news that every other site published weeks ago, with the Savage Moon story being a typical example.
I am sick of reading PS3 game reviews with the inevitable comparisons with 360 games.
I am sick of reading crappy grammar from a supposed respected website.
This site lives and breathes on fanning the fanboy flames to get hits and it does so with aplomb.
I for one can't be arsed taking this website seriously anymore, which is a shame because I have mostly good memories of all things CVG. Gaming Journo's have always had a baiting mentality but they always used to do it with tongue in cheek. I remember the days when journo's had a sense of humour and a wicked ability to make people laugh. Nowadays they just want to set fanboys against each other with childish comments, which is cheap journalism in my eyes.
Well, enjoy making their day people.
What makes me confident in my own opinions, more than anything else, is the fact that I guessed this review before it even arrived.
Looks like MS has won afterall. So it's a good game then, just not as good as the co op madness of gears of war 2.
I can live with that, the single player campaign sounds good and the graphics look great. Every score on metacritic was between 100 and 90 and now CVG gives it 87?
What are you guys a bunch of X-bot fanboys?
Resistance 2 got 80, this gets 87, gears of war 2 gets 93 and halo 3 gets 97? WTF?
I think Andy Kelly should have written the review, CVG are clearly a pro-360 site. Yeah but thats exactly why I think its strange, because you wouldnt make those comparisons, just like you shouldnt really compare a shooter with a co op mode to one that doesnt have one. Some people dont like co op mode either, so really if it isnt there then it shouldnt really be seen as a negative in my opinion.
As for Halo, well really thats the vehicle sections isnt it? If you have to get in a vehicle to take down another vehicle then I guess that gives more variety, but you never had to do that in Half Life 2 and that comparison was never really made. They even mention the electric gun as a stand out weapon, but then make the complaint that you dont have to use a variety of weapons. I just find that a bit strange.
It just seems to be quite a low score for a review that gives a number of glowing comments. I'd like to know what PS3 owners where expecting? Every trailer or online video i have seen for this game produces nothing more than a 2 minute action sequence. The review has it spot on, it's a simple generic FPS with polished graphics, nothing more and nothing less.
It's obvious you won't be getting the quality settings of say Bioshock or the in depth story to say Half Life, it's a simple FPS game, like COD and Gears of war. You don't play those games for the story, you only play them for the action. So from what I've seen of this game on various sites the review is fine.
Clearly graphics aren't everything. What a poor review. The score given is not marked accordingly to the review text. A very inconsistent review indeed. »
But co-op is a choice, you don't have to play that way if you don't like it. My point with PGR/Forza was that you know the differences between them before you purchase. KZ2 plays like most FPS games; Run and gun. all of you sony faggots need to get a life. this game isnt even out yet and people are disagreeing with the review. sorry but perhaps the other high scores were influenced by sony, after all nothing in this game is original, it just looks nice.
it may be a good game but this will never be the best fps ever as it brings nothing new. hl2 brought physics, gravity guns, good narrative, and a host of other things that had never been done well before and that was 4 years ago. get over it this game just isnt that good! Totally agree with this, but when you see generic shooters like COD and Gears getting 9 and above, then you do start to wonder why this has got a lot less despite pretty much universally getting great reviews everywhere else. the two games you claim are better don't have co op i thought the review was well balanced, estimations of you just toook a nosedive, of all the readers and posters i never predicted this from you :( I think (I hope) everyone knows that this site is a bit of a joke. But yeah, giving gears 2 or even halo 3 scores in the 90s- games which weren't really that much different from the previous games (particularly in the case of Halo 3) and then giving Killzone 2 a lesser score. I don't know if it is anti sony sentiment, but I do know that most sites, including this one are very much pro 360 and of this game was on the 360 it would have scored higher »»
Yeah, I do see your point.
Surely though you could just say that if you really like co op shooters, dont buy KZ2. Before you bought KZ you would know this difference from other FPS games so to mark it down for not having it cant really be justified.
Its the same thing in principle, but i do know what you mean. So they lose their integrity for judging a game which you haven't played through, but they have?
You've already decided you're going to buy this, so what if they gave it .8 less than IGN US; It's still a good shooter, or did you just want bragging rights for the CVG forums?
And what the hell has MS got to do with this? If you look back at previous reviews they scored COD3 higher than 4. Shows what this lot know about what makes a good shooter.
It doesnt have co-op......big deal
Single player is solid from what I have seen but mainly its all about online play now days, thats why people played COD4 for so long because it was brilliant online.
I agree with others, how can this be marked down becuase it doesnt have co-op, thats a joke.
In COD4 i rarely changed my gun and completed the game easily. Even online there is no need to have anything other than the M16A4 but does it matter.....no because its a solid game underneath all this.
Same enemies....big deal...the game is set in the future and they are a terminator enemy so why wouldnt they look largely simular. Again in COD4 i think they were very similar.
Verdict quote "It doesn't innovate" WTF????????
What about online where you have a 20 minute game that constantly switches the game mode (deathmatch / TDM / CTF / S&D etc) after a set time therefore keeping you on your toes all the time and constantly meaning you have to change your type of play and think!!!! I didnt notice this in any other FPS game - COD4 / 5 / Halo etc. But this wasnt mentioned???? I think thisis a pretty good innovation myself and something completely new and not seen before.
I have both 360 and PS3 and so am not biast at all.
But fact is this game is by far the best looking game and with gameplay identical to COD4. This aswel as 32 players online when COD only has 16 (on that basis i guess you have to mark COD4 down then?????) meas it is and will be awesome.
It will be the best FPS on any platform by far.
P.S - Mike Jackson > When reviewing games please do a proper job of it because you clearly havent on this occasion and left out essential details of the game. There is no need to be biast to the 360 when clearly this game is by far better than any Xbox game and the machine simply cannot handle this type of game.
Also Quake is an aweful FPS, just run and gun, no stratergy or teamplay needed at all and shouldnt even be mentioned in the same breath as this game. BenJy knows that. What he's saying is that they make up for it in other ways other than looking great. »»»
I agree with your view as well, plus I remember Guerilla stating that co-op would affect the AI of the Helghast. Considering the AI in this is supposed to be quality, I can understand why they left co-op out.
CVG should add that in the review I think and add .5 to the score :) SP81: "It will be the best FPS on any platform by far" - er, let's wait and see shall we? It may be, but it will have to really be something special to be better than Half-Life2 & Bioshock in my book.
And yes, I have both a PS3 and 360, so I'm not biased against the PS3, and it will be good to get a game for the PS3 which isn't available (and better) on the 360!
Maybe it's my eyesight, but the videos don't overly impress me - yes, it looks action-packed and loud, but nothing I've seen so far makes me think I've really got to have it. Let's hope I'm wrong. This is a great review. Everyone I have read so far was rabid, almost fanboy-ish in it's praise, and all along, since I played the beta, I have felt this was going to be a good, solid shooter, but not the reinvention of the wheel most fanboys expect, and have moaned about above me.
SHUT UP. JUST PUT A F-IN' SOCK IN IT.
Jesus. The review was balanced, recognised it had flaws, but also recognised it's considerable achievements.
I for one am actually more excited about the game now, having read a review that has addressed all the issues I was concerned about. I feel better having heard an unbiased opinion. Still not good enough for the fanboys, but hell, what is right?
Thanks CVG. I look forward to getting my hands on the game now. REPLY to slothfull9 : I was in the beta and know how good it is.
I am an online gamer and if the single player is good then ok, fine. But for me its how it plays online that matters and i can say 1st hand that it plays as good as if not better than COD4 which is THE best current shooter online.
Graphics and gameplay in my opinion are not matched on anything I have played to date. im disappointed with that score ...
i thought it would get at lest 90 ... i cant wait for it anyway, ive pre - ordered it :)
countin down teh days til 27th ;) I am getting so sick of all this "if it were on the 360 it would have got a 10 crap". The review was perfectly balanced. The point about the lack of co-op is a bit poor but that said I would also have loved to have seen it implemented.
Oh and PLEASE don't start rolling out all these poxy review scores from years gone by! We know that CoD3 got a better score than CoD4 but we also know that CoD4 is the better game! The simple fact of the matter is that a lot changes in a gaming year. If they kept on adding a few percent to each new game in retrospect to what the previous game got then we'd have games getting 135% and thats just silly.
87% is a very good score. Maybe some of the people on this forum should get a grip. I've got my order in and will no doubt be loving every moment of it on launch day! Still gonna miss having no co-op though. :o( Pishers, I am not usually one to get annoyed by a review, but this one got my goat. You only have to look at Metacritic reviews to see where CVG stand - at the bottom. Even Gamesradar gave the game 9/10 and they have been taking the piss out of Killzone 2 for months!
I was lucky enough to play the beta at my mates house (the stuffy git!) and once I had gotten used to the controls and the weight of the weapons, I was smitten - in the same way I was smitten by COD4.
Where did CVG mention the brilliant online mode that changes on the fly? Surely their one and only job is to let (for the most part) PS3 owners know what to expect from the game, rather than compare it to 360 games, of which most PS3 owners couldn't care less about.
94 Metacritic score with 29 reviews. I think that shows how far CVG are from the general concensus of opinion. Damn shame.
And how can people say that CVG are right with their opinion when they haven't even played the game? It works the other way round as well.
Nevertheless, I will be picking this game up without a shadow of a doubt because I am sure that it will be awesome. Unlike CVG would have us believe.... some of you idiots need to understand that it wasn't scored down for something that the game didn't have, it was scored down for something that the game was so perfectly set up to have but failed to deliver.
the mario and gears analogies were not thought out at all. and if you're going to be cheerleaders about a game that you haven't even played yet, then go eat your sister's cheesy **** and leave the reviewers alone. no one gives a flying shit about you. »
It shows they are 7% under the average, now stop being a whiny little emo and get a grip. WOW, Mark240473, you've achieved a new low in bitch comments. climb down from your asshole and get a life. you've got big problems with a gaming website? well then wtf are you going to do about it? you wrote a paragraph of pitiful complaints that hasn't changed an effing thing.
and since you've got such BIG disappointments in the website, then why haven't you already stopped your f-ing whining and and left for good?
oh and one more thing...
mark's a bitch. Fair enough points. No co-op is a shame because it sounds short and samey so little replay value. No innovation and just being another shooter probably cost it a bit, I mean look at Gears 2; miles better than the first, like 10 hours long and yet gets a lower score because it's not as innovative.
Let's be perfectly honest, CVG are saying this is a fantastic game and if you have a PS3 and enjoy great games or shooters then you have no excuse not to buy Killzone 2. i haven't read any of the previous posts yet, but i WILL say, that this is the LAST time i come to this site..no co-op? did COD:mw have co-op? or bioshock?? no...do you think bioshock 2 will??? no, but will it get scored done? again a resounding NO! why did the 'reviewer' keep comparing it to halo or GEoW? cant it be judged on its OWN merits? i honestly can say, that i think this is a deliberately berating 'review' in order to garner more hits...and to think i used to hold this site in high regard..never again
(good riddance) :evil: Really looking forward to this, my brother's pre-order this a few weeks back and I can't wait.
Hearing that there's no co-op is a bit of a shame, I was looking forward to blowing away some Helghast with my bro but oh well. :?
P.S. I haven't got it yet, but in Gears 2 you can "launch mortars at a Brumak".. ****. Me. :D and why is that. seeing as your not biasd in any way :roll: » :lol: Mark, you never cease to impress with your hypocrisy,just what on earth do you want??Not everyone has to agree with ps3 fanboys OK.And please for the love of God start behaving your age and not like some 13 year old Sony zealot!!!Thanks My god, I've never seen such venomous bile in quite some time. Saddo fanboys crawling out from everywhere! It wasn't even a bad score- I think there was a similar mass CVG grilling when the review for MGS 4 rolled in which wasn't quite as high as some people's expectations (Still a great score though).
To be honest I've been expecting a score like this- what it does it does very well and it looks nice (Though still think it looks a bit bland design wise), though maybe in a market over saturated with shooters, the only thing that it does best is be a graphical showcase. At least it got a better score than the original killzone!
Maybe CVG are wrong- that's no excuse to fly off the handle- it's a frikkin' game not the end of the world.
If you don't like it then sod off. Simple. If this were a review of Killzone2 on the 360, then the reviewers would be foaming at the mouth on how groundbreaking it is, and that it's the reason why the 360 is the only console to own in 2009 blah blah blah.
Because it's on PS3, then they have to find something bad about it (which in the end, are points that can equally apply to COD4, yet never even get mentioned).
CVG clearly have to downplay KZ2 to keep their number one advertiser happy (MS), and that clearly sucks... AHHHGH! Stop all the voices.. does it really matter what CVG's bottom line score is?? Any review with typos in can't be too trustworthy ;-) Nice fair review there I think =]
And to people who say that CODWOW and Halo 3 and GOW2 have no co-op, I think you'll find they do.
Halo 3 has 4 player campaign co-op, CODWAW has 2 player co-op and 4 player on nazi zombies, GOW2 has 2 player co-op on the campaign and I think 4 players in horde mode. For once, I agree with you! :shock: Why do they keep comparing KZ2 to GEARS2?
Not only that they way overrated GEARS2, you can't even play the game online it's so broken. That tells you right there how accurate their reviews are. Any site that scored GEARS2 over a 90 with broken online didn't play it enough. Wow. It seems even I overestimated this game. I don't think that this site is biased, but so what if it was. Most people that post who have both consoles say they prefer the 360. Do you think that just because the PS3 is a gaming console it deserves the same respect that the 360 has earned? And stop being so offended when a non official site does not rate your game as high as the sites that are run by Sony. I'm glad someone has said what they really think about the game. No co op is a cop out for this type of game, although it should not affect the score. CVG = Poo 8.7 for a game with the best online multiplayer I've ever played.
CVG are blowing Microsoft truncheon
http://www.geekologie.com/2007/10/04/microsoft-sign.jpg **** me! do you respect your washing machine as well? So is CVG or MSoft to blame here? I bet you respect yours after you have been sitting on it. »»
That'll be the day that satan ice skates to work. "Spectacular from start to finish." That equals an 8.7? :? *sigh* The Internet makes me sad
Reveiws are the subjective veiws of ONE person who plays the game and lets you know how THEY feel about their time with the game and inform you on THEIR good/bad times in the game. Use your own head people and read multiple reviews to see if the good/bad points are featured in the majority of the reviews out there.
Oh and the lack of Co-op is a completly valid reason to lower the score of a game, especially in this day and age of games like Halo, Gears (1&2), Resistance (1&2), CoD, Left 4 Dead it seems a shame to have a battlefield full of soldiers, some of whom are with you the whole time by all accounts and not be able to take over at least one of them to fight along side friends. I strongly disagree. A game should be judged on the quality of it's content. If devs chose to leave a feature out or cut something that should not affect the score really. Since when has multiplayer or co op become mandatory requirements for shooters? I ask this because some of you act as if they are.
That said, can you even really say that they lowered the score just because there is no co op? They mentioned a few more shortcomings they had found. They said the single player campaign was less than 7 hours long and that the weapons were not balanced, had any strategical use, and complained that ammo was too plentiful. As far as the campaign is concerned. And 8.7 isn't a bad score, and the enemy AI sounds amazing. Iv played a 3 level demo of it and can honestly say i was a little dissapointed.
The AI and graphics are pretty good but nothing amazing.
It wont be a challenging title in future thats for sure, and by christmas this title will be gasping for a new lease of life.
And for all the sony fan boys out there throwing there hands over the co-op option - i think a lot of people wish it was co-op, purely because the ps3 lacks any decent FPS with a co-op at all.
So i guess theyre going to have to make another MGS now to make up for it ? =P ROLL ON I SAY So if they gave it another .5 and said 9.2 that would make it alright? great score, its actually got me more interested in this now as those 92-100 scored games are always overhyped and rated Of course you are familiar with the term "astroturfer". Many of those posters are just that, Paid Microsoft Shills posting in forums as grass roots gamers to fool others. On a PS3, yes. On a 360 it's a 9.8 The 8.7 score on CVG doesn't matter to me, but as others pointed out, the negatives are plain stupid and makes no sense.
I'm losing all my hope in CVG, I'm visiting it less and less. That and all the stupidity in the comments. The only thing that keeps me still have a little bit of respect for CVG is the fact that they chose Deus Ex as the THE best game ever. But that's not enough I guess. :?
Shame on you CVG. Shame on you. 8.7 is a good score, I'm quite sure even the might Gears of War 2 got a few 8's and it didn't mean it was a poor game. Lets face it no one was ever going to buy this game on the strength of CVG's review. Some of the comments in the review are just plain stupid eg its a downer that you never have to change weapons but it's a plus point that weapon stockpiles are positioned at regular intervals in levels make sure you can keep your gun of choice for most of the game. The review says there are no OMG moments yet the PSW review (which was actually more critical) states that the end sequence was the best they've ever seen. Another reviewer claimed he played the final level for 5 hours straight and loved it.
