Killzone 2

[Lunchlady Doris]

Well it's only 93 on metacritic. Looks like the dream is dead.

 

[HBK619]

Well it's only 93 on metacritic. Looks like the dream is dead.

It's only got 34 reviews and that's almost a month from release, there are still plenty more to come, scores which could add to the games overall score right now of 93.

 

[HBK619]

UK IGN Review of Killzone 2, the score...9.2.

Source: http://au.ps3.ign.com/articles/950/950048p1.html

Closing Comments
For a developer whose previous games have been little more than average, Killzone 2 is a landmark achievement. Guerrilla has pushed the boundaries of what we’ve seen on PlayStation 3 by creating an all-action shooter that’s far closer to the original E3 teaser trailer than we could ever have imagined. It’s not perfect, sure, but it’s arguably the best FPS on PlayStation 3 and one that is, in this reviewer’s opinion at least, superior to Resistance 2. It also hints at what the developer is capable of achieving next time round and, bearing in mind what Epic achieved with Gears 2 over the original, we cannot wait to see what Guerrilla does with the next game in the series. For now, if you own a PS3, Killzone 2 is a must-have. And if you don’t own Sony’s machine, maybe it’s time to bite the bullet to make sure you don’t miss out on what is truly an outstanding game.

9 Presentation
The 3D menus take a little getting used to, but everything else functions smoothly and looks superb, much like the rest of the game.

10 Graphics
Killzone 2 is a visual tour de force and sets a new benchmark in what PlayStation 3 - and action games as a whole - are capable of.

9 Sound
Although the dialgoue is often by-the-numbers, the overall assault on your ears is nothing short of spectacular, especially through a decent surround sound system.

9 Gameplay
Occasionally rubbish buddy AI lets down what is otherwise a first-class shooter experience, with some of the best enemy AI in the business.

9 Lasting Appeal
Killzone 2's sizeable multiplayer offering is bursting with depth and variation. Shame there's no campaign co-op though.

OVERALL 9.2

 

[Arecsa]

Well it's only 93 on metacritic. Looks like the dream is dead.

Yeah, terrible score I won't be buying it now. The game is going to be fantastic and will easily be a GOTY contender.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Yeah, terrible score I won't be buying it now. The game is going to be fantastic and will easily be a GOTY contender.

Crystal balling

 

[Biggy_Boy]

It's only got 34 reviews and that's almost a month from release, there are still plenty more to come, scores which could add to the games overall score right now of 93.

Halo is 94 from about 80 reviews.

The dream is dead. Try again Sony fanboys.

Maybe Sony should advertise during the superbowl?

*Chuckle*

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Halo is 94 from about 80 reviews.

The dream is dead. Try again Sony fanboys.

Maybe Sony should advertise during the superbowl?

*Chuckle*

If you can explain to me the qualitative difference between 94 and 93, I will throw my PS3 at an oncoming car, take a shit right on it, and post photos for everyone on this forum.

 

[Arecsa]

Crystal balling

As much as you so desperately want this game to fail, a 93 is an excellent score. It puts it on par with games like Gears of War 2, Fallout 3 and a mere point below CO4 and Halo 3. I never said it'd be GOTY, but a score like this easily puts it right up there.

 

[davey_magik]

It's only got 34 reviews and that's almost a month from release, there are still plenty more to come, scores which could add to the games overall score right now of 93.

'Oh no man, it only scored 93!'

'IT SCORED 93 MAN! ****ING 93! WHAT THE **** IS THIS SHIT! NINETY-****ING-THREE!!!!

 

[Kerrby]

If you can explain to me the qualitative difference between 94 and 93, I will throw my PS3 at an oncoming car, take a shit right on it, and post photos for everyone on this forum.

Haha Karl. Love your work.

'Oh no man, it only scored 93!'

'IT SCORED 93 MAN! ****ING 93! WHAT THE **** IS THIS SHIT! NINETY-****ING-THREE!!!!

You put 360 owners to shame davey.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

As much as you so desperately want this game to fail, a 93 is an excellent score. It puts it on par with games like Gears of War 2, Fallout 3 and a mere point below CO4 and Halo 3. I never said it'd be GOTY, but a score like this easily puts it right up there.

