Network now...MAGAZINE
Killzone 2: The Edge Verdict
.jpg)
Worst of all, Killzone 2 doesn’t just default to the genre’s worst impulses some of the time; it does so whenever the fateful question’s asked: “What now, Sarge?” Answers include: get on that turret, marine; grab that bazooka and take out that tank; man that mech; watch out for those sentry bots; and rendezvous with Alpha Team and secure that LZ.
Sentry bots? You must be joking. If you can’t think for yourself after so many millions of dollars have been spent, surely it’s common courtesy to make your clichés interesting. Not here, it seems, where half the chapters feel like multiplayer maps full of bots and random waypoints.
In fact, few story-driven games have been so much more dramatic in multiplayer. Freed of its narrative shackles, Killzone 2’s deathmatches openly celebrate the tight controls (jumping now included), hand-made environments and technical beauty of a game that is, almost exclusively, about popping someone in the face or blowing them to kingdom come.
Separate development of the multiplayer modes has paid dividends, the badge and perks systems adding distinctive RPG flavour to a uniquely hardcore team-based experience.
First impressions might be that everyone’s dying all of the time, but perseverance pays off. Thanks largely to its online play, Killzone 2 should find itself a fanbase no one can overlook. In singleplayer, it’s a testament to craft and imagination, if only because one is so immaculate while the other barely exists. It fights a great battle, it’s just a shame about the war.
7/10
Contact Us / About Us / Advertise With Us / BeltwayBlips / TechBlips / MassiveBlips / GamerBlips / FAQ
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
I must be missing something with the MP, coz whenever i've played it all deteriates into 2 teams battling over the same bottleneck and one big nade-fest. Can't say that for all the maps because i doubt i've spent enough time to have played them all.
The respawning patterns are, in my few hours experience, very basic compared to COD4 which uses respawning to keep the battles fresh by constantly moving the players around the whole map.
I shall give the MP a few more goes though to see if there's more to it.
The SP is very good though and like someone said above, show me an FPS with an intelligent engaging storyline that doesn't come across like it's been written for a teenage male audience, because i've yet to play one in 30 years of gaming!! Though the first hour of Half Life 2 came close before that fizzled out into typical FPS storyline land, i.e. go here kill everything, then go here and kill everything, repeat.
EDIT: Actually make that 15 or so years seeing as the FPS genre has only been around since the early 90s :D
I suppose you could replay the first 60% of Bioshock twice...
Well this was the final straw for me, bought your magazine from the very first issue
and now I shall not anymore.
quake 3 , cant remember the exact score you gave it but It stuck in my mind as a poor review.
I spent 4 years in multiplayer on it.
gears of war 1 , think you gave it an 7 or an 8 .
I spent 2 years solid on it.
Killzone 2 ... sheesh a 7 .
I can already see I'm going to invest some severe multiplayer time on it.
btw Gears of war 2 multiplayer has been broken from the word go , but look at
the score you gave it
Your reviewing style on multiplayer games is flawed . These types of games are what
give gamers most bang for buck , serious time is invested building a skill level perhaps
that is why a short lead time on a review is creating this issue. Maybe on a multiplayer
game a second review should be made at a later date.
Anyway good luck with your mag, you've had your 3 chances as far as I'm concerned
and I'm done with it.
If I'm not mistaken, Quake 3 was in their top 100 games to play today list.
The Killzone 2 Thread has just reached its maximum number of pages. To read the rest of the thread, please go to stfupaboutkz2already.com
Cheerio then!
You will not be missed...
It certainly appears that Edge got what they wanted out of this review...site traffic obviously...
Uh how is this story in Killzone 2 any different from Halo 2 which got a 9 or 10 any different. I mean hell Halo 2 the moment your playing as an alien it shoudlve been obvious what would happen. Cuz shite I haven't seen a FPS with an amazing story. If you come across one let me know.
Anyone at odds with the score and review EDGE gave Killzone 2 should check out the 4-Page review EDGE did of PC DOOM back in the day. Score: 7/10. Reviewer moaned that all there was too it was: Kill, Kill, Kill etc and it`d be better IF you could talk to the creatures and form friendships! Check it out!
Hmmn, i`m last surviving Space marine, stranded on Mars Base, battling the Residents of hell.....Anyone for a come to jesus meeting? LOL.
Bioshock.