The review comments on the multiplayer but as the servers aren't online yet the review can only have played against the bots.
Read all the downers they have for the game, you know there's not one that's going to put you off. The co-op issue was actually brought up as a "downer" that does't mean that they've taken 5% off the overall score as a result. Let's be totally honest here, co-op would have been fantastic on this game and for me the fact that it doesn't have it is a bit of a downer!
I notice people are still bleating on about the fact that CoD4, Bioshock, Half Life etc. didn't have co-op but still got good scores. Well lets face it the atmosphere and story of HL2 and Bioshock would not be suitable for co-op. As for CoD4, well as I've said before we're talking about a game that is a few years old now and co-op wasn't as regularly implemented in FPS (R6V maybe being the exception). Times change and so do gamers expectations. are you serious? multi player has been mandatory in shooters for years, since at least the release of quake 1. i agree that co-op is mandatory now too, i think people come to expect it in their shooters, at least on the 360 with gears 1, 2 and halo 3. the fact that the games listed have the feature surely means they get a few extra points? its a bit like dancing on ice, you get points for doing the required elements. As has been said several times it didn't hurt Bioshock or COD4 93 now with 80 being the lowest score. if you look most scores are 90 with some stupidly high scores that to me look like being more biased than the cvg one. if a game is rated around 9/10 is that a big deal? also, it averages lower than halo 3 but that doesn't mean halo 3 is better as to make a direct comparison like that would require some sort of normalisation. 87 is not a bad score and means that it is worth buying, after that nothing else matters. they are over a year old now, probably almost 18 months and times are a changing or have changed. They're not as old as Halo 3 or Gears or War. I reckon the most likely reason for the lack of co-op is going to be the set pieces. I've heard that there are some really good ones and co-op can spoil it. If both players don't reach the trigger point at the same time, either one needs to wait around (be blocked from advancing) or the second misses it or gets teleported to it (a la Gears 2). That spoils the experience so I can fully understand why it was missed out.
But they haven't denied it could be added later. 87% isn't a bad score though, but I agree with whoever said on page one that you should be judging what you played and not what you didn't. It won't stop me picking up a copy. I think you may be confusing mandatory with expected. Co-op is not a given, it just makes the game more fun. this is pathetic and so sided. fire the reviewer, cuz this unbelievable score is not even close to be fair Reading through some of the posts on here I wonder why some people do visit this website if they feel so strongly that it has a bias towards MS? :shock:
Back onto KZ2 though. The game looks fantastic, I must admit to being a little weary about the game initially (let down by the original) but the Devs seem to have pulled a rabbit out of a hat. I think most PS3 Gamers are going to buy this game and probably a few are going to buy a PS3 just to play it.
So to the people crying about a review score, did I miss something and they gave it a 6.8 or 7.1? I must have misread the score as surely all this hysteria cant be for a game with just a smidgen off of a 9? Probably because they've posted the review through most of the gamesradar network. You don't have to log onto CVG to read it, you can read it on the PSW and PSM sites. I did not know that. So could some of the people posting one here be doing so through those sites you say? It would make a bit more sense. Ouch! only 8.7, maybe one for the bargin bin wrong, bioshock preceded halo 3 and cod 4 was 2 months after which means it was pretty much finished when halo 3 shipped. you can try to pick holes if you want but i think co-op is expected these days and games that have it should be marked up and as games cant get more that 100% other games without could be marked down. »
technically nothing is mandatory in a game as the designer can make what they want. imagine buying a bmw without air con, it isn't mandatory but also imagine the uproar. in the same breath some people wont mind that it isn't there but the reviewer would need to point it out so the consumer is aware. they call it the best FPS on ps3. it has the best graphics out. i know the beta reactions were nothing but glowing. their review was glowing.
but it seems to marked it down below 9 for some hidden agenda. its the perception. below 9 means its not stellar, or thats its not overly special. which i dont think is true of this game.
they justify the below 9 with -
no coop
same name enemies
you dont need to change gun
what the ****?! Last time i checked 8.7 is still a good score. The lack of Co op was commented upon because you are in a squad for the best part of the game, so why can't you add a second player as a squad member.
I think it has more than likely demerited .2 of the score tops.
The reason that you can't have a second player though is probably that it would cut frame rates quite a lot. The games so graphically impressive that too players might have hindered that.
Weapon changing is a matter of play style in all games. I ran through pretty much the whole of gears with a sniper rifle and a lancer.
Damn you sonyboys annoy me. You tell everyone else how much of a Failure Gears and Fable 2 were for getting similar scores and then bitch and moan when Sony exclusives get similar.
Its still looks like an epic game and this score isn't going to stop those of you that are interested in it playing and enjoying it. tell you what.. you happily go and play a coop game if it's that big a deal to you, the rest of us will give KZ2 a blast. ... and so the backlash against the internet hype for KillZone 2 begins.
KillZone 2 is a shooter, not a cure for cancer and it should be reviewed on its merits for what it is, not for what it isn't.
I'm really not surprised at all to see CVG give KillZone 2 the lowest score on the net with 8.7 / 10. That is the same typical CVG bias against the PS3 I noticed over a year ago and it's what urged me to start posting here. It is clear though that everyone has their own opinion. Every minority needs their own little space to shine and this minority is for the XBots.
Let me be clear in how easily I can pick apart this CVG review. CoD4 is also available on the PS3 - it did not have co-op, it had a 1p campaign of 5 - 6 hours, it had no boss battles - just a series of stand-off's and the multi-player mode whilst excellent is not as good as KZ2, nor are CoD4's graphics as good. There's no logical explanation for CoD4 (a truly excellent game - better than CoD5) being given a significantly better review score than KZ2. CVG states in this review that KZ2 is the best FPS on the PS3, yet CoD4 scored higher. I cannot even be bothered to look for the CoD5 review score, nor look for any other PS3 FPS scores - or even X360 FPS reviews on this site. It is the worst kind of reviewing.
I've long since left this site behind and would recommend others who are fed up with it to look elsewhere. Places like N4G at least link to lots of sites & reviews. N4G does a much better job of providing independent views of what a game is really like. If you're pro-PS3, you can't do worse than reading a site like PSU.com. If you're pro-360, you'll do fine staying here.
Anyway, make up your own minds - I'm sure you will, but those of you who after playing KZ2 - don't agree with this score should think hard about what this site and the XBot residents try to make you swallow. Think about why you're arguing on these forums every day and think about the cause you're keeping alive by posting here.
Those of you who'd like to keep in touch, chat about games or otherwise send the odd hate message (all appreciated, but not necessarily reciprocated) can e-mail me at lordvonps3@gmail.com Everything you have just said is utter shite! I have just re-read the review and I don't know why people are so hung up on the score as the text is was really matters and it gives me the impression that the game is very good in single and multi player but perhaps a bit samey and without any stand out sequences. Your leaving the site because Killzone 2 is an overhyped FPS?
Another FPS in a world full of FPS's? i am happy for you to do that and i recommend you do as the review indicates an excellent game. i am just defending what i think is a well balanced review, i am not poo pooing kz2 as if i had a ps3 i would get asap as i have read the review not just the score. »»
That is some what true. I still don't think it is something to be expected out of every game. Like you said the developers will make what they want. Or probably in most cases, they make what they can. Maybe they made the game and never intended on incorporating co-op. Or maybe they tried and hit a wall some where along the way and scrapped it. You don't judge a game based on something that isn't there, at least in this case. You take the single player campaign and compare it to others in the genre. You do the same for multiplayer and co-op as long as they actually have these modes.
I know it has been said before but take Bioshock. It is a single player experience only. No multiplayer of any kind. I think that we can agree that multiplayer is pretty standard in FPS games and has been for a while. But the fact that Bioshock lacked online play didn't hold it back. And I agree with what is said before, a game should be judged based on the content it does have.
Also, an 8.7 is an excellent score. It isn't as if it was scored so low that it would turn anyone away from getting this title. Some of you really need to relax. Last gen, I'd give games that rated 6 and lower a try and I found a few that I really enjoyed a lot. And that is all that counts. Anyone here ever heard of a PS2 game called Way of the Samurai? At least, that's what I think it was called. Not a highly rated game, but I still enjoyed it a lot. great fair review, what I expected from CVG.
I love FPS games and 8.7 means I'm gonna enjoy it a lot and is a great reason to drop my xbox controller for a change. Might regret sticking my head into this one but I think this review or to be more specific, the score, is perfect support for why review scores and therefore, metacritic, should be abolished altogether. Preferably in an Act of Parliament.
The review on its own clearly reads like this is one of the best games on any system but then the guy has to stick a number on it and the flame war from hell begins. If he has marked it down for lack of co-op then yeah, that sucks, but the review is very good and sums up the game well. All scores are doing is putting pressure on developers and reviewers and it's ultimately bad for gaming. I would just prefer a site, like metacritic, where you can go and read the reviews but without the scores. I remember Edge tried it once but it wasn't at all popular so I guess I'm in the minority. Oh well. D-a-m-n! Their still at it! I hope one day when these angry kids grow up they can look back and laugh. If they ever grow up that is...
And please for the love of god, listen to Lordvonps3 fanboys- migrate to another site if you want to kiss Sony's collective buttocks. If CVG are so under the MS thumb then why didn't Ninja Gaiden 2/Too Human/Banjo Kazooie get perfect scores?
(With 90% of the lunatics gone maybe we'll get to talk about games instead of the constant and laughable console 'War')
That's my rant over. Thankyou. It's a shame this review got hung up on it as well and didn't spend more time talking about what's actually in the game than what's not in it. If you stick at this game with only one weapon you will never finish it, that's clear even from the preview videos. Entirely missed in this review. It might be a bloody good score but it's still a poorly written review that feels rushed. A little effort would have been nice. »
I agree again. I don't have a PS3 either, but if I did I'd pick this title up immediately. I also think the review seems to be pretty balanced. Can't say for sure because I've not played the game. I was just saying that marking a game down for no co-op isn't right imo. Not saying that this is what the reviewer did, njust in general. I look forward to that day. *Flings out rescue rope*
*Tries to bring MrPirtniw back to reality*
In an ideal world it would happen. This isnt an ideal world. :( ****in gimp.
we need to expect that from someone who calls The Darkness and Riddick "very good games". retard. Wow, that's an OK score for some low profile game, but for a supposed flagship PS3 title - ouch! Guess that's the final nail in the PS3's coffin. :cry: »
They are "VERY GOOD GAMES" IMO anyway,that was relevant to the Starbreeze/Bourne discussion.
Is that all you can come back with,you shouldnt call people retards,your never know when you might get hit by a bus and become one yourself.
Thats my fantasy for you anyway,your fantasy for me involves me in a gimp suit,doesnt it cockbreath? But you talk as though this was just thrown together yesterday.
It's been in development for a LONG time, long before those other games were released, and if they hadn't planned on coop from the start they can't just drop it in half-way through the development cycle. It would more than likely break something and have people bitching even more.
As has been said, if a shooter like Bioshock, with no coop or multiplayer at all can be scored on what is actually there rather than what isn't then why can't this?
As for the review itself, 8.7 isn't exactly a bad score, and who in their right mind is going to base their purchasing decision on one solitary score in a sea of reviews anyway?
A review is one man's opinion... Opinions differ, this thread is proof of that. Read a few and make your own mind up.
Seems to me that most of the people moaning had already made up their minds to buy this long ago and are only reading the reviews to try and validate their own opinion.
This exact same thing happened before all over the internet when some places marked Halo 3 down lower than expected and the fanboys were up in arms. »
They are great games. I think Starbreeze are somewhat under rated. Very talented studio in my opinion. People have been spouting that rubbish since before it launched. Can we not put the phrase to bed now?
Jesus. That coffin's been nailed more times than Tera Patrick according to this place. Or SVD-GRASSHOPPERS mum. That is a terrible analogy. Who would ever want to stop nailing Tera Patrick? Who said anything about stopping that? "CVG clearly have to downplay KZ2 to keep their number one advertiser happy (MS), and that clearly sucks..."
That's not true. We all know the Underworld film is their number one advertiser!
Re the review, I find it very difficult to get particularly hyped for any FPS now (my personal preference, doesn't mean I don't enjoy or play them). There is only so much you can do with the genre, and most differences between the top few will be down to personal preferences.
And having no co-op is a valid criticism for an FPS released in 2009. If it doesn't fit in with the story, then fine and that was the developers decision between narrative and options, but I still think it is valid as a lot (not all) FPS fans will expect co-op now and enjoy co-op more. I preferred playing co-op in GoW and Halo3 (online and off) to the standard single played story mode. What that knocks off the score (if anything) is debatable, as I wouldn't imagine it effects the MP deathmatch etc or SP at all.
Saying that developers can put what they want into a game is completely true, but then they can expect to be judged on what they put in/leave out and it's not going to positive 100% of the time.
I thought it would get a higher mark, from other reviews and previews, I was thinking early nines. But it still looks like an excellent, possibly the best to date, FPS. Enjoy it, even though not excited for an FPS I would still have bought it on release.
I'm going to miss all you guys who are now leaving CVG due to 360 bias. Seemingly all the multi format sites have exactly the same criticism levelled at it. Go to a PS3 site or something! Farcry2 for the PS3 was reviewed by CVG at the end of October, not even 3 months ago. It doesn't have co op, plays like a turd and got a 9.0. Co op or lack off isn't even mention in the review. What changed in 3 months to suddenly make co op a must have? Gears of War 2 was reviewd at the start of November. Co op is barely mentioned in the review and it's not mentioned in the list of uppers.
Would CVG even have noticed it didn't have coop if GG had not said a few weeks ago they weren't going to include it? LMAO - this is the most hilarious post I've read in years :lol:
Remind me again, how is 8.7 a bad score? This reminds me of the Dead Space 65/100 OXM US review. Now, I can see why people moaned about that, but quibbling about .5 to 1 point difference? Jeez, get a grip. It's one persons opinion, it's a good score. Deal with it. I've only just browsed this review now hence my abscence (looks like C&VG were trying to sneak this one out there while we were all snowed in)
F*cking cheek of them
Now we all know C&VG is in league with the beast but this review f*cking really does take the biscuit and smashes it over the back of your head
now I don't like shooty we all know that: but you can't pick & choose with it
halo 3 - 97
gears 2 - 93
Resistance 2: FoM - 80
Killzone 2 - 87
That is utterly shameless and obscene and whomever bashed these "reviews" out on his laptop while in the pub (clearly sozzled) is lacking integrity and morals
Now I'm not suprised CVGav with the direction you are taking this site
The mind-boggling hatred for Sony was always there. Do you remember when Dead or Alive 2 was released on Dreamcast and PS2 :?:
You gave the superior PS2 version 4/5, and the Dreamcast version 5/5 because "we felt it was a better achievement on the console at the time(Dreamcast)"
I suspect you wasn't the editor back then CVGav maybe it was a brother of yours or whatever, but what is clear is that was f*cking outrageous then and what you are doing is f*cking outrageous now
I let that old editorial team know exactly what I thought of them with a expletive ridden, foul F-bomb storm of a letter that I don't think they'd forget soon
So if your staff want the same continue your present action of antagonising Sony fans I've only just browsed this review now hence my abscence (looks like C&VG were trying to sneak this one out there while we were all snowed in)
F*cking cheek of them
Now we all know C&VG is in league with the beast but this review f*cking really does take the biscuit and smashes it over the back of your head
now I don't like shooty we all know that: but you can't pick & choose with it
halo 3 - 97
gears 2 - 93
Resistance 2: FoM - 80
Killzone 2 - 87
That is utterly shameless and obscene and whomever bashed these "reviews" out on his laptop while in the pub (clearly sozzled) is lacking integrity and morals
Now I'm not suprised CVGav with the direction you are taking this site
The mind-boggling hatred for Sony was always there. Do you remember when Dead or Alive 2 was released on Dreamcast and PS2 :?:
You gave the superior PS2 version 4/5, and the Dreamcast version 5/5 because "we felt it was a better achievement on the console at the time(Dreamcast)"
I suspect you wasn't the editor back then CVGav maybe it was a brother of yours or whatever, but what is clear is that was f*cking outrageous then and what you are doing is f*cking outrageous now
I let that old editorial team know exactly what I thought of them with a expletive ridden, foul F-bomb storm of a letter that I don't think they'd forget soon
So if your staff want the same continue your present action of antagonising Sony fans They probably will never have laughed as hard in their lifes. God, I hope they publish it :D tera patrick is a classless plastic ridden hound. anyone thinking that is nice is ****ed in the head. Make you wonder if there is any tread left on the tyres. nudge nudge wink wink .
@STD ARSEHOPPER. (see what i did there) Both the Darkness and Riddick are great games. They are FPS's that try to do something a little different and as licensed games they actually are well researched and work well with the source material for a change. You have a WAY over inflated opinion of yourself if you think they would be somehow affected by that. Ahahah.
I knew it. You crazy people. »
are u implying TP is nice?
and you have no right to be using family guy phrases. you come across as a spastic who is happy with anything life throws at you. ignorance is bliss though. enjoy yourself. killzone 2 got the same score as ARMY OF TWO.
going by that, kz2 will be utter tripe.
thats a ****ing disgrace. no matter what way you spin it.
seems like an attempt to bring down a flagship ps3 game. it plays and looks ten times better than that peice of pish. _Marty_ is correct.
I'll repeat myself one last time.
Suivaloom, others... If you want to make your point felt, hit them in the pocket and leave the site. The news is old, the reviews are late and the population is mostly XBox 360 focused. On topic - http://www.badassgamer.co.cc/2009/02/killzone-2-review-bias.html
See how many hits and annoying ad roll-over's CVG can muster with a skeleton crew of XBots all agreeing on the same point.
The less you fight these people & the less support you give CVG, the more difficult it is for them to find funding & cause to keep going with this pro-360 nonsense. We're in a recession, don't forget that.
So let's f*ck off, there are other battlefields to fight on...
... and XBots, I'll see you in hell. http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/270913946_efa38ec3d8.jpg »»
I wouldn't say No to Tera Patrick but I think i'd rather sit down and have a cup of tea with her though. I find talking to people with odd jobs like hers facinating. good to see that you are continuing the fantastic practice of treating the lady as merely an object, its what the porn industry thrives on. repressed degenerates like yourself.
I have every right to quote whatever the hell i feel like. If your somewhat uncultured brain missed is that i also quoted one of the more famous Monty Python scetches.
I don't know many other severly disabled people that post on gaming sites it's good to see that i've finally found a kindred ay spirit grass hopper.
If ignorance is bliss you must be in a constant state of Nirvana. (i am of course talking about the Hindu state of enlightenment Not the grunge rock band of the late 80/ early 90s that are named after them) »
_Marty_ is correct.
I'll repeat myself one last time.
Suivaloom, others... If you want to make your point felt, hit them in the pocket and leave the site. The news is old, the reviews are late and the population is mostly XBox 360 focused. On topic - http://www.badassgamer.co.cc/2009/02/killzone-2-review-bias.html
See how many hits and annoying ad roll-over's CVG can muster with a skeleton crew of XBots all agreeing on the same point.
The less you fight these people & the less support you give CVG, the more difficult it is for them to find funding & cause to keep going with this pro-360 nonsense. We're in a recession, don't forget that.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Man you crack me up. No one gives a shit. Rule 1 of the internet man.
No one cares. Your self important pompous wind blowing is always great though.
Keep reaching for that rainbow you crazy *******!!! tera patrick and lady. same sentence, "no me dont think so"
»
_Marty_ is correct.
I'll repeat myself one last time.
Suivaloom, others... If you want to make your point felt, hit them in the pocket and leave the site. The news is old, the reviews are late and the population is mostly XBox 360 focused. On topic - http://www.badassgamer.co.cc/2009/02/killzone-2-review-bias.html
See how many hits and annoying ad roll-over's CVG can muster with a skeleton crew of XBots all agreeing on the same point.
The less you fight these people & the less support you give CVG, the more difficult it is for them to find funding & cause to keep going with this pro-360 nonsense. We're in a recession, don't forget that.
So, err, how did you get on with Dead Space? :) i havent played fc2 due to some less than glowing reports from people that have played it. however, it strikes me as something that doesn't lend itself well to co-op but kz2 does and that was a point that was made, no-where in the review does it say it scored less because of this, it is just noted as a downer. look at it the other way, they only mentioned 4 items as uppers so how can it justify such a high score of 8.7?
people are clutching at straws on this, if it had co-op it may not have scored any higher but i guess we will never know.
now stop bitching and go and buy it, its sales that count the most. if you feel so strongly buy 10 copies as if it sells enough it will get a sequel! Would they? Who knows and who cares? FC2 was cack, didnt get that review score either.
All I was saying it that it's a valid criticism, not a massive one but it would be nice if it was in. Perhaps we have become spoiled and expect games to have it all. I'll do all my hate messaging through the forum posts thanks. :P On the Tera Patrick debate, I tend to agree with Mr Grasshopper, though I’m not sure he would expect any woman in the porn industry to be considered a ‘lady’ She’s not exactly going to be extending her picky whilst noshing you off, unless it was during a tromboning.
There are far better porn stars out there these days, though I know Tera had her day, she has been surpassed many times.
And me Lord, why not stay true to your convictions and go elsewhere, you have said your piece, now stand firm lest you be tainted by a weak willed brush! FC2 like the original was more of a case of a decent engine with a very mediochre game hanging off of it.
8.7 is a decent score its not like the .3 to make it to a 9 would of made any diffrence unless people are getting hung up on metacritic scores. Losers What? Someone on a blog noticed something and pointed it out? Never!
PS3 fans make me laugh and it the news is so old etc, then why are you here lord?
I suspect you love the rough and tumble of the forums as much as anyone! You should try the football forums on BBC site, now they are full of nutcases. Dont know if anybody has quite put their finger on why 8.7 is a bad score (by the way i feel it should have scored higher)?.
IMO, with the like of metacritic and gamerankings. If your gonna base a reveiw on what other games have or dont have, you have to compare it with every recent game in the genre.
Does the reveiwer beleive this game is better than say resistance2?. R2 getting an average of around 87, or 8.7.
Since he considers KZ2 the best FPS on the PS3, surely logic dictates a higher average score R2's.
Or did he just pull a number out his arse?. So now we can add "what makes a woman attractive" to grasshopper' "What I know more about than anyone else in the world" list, which so far includes:
- Gaming (obviously)
- Music
- Cars
- Comedy.
Even though these are totally subjective topics. I personally loved the fact that he called MONKEY 'ignorant' - now, that is the true epitomy of a hypocrite, if I ever did see one.
This thread is nuts. I only had a quick look due to the sheer amount of posts (I'm not an FPS fan and I don't own a PS3), but it's gone from pedantic posts about a .3 of a review score to LordVonPs3 picking up his football and crying to his mum, then on to Tera Patrick....mental.
Anyways, keep up the good work folks.
:wink: think we got a stalker here. and and its more what makes DOESNT a woman attractive; plastic tits and a plastic face. sad thing is they think they look good. disgusting. all natural please. I think that could describe quite a few people here.
Maybe we have to narrow the criteria somewhat.
-PS3
- Dance Music
- japanese cars
- Generic American Comedies.
In short someone with no personality whatsoever.
Why the hell would anyone stalk that! Before I even started reading this review I knew the score would be lower than 90, and not because of the supposed quality of the game. This score signifies that the game is no better than gears 1 or 2, not better than halo 1, 2 or 3, on a par with resistance 1 or 2 and certainly no better than left for dead. I'm sorry but I just don't beleive it. Maybe it's just that I am looking forward to this game, maybe it's that I have actually played all those other games or maybe it's just that almost every single other review of the game is more positive. We shall see come release day.
So the advice from CVG must be that if you want a decent FPS there are at least 4 better ones on the 360. "generic american comedies"
your a **** mate. stuff can be a generic as it likes. it only needs to be done in fine style.
because someone else was born first, and got there first, that means noone else can do it?!
dip-shit. I generally agree about fake titted women. She looked much fitter when she was natural.
Some people don't agree with us though grasshopper. Those ignorant *****. i think your post sums up the majority of peoples ignorance to do with scores. you cannot compare this score to games reviewed in the past it just doesn't work and games get reviewed by different people. if halo, halo 2 and gears were reviewed now they wouldn't get the same scores as things have moved on since their release. on the flip side if kz2 was released2 years ago the score for it would be much higher.
i think the review embargo has caused a belief that this game is amazing due to the high scores the, of course, unbiased official reviews are giving it. if you look at metacritic the most regularly occurring score is 90 (14 times - nearly 40%) so 87 from this site is pretty close to the average and yes i dont mean the 'mean'.
why does it matter if this game scores more or less than halo or any other game for that matter? 87 shows it is a good game that you should consider buying. if you need to choose between games read the review text of said games and take a pick to the one that appeals to you personally the most. i haven't got or even played gta4 yet even though metacritic has it at 98% or something because other titles took my fancy first that scored less. »
I didn't say that at all. But the whole family of four thing has been an american staple in sitcoms since the 50s. Just because something is generic doesn't mean it's bad just that its a tried and tested formula. The game this thread was originally about is a fine example of this.
Never said anything about older being better either. However jokes have a habit of getting old after a while, ehich is why i am more a fan of british shows than american ones as we have less of a tendancy of running them into the dirt.
I was just stating that generic american comedies were one of your interests.
However i think that substance has a lot more merit than style, Thats why i'm a big Kevin Smith fan, Guy shoots by the book but what the characters say and how they interact is what makes it great.
I agree with you about the natural thing though. Jordan was hot before she got all the plastic surgery, now she just looks like a freak.
****-rag. (thats right i can throw random insults at people too.) if your gonna start throwing random insults around, try and improve them please!
the only shite jokes in family guy/american dad came from your favourite season, the one the creator didnt write.
who cares if its a family of 4? plus its a family of 6. the meg and chris are pants in it. brian and stewey (and peter) are the best.
theres a reason stuff that gets branded "generic". cause its the best formula. examples which buck the trend just for the sake of it tend to be garbage.
use the template and improve. family guy has many nods to snoopy and the simpsons for example.. they dont try and hid the fact it is a "rip off". they rub it in their faces actually!
you wouldnt build a car with square wheels now, would you? Why should i bother coming up with interesting ways to insult you, You are not worth spending the miliseconds needed to come up with a quip that adequetly exemplifies how utterly pointless a creature you are.
I'm sorry dear chap but my favourite series of family guy are the 1st and 2nd which i assure you are definately written for the most part by the shows creator. If you weren't such a complete dingus you'd know that most shows are rarely ever written by thier creators for more than a couple shows per seaons and in the case of america they are genrally done by a commity of people, which in my mind dilutes whatever point the show was trying to make and becomes more a string of jokes than someones skewed take on life.
If you want to watch shows written by a man that has been consitantly funny for his entire career i suggest you go and watch anything by Graham lineham. In my opinion he's never put a step wrong although he does have the habit of recycling jokes from time to time. If you like referencial comedy i'd suggest going and watching the works of director Kevin Smith as he is far superior to Seth Mcfarlane.
Its clearly obvious that your idiocy know no bounds as although in family guy there are six main characters. I was talking about the formula of a family sit com which is parents, couple of kids and some kind of pet. Its been around from time in memorial. What family guy attempts to do is lampoon this to an extent but obviously comparisons between the honeymooners or leave it to beaver, hell even early simpsons would be completely wasted on you. So why bother.
If i were to build a car i wouldn't give it any wheels but first attempt to develop the technology to allow it to hover and then implement it into the cars design. Doing something revolutionary yet familiar rather than the same old shit just newer.
Then again you do love the PS3 so i guess you wouldn't understand innovation just tiny logical steps that don't get anybody anywhere. 8.7 is an awful result to give to game of this calibre (beta trails and the of average review scores). I dont think the response is down to fanboyism but I think there is a general concern to PS3 AAA titles. Sure LBP and MGS got big scores but LBP was fresh and MGS series has been around a while (show respect).
Try this test, guess the name of this game. A generic shooter comes along with great graphics, tatictal enemy A.I., set pieces, solid controls, improves on the original etc Is it Gears 2 or KZ 2? The only difference is the scores on CVG.
This looks like PS3 bias and co-op is no excuse, its not fundamental and the developers have done something others have forgotten about, pushing the next gen hardware to deliver next gen games. I disagree with the score but with reason not fanboyism. I'm dreading WKC's release as most JRPG's only score about 75-80% average nowadays. haha your a proper idiot.
im not worth a few milliseconds, yet go onto a lengthy spiel.
and if you made a car, it'd be well revolutionary - and you'd come out with an existing invention... the aeroplane.
the english language is expansive enough that its possible to make even the most stupid of arguments sound interesting and factual. people make a living out of it.
the only person your fooling here is yourself though mate. keep up the good work! Don't worry, I have every confidence that mark will be posting on websites that awarded the game 10 (100%). Can't be posting reviews that are 7% off of the average! Bias! Well this is the second lowest score on Metacritic out of 36 reviews!!
And a multiplatform site is most likely making them more money (through ads). You make it sound like this game is some how innovative. Strip away the great audio and supreme graphics and there isn't much left. Face it, KZ2 is as generic as Halo and Gears of War. While it may not be an innovative game i am sure it will be fun which i do believe is the purpose to play games in the first place, stop getting your knickers in a twist and enjoy it for what it is. This has been said before, for all the MS/Sony zealots clogging up the forums with this biased nonsense there is the door, it's not locked.
If I really thought this or any site was as biased as you obviously do, then shit I wouldn't go there, it's not exactly rocket science is it you **** wits.
Same old culprits even the so called :lol: impartial :lol: (cant even type it without laughing) ones. Christ I dont agree with a lot of the scores Journos give games but by christ I wouldn't spend a whole day crying about it.
Grow up enjoy your games no matter what system/s you own, getting hung-up on review scores etc is just wasting the time you should be gaming.
/me picks up soapbox and runs. Boo ****ing hoo. I still don't undstand why people have been expecting so much from this game? It's not like it was made by Valve or Bungie, which both get top marks for their games.
Killzone 2 was made by a developer that made Killzone, which from what I remember got some pretty average reviews. In my opinion, these devs are just not good enough to make a game of Half Life, COD 4 or Halo quality, so they focused on graphics. I still don't undstand why people have been expecting so much from this game? It's not like it was made by Valve or Bungie, which both get top marks for their games.
Killzone 2 was made by a developer that made Killzone, which from what I remember got some pretty average reviews. In my opinion, these devs are just not good enough to make a game of Half Life, COD 4 or Halo quality, so they focused on graphics. What the f**k? No co-op so 8.7? Since when was co-op a neccesity? The PS3 is 'net ready, so that shouldn't be a problem, and CoD4 or Half Life 2 didn't have coop either! Plus "Killzone 2 is the loudest blockbuster on PS3 and the first must-have FPS of 2009 for PS3 fans" Fans & not owners? I'm sensing a bit of bias here, especially the reference to the bland Halo 3 which was a dreary mess of back tracking, average gameplay and a barely changed FPS since the first. Its not the devs, Killzone was a good game but it fell short of its ambition due to hardware limitations, the sequel dosnt suffer the same problem. Like it or not Bungi made the generic Halo 3 too short and samey and it got rave reviews. KZ2 (going by other review and beta trials) blows its original out of water.
Its not the KZ 2 devs, they set out to make a great generic shooter (like Epic did with Gears 2 and Bungi with Halo) and they succeed in that KZ 2 is one of the best in its generic field. I think it was wrong to use that against KZ 2 in this review or for reasons of fairness the same should have applied to the Gears 2 review.
With the praise (graphics, cover system, A.I. etc) given to this game by the reviewer the faults (lack of co-op, samey enemies etc) seem minor for the harsh difference in scores between it and games like Gears, Halo and COD (if COD Mordern Warfare 2 has samey enemies then it will be disappointing by equal measure). You wouldn't want to compare it with my scores on Halo 3 and Gears 2.(purely from a SP perspective)
8 for Gears
7 for Halo 3
Not to say there was anything wrong with them but thats my thoughts on them. »nice
how did we get to phrases like that?
and yea tera patrick is hot (more points pre boob job though) »
I wouldn't mind finding out personally.
And in Riddik's case it was far far better than the source material. Except they got higher than 90 scores on this site. :roll:
For me it isn't about the actual score. It's about where this game has been placed in comparison to other reviews. Halo 3 better than Killzone 2? I very much doubt it. It's a positive review, with a slant. Anyway it's what I expected not the end of the world I'll put it out of my mind till I've played and completed the game for myself to decide who is talking sh*t. take an example, half life averages 96 on metacritic as does half life 2 but hl2 is way better than the first one. the scores indicate peoples perceptions at the time of review and as time goes on perceptions change. halo 3 was reviewed what 18 months ago, so if it were to be reviewed now it would get less and there is no doubting that unless the dev changed it somewhat. why do you have to know where kz2 stands in comparison to halo 3, what is it going to get you? why dont you wonder where kz2 stands in comparison to doom or crysis or half life? Damn it must be a really slow day for me to be continuing this but anyway...
Yes it was a lengthy speil logically addressing everyone of your previous points.
You obviously have absolutly no idea how any form of mechanical travel works. Last time i checked Aeroplanes didn't hover, and weren't any way releated to cars. At worst what would be devised would be a hovercraft. And we all know that the jams on the roads at 5pm are caused by single man Planes. hmmmmmm.
You never watched Blade runner or read any kind of science fiction. Thought not, there weren't enough pictures and explosions. And any kind of discussion about what makes someone human would be completely lost on you.
You really do amuse me with your utter lack of intelligence.
I am aware of how truely wonderful the english language is and i do make some of my money from it. It is also true that it can be used creatively to hide a multitude of sins. However i think what you have is more of a lack of understanding for what i wrote rather than an actual point. However i think anybody would find it a challenge to write in simple enough terms for you to understand.
I'm not kidding myself. This is the internet, and as such everything i write will be riddiculed, and ignored and occasionally agreed with and applauded.
Thats just the nature of free and open debate and i like it that way.
The patients have taken over the asylum! Well said my man. I've said similar in my last two posts but I fear your logic is falling on deaf ears. If we went down the route of "better than the last game then add 5-10% then the ratings would rise above the 100% mark. »
I'm with you guys. I remember when Turok 2 got 97%... 97%? F**k off. That's just the nature of the beast. You should be grateful the 360 has such a good shooter as Halo 3 and that GG have finally given PS3 owners a game that's as good. Maybe now Microsoft will put the Halo franchise to some decent use and forget about that Halo MMO. Recently it was looking like Microsoft were about to flog the Halo cash cow to death. They might think twice about it now and therefore every one wins. cant wait to play some team deathmatch on this, all my mates have 360's so we're creating chat partys on the 360 to get round the bad chat quality on the ps3 to have best chat quality possible coupled with possibly the best shooter, best of both worlds, cant wait!!!! :D :D :D :D Waaaaa, waaaa, waaaa, what a bunch of little crybabies!
Did it not occur to y'all that the reason this game didn't score as highly as Halo and Gears is perhaps...wait for it...because it just simply ain't as good! :o
Whilst many of the fanboys would argue that the Halo series has slowly gone downhill (and I concur) it must be understood that the first game provided a strong foundation for what was to follow. Killzone 1 provided no more than a few hours of blandness and to make it worse Sony didn't learn from their mistakes.
You can't polish a turd!
...and that is one of the important lessons these kids need to learn. If you start with a poor vision then the fruits you reap will be withered and shrunken - not unlike Sony's profit margin.
Now let's take a look at the actual review...
From reading the desperate posts of fanboys like svd_asshopper it is rather apparent that there are some bitter grapes surrounding the lack of co-op in this game. Now, I'm not disputing that it's another nail in Killzone's coffin but it's ludicrous to say that the game would've scored as well as say Gears had this been fixed.
It actually states quite clearly that the enemies are somewhat repetitive. Gone are the grunts, brutes and elites of Halo. Instead we are left with "near-indistinguishable, orange-eyed enemies."
They also state that there are no jaw-dropping moments on offer - actually doffing their cap to the splendid scarab encounter in Halo 3.
We could then go on to talk about the "utterly and instantly forgettable" enemies on offer or the fact that "KZ2's weapons don't really come together to form any kind of system."
In fact, I think the review has been pretty generous on the whole. :wink: yep... why else would they have pushed it back to the start of the review items.. there were newer items which shoved it down a few places yesterday.. they seem to have rectified that!
how on earth can they justify giving KZ2 the same score as ARMY OF TWO?!
eh cvg? EXPLAIN!!!! so what are harrier jump jets? they dont hover??
or are you gonna invent a whole NEW type of hover propulsion system. you are clever, aint ya fella? The patients have taken over the asylum have they? :shock:
*prepares poking stick*
:lol: If we assume that over time games get better and therefore the a game with 90% now and 90% eighteen months ago are not the same then it's encumbent on the reviewer not the reader of the review to determine the amount of improvement over games of yesterday. The criticisms of the game and the lower than Halo 3 score would give anybody trusting the word of the reviewer that Halo 3 is better than Killzone 2 and that's plain as day in my opinion.
Here are snippets from the review that would lead people to assume Killzone 2 is no better than older games.
"Games like Gears and Halo or even the age-old Quake III Arena force you to choose different weapons for different situations and strategies.
KZ2's weapons don't really come together to form any kind of system. You're either a rifle man, or a shotgun man..."
"The list of multiplayer modes is fairly mundane - deathmatch, CTF and the like. As a package it's far short of something like Halo's impressive roster modes and matchmaking options."
"There are a couple of boss fights to break things up, too. We won't spoil those for you, but we will say that none of them, not even the final boss, will truly blow you away. There isn't really any standout 'OMG' moment like taking out a Scarab in Halo 3, or launching mortars at a Brumak in Gears 2."
So even if we assume that Killzone2 is on a par with Halo3 you would then have to assume that review scores become 10% harder to achieve every 18 months.
Of the 4 mentions that 360 shooters get in the review 3 of them are slanted against Killzone2 and the other is neutral. If Killzone 2 had better graphics, physics, storyline, animation, then you wouldn't know it from this review but where it compares unfavourably over other shooters we are told in great detail.
Like I said, it's not about the actual score it's the slant and the comparison to other shooters that I find hard to justify. Had Halo, Gears and Left for Dead all got lower scores I would have little problem with this review.
Is it just me? Seriously, can you not see my point? So at Metacritic the average score is 9.3 (at the mo) where 20% of the reviewers dislike it and the 80% do. And the 20% that are complaining are moaninng about lack of co-op (yet we didn't see that option in COD4, Bioshock or HL2?) or lack of squad control (Did Halo, Gow2 or Resistance 2). So why complain about things that aren't there? It's like moaning for the sake of moaning. We could see in future reviews such ridicoluous comments such as, Resi5 would had been so much better if it didn't have co-op mode. Or in Gran Turismo 5 some smart Alec says 900 cars is not enough or Halo 4 should had been 20 player co-op running at 1080p. I think it's time for biased reviewers that live in cuckoo land to be sacked. Get fresh blood in that review what's there and not moan about what's not there. If reviewers go down the 'but what if' route journalism will lose it's integrity and it's reader. Sorry I'd like to amend my last comment. On metacritic 36 of the 38 reviews have scored Killzone 2 above 90%. Only 2 of the reviewers have given it less than 90%... sadly CVG is one of them. What's going on CVG?! what a wanker. talk about "desperate"
why are you giving a massive passage about a game which DOESNT CONCERN YOU?!!
cant polish a turd. its been done here! 94% over 37 reviews!!! including this shambles of a review.. which fails to pull it down! im sure 35 proffesional reviewers have been overcome with insane hype... stop clutching at straws you loser, and get back to your xbox, since you cant play this, why are you commenting?(seething)
i dont use co-op in CoD5 cause its guff. humans racing humans to see who can kill pre-programmed, predictale BOTS first. its nonsence.
so is CoD4 "broken" as you say cause it doesnt have co-op? no, its twice the game of the co-op enabled world at war.
CoD4 has a great SP and amazing MP. thats all the bases covered.
SP is played slowly and methodically. why would you want some live players to tag along?! its already easy enough as it is!
MP is played faster and is more action packed, also chasing down and killing humans cant be compared to killing bots, especially when you already know where theyre gonna pop out from.
the teamwork in MP is rewarding.
wheres the reward for doing something you could have easily done yourself (and already have done!)
co-op is for show offs!!!
the real co-op IS ONLINE... versus other humans!! I'm fairly sure CVG are just ignoring the hype and reviewing what they see in front of them.
I would be interested to see how EDGE rate the game. I usually agree with their appraisals. I've been disjointed by this review but I'm aware that I haven't played it yet. Come thursday and the demo, everyone will know if the review is accurate or not. Seconded. If Edge review the same as CVG then I would be inclined to trust the score. I'd encourage others to do the same, Edge rarely get it wrong. BY 3 F**KING PERCENT. Get a grip. its the perception. 9 and above is stellar.
they gave army of two 8.7, thats a stellar title isnt it?
KZ2 has the best graphics on any system, solid single player and solid and expansive multiplayer. anyone who played the beta said its as fun as CoD4.
worth at least a 9 for that. »
Never played it, so no idea. Though personally, if a game I'm interested in gets 8/80%+, it becomes a must buy for me.
I really don't see what people's issues are here. Er...how the heck am I desperate, asshopper?
You're the one who's been bawling like a bairn throughout this thread and just wrote a page trying to justify the low score given to this game. Sounds more like you're the desperate one!
Why would I be desperate with the plethora of AAA* shooters available on the 360? :D »»
it got 8.7 on here... so why havent you played this "must have" title?
could it be... its SHITE?!
giving KZ2 the same score as this tripe is an insult. then **** off back to them, please!
i dont comment in 360 reviews you little troll spastic.
(and get your own jokes half-wit) »»
Seriously Marty, Army of Two is w*nk. Army of Two...is that what they call Voodoo and svd_asshopper nowadays? :P 05/03/08 Army of Two(PS3) - CVG score: 8.7
01/02/09 Killzone 2(PS3) - CVG score: 8.7
Army of Two Metacritic score : 74
Killzone 2 Metacritic score : 94
01/02/09 - The day C&VG lost all credibility and a great deal of its readership »»»
It may well be (like I say, I've never played it). And let's be honest, there have been numerous review injustices over the years. However, is giving 87% to a game that *you believe* to be a 90+% game an injustice? Really?
Besides, as has been pointed out time and again, a review is one persons opinion, and nothing more. Maybe the reviewer really rates co-op play highly, and so saw it as a big negative towards KZ2. Who knows, and frankly, I'm surprised the reviewer hasn't turned up to justify his scoring in some way. Either way, it's not the end of the world - and nor is an 87% score.
Most people that are moaning about it though are those that haven't played it AT ALL, or have at least only played a tiny bit of it, and decided that the review is completely unfair... tl;dr forum posts
By raising the bar in graphics, I am assuming you mean for the consoles?
If by graphics in general does the graphics in this game look better than Crysis? Last time I heard it had set the bar. 87% oh my god what a crap game :roll: Im sure all the CVG staff are gutted,i say sarcastically.
Doesnt it say "First must have shooter of 09",that not good enough for you?Gamespot gave MGS4 a 10 out of 10 didnt they,i remember you were happy with that.
Gamespot are not rushing their review of KZ2 because they say the multiplayer is 'Complex'
Could be a new home for you. All I can say to this comments section is...
What.The.****.
Morons. It says "First must have shooter of 09 for PS3 fans..." also says "best FPS on ps3"
as in period.
im sure there are other ps3 shooters that score better than 8.7 on cvg, isnt there?!
any game that provides a real WOW factor shouldnt be below the 90% mark. and thats that. Both Resistance Fall of Man games scored 8. You guys crack me up everytime.
It's a review, opinion. If you don't like it, ignore it, buy the game and formulate your own opinions.
If it has put you off buying the game, fair enough. Stop bitching about it. Rise of the Robots? This review is the greatest piece of flame bait in the history of internet journalism. Advertising revenue over content quality, is the new way forward at CVG towers.
http://www.vgchartz.com/photos/pics/8997883aaa.jpg Vampire Rain had 2 'WOW' moments for me.
The first was that it was a really cool idea.
The second was that it was so utterly unplayable that is was laughable.
With two 'WOW' moments, this should have scored 95%+ right? :roll: I don't think most of us are complaining about the score CVG gave KZ2. It's more to do with the fact that CVG moaned about features that weren't present in the game and it's a contrast to the large majority of reviews out there. If CVG is part of the 2% to 5% of reviewers that gave KZ2 a score less than 90% are you agreeing with them and saying the other 98% - 95% are wrong? So for example, out of 100 people surveyed 2 said it was average whilst the other 98 said "wow - amazing - give it a go". You'd rather go with the 2 and ignore the mass? Boy you are special (needs!). Anyway, well done CVG! You got the forum worked up :wink: »»
Agree with you on must buy being 8+. Ninja Gaiden 2 received mainly 8's including one from this site.
I just bought the game on day one, never bothered coming onto the forums and complaining about another individuals opinion on it. I prefer my own example. A review is someones opinion. And opinions aren't wrong or right. You can disagree with an opinion, but it doesn't automatically make them wrong and you right.
You HAVE to expect some amount of variation in reviews. Not everyone likes the same things (and what a dull world that would be). To state someone could be considered 'wrong' for liking or not liking something that the vast majority feel differently about is grossly unfair. And at this point I'd like to state, yet again, that we're talking about a 3% variable... Round the 8.7 up to 9 if it makes you feel better. In fact, if you convert percentage scores to an 'out of 10' table, I'd suggest that 96%+ would be 10/10, and 86-95% would be 9/10.... So I say again - WHY IS EVERYONE MOANING???
As for them moaning about features not present in the game, how is that a bad thing? If people don't state the things they dislike about a game, or wish it had included, how is the dev supposed to know what to do with the sequel? The real question here is, did the final mark suffer (i.e. get reduced) because of the lack of certain features... You claim they've lost a great deal of its readership, yet all you whiners are still here? You are right to some extent but your logics means that you ought to also ask did the score of this game suffer because of comparisons with other games. If it did then isn't it encumbant on the reviewer to say what is better in it than other games rather than just picking holes in it.
So for instance New Super Mario bros is better than Super Mario bros and it's worse than Mario Galaxy, many reviewers do this already. id have scored them less than that... your point? That would always happen with sequels though. Super Mario Sunshine being a classic example of this. And Majoras Mask/Wind Waker/Twilight Princess.
Lets be frank, the big hoohah is mainly down to the fact that a big PS3 game was negatively compared to two big Xbox360 games. Did people go nuts when DMC4 was compared with Ninja Gaiden, or when Dead Space is compared with Resi 5, or X driving game compared to Y driving game? If these comments had been made about a multiplatform release, this article would have received about 5 comments stating 'I can't wait to try this'. Dead Space has been compared to Resident Evil 5 on this site. I presume you mean within reviews?
If the reviewer thinks KZ2 is no better than Halo3 then he should have said it. As other people have said, the criticisms of the review are not solely on it's scoring but also on it's content.
Marty are you happy to let Edge have the last word on this like me? Yeah, 8.7 is a quite a bit lower than I was expecting going by other reviews, and giving it the same score as Army of Two like some have pointed out is strange (as that was very average in my opinion), but this is just CVGs opinion.
I think we should all make our own mind's up about it.
On a side note: Where is this million-pound marketing campaign for the game? I've not seen nothing yet? Could shift a few if Sony actually advertise it. Honestly? I couldn't care less. If Edge comes along and scores this 80%+ all it will do for me is solidify the FACT that Killzone 2 is a great game.
I really believe that many people here are making WAY too much of this. 87% is a great score. Simple as that. If Edge score it slighly less, slightly more, or the same, it won't change anything about the end result - which is, if you like FPSs and have a PS3, KZ2 is a must have purchase. Spoil sport. »
Spoli sport? Or realist? :wink: Truth be known I think it matters very little to these fanboys what score the game gets so long as it's getting lower scores than Halo.
Could have been awarded 95% and they'd still cry if Halo got 99%
:roll: I partially agree with this. I bet you that had this scored more than Halo 3, this thread would have just been full of gloating instead.
And no doubt when the next big 360 exlusive FPS comes out the same will happen there. Lots of 'this game is better than KZ2, so and so are so biased' or 'hah, this scored more than KZ2 - PS3 sux, Xbox rulez'...
<snore> "Probably the tastiest part of the Killzone Cocktail is the Multiplayer. Imagine if Call Of Duty 4 and Team Fortress 2 had a baby, which they then abandoned and as a result had to learn a few new tricks to survive. That's what Killzone Multiplayer is like." (G4TV)
haha, great quote. If you liked that quote so much I suggest you continue to go to that particular site to read news and reviews that 'you do actually like'.
My most hyped game this gen has been Alan Wake and when that game comes out if CVG decide to score it 87% I shall not be coming on here to cry and moan like a little baby.
If all the 'Gamers' (and I use that term loosely) on this site feel so strongly that CVG is bias in favour of MS (there have been loads of these comments recently) then just go to N4G or Gametrailers. I dont think the rest of us are going to miss your comments too much. Ps3 sucks, look at its 2 good games. All that power and 4 what, no co op thats what. Games are best played together every1 knows it, even u ps3 fanboys in your big circle jerk of life know it. Gears and halo rule, Killzone 2 does not. O Crikey, I haven't seen a 200+ story for a while! It's nice to have a good rant/debate about things that we are passionate about (regardless of age!) and this Killzone 2 review has definitely split opinion.
My gripe wasn't regarding the score, but how they got there. PSW has just reviewed the game and gave it an 8/10. Conversely, I understood the review and their score made a lot of sense, so it didn't rile me.
What puzzles me is, how do CVG give 87%? How do they come to that odd final number? It would be a lot less confusing for me (and others I'd imagine), if CVG gave a breakdown of their score.
Regardless of what people say, there was no need to mention 2 360 games to compare silly ommissions from Killzone 2. No Brumaks or Halo 'wow' moments? Sheesh. If I wanted those, I'd play Gears and Halo again.
I still stand by my previous comments. This was a review to stoke up hits, plain and simple. If you can't see that then you are blind.
And it worked.
Anyway, looking forward to getting my hands on the single player demo tomorrow. It's got to be better than the terrible Resi 5 demo. Now that has put me off buying the game! There were too many enemies to shoot using useless controls. Way too confusing and not much fun, in my opinion. It worked in Resi 4 because there were less enemies attacking you at once (for the most part) and you didn't have to worry about saving another character all the time. I completed Resi 4 on the Wii and loved it from start to finish, so I am puzzled as to why I didn't like Resi 5. Maybe it was the setting. The atmosphere was missing as I prefer creepy castles and graveyards in my horror games. Oh well.
Sorry for going off topic there... You make a very valid point. As of now I will never post on CVG again.
By the way I own about 60 games of most genres across 7 systems so if my gaming credentials are indicative of the category of "gamer" you refer to then I think we must be a broad range of people with varying tastes and interests. Though I suspect it's "our" views you dislike and by "views" I mean anything we say that you disagree with.
Goodby CVG, hello N4G. »
Dont go on my account :( . I was only getting at people who have been posting on here calling out the integrity of CVG and the articles and reviews they post(I dont think the Sun shines out of CVG's ar$e but to me they are one of the few balanced sites out there and the fact that its not over run by Americans helps :) ). If I visited a forum where I felt it had not integrity and couldnt trust the information I got from it, I would simply stop visiting that website.
To be honest starvinbull I hadnt noticed that you were someone that had been calling the integrity of this site into question, it was more aimed at a few who have been very vocal about this subject along with other things that annoy them.
I would hope no one would ever leave this site because of a post I made however if you want to go becuase you dont believe what you read here then I would not stop you.
*Probably one of the longest post Ive ever typed on here* . . What you stand by your previous comments of CVG is biased and MSoft has won? :lol:
100/100?
100/100??!!?!?
LMAO. So Killzone 2 is the best game ever made, and is perfect in every respect?
Hmm... Colour me dubious. I still stand by my assertion that Edge will be the decider. I have always been wary of these overemphatic American reviews and it further perturbs me that the one English review I have read scored the game in the 80's.
I kind of imagine this game to be another Red Faction. Quite solid but nothing stellar like Gears and Halo. The one English review? There you go
http://uk.ps3.ign.com/articles/950/950048p1.html
http://www.play-mag.co.uk/ps3/games/killzone_2/killzone_2.html
there's plenty of other ones out there, I'm sure someone as intelligent and open minded as you can find them for yourself. :roll: Only 8.7 time to go and cancel my imaginery pre-order... **** off kn*b-job.
what does that have to do with anything?
its a good quote - comes from the little snippet metacritic provides for each review beside their score, but i didnt read the whole review.
are people not allowed to disagree with your beloved CVG? even though theres plenty of evidence they were wrong. i.e. scoring it the same as army of two, which we all know is bollocks.
****ing ****. **** off dick head. your gonna have egg on yer face if your holy grail edge score it 8/10 or above. which is VERY likely!! this game is a lot of fun, which is a very important factor for them, has some innovative mp modes and it doesnt look too shabby either.
and gotta love suivaloom, upping eurogamers score to 10/10 :o »
Although I highlighted your comment it was more aimed at the boards in general. I dont know if you are one of the people that actually think that their is a bias towards MS on here and that this site is anti Sony?
I personally wouldnt visit a site I didnt trust for news and reviews and I get suprised that so many people continue to visit a site they dont trust.
If anyone gets offended by that then apologies. »
It's not about disagreeing with CVG in the slightest, it's about you being ridiculously pedantic and whingeing like a child....constantly.
Jeez, I can think of countless times that I've disagreed with a review score - but, I've never done it to the degree that you and some others have here. It's one persons opinion - you of all people should understand that, considering how much you seem to value your own....oh, but that is always 'fact' - isn't it?
Grow up, if you don't like it - go somewhere else...you - just like LardVonPS3 - will not be missed in the slightest.
Maybe we'd actually get some reasonable discussion happening without morons like you to moan about stupid little things like this.
Oh - and keep the swearing down, it just makes you look even more stupid.
:roll: See, you make the typical fanboy error of assuming that I actually want this game to fail.
In fact, I'd be fairly glad if there was a game that'd take all you whining girlies off this forum for a few weeks - y'know actually having a game to play rather than just arguing about them.
All I meant dear insect is that I don't believe these overhyped fanboy reviews. I mean, didn't one of the offical PS magazine give Haze a 9/10? :roll: »»
little tosser.
its one persons opinion.
but noone here is gonna agree that army of two is on par with killzone 2.
cvg themselves wouldnt agree with it.
so what went wrong?
clearly something. no consistency at least.
incompetence at worse. »
for a game you wont be playing, your showing a lot of interest. getting no love elsewhere, troll boy?
even if you go by the LOWEST review score on metacritic... its still a good one.
are 38 reviewers WRONG?!! as not ONE of them have given it a bad review.
but wait good old trustworthy EDGE hasnt had the final say on the matter has it?
they always review their games late and keep people waiting like they are some sort of superstars. pretentious arsh*les. they think they print artwork, not editorials. Here's a question for you - if you feel that the review (or reviewer) was incompetent, why are you still here?....as StoneCold said, if you have no faith in a site - then why visit it?
Also, if you believe the game is worth more - why do you care?...if it's good, it's good - another persons opinion shouldn't bother you in the slightest.
More than anything though, I think I can safely speak for the majority here and say that you really are not welcome here. I'm pretty sure that everyone is sick of reading your dumbass posts.
For the record:
1. I couldn't give a rats-a**e about your car.
2. I couldn't give a rats-a**e about your taste in music.
3. I couldn't give a rats-a**e about your taste in TV programmes.
4. I couldn't give a rats-a**e about your opinion on anything
Sure, everyone is entitled to an opinion - but, yours are just dull.
Oh - and calling everyone a 't****r' or a 'c***' just gets boring...are you dependent on swearing to make your point louder? - it certainly doesn't make it any more valid.
:roll: Have you considered that it might be the Army of Two score that is too high, rather than the Kill Zone 2 score too low?
And stop slinging insults at ANYONE that has a differing opinion to you dude, really, calm down. Ho ho ho, I'll bet you're really a scrawny little gimp with a beaked nose - typical internet hardman. I actually have an image in my head of Skreech from Saved by the Bell. :lol:
Ultimately, you miss the point. I couldn't give a toss whether it gets 10% 0r 100%. I simply won't believe the drivel posted by the majority of biased/official magazines. Of course the fact that the game has now received many good reviews indicates it's pretty decent but nevertheless I generally agree with EDGE.
If it makes you feel any less suicidal they gave Gears an 8/10 which is a good rating for them. For a game to get higher than that it has to be innovative and not just good. I know killzone is decent but is it really groundbreaking? ...er, that wasn't meant for you Marty. Was replying to Asshopper. Don't worry man, I got it. :) :) That was one of the most ridiculous posts I've read on this site, especially considering who it came from!
It was like two years of fanboy rage finally erupting! who said it was groundbreaking you stupid idiot?!
i think your falling for the hype yourself. noone said it was groundbreaking.
the graphics are the best seen on a console yet. thats not groundbreaking. just a bit better than the next best looking game.
if edge scores it 4/10. are you gonna believe them over 38 reviewers - which is everyone who has reviewed it so far - official, non official and cross platform.
your so stupid i wouldnt bet against it.
as someone said, it doesnt matter what edge gives it at this point.. its a confirmed beast... a bit like your mother! (fondly framed as your avatar) :roll:
Using mother jokes to hide the fact you misunderstood my argument, eh?
Fact is, you're sort of fighting a battle that doesn't exist - I never said the game was crap, I just said I want to read EDGE's take. :roll:
Take the Dualshock out of your boxer shorts and pay attention, son! your saying 38 reviews are over hyped.
edge arent gods. they tend to mark stuff down - but only compared to EVERYONE else, who almost never seem to use the lower spectrum of available scoring. i.e. 1-5, instead everyone else seems to work from 5-10... which basically makes a mockery of their 'out of ten' scoring system... the average perception is 6-7 is an average game. thats because hardly anyone marks bad games as they should. (below 5)
for edge an average game would score around 4-5.
cvg would be better going back to their high-5 rating system. so would most reviewers.
that said im confident edge will give it a high score. »
Fanboy, Mark? Oh no he is one of the :lol: impartial :lol: posters on these forums. Well I for one do not think that 38 reviews are wrong but then I am not claiming that CVG are biased and in MSofts pocket either. At the end of the day you are going to know whether or not you will love this game so no matter what posters/journo's etc say about it it doesn't really matter to the game and your enjoyment of it at the end of the day does it.
Oh and I agree with some of the posters that the ott swearing of yours is a bit schoolboyish innit. * If you do like the game but not the score, move on, buy the game, enjoy your life.
* If you do like the game and the score, move on, buy the game, enjoy your life.
* If you dont like the game, move on, dont buy the game, enjoy your life.
* If you dont care, move on, buy the game if you want, enjoy your life.
Why do so many people waste their time arguing on the internet?
"Cannot...leave...the...pc...someone...is...WRONG...on...the...internet..." For heaven's sake...NO!!!
All that I'm saying is that I want to read EDGE's take on it - read my feckin post for once you illiterate muppet!
I actually said that it is obviously a decent game due to the many good reviews it has received. My point is simply that I want to read EDGE's take on it because they aren't afraid to speak their minds. I never quoted anybody as saying it was "groundbreaking". My point is that EDGE are one of the few magazines who will make me sit up and pay attention when they give a game a 9 or a 10.
It's no bloody fun winding you up when I have to explain the spiritual and metaphysical meaning of every goddam post! :x Can you provide a link to that or is it another one of those 'a guy online told me' claims? "Take the Dualshock out of your boxer shorts and pay attention, son!"
LOL @ Asshopper the fact you have posted more than most in this thread, dont even own a ps3, wont be playing killzone 2 and the want to read a yet-to-appear review (nevermind the fact that its edge) DESPITE nearly 40 brilliant reviews - which is every review to surface so far - says to me your a 360 fanboy HOPING for a low edge score. i.e. "a FAIL".
get a grip. i dont read, neither comment on 360 reviews. why are you really so interested in a game you wont be playing?!! Well...because I used to own a PS3 and was at one point very interested in this game. I only sold my PS3 because I can't justify owning two consoles and most of my online buddies own 360's.
Probably would've kept my PS3 if I hadn't moved into a new flat the month before and had to lay down two months deposit.
Either way, why the heck does it matter to you whether or not I want to read the EDGE review? Your defensiveness of Sony is slightly unhealthy! you said you want to read an un-biased review. like ALL the others were!
noone else's 9 or 10's dont mean anything.. when edge award them your little pecker goes hard. :roll:
they arent gonna tell you anything else you havent heard already. Two things. One, if ALL the other reviews are unbiased, then can please explain the toys out of pram explosion of this thread?
Second, are you seriously trying to suggest to me that official magazines aren't biased to their exclusive heavy hitters? <points at OXMs Halo 3 10/10> *groan*
I never said they don't mean anything. I'm now almost convinced you're playing dumb in an attempt at counter-trollage.
I categorically stated that the reviews indicate it to be a good game in some capacity.
I'm actually starting to think it's you that's getting scared about EDGE bringing the metascore down. You know, slapping a big fat 6/10 on the table or something! :o Pardon me while I blow this argument completely out of the water, but Army Of Two was reviewed by Jon Hamblin for PSM3 and Killzone 2 was reviewed by Mike Jackson for CVG. Different reviewers; different magazines. No discrepancy. End of story! that was a point in the arguement. the actual arguement was people didnt think the score tied up to the review, and the "downers" were straw-clutching. »
LOL!!!!!! All this bitching about CVG giving Killzone 2 the same rating as the decidedly average Army of Two and all along the review was actually lifted from the Official PS Magazine!!!!! That is priceless!!!! I never said that CVG were biased. And I only made that last comment because it seems that most reviewers seem to favour the 360 games in question. Looks like Sony are going to have to release something truly spectacular to change opinion. ...and how exactly does this relate to Killzone receiving a slightly less-than-expected score? :?
Sounds like desperate babbling to me. »
Does this not then question PSM3s reviews in general? Dunno what they scored KZ2, for example, but couldn't an arguement be made for them marking that too highly too?
I'd also like to point out that Metacritic also have a page on Halo 3, and that also tells us that scores can vary wildly, going from 70% to 100%. Does it indicate that the reviewer that gave it 70/100 was a PS3 fan? Maybe. Did this in some way take away from the game as a whole? NO! thats what i (and tons of folk) are saying on this thread. dim-wit. they dont relate!
the reasons for not giving it a higher score are boll*cks!
why didnt fallout get marked down for having no MULTIPLAYER, never mind co-op!!! Not bad. Three days later and 280 posts!
Solid effort, people don't always agree. Who'd have thunk it?!? Well, if there's no relevance then why are you babbling on about it?
..and as for your question regarding Fallout...well, it's an RPG.
Killzone is very much not an RPG and hence shouldn't be compared. It should be compared to games like Halo, Gears, COD5, which all incidentally have co-op.
In fact, when I think of all the excellent hours spent playing Halo co-op with my buddies I think knocking 3% off isn't too harsh.
I know you'll argue that it's no fun playing against bots but I disagree. One of my best buddies is atrocious at shooters and gets rinsed in a deathmatch. However, if we play Gears co-op he can play on Easy and me on Insane...bingo!
Anyway, where the hell are we going with this? Game got 87% which is a good score. If you don't like it post your own review on here rating it 199/100 and be done with it!
:roll: but not compared to CoD4? - which, incidentally - is the best of the bunch! its also incidental that it has no co-op!!
cant have double standards.
fallout has shooting in it. it may be RPG based, but does that excuse it for not having an online mode?! doesnt have to be fragging. online enabled in some way would have been nice. theres no excuse nowadays.
killzone 2 is a different animal online compared to offline. its much quicker paced as well as doing away with the cover system.
most games change online. saying its a one player only game is a load of guff.
and i ask you, is offline co-op versus bots better than online co-op, versus real humans?!
real teamwork is done against unpredictable real opponents. No Co-Op is a Con for this Game...
Well I agree because I love Co-Op... But...
I guess it was somehow OK in Games like Bioshock and Dead Space because they are not Cons in either game Reviewed by CVG.
Let's try to be consistent in our Reviews people. Did you just totally ignore the points I made or are you really that irretrievably Sonyfied?
I just said that I have certain friends who suck online and it's easier to play offline with them. Besides, I'm rarely bothered to play the story mode on my own but will happily race through it with a buddy.
After a few drinks online matches ain't so fun. Better to play co-op where I can play a bit more casually.
Ultimately, the fact that Killzone doesn't have any co-op is not a good reason to try and completely rubbish the idea. If it didn't have any online I bet you'd be saying that online sucks...:?
...and for the record Warhawk received a lot of reviews in the 80's but was probs my fave online game when I had a PS3. I actually preferred it to COD4. COD 4 just felt a bit too unrealistic for me compared to my beloved Ghost Recon. »
Fair enough not this time but a few times in the past :wink: , but 87/100 is not a horrendous score as for agreeing/disagreeing with it well I haven't played the game yet myself. Did the same reviewer who did KZ2 also do Halo 3 etc(no I'm not comparing games just reviews)? As that could have some bearing on scores and thoughts of the review/reviewer as I take reviews to a degree with a pinch of salt, as at the end of the day they are just one persons opinion of a title. I don't agree with a lot of the review scores but that doesn't mean that I should abuse the reviewer/publication behind it. Look at JRPG's they average 70-80% in scores but I love them regardless of the fad of reviewrs saying "oh title x does nothing new"
"oh another generic JRPG" etc etc I know for most of the JRPG's I will like them more than these reviewers seem to. The new PoP game got a kicking from a few sites and ignored jeered at by a lot of gamers but personally I think it is a really good game with some fantastic art in it.
I'm sure KZ2 will be the game that the PS3/KZ fans have been wanting regardless of reviews and other peoples opinions. For a lot of people to erupt over such a trivial matter is quite mad imo as I said before if the score gained that extra .3 would people of been happier with CVG(I know you have stated different reasons for your outburst)? It was just short of a 9 with a closing comment of
"For the stunning single-player campaign alone this is a game worth getting very excited about. Killzone 2 is the loudest blockbuster on PS3 and the first must-have FPS of 2009 for PS3 fans."
To me anyway, thats not a bad/biased review just one persons opinion which in the grand scheme of things doesn't mean squat to me until I have played it and made my own mind up. well if you all are too pathetic to play against real opponents you can add bots into multiplayer games, set it up the way you like and team up against them with your mates. so essentially it does have co-op! And when have you ever provided proof of your claims? What claim would that be? How about the claim of me being a righteous defender of MSoft?
I asked you to prove it and guess what I never got any.
Or the claim by you I'm racist?
I asked for proof and guess what? You only showed me how you did not know what the term "monkey boy" meant.
Need me to go on? TBH I'd rather get on with playing the KZ2 demo. :P Cvg are you shitting me? Is your reviewer optically challenged? 8.7? ****ing xbots piss me off! Bet Halo wars gets 9.8!!!! Oh dear looks like the child has thrown the dummy out again. :roll: Sev: "Hello there! :D"
Master Chief: "The f**k are you?..:?"
Sev: "You know, i am Sev..the lead from Killzone 2! :D"
Master Chief: "OH YOU!..how's that 8.7 review grinding up your ass? :)"
Sev: ":?"
Master Chief: ":D" Well looky here Voodo up to the same old same old can't provide proof goes into childish name calling mode as per usual. Although, now being famous for this on these forums it is no surprise really. :lol: I supose it can be scored based on content and maybe 8.7 is sufficient but I really don't see the point. An FPS on a console sucks by default. A multiplatform title (fallout) is blown away by the PC version and anything developed for a console platform and then ported (MGS) blows.
So I guess the answer is to develop for a single platform so that there's no comparison. That way it's as good as it can be.
I don't own a console to play FPS games. It'd be like buying a car to keep my food cold. Let the platform stick to it's strengths. :lol: name calling mode? Where did I call you a name in that last post? Now if I had said you were a Tool, that's calling you a name. I thought I’d add to this to keep this thread going, it’s amusing.
I’ve never understood when people use ‘tool’ as an insult, after all a tool is something that is useful. Perhaps ‘incorrect tool’ might be more appropriate, as by calling someone a tool and not quantifying exactly what usage the term is being applied to leaves it open for saying that person is useful and secretly you love them for it.
Personally I like the south park variants on insults, such as donkey ‘raping shit eater’, or ‘uncle ******’ or ‘nun ****ing cock knocker’.
Though never disregard the simple effectiveness of the old classic, ****. Wow. Srsly?
Are the Sony fanboys so blinded by their lack of a library that they have to stoop to calling reviewers "XBots" for giving one of their precious few games a WELL ABOVE AVERAGE review?
I think it's time for you to accept the fact that you paid $700 for an oversize Blu-Ray player on which you can't even watch pr0n. News just in: They will be patching in a co-op mode. My god, it's like the fanboys have united forces in the comments section in what could be described as the extremely annoying and idiotic version of Axis and Allies: 360 vs PS3. This isn't a bad article at all from Jackson.
I can appreciate what he's talking about with the lack of co-op in this game. Would the game have benefited from a co-op mode? From what I've seen of the game already - unquestionably, but there isn't a written law that says there has to be one for every FPS. The weapon system and too similar enemies mentioned during the main game is a bit disconcerting as well, and I would probably lowered its end-score for it as well. I would have liked seeing a bit more about what exactly is offered in the multi-player games though since a few other early reviews are saying that that's where KZ2 shines, but being an early review, I'm sure he didn't get as much time as he would have liked to play it (one of the curses tagged to these kinds of articles on highly anticipated games).
The way the article is written, an 8.7 isn't exactly a surprising score, though if I had to guess what the final verdict was after reading it, I would have guessed he put it in the low 9s... and since when is 8.7 a bad score anyway? Though I do wish review articles stopped tagging gradings/scores to them: it's become the tl:dr excuse for morons, complete f@#$-ups and idiot gamers to linger onto. Lord knows it'd stamp out a lot of this olol Halo3/GoW2/KZ2 crap. A tool is only useful when the right person is using it. Any other time and it's pointless and only ends up getting damaged. Sarcasm isn't your strong point is it Conkers. You've made such a noise Penny Arcade has heard you. And wrote about it.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/ That's amazing. I wonder who on here they think makes up the 'fully 3D image of a stupid person'. I preferred Sesslers Soapbox reply. Listen to his reply to the "how much was he paid to give KZ a 5?"! :lol: :lol: :lol: I saw the image after I read the first "Boo Hoo. Every PS3 game should get 10 out of 10 because there's only six of them." post.
You guys, one and all are boring the life out of me with your childish squabbling. Now, while I agree that this is a flagship title for the PS3 and thus is seen as an incredibly important point in the console's life, I don't think the entire population of PS3 users are depending on the results of reviews in the mags and sites out there like some people seem to be reacting like. The truth of the matter is that PS3 owners WANT the reviews to be positive to justify their backing of the console, while X-Box fans want it to fail to justify THEIR positions.
Both sides are wrong to do so.
It's not a question of wether it's a good or bad game anymore, and that's the problem, it's about people's personal choices- as though their lifestyle choices themselves were under a microscope. This could be considered the first Halo-esque AAA title of the PS3 devlife, and that's a big deal for a lot of people. Success could increase revenue and installed user base, which is either good or bad news for the extreme fan sides. For everyone in the gaming community though, a high score is good news. Why? Because we're gamers. We're supposed to like GAMES. If a good game, even a great game comes out for one console, or another, it should be judged on it's merit as a GAME and not by what each user's personal choice of home console was. I'm not innocent in this either, I have my own likes and dislikes; but to allow them to define the argument and make it this heated is to forget why exactly we're commenting on this subject in the first place: The love of gaming.
People, calm it down, seriously; throwing insults and slander at each other for a perception of that person almost solely based on their hardware is elitist in the extreme- something I've noticed about a great many of my fellow posters over the last few weeks. I read the first page, and then skipped to here because no dout it'll be filled with the same as the first page. A few well thought out posts and the rest would be utter ******** about how CVG were biased.
But well done on that, because you managed to attract the attention of PA and Tycho as CVG Gav said, and now the internet will come and bask in your ignorance and stupidity and say "Well thank **** I'm not like that!"
So because Killzone 2 gets a good score, but NOT a near perfect score, the CVG staff are biased ***** who know nothing about gaming whatsoever?
And then the 360 fans will come in and gloat over how Gears 2 got a better score.
Then we settle into the natural cause of things on CVG, when all fanboys come together in one thread to have it out and cry blue murder for whichever "side" they're on. Which by the way, is entirely pointless. Do you think the corporations give a damn about you because you picked their console and their "side"? Of course they don't, they're a company and they have your money. That's all that matters out in the real world kids.
**** me, at least this shit keeps you cretins out of the rest of the forums.
Now I'm off to buy some 3D glasses so that I can fully experience this 3D effect that PA is talking about.
*Squints eyes* Brilliant!
I wonder if they'll turn us into a strip now?
They would be able to ge a whole series out of crimbo and grasshopper, well, that would be a top shelf comic if ever I seen one (very graphic). :wink: 13 pages of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFhk2WJMGCQ And seemingly interpretation of text is not yours, though you make that patently obvious in a lot of your posts. Nothing I typed was supposed to be sarcastic, merely whimsical wonderings.
A tool is never pointless, just because it is not being used or being used in the wring way does not make it pointless, it just makes it inactive or badly applied.
Anyway, enough of this you absurd moose ****ing badger feltcher, it's hometime. Huzzah! I always thought that tool was used in place of "dick"?
It's sometimes reffered to as a man's tool, so when calling someone a tool you're just calling them a dick, but with a different word. Uh-oh, typo, quick Voodoo, make some kind of off the cuff comment about how you don’t have to listen to anything I’ve said because I pressed the wrong button on my keyboard. It’d be wckedz, look ANOTHERONE! GOOD GOD THE AMMO KEEPS ON RISING!! Onward Christian soldier, lead the way into the pits of pedantic deparavity (mmm more) where we can all oil ourselves up and rub ourselves smugly, kept warm in a cloud of our own egos. Mmmmmmmmmmmm. Well if they make a comic strip about us and these forums they had better get a bigger server for all the bullcrap we all spout out. :wink:
Tally Ho That could indeed explain it! I had not gone down that avenue of thought, as I tend not to think about that generally...
Come on clock, tick to 5.30 already, there are pubs crying out for my presence... »
Now thats a class line (I hasten to add aimed at anyone).
Lol I work in hospital IT and our gum clinic is called the fletcher clinic no surprises on what we call it. :wink: Seems strange that the demo went up yesterday and yet no one has commented about it. I thought it was pretty damn good but a little on the short side for a 1.2GB demo. Just as I was getting to grips with it the credits rolled! so many comments, so little time I thought it was home time..... tool They did comment but in the article forum about the demo itself. look your beloved killzone did just as good as cod http://www.computerandvideogames.com/game.php?id=10371 discuss I suggest that everyone follow the link gav gave to penny arcade and then click on the link to Sesslar's mailbag. It is just hilarious. How would any of you crying idiots know whether Kilzone 2 deserves a higher score or not when you haven't even played it? Don't start qouting IGN scores at me either cos they give out 9s very easily.
As for this review, get over it! They said why they marked it down and their complaints with the game, does it really matter? All you whingeing babies are going to go out and but the game anyway so it's not like it will affect the sales will it.
Just cos C&VG gave it shock horror 8.7 won't make you enjoy it any more or less will it. Form your own opinion, preferably one that isn't clearly tainted by your love affair with your Playstaion and grow up. A few things some people here need to bear in mind...
CVG publishes reviews online from a variety of sister magazine sources, as well as it's own. Many of the review scores quoted (like Army Of 2) were taken from other publications, who may not all be working to the same scale.
Different reviewers have different opinions. If the same reviewer gave all the scores mentioned, you'd have something to base your "bias" claims on. The fact that other people may have a differing opinions to your own, does not make their opinions any less valid.
There is such a thing as "review depreciation" you have to consider. If that were not the case, pretty much every game released today would have to get 100%, because it would have to out-score what went before. For example, if Halo 3 was released today, it would certainly score lower than it did at the time. Quoting Meta-critic totals to compare games more than a few months apart is frankly fan-boy lunacy.
Rant over :) Aw, did little bubba wait until after the time I posted before putting a response, knowing I was alreAdy in the pub at that point. It's sweet really, I like the attention, keep it coming baby, the oils on a mild temperature... Considering how most of you guys are reacting to CVGs review, you'd really better not read this article here... Looks like Penny Arcade wasn't the only site to mention CVG Sorry, replying to your witty and humourous post was delayed due to the fact I had something more interesting to do at the time. I apologise for not being as committed as you but I appreciated the 3am reply. Keep up the good work. :shock: Who gives a flying **** what they think,its a console war.
Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War. He is the only one that gathers his brethren about him and goes forth in cold blood and calm pulse to exterminate his kind. He is the only animal that for sordid wages will march out and help to slaughter strangers of his own species who have done him no harm and with whom he has no quarrel . . . And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood off his hands and works for "the universal brotherhood of man" - with his mouth.
Mark Twain Lol read that the other day very funny. Wow you actually went out of your way to post a link to a site that is bemoaning Mike Jackson as he was the one that scored KZ2 8.7. :lol: that review did hit you hard didn't it. Trust you to show your true colours, you kissed the ass of a fanboy that trawled the net to find something negative about Killzone then spit the dummy out when something is said about CVG. News for wolf, CVG aren't perfect.
Just to let you in on it, I thought the review score was fair enough if a little lacking in detail and being over critical of the lack of coop. I question how Far Cry 2 got 0.3 more saying it's totally rubbish but that's the breaks. If it makes you feel better take yourself over to Edge, they've given Killzone 2 a 7 then again they've given Halo Wars a 7 as well. I'm sure though you can find plenty of causes over there to champion. Ah I see your witty and humourous reply courses are really paying for themselves, you should really stop throwing your toys out of your pram like this.
Wow I said lol to an article that poked fun at your holy grail KZ2 my bad :oops: what an absolute embarrassment you are Mr I do have a sense of humour as long as nothing is jested about against Sony or its products. No one has said CVG is perfect in fact I said I take the reviews of journos with a pinch of salt 2 or 3 times in this very thread. Where as you obviously live and die by the little number at the end of a review.
With your little tantrum just then shows all we need to know about you and your credibilty at being :lol: impartial :lol:. Go back to bed little one obviously staying up past 7pm is not good for you. Did mike Jackson review FC2? Thats a genuine question by the way, as you find it so hard to tell I thought I'd point that out. FC2 was rubbish in my opinion other people/reviewers loved it.
As for me championing causes well thats obviously what you think but little man it is all in your own head. I stand for no particular purpose/company/person can you truthfully say the same?
I bemoan MSoft/Sony equally I say that journos scores have no bearing on my enjoyment of the titles and I dont go out of my way to pour derision onto a reviewer because they didn't do my holy grail game justice, can you truthfully say the same?
So who do you think is really championing a cause here? Without getting drawn into the whole fanboy accusations argument, I hardly 'trawled the net' - that article was a direct link from the Penny Arcade article Gav linked above... :lol: That guy has got way too much time on his hands...
Played the demo...Felt a bit COD4 on alien territory....which ofcourse is no bad thing at all. The demo shows it to be a far darker game than R2... which for me was in no way as good a gaming experience as FOM.... but maybe that was down to offline co-op which this does not have. Still, good graphics, good paced 1 player and deep multiplayer and the fact every reviewer likes this game is enough for me to buy it. Actually MrDoyle,you can watch porn on a ps3(so i am told!!!)its called a web browser! lol Don't take offence by what Voodoo said it was more aimed at me, as I had pointed how hard he must of searched for the anti Mike Jackson link he found (although being the caped CVG crusader that I am I will defend MJ and this publication to the death, to the Prat Cave). I believe you, I really do :wink: I wasn't going to but I will, I have bemoaned MSofts charges for Live whilst some games use a P2P system with no server upkeep to pay for.
I am on unit number 4 so I do not have a good opinion of the early hardware and the way MSoft rushed/cut corners with the unit design.
If you can remember to when we had our ding dong across 6 pages I listed the bad points of both consoles (my opinions nothing more) funnily enough the 360 had more niggles than the PS3.
I wont list my PS3 gripes as it is not worth the backlash.
I await your usual standard of reply. It's carried on CVG's sister site N4G.com. If you try that little link over in the bottom left there it'll take you straight to it. Are you still going on about this? I was passing a comment onto cjw101 to not take your outburst about him/her to heart. Not really fussed where you got the link, just at how banal (now this word you might need to look up, before you accuse me of being racist or something again) it is from you. you would know all about banal now wouldn't you. put that dummy back in child. :wink: :lol: Thanks, I'm sure I'll get through it somehow... :wink: Sorry but my caped crusader act does not finish until 9:30 pm. :lol: Yer might get it i dont own a PS3 but i no someone whho does and they let me buy and play games on it but the only 1 i have is Little Big Planet Well looks like a poster on Evil Avatar (along with half the internet traffic now)has seen our comments section over this review:
http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?s=4aaa1424a855d3f8c9fbb457bca19564&p=1712392#post1712392
Page 3, Darkdays 3rd post on that page. Oh and I trawled for a whole 2 minutes for this, linked from play.tm (honest guv) :wink:
/me runs as cape has just ripped and dummy fell on floor and needs cleaning. :P More than fair enough old bean, I was more than a little drunk when posting that. I'm surprised at myself as I rarely come onto this site at the weekend... Hey, here's a thought...
Perhaps the reviewer actually thinks that Gears of War 2 and Halo 3 are better games? I own a Playstation 3 and an Xbox 360. I use the PS3 for Blu-ray and PS exclusive games and the Xbox for online gaming. I will get Killzone 2 but, to be honest, I don't expect it to be as good as Gears or Halo. I enjoy games with co-op and Killzone should have it. That said, multiplayer online gaming on the PS3 is pretty poor.
Why don't you just buy the game and decide if you like it for yourself? I really can't understand why some gamers are such rabid fanboys. I don't give a **** if the PS3 is 'better' than Xbox or vice versa. Do you? Killzone 2 + THE KILL DOT = WOoOoOW!!
we tried it on the demo .... it works!! It's weird that they state that this game is better than COD4, COD5, Bioshock, Resistance 2, Half Life 2, but then only give it an 8.7. Bit of a contradiction there. Edge review = 7/10.
Now, what was I saying Grasshopper ol buddy! :lol: i dont know, what were you saying? that it isnt a good game anymore?
an edge 7 isnt a real world 7.
havent read their review, but its likely not recieving top marks cause its too linear.
id rather play an amazing linear game, than an open ended heap of shite - see far cry 2, which edge gave an 8 - because its obviously better than killzone 2. isnt it? No doubt the 'Edge is so Xbox biased' comments will start soon... :roll: because halo 3 deserved its 10. and GoW2, its 9.
http://v4vg.com/edge-gets-the-edged-out-with-killzone-2/
they have a point about consistency.
they should be saying 'if this game got that, and that game got this... then this game is worth this.'
is halo 3 a full 30% better than killzone. of course not. ludicrous! if its not bias (which im not saying it is) what is it? incompetence? a fair review?!
and dont say its a personal opinion. that personal opinion has the edge name endorsing it. and they need to be responsible and fair across the board. That guy on gamesgazette comes across as a complete prat.
Yeah CVG spin the stories sometimes. So what. And bravo on the combined Valve/CVG logo. That must've taken alot of thought. I love the differing views that come up when people decide what counts as a statement from the company - sometimes a lowly PR officer suffices, sometimes it has to be the CEO!
I agree that it makes no sense when this scores lower than FC2 etc. But sod it. Finally got L4D the other day and it is so simple, graphics aren't all that but god it's fun. TO ME it's better than other games that have scored higher but so what?!?
Them's the breaks! http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/killzone2
Just doing my part! Nope, wrong again, young one!
I suspect it's probably a pretty decent game but as usual EDGE have cut through the custard.
It is my opinion that many games which don't deserve a 9/10 tend to get awarded that score through deference to a more appropriate one.
A game which gets an 8/10 in EDGE is a good one but (as has been exemplified by CVG's review) if the average magazine awards an 8 they are seen to be giving the game a lacklustre appraisal.
Hence, the reviewer is left with the dilemma whereby a game doesn't deserve a 10 but he is reticent to award it an 8/10 because readers will view it as a "fail". Hence, there are a lot of games rated 9/10 which are quite vastly differing in quality.
I have seen both COD 3 and 4 awarded 9/10 and I'm fairly sure most people would agree the latter is a better rounded game.
Then take for example the game Prey and compare it to Halo 3. Both have received 9/10 ratings but Halo offers much greater longevity, co-op, etc, etc, and I'm sure a lot of people will agree.
Admittedly, you can allow for personal preference and obviously how long the game has been out for, but what I'm saying is that most magazines view 7/10 as quite poor. If a 7/10 is regarded as good and 8/10 as damn good then it leaves the 9/10 for corkers like Halo, Gears, Oblivion, LBP, etc, etc.
The only game that truly deserves a 10/10 is of course Ghost Recon...and I won't hear otherwise. :) Shmuppet and Black Mantis
Get over it, it's not as if either of you would be buying the game even if Edge gave it 10 out of 10 :wink: Er, as I've already stated, this game is on my list to buy. Thing is I'm not buying a PS3 until the end of this year when Uncharted and hopefully GoW 3 are out. Keep calling me names if it makes you feel better. Bless Just read the review on the edge website. To be honest I though it a pretty crappy review (not saying the score is un/justified) anyway, but is sure to kick up one hell of a storm.
Their issue seems to be that it's generic as hell. Aren't most FPS's? I can't see there being a major advance in an FPS now until some new technology comes out (god knows what). I wonder what it would have scored had it not been so hyped, a PS3 exclusive and not had such good graphics.
Although it's good to see Edge added to the list of sites that are anti PS3, I've seen that accusation levelled at most sites. I'm not sure about that but I think plenty of people like seeing Sony down or struggling a bit after their perceived arrogance during the PS3's launch and first year.
If KZ2 is as good and as fun as MK (which also got a 7 from them), PS3 owners are in for one hell of a treat. For all you know I could be playing on my PS3 right now!
...and who says I can't be interested in a game I'm not going to buy?
At least I'm not pretending to have a game I don't own - like you do with Halo 3. :lol: You do know it's not out yet don't you. :roll: The PS3 isn't out yet? Are you sure?
You've done it again... note the lack of the word 'it' in between 'playing' and 'on' in that line you highlighted... i didnt like the demo.
so all you guys can flame me!
seems your all very good at that..
operation flashpoint 2
all the way!!! i didnt like the demo.
so all you guys can flame me!
seems your all very good at that..
operation flashpoint 2
all the way!!! To be fair to shmuppet I knew what he mean't, take it up with him if it troubles you. This is still going :shock: ?
Do you know actual proper 'War's' dont even last as long as this thread, nevermind fake, stupid, idiotic Console Wars!
To be honest, there has probably been more casualties in the Console War than any other, just think of how many people have had to change their usernames?!?! Millions & Millions! :lol: Mean't? :lol:
And yes I'm sure you meant to say that the PS3 isn't out yet. :roll:
Are you sure you even own one? Wouldn't surprise me if you come on here just to argue. Not owning one never stopped you did it? Just reading the Edge Ghost Recon review, the one you gave 10 out of 10. Guess what they gave it :lol: 8.7? This is a never ending war soldier:
We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in Japan, USA and Europe,
we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our console, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this console or a large part of it were subjugated and starved of games, then our Developers beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the Fanbots, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New Console, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old." I hate when reviewers dumb down the score because of the lack of co-op. Cop out? You are obviously new to this game review field of work. Maybe you should do some research before you state such an idiotic complaint. For one CoD4 had no co-op. Did it get a low score? Bioshock didn't have co-op. Did it get a low score? HL2 didn't have co-op. Did it get a low score? Oh and yea lets also talk about the fact that KZ2 is using 60% of the power on all the processors during parts of the game. How exactly do you double that and make it work? Hmmm. Idiot. To take Grasshopper's argument that Halo 3 is not 30% better than KZ2, as per Edge's seperate reviews, as I recall, Edge praised Halo 3 for embracing Web 2.0 style customisation and features: Forge, Theatre, File Share etc etc. The way which Halo 3 truly embraces the player and encourages them to interact with the game in different ways is the reason it received that score.
In my opinion, Edge seem to see the bigger picture when they review games. They don't just rate them on whether they purely entertain: it's how the game changes things in the industry, what sort of future impact it might have, essentially, how innovative it is. An example is the 10/10 for The Orange Box: given not only because of the astounding quality of all five games but because it set a precedent on how several game releases, irrespective of their age, could be bundled together on one disc for the same price as a standard new release game. It appreciated the generosity.
I believe that a triple A FPS title (one which includes a multiplayer component) should have co-op as standard nowadays. For example, I loved COD4 but really missed the inclusion of co-op. (As an aside, BaneofMan, you simply dumb down different areas of the visual output of the game and you have co-op. My case in point: Left 4 Dead. When you play single player, your torch has a dynamic lighting system which casts real time shadows on every object, you have slight motion blur etc. In split-screen co-op, these are turned off. With your somewhat crude formula, if they removed 10-20% processing worth of graphical output, then they'd have enough left to use to display 2 images at once. It's about graphical sacrifices to achieve optimisation)
I don't have a PS3 and I definitely won't buy one to play KZ2. It looks like it would be a competent enough shooter game, but, in the opinion of the CVG and Edge reviewer, doesn't do enough differently to other games to warrant a higher score.
Now everything I just said is my opinion, and to reiterate, everyone should take the reviews as someone else's opinion and, if they so wish, buy the game and formulate their own. I'm willing to just stick it out knowing that while I might be missing a great example of the FPS genre, it will probably do little to change my perception and expectations of further game releases. Killzone 2 is getting disappointing reviews from the second batch of reviews. The websites and magazines that made it clear from the beginning that they were going to take extra time with Killzone 2 in order to make sure the review was 100% accurate are now saying that the extra time spent playing the game was worth it, because there are lots of problems with Killzone 2 that reveal themselves over time.
For example, I recently read that Edge rated Killzone 2 with a score of only 70%, listing many of the problems that others have. I honestly think it's a shame that a place like G4 would list so many flaws in Killzone 2 (such as no co-op mode, and a disappointing single-player campaign) yet still rate the game highly. The second batch of reviews clearly shows that once Sony's four-year hype wears off, you are left with a game that includes lots of flaws with both gameplay and graphics.
I'm going to make sure and rent Killzone 2 before buying it. The lack of a co-op mode makes it so I really don't have a desire to buy the game due to the lack of replay value in such a key area.
Killzone 2 isn't a game I'm interested in. The fact that there is no Co-Op mode is a really big disappointment. Games released in 2009 now have a standard to live up to, even on the PS3. Games like Gears of War, Halo, and even Resistance now have a standard to include a Co-Op mode. Yet Killzone 2 fails to live up to that standard, since no Co-Op mode is included in the game.
In fact, Killzone 2 has actually been receiving a lot of criticism lately for the following reasons:
* Framerate: The game only runs at 30 frames per second. This doesn't compare with other games that run at 60 frames per second like Gears of War 2, Call of Duty 2,3,4,5, and certainly not Halo 3, which runs at 60 frames per second with a dual-frame buffer. If Killzone 2 would have been released in 2006, it would not have faced such tough competition, because the original Gears of War only ran at 30 frames per second (although the PC version ran at 60 frames per second). But even in 2006, the AAA games like Gears of War had set the precedent to include a Co-Op mode, yet Killzone 2 simply does not live up to that standard.
* Polygon Pop-Up: This is a major problem in Killzone 2. Walk forward several steps, and then walk backward several steps. The amount of detail that pops into your view as if it teleports, and then pops out of your view as if it teleports is worse in Killzone 2 than any other first-person shooter released this generation on any console. Some of the critics say Killzone 2 is the worst with polygon pop-up since the ugly Daytona USA on the Sega Saturn where the mountain of Sonic the Hedgehog popped up in three seperate pieces. Killzone 2 does have quite a few levels like this where it is almost that bad.
* Loading: My friends who recently played Killzone 2 told me that it's very annoying the way the game will suddenly experience "pauses" throughout the game that last for up to two seconds at a time. The reason for this is because Killzone 2 does not allow the game to be directly installed to the hard drive. Since the PS3 transfers data at a rate of only 9MB per second (compared to 16MB per second for Xbox 360) it means that there are occasionally hiccups in the game that look like awful framerate stuttering that lasts for one to two full seconds. This isn't just something that happens "between levels" like the Official Playstation Magazine said. Remember, the very biased Official Playstation Magazine was stupid enough to say that Killzone 2 is "The best game ever made," which we obviously known isn't true. So there is no doubt that Sony is paying them off to falsely promote the game and leave out the bad stuff. Trust me, those "pauses" throughout the game are very bad. Each of my friends told me about them.
* No Co-Op mode: My friends and I totally lost interest in Killzone 2 when we heard there is no co-op mode. No Co-Op mode takes away a lot of fun from the game.
* No replay value: Now that February 2 has passed and the reviewers and testers are allowed to write about the game, people are pointing out that Killzone 2 has very little replay value. When you beat the game, there is nothing left to do except go back and try and find pointless stuff. It would have been fun to find that pointless stuff if you could do it in co-op mode and talk to your friends while playing, but doing it on your own would be pointless and boring.
* Loss of Resolution: A lot of the new reviews are talking about how Killzone 2 experiences loss of resolution in characters in the background, and even the shadows of characters taking cover in the foreground. I actually saw this in a video, and it looks really bad. In outdoor environments it gets even worse, because the GPU of the PS3 is forced to share polygon responsibilities with the CPU in order to make up for the extra detail that is needed. Unfortunately, the PS3 doesn't have the ability to display all those polygons, which means resolution is once again lowered on the characters. This is the reason why the developers of Killzone 2 try to keep the entire game in poorly lit environments. That way there is less need to display background detail, which allows polygons to be used on the characters in the foreground. This is actually a smart move if you do it once in a while, but to try and make an entire game like that gets old quickly.
* Weapon graphics: Graphics such as the flamethrower look awfully bad in Killzone 2. The flamethrower alone proves that Killzone 2 failed to live up to the false videos from 2005 in terms of graphics. All you need to do is compare the flamethrower now to what was shown in 2005 and you will see for yourself. "Co-Op" is a mode that represents and industry "standard" for the year 2009. Videogames such as Halo, Gears of War, and even Resistance 2 on the PS3 now include Co-Op modes. Therefore, if a game like Killzone 2 does NOT include that "standard" mode, Killzone 2 should be penalized, since it doesn't measure up to the competition.
If a person says that a game like Killzone 2 should only be rated for "the content that is there," it would mean every game could score a 100% perfect rating, simply because could avoid all potential penalties by not including any content at all!
When you sarcastically say that penalizing Killzone 2 for NOT including a Co-Op mode is like penalizing Mario for not including a machine gun, that is NOT an appropriate comparison. The reason why this is not an appropriate comparison is because Mario is in the Platform genre and targets a younger audience. A machine gun is NOT a "standard" feature in platform games. Killzone 2 exists in a Shooter genre in the year 2009 where the Co-Op mode is considered a 100% "standard" feature.
The second batch of reviews for Killzone 2, which took considerably more time to appropriately review the game, are averaging closer to 70%. Killzone 2 deserves to be receiving these type of "Mixed Reviews" because it simply does NOT live up to the industry standards of 2009 in this genre of gaming. Firstly, I did own a PS3 - past tense.
Secondly, I would never argue that Recon deserved more than an 8/10 - I just loved the style.
...and that dear sir is the difference between you and me. You needed Killzone to be good to fuel your insecure jihad whereas I will just play what I want and make no excuses.
I loved the game Nucleus on the PS3 and the highest score it garnered was a 7/10. It just wasn't for everyone.
Now if we then factor into the equation the facts that Killzone was an exclusive and had shedloads more money, time, and hype pumped into it.... Go and play the demo before you ruin your keyboard with another work of fiction. why you would want to play the single player with online players... except shooting at bots?! offline co-op is a BONUS MODE. doesnt matter that its inclusion is becoming more popular nowadays.
KZ2 has multiplayer co-op and you can choose to fight bots if you want to.. but thats pathetic.
gang up on the computer... wheres the challenge there?!
there is the great online assassination mode. use bots and it becomes mundane.
offline co-op is for show offs. cause its ****ing boring and just a race to see who can kill the next baddie as everyone is already aware where they will next pop out...
you can do the same thing online with your mates against real humans who arent predictable.
anyone moaning about no offline co-op needs to take the stick from their ass. RIP Sony. :cry: You hate it when reviewers do that? How often has that happened then? :roll: I hated Resident Evil 5 until I played it co-op with a mate (off line). I DEFINITELY wouldn't have bought it were it not for the inclusion of co-op - whether on or off line.
Face it, some people like co-op and put a lot of strength into it's inclusion in a game. Just because you don't like co-op doesn't make it suck or for losers. Well said! :wink: As annoying as these forums can be, thank god it's not Edge. I go on the site, but never bother with the comments and I can see why.
Because Edge is a 'serious' gaming site, it's got the most OTT wording in the comments section, patronising language and people trying to be too clever by half. It's like they're talking about art history or philosophy.
Everybody's a bloody psychoanalyst on that site. I thought about posting and telling them how pathetic it is, but I think they deserve each other.
This website and these forums could be a hell of a lot worse! Tell me about it! I wanted to add my thoughts on the article about Black characters in games, being of that persuasion myself. Read through the comments already on there and stayed clear. Hmmm, might have to make a passing visit. :twisted: I've had some good laughs reading some of these comments.
To start with, 8.7 is a damn good score, yet a realistic one at that. The problem with some of you is that you fall into the hype, seeing sites like IGN handing out 9.5+ scores to bucket loads of hyped up games, yet you look back months later and realize they weren't worthy of them. At least with this review you get the message that this is an unmissable PS3 FPS, but simply not an earth shattering experience.
As for the lack of co-op, obviosuly that's going to get brought up as this is the franchaise Sony tagged as a Halo killer. Halo 3 had the same sort of situation as this, short campaign mode yet the 4 player co-op along with other features meant you could enjoy it over and over again, each time having a different experience. With this, you play it once and thats it, so obviously it detracts from the overall score.
As for the fanboy comments, you do see the irony, right? The only people complaning about this score are PS3 fanboys, and most probably immature teens at that, worrying about a 'mine is better than yours situation', because this get reviewed lower than Halo 3 and Gears 2. You simply need to grow up. End of. How dare you come on here, after nearly 400 comments, and start calmly stating your opinion like that!! whats RE5 got to do with anything? its a co-op game... you cant even play the single player without having to help that bitch. shake the analogue every 2 mins. press button for uppercut now. total shit game.
offline co-op in a FPS feels like nothing more than target practice. totally mundane!! online the game comes alive. you have people escaping through windows and off rooftops.
next to multiplayer and single player, co-op is a bonus and the least played mode of all. What makes me laugh the most is that 360 fans always seem to trust the mags that give PS3 exclusives low scores. Absolutely priceless stuff! Keep it up people - I wanna see 500 posts!
Oh, and I stopped reading Edge when they gave God Of War 2 a 7/10, my favourite PS2 game of all time - and probably a few others as well.
They were rubbish at reviewing games even then. They are too analytical about the pointless side of opinion and rarely give you any insight on the actual game they are supposed to be reviewing. I want to see 500 posts from you saying how the integrity of this site has nose dived and MSoft has won :cry:
I need a good laugh. @Lonewolf^^
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, after all, that is what this site is for! If you don't agree with mine, then fine. I can live with that.
I'd appreciate you not stalking me though. A bit creepy.
Cheers. Just played the demo there on my mates PS3.
Seems pretty solid, but not groundbreaking. Graphics are good and the enemy AI is also impressive. The downside is the controls are hard to get used to and you do seem to turn very very slowly. Also the blood splatting on the screen to show where you are getting hit from becomes hard to work out if you are taking a beating.
The lack of co-op is a real put off for me though, I love playing through games with a friend, be it online or offline.
Overall I'd say its a must have for PS3 fans, I obviously havn't played the full game yet but from the demo I'd say its a solid 8/8.5 game. What does it have to do with anything? It's a co-op game. I was illustrating the point that co-op isn't pointless, for losers, or anything else.
I'd love to know what you make of Left 4 Dead - which is PURELY a co-op game. And an FPS...
Maybe 10 years back it did, but now AI is pretty good, and computer controlled characters actually think, form tactics etc. This, in my opinion, is considerably better to play against than a FFA deathmatch featuring 15 other continually jumping humans... *yawn*
Got some evidence to back that claim up?
And also, isn't co-op multiplayer anyway? ive actually joined this site just to say this review by mark "the dickhead" jackson is classed as void, simple as!
You cant just rate a game down on its co-op capabilities, espically by the fact that its been stated that you dont need co-op in this game!
You can change weapons in the game to your requirement,surrounding and situation if you need to so thats also a void,for example....if you wana complete the game by using a hanggun only, so be it!
and what the fuk is "samey enemies"? this mark is a complete and utter dickhead! has all the makings and characterisitics of an xbox fanboy!he should be sacked! after years of watchin over this site, by god has it gone down hill to the swamps!
oh and before you say anything i dont hate xbox fanboys but they did start the war I'm sure you're oh-so-reasonable objection above will be taken under due consideration (and then summarily dismissed). Really, demanding someone be fired based on an *assumption* that the game score was lowered solely on the lack of co-op! We don't know for sure that it was lowered because of that - it could have been a side-note for all we know. You, and many others on this 16 page thread, have acted like hysterical animals. Like so many others have already stated: If you like the game go buy it, enjoy it and try not to lose too much sleep over one review. Now, *if* an injustice was done I can appreciate why you and others may feel indignant but sacking a person for what may amount to less than a point on a 1 to 10 scale is the epitome of banality.
Oh, and incidentally this is the 400th post! 8) ok so i got a little outer context with the whole sack him comment but his review is wrong on what he claims makes the games score suffer and heres my proof!
He claims the games enemy is to samey, yes they look alike but here is a link i strongly urge you to visit and watch the video, its an audio commentary on the games gameplay.
http://uk.ps3.ign.com/dor/objects/748475/killzone-next-gen/videos/VideoForeplay_KillzoneP2.html
after watchin this video can you honestly tell me his input on enemy variation is correct!?clearly if he got a good hands on look at the game which he claims he did he would know what enemys are in the game, clearly I and many others feel his review is flawed and wrong in areas and ive presented proof unlike others! all im urging and insinuating is, if he can't do is job correctly and unbiasdly then he should not being the job in the first place and this is one of hundreds of examples that makes this website suffer. Some of the people who leave comments on here are so childish it makes you sick my console is better yours. For christ sake get a f@~***g life will you sad sad people it is a piece of plastic i suggest you go and watch this video
http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp4/files.g4tv.com/videoDB/036/553/video36553/go_soapbox_killzonemailbag_pod.mp4 haha tha adam guy in tha videos pretty funny! Opinions can't be wrong. Deal with it.
Maybe that's what he meant - they look samey.
Actually, many others wouldn't have batted an eyelid with regards to this review had it not been a PS3 exclusive. The fact that it is a supposed 'AAA exclusive system seller', and then subsequently got scored less than 90% is, in some way, insulting to the Sony nutjobs out there.
Do you KNOW that 8.7/10 is an unfair score for Killzone 2? ye but look at it this way, this reviewer is quick enough to spit out that the enemys are to samey but when we answer back its all ooo fanboy freak! i aint a fanboy!I dont live on my ps3 i jus dont like reviews that are wrong!
you got to take into account also that this game aint about fighting another alien race, both sides of the war are human, its not like halo or gears of war, infact this game, even though its of the sci-fi genre it is in more comparisen to COD4, theres no big variety in that game of enemys bout nothing was said bout that but there is variety in killzone 2!cod4,gears of war are mint and i beleve killzone will follow suit if not better! thas my 2 pence on the subject
also im not slaggin u off but is any xbox fans likin how halo wars is turnin out? looks sorta red alert/command and conquery to me which is totally the opposite to what i was expecting Have you not seen a review you disagree with before? I've seen loads. That doesn't make them 'wrong', that just makes your opinion different to theirs.
What does it matter whether they are human or otherwise. I work with (mostly) humans, and <quick scan around office> yup, we all look very different.
Why do you have to be an Xbox fan to like or dislike how a game is turning out. I don't own a PS3, yet I think Uncharted 2 and God of War 3 are looking great, Heavy Rain is looking exceptional, and Metal Gear Solid 4 looks pants.
However, as you asked, I've played the demo of Halo Wars (a game I was largely ambivalent towards) and really loved it. To the point where I am now going to get it.
The fact that there is co-op campaign play is the icing on the cake for me :) Or is that a sore subject? MGS4 is the best game on the ps3. and the best game not on the 360.
lone assassin type play. no need for a group of pansy-assed buddies to hold your hand. haha what???
of course its different lookin round the real world, althou there is a guy in my office thats the samey as me ooo! but you do understand its a game rite and your precious halo didnt have tha much variation either!
Have you not seen a review you disagree with before? I've seen loads. That doesn't make them 'wrong', that just makes your opinion different to theirs.
yes but my opinion on his review is correct and his review is wrong thats my point!!!
"Why do you have to be an Xbox fan to like or dislike how a game is turning out. I don't own a PS3, yet I think Uncharted 2 and God of War 3 are looking great, Heavy Rain is looking exceptional, and Metal Gear Solid 4 looks pants"
umm well becoz halo wars is coming out on the xbobx maybe? and am thikin that not many ps3 user will be intrested, althou I am coz i liked halo 2 and i was asking xbox users how they felt about it! that attempt you just made was pathetic, and i stated i wasnt slaggin xbox users off beocz i wasnt, jus didnt want a useless reply like u jus give or to not kick off an arguement! I was generally statin that the way they went with halo wars so unexpected by oneself and was wonderin if any other ppl espically xbox user felt the same way and if they still like how halo wars as actualyy turned out!
fairplay no offence but ur abit of a cock son! Every1 on here check this out, probably first of its kind lol but i promise its a fantastic read :D
http://www.planetxbox360.com/article_5729/Killzone_2_Convinced_Me_to_Buy_a_Playstation_3 My precious Halo?
Owning a 360 does not automatically make you a Halo fan. In fact, I find Halo to be fairly average to be honest.
I also don't own, and have never played Gears of War, for the record.
However, my point was, everyone is different. The reviewer stated the enemies lacked variety, you disagreed with this. Then you stated that 'you have to take into account...that both sides are human', as if this somehow validates why enemies may be samey. Everyone is different, so this is hardly an argument.
It doesn't bother me one jot if enemies in ANYTHING are the same. Hell, I've killed the same Super Mutant in Fallout 3 countless times, but it doesn't detract from the game for me. It does for the reviewer though - to each their own.
Once again, opinions aren't right or wrong. They are merely your feelings on a subject. You disagree with the reviewer, but that doesn't make him wrong. We're not talking mathematics here - there is no right or wrong answer.
Why can't you just be a gaming fan? I couldn't give two sh*ts which console a game appears on - if it's something I'm interested in, I'll read about it, talk about it, and hopefully play it.
No, you're thinking that not many PS3 FANBOYs are interested. Those GAMERS out there that currently own a PS3 may one day own a 360 - which means they may well have an interest in upcoming games for it.
And I replied, I loved it. To me, calling it Halo Wars is little more than an attempt to cash into the Halo money pit - it's no different to sticking Marios name on some sub-par tennis game. However, in this case, Halo Wars is, in my opinion, of considerable quality, and I shall be getting it.
Do you know what 'irony' is? yes but im askin xbox users of now, not in the future and like you said son "each to their own" and this is my opinion on the subject matter so why are taking everything im saying and making remarks on them, contridiction much or...?!!! One. I'm fairly sure you aren't my mum OR my dad. Therefore, I am not 'your son'.
Two. Exactly what did I contradict? I suggest you cease to use words of more than two syllabels as you clearly struggle with their meaning.
And no, you weren't asking Xbox users, you asked 'Xbox fans' - my question was, why do you have to be an Xbox fan to be interested in a game on it. A point you seem to be avoiding, ignoring, or incapable of grasping (I lean to the latter). xbox user/xbox fan
well an xbox user is using an xbox because hes a fan of the console and its games so therefore i.e -- xbox fan!jus like a ps3 user is using a ps3 coz hes a fan therefore i.e ps3 fan
that is not related to fanboy/fangirl blah blah!
But simply that they are using the system coz they like the console in the first place, so their a fan of the system, they like it! and it crosses over i.e a ps3 fan can also be an xbox fan and vice versa!
so vis-à-vis It doesnt make a blind bit of difference what term i use for xbox/ps3 game players because if you were smart enough you'd realise this!
and your contridictin yourself by sayin this reviewer has the rite to say what he feels yet you also forget that so do I so you blast me for makin an opinion in the first place to this reviewers inquest of killzone 2 Wow. I think you might just have won the award for most inane post ever. And with 'crimbo' around, that really is quite some doing.
I am currently using a PC. So that makes me a PC fan does it? I'm about to drive home - or 'use' my car, if you will. So I'm a car fan too, eh? When I get home, I'll use (sit on) the sofa, making me a chair fan? Awesome. :roll:
Fan is a shortened term for 'fanatic' - in case you hadn't realised it, this has negative connotations. Owning or using any console does not automatically make you fanatical about it.
Unless it's a PS3 apparently.
Apologies to any level headed PS3 owners out there. I know you're out there somewhere, but you are definitely the silent minority.
The reviewer does have the RIGHT to say what he feels, as do you. However, that doesn't make what he says right. Like I said, opinions aren't right or wrong.
You quite clearly stated that his review was wrong, even citing 'proof' (as much as it was), and then demanded that he be fired...
How very giving of you. To bunneyo:
Actually "son", you seem to be the one that's contradicting yourself. First you lambast the reviewer for expressing his opinion of the game, then when you are called on it you claim that you have the same right to express your opinion. How is this any different from what the reviewer was doing? Answer: It isn't. That's the point.
As for which words you use to describe something or someone not mattering that is hugely ignorant. While many people are often able to interpret what was meant from a set choice of words, it is also equally true that there are a great many instances where many people fail to interpret what was intended accurately. The more succint and precise your choice of words the greater your chances of having people adequately and accurately understand what it is precisely you are trying to express. This is the fundamental difference between effectively communicating with a person as opposed to just talking at them or over them. Vocabulary does matter. Don't worry "marty" is the biggest fanboy on this site masquerading as an office worker(more like mental asylum)
I've read the above posts and it is clear to see this "marty" was looking for a fight from the off, which is seriously worrying for a 42yr old female (talk about being defensive)
maybe she's had her period
This is all I needed to hear and I wont forget this:
it's not out yet you harlot Don't worry "marty" is the biggest fanboy on this site masquerading as an office worker(more like mental asylum)
I've read the above posts and it is clear to see this "marty" was looking for a fight from the off, which is seriously worrying for a 42yr old female (talk about being defensive)
maybe she's had her period
This is all I needed to hear and I wont forget this:
Pot. Kettle. Black. Awww well as you said we are all entitled to an opinion(like the reviewer of this very game :roll:) I voiced mine, so tough. Also don't flatter yourself I have better things to do than stalk a blazing hypocrite cry baby.
Toodle pip. So Halo Wars (an RTS game) looks like another RTS and you expected the opposite? What, out of curosity, did you expect it to turn out like? I think it's great btw. Wow. I think you might just have won the award for most inane post ever. And with 'crimbo' around, that really is quite some doing.
I am currently using a PC. So that makes me a PC fan does it? I'm about to drive home - or 'use' my car, if you will. So I'm a car fan too, eh? When I get home, I'll use (sit on) the sofa, making me a chair fan? Awesome. :roll:
Fan is a shortened term for 'fanatic' - in case you hadn't realised it, this has negative connotations. Owning or using any console does not automatically make you fanatical about it.
Unless it's a PS3 apparently.
Apologies to any level headed PS3 owners out there. I know you're out there somewhere, but you are definitely the silent minority.
I thought I was quite vocal.......oh wait you said level headed. :cry: I played the demo, you penis. That is all that is needed to gain a complete grasp of a games quality, right? EVERYONE seems to know just how good Killzone 2 is after the demo, after all.
From what I played of Halo Wars, I loved - simple as that. It's possible that the finished article will be a let down, but going by the demo, I doubt out. I do often wonder if crimbo is a mogwai. Every time it rains he seems to multiply. :? Just thought I’d add another little thought to stoke the embers:
Of course an opinion can be wrong, otherwise the common saying of “I had the wrong opinion of you/it/car/fish”, after all Hitler was of the opinion that people of the Jewish faith should be killed, and that was most certainly not the right opinion.
Feel free to deconstruct that in these increasingly muddy waters. Not sure I'd quite call that Hitlers opinion. Delusion maybe.
And yes, the reviewer is quite within his rights to state he was wrong, that he's changed his mind or whatever, but no one else can tell him he's wrong. That's sorta my point. wow these guys are as bad as hitler whn it comes to writing a realible review lol they need to hire new people like now !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! rather then people lambasting cvg for giving a lower score than the unbiased official reviews that were allowed to review before everyone else for some reason, should we not question the validity of the stupidly high scores from the early reviews? metacritic now has 5 scores under 90 for this game with the most scores being 90 itself. seems to me that cvg are closer to the mark than the reviews that gave 98 or more!
the tactic of fixing reviews and having an embargo have caused people not to trust the lower scores which is a tactic that is obviously working and will help sales. i dont think this is the first time this has happened and wont be the last. Agreed - I can think of no legitimate reason for a company not wanting their game reviewed promptly and unbiased. Hmmmmm...I sincerely hope that was tongue in cheek otherwise I would check yourself into some kind of asylum before you hurt someone. I've just completed the single player. The last stage of the last level was quite hard. My final verdict is that this is an extremely solid single player. I really can't remember when was the last time I played a single player as good as Killzone 2 (yes, I've played CoDs, Resistance games, Halo etc). Orchestral music is really amazing. Cutscenes look brilliant. The lighting especially is really well implemented into them, and it shows.
There are few FPS drops here and there, but FPS remains solid during the most of the game. Of course, game is, viewing from the pure graphical PoV, best thing seen on consoles and I really can't even imagine what's going to beat it in the graphical department. Something from Sony's 1st party probably. As some of you have noticed, there are some bad textures, but overall, there's really little you can say against graphical presentation of Killzone 2.
It's simply breathtaking. I've said this before, and I'll say it again, do not judge this game based on your experience on the demo. The demo really doesn't show the beauty of this game. AI is great, they adapt to different situations really well. There are some bugs, but nothing serious. In contrast to Resistance 2, where you were the only target of enemy attacks, your comrades will be under attack all of the time.
Total time it took for me to complete the game was little above 10 hours, though my friends who played on Normal (I played on Hard), managed to complete it in around 8 and a half. There are some quite interesting trophies in the game btw, and their icons are really nice too. 8-10 hours is pretty decent, certainly better than the CoD4 campaign length.
And I love it when developers put some thought into achievements/trophies. Complete each level ones are to be expected and fairly dull. Good on em. Well the official UK PS3 mag gave it a gold award and 9 out of 10. PSM gave it 88%. So it really should of got 9 here. But what's really annoying about this review is it's yet another one that only just barely touches on the amazing and fantastic AI. Name me the number of games with AI this good? I bet it's a count on one hand.
So amazing AI and easily the best graphics of any console game so far, game of the year IMO. Oh hang on didn't COD4 win that last year purely because of it's online pay?
So this should win it because of it's graphics and AI, alas I fear it won't. Still I have it on pre-order as a birthday present no less and am damn glad it's a short 8 hour playtime, then it's onto the multiplayer to frag some asses! *Ding-ding!*
And there we have it folks, Godwins Law occurs after 18 pages. Winrar. Shoot me down if you wish .
I've played the demo ,i will be buying this .
Heres the "but"i found the first person view while running very off putting because the guns placed to the right of the screen it feels like your running lobsided ,and the guns feel clunky and not very precise ,maybe cod 4 & cod waw online have clouded my judgement of all other fps.
i also played killzone 1 which i got from game for promotional price of £19.99 new . hope sony do the same again :lol: when an adversary uses an inappropriate Hitler or Nazi comparison, "you have only to say 'Godwin's Law' and a trapdoor falls open, plunging your rival into a pool of hungry crocodiles."
Ouch
/me shuts trapdoor to drown out screaming noise. Got the game this morning but I need help in clearing something up for me please. Is the intro CGI or in game engine? It doesn't that good to be CGI, but there again it looks too good to be game engine! Its the little things that bug me see?
Anyhoo, just put it 10 minutes ago and its all ready far beyond the EDGE's ass backwards 7 score! :D »
Hmm, this isn't going to work without images...
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler!
Hitler! 8.7? Sounds like an honest score for this massively overhyped game if you ask me. KZ2 is good and its worth buying so why are people bitching so much?
As for cvg's review, Could it be behind all those flashy visuals its just another console fps? No, it isn't another fps, it's an Elephant disguised as a giant turnip. I think/hope everything has been said already about this review. There is nothing else to say, is there? been playing 4 an hr...... graphics r good and multiplayer is ok..... getting a game can be a pain tho, getting lots of error codes and being thrown, hopefully just teething problems ^^^
There is a patch coming out today to sort out the error that is blighting the multiplayer. Sorted.
I'll more than likely complete single player on veteran first.
Or try at least. Why did CVG miss-out the MULTIPLAYER when giving this game their dogs-dinner of a review
That is 0.7 added to the score at least, we all know that | 
Looks to kill