Scores are completely subjective, and metacritic is just a lot of subjective opinions.

I can not get over the emphasis put on scores on this forum. How the **** can you say it's a point above/below any other game, when that point isn't measuring anything tangible?

Using an AFL analgoy:

It isn't like saying Melbourne beat Freo by a point. It's like saying Melbourne beat Freo by a cloud. It's WTF all around.

A score of 93 is the same as a score of 1. It is meaningless. They're a bunch of numbers that don't quantify anything, you can't accurately give a score to something if it isn't measuring a unit of something.

Who comes up with the scores? Critics. And 100% of critics are nerdish fat virgins. If you want opinions from fat nerdish virgins, don't bother with metacritic, just PM a moderator.

note: This isn't directed at either 'side' (both of which worship me equally anyway), its directed at anyone who actually even reads reviews about games and uses them to decide whether they'll play a game. Or if one game is better than another.

 

[scooterb]

Gametrailers review (SD)

KP, you're a pisser. Never leave buddy.

 

[HBK619]

Scores are completely subjective, and metacritic is just a lot of subjective opinions.

I can not get over the emphasis put on scores on this forum. How the **** can you say it's a point above/below any other game, when that point isn't measuring anything tangible?

Not to mention the reviews don't actually compare any games directly, and as we saw with IGN's best games of the year, the scores don't always mean the game is better in comparison(Which in effect does eliminate the point of scores in the first place).

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Not to mention the reviews don't actually compare any games directly, and as we saw with IGN's best games of the year, the scores don't always mean the game is better in comparison(Which in effect does eliminate the point of scores in the first place).

You be quiet HBK, I know you're a score-fiend. You're the enemy buddy.

 

[Biggy_Boy]

ITT: HBK talks about how scores on metacritic don't determine how good a game is.

In any other thread (especially those pertaining to 360 games):
This Game SUXORS BIG TIME GUYS!!!11!!1!!!! iT DONT GOT A BIG SCORE ON DA METACRITIC IT BE SHIT. POS XBOX 360 GAME, ****ING n00b, PS3 HAS DA BEST GAMES WHICH SCORE DA BEST ON DA METACRITIC amirite?

 

[davey_magik]

ITT: HBK talks about how scores on metacritic don't determine how good a game is.

In any other thread (especially those pertaining to 360 games):
This Game SUXORS BIG TIME GUYS!!!11!!1!!!! iT DONT GOT A BIG SCORE ON DA METACRITIC IT BE SHIT. POS XBOX 360 GAME, ****ING n00b, PS3 HAS DA BEST GAMES WHICH SCORE DA BEST ON DA METACRITIC amirite?

Let's not forget his 'I don't bring up sales statistics' line in the 360 thread, followed up by articles full of sales statistics .

 

[HBK619]

You be quiet HBK, I know you're a score-fiend. You're the enemy buddy.

No I'm not, I'll look at them, I'll use them to HELP in buying a game, but I never use a review to actually buy the game, I use as many avenues as possible first to help with buying games, I will rarely go into one of these, "Oh, the game sucks because on Metacritic it isn't rated as high as X game"

And BTW did you not see me a while back literally bagging the shit through metacritic?

I might just add onto what I said to before.

I find it really strange that, so far in what I have seen of reviews from Killzone 2, the scores are lowered because of what is NOT in the game, for example co-op seems to be the main point that people use to say why this game isn't what it could or should be, but I thought reviews were based on what is IN the game, not what's NOT in the game, did Bioshock get deducted points because it didn't have co-op, did COD4, NO, because they didn't have it and people were basing their reviews on what the game did have not what it didn't.

 

[HBK619]

In any other thread (especially those pertaining to 360 games):
This Game SUXORS BIG TIME GUYS!!!11!!1!!!! iT DONT GOT A BIG SCORE ON DA METACRITIC IT BE SHIT. POS XBOX 360 GAME, ****ING n00b, PS3 HAS DA BEST GAMES WHICH SCORE DA BEST ON DA METACRITIC amirite?

LOL, really? Or are you just talking about where I said the PS3 had better games than the XBOX 360 and used LLD's favourite site to show him the truth of the matter? That is why I stated that mate.