:)
Just bought this game today... it's above average (which would be 5/10), but it's not the best game I've ever played either (which would be 10/10). It sits somewhere in the middle, and 7 feels about right to me. Having just read Edge's review, I think they pretty much got it spot on.
The problem is that although there's lots that's good about this game, there's also lots that's bad. The terrible vehicle handling (and why can't a tank drive over tiny boxes?), the heavy controls (no amount of tweaking the speed setting helped), the drab environments, the dull weaponry, the complete lack of story... all of this gnaws away at the experience, leaving me feeling a bit short-changed.
To be honest, I wasn't bowled over by the graphics and I really don't understand those who are. To me, it just looks like any other "war in space" game. There's a bit more going on in terms of men running about and explosions, but I didn't see anything particularly impressive on either a technical or aesthetic level.
All of this is supposed to be mitigated by the multiplayer experience... well, I don't much like online multiplayer in any game, as I find it populated entirely by obsessives and shouty, sweary young boys. It's very much an "in club" and new members are rarely welcomed.
So, it's not bad, but not great... in my opinion.
Fifteen pages of comments in twenty four days. It's can't be that bad can it?!
In my opinion, Edge doesn't attempt to intellectualise anything. Whilst attempting to make their magazine more palatable to the mainstream with hype, reviews or score etc. A lot of what is written is for people within the Games Industry or people outside it coming in, there is so much more to Edge than just the review section. There are plenty of other magazines or websites that have chosen to provide a more generic and less critical review strategy with no doubt a higher score.
I don't think Edge suffer from Elitism by any stretch of the imagination! They're just presenting an original and critical opinion. Serious readers of Edge have for a long time know and accepted their way of reviewing and there harsh style of criticism, particularly penalizing developers for not being innovative or rehashing older games, we also accept that though a seven isn't the best score, it's not a bad one!!
My point is.. it's admirable that Edge have stuck to their guns and likewise it's entirely admirable that you ALL have such strong opinions. I am glad however, that people are finding this game enjoyable. But also it saddens me to see you all attacking Edge so vehemently because you have some perceived notion that Edge are out to be disruptive, mainly because they don't pander to the mainstream. This whole thread has got completely out of hand.
I have bought this game now (In previous posts I have stated that I was only playing the Demo). I must say I find is most enjoyable as any other shooter just as Resistance2 or Battlefield Bad Company was. If your an FPS head (like me), this games is NOT going to disappoint. It just doesn't tick the boxes for the boys and girls at Edge. But from the point of view of how it looks and runs you don't get much better, physics are particularly good, although for sheer enjoyment, the Gear of War Series on Xbox feels a lot nicer to me and I like the story more than I do Killzone 2's, but that's just one man opinion.
Whether you agree with Edge or Not, what all this has done is generate a whole load of hype surrounding the product. Interesting Marketing strategy!
EDGE seemingly wants to intellectualize Videogames too much...
It makes me think about a famous french mag called Telerama who think that getting an opinion different from the mass-population make them more of an "elite".
Truth is that you are not fair with this game! I have spent 50 marvellous hours on this game and just ask for many many more!!
"EDGE seemingly wants to intellectualize Videogames too much"
And thank f*ck for that! At least someone is making the effort. Though it is sometimes jarring to see high-brow concepts discussed in a review of yet another big-war-against-evil-army/big-war-against-evil-army-with-CO-OP/big-war-against-evil-army-and-PARKOUR!
High time for the industry to tackle something more interesting? Yes, please.
It's genuinely sad that this little tiff is STILL going on.
yep, I think edge may have got the point!
I generally agree that the hubub (sp?) has been much too long-winded, long-lived and histrionic. I think that, more than anything else, it should be readily apparent to just about everyone that has played the game that this review seems to be of a different game than the one we all played. Yes, there are odd points to the review (Since when have we stamped our feet about a bad storyline in a FPS campaign? I have trouble remembering a _good_ story in a FPS, period. Even Bioshock didn't have a particularly good story. It was interesting at moments, and it was very, very well told, but if I sat down and wrote out the plot I would think we were talking about a terrible B-movie. A strong storyline in an FPS is like having a second asshole: nice to have -I could get so much more done if I was on the toilet half as long- but absolutly unnecessary). And, frankly, I'm not sure what sort of editorial process Edge has for its reviews as the score seems inappropriate (Even an 8 seems more in line with the experience the rest of the world had of this game and even this review). We should all just be happy with our wonderful shooter and leave Edge, which, as it sometimes seems to be (but not always by any means!), has acted like a little showoffy, twerpy, kid.
This is why I hate the numerical rating system. It's outdated. And does NOTHING except add fuel to the fire for fanboys and fangirls.
Edge should take a gamble and stop attaching those "scores" to their reviews. A review should stand on the content of the text written. Not the meaningless "7/10" added at the very bottom.
Remove that score and keep everything else the same with the review and what would you have? Alot less fanatics on both "sides" pissing and moaning.
But then they will tell you not to look at the score and to review the text and you will find the text is filled with hyperbole as the writer tries to outdo himself with using big words, and cryptic messages all the while explaining nothing about the game. If you do find a review that actually talks about the game you will find they hate game A because it has bald soldiers and love game B because it has bald soldiers. Can they make up their mind on what they do and don't like?
This review is only designed for one thing to start a massive flame war.
It actually is probably the worst review out for the game. It doesnt even do the industry any justice.
If you read further down, there was a comment left by prince Harry, Just to quote him again:
On February 25th Prince Harry said:
Here here Mefistofeies!
It would appear our good friends at Edge have fallen foul of prejudice and have sunk to the predictable lows of nay saying to be appear contrary. In this review Edge has forgone it's community duties in favor of "Edge pride", something Edge does with alarming frequency.
Edge has firmly seated itself atop a shining stead of righteousness and forgotten that it is, after all, just a reactionary medium in which paid individuals write personal opinions about digital entertainment. Edge itself does not "innovate" or "improve" Edge merely reacts to digital entertainment in a "personal" and self-perpetuating manner. Edge has a mission statement and company values that are known to Edge and accordingly the information disseminated via Edge media outlets should be regarded as you would regard any media releases, with a certain level of criticism.
The review of Killzone 2 is classic Edge in the sense that Edge takes itself very seriously and positions itself above the herd. In this instance of "EdGeOTISM" the reviewer has fallen victim to cheap comparisons and "cliche campaigning" to justify the score of 7. The reviewer obviously set out to mark down the game and called on very limited evidence to support the score. The review has a hollow agenda that is poorly supported and because of this the review doesn't ring true.
Regardless of what score Killzone 2 should or should not achieve and regardless of platform or developer origins this is the first Killzone game on the PS3, not the first FPS, and it never claimed to be the latter. It appears Edge has taken an angry shot against "fanboyism" and "media hype" rather than judging the game on it's merits and in doing so has produced a watery argument to support the review score.
If you love fps and enjoy "splendiferous" visuals and sound then KZ2 maybe for you. If you like killing things with big guns then KZ2 may be for you. Enjoyment of a game is more than "degree of innovation" and other such minutiae and at the end of the day what get's you off is what get's "you" of. It's your choice and not the choice of digital entertainment reviewers. Read between the lines, for in this review they are railroad tracks, be informed not alarmed.
To go against popular opinion with a just cause is heroic, to go against popular opinion with just a vendetta is "EdGeOTISM".
Prince Harry
for
Royal Society for Prevention of Poorly Constructed Reviews
Prince Harry does the best job of explaining whats wrong with this whole review and much more eloquently than I ever could. So full props.
The sad thing is a review like this, by a well read magazine, can actually have a tangible influence on sales in Europe. Gorilla games should sue. LoL
Like many have said the game review is biased. CoD games, halo, gears and others get great reviews but this one is short of that standard somehow. I can bet the upcoming cod:mw2 will be similar to ALL the cod games before and still get a good review.
Gorilla games? LOL. Not sure what kind of circulation Edge has, but I'm pretty certain the sales won't be affected by this review. Most people will just read hippie happy reviews on IGN and Gametrailers and pick up Killzone 2 as soon as they get a chance.
It always irks me when I hear complaints about game reviews being biased. Why should reviewers have any special obligations to consumers, other than the obligation to be HONEST? If you like the game and so do 99% of folks on this planet, it still doesn't mean that the remaining 1% have to be in agreement with the majority.
All reviews are biased, that's the whole point. Why do people have trouble grasping this rather basic fact?
Hey everyone!! Listen! ARRON WROTE THIS REVIEW!
Now burn him, --or feed him to the Lions -- or uh, spam him to death--whatever