Apart from that, I have never stated a game is not good because of Metacritic.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

HBK, I'm just messin with ya dude. You just seem to take life a little too seriously sometimes.

 

[HBK619]

Let's not forget his 'I don't bring up sales statistics' line in the 360 thread, followed up by articles full of sales statistics .

This coming from the guy who'd laugh every time Killzone 2 was brought up as a possible good game, and even when the good reviews come out says "Not sure if KZ2 will have the multiplayer to save it though." even though EVERY review has said the multiplayer is the best part.

 

[HBK619]

HBK, I'm just messin with ya dude. You just seem to take life a little too seriously sometimes.

Well then put a smiley in so I can know! This is a forum remember, we write things, I can't tell sarcasm when you're writing it(Most of the time).

 

[Biggy_Boy]

No I'm not, I'll look at them, I'll use them to HELP in buying a game, but I never use a review to actually buy the game, I use as many avenues as possible first to help with buying games, I will rarely go into one of these, "Oh, the game sucks because on Metacritic it isn't rated as high as X game"

And BTW did you not see me a while back literally bagging the shit through metacritic?

I might just add onto what I said to before.

I find it really strange that, so far in what I have seen of reviews from Killzone 2, the scores are lowered because of what is NOT in the game, for example co-op seems to be the main point that people use to say why this game isn't what it could or should be, but I thought reviews were based on what is IN the game, not what's NOT in the game, did Bioshock get deducted points because it didn't have co-op, did COD4, NO, because they didn't have it and people were basing their reviews on what the game did have not what it didn't.

LOL, really? Or are you just talking about where I said the PS3 had better games than the XBOX 360 and used LLD's favourite site to show him the truth of the matter? That is why I stated that mate.

Apart from that, I have never stated a game is not good because of Metacritic.

This coming from the guy who'd laugh every time Killzone 2 was brought up as a possible good game, and even when the good reviews come out says "Not sure if KZ2 will have the multiplayer to save it though." even though EVERY review has said the multiplayer is the best part.

I think you're looking for this.

 

[HBK619]

I think you're looking for this.

No, as I made each post another one popped up to reply to, so I couldn't multi-quote, as you can see there was about 5 minutes between each post.

 

[Mancey]

And the UK IGN review is out, and it is a better score than the US equivalent at an 8.8.

Source: http://au.ps3.ign.com/articles/921/921015p1.html

IGN review is out, it's a 3 page review and a fantastic score of 9.5.

EDIT: Might just add this from the review about the 60 player online

Source: http://au.ps3.ign.com/articles/924/924372p1.html

Also interesting that the US IGN gave Resistance 2 and Gears Of War 2 the EXACT same score of 9.5, obviously not wanting to get into any fanboy war, now R2 doesn't have reviews from the UK or AU department yet, but Gears Of War 2 got 9.2 from the UK and 8.8 from the AU.

Mirror's Edge on IGN was given a .1 increase in the overall score because And this comparison shows it to be true, Mirror's Edge comparison Or this HD comparison.

So obviously the PS3's graphical capabilities can't be THAT bad, especially if they are winning many comparisons, whether or not you think Fallout 3 is better or worse, the PS3 is still winning battles.

Lol 0.1. It must be better!!!!

Well the AU IGN review is up, and amazingly it is not the same score as Gears 2 as predicted, in fact it is a better score, a 9.3.

Source: http://au.ps3.ign.com/articles/933/933598p1.html

Mate, LittleBigPlanet has a Metacritic rating of 95 from 77 reviews, and a 9.5 from these 216 reviews, yet you think it should be a PSN game and it barely raises a mention from you as any sort of a game what-so-ever, and now your trusting the douchebag Famitsu publication for your game reviews?!?

HONESTLY!!!

Mate...you're like the score whore from hell. Why would you even bother arguing it.

You've posted like 6 in this thread alone

I'd do more but the multi quote tool would explode

 

[Kerrby]

This coming from the guy who'd laugh every time Killzone 2 was brought up as a possible good game, and even when the good reviews come out says "Not sure if KZ2 will have the multiplayer to save it though." even though EVERY review has said the multiplayer is the best part.

LOL.

Now we're going to get something lame from Davey or possible another pathetic attempt to join in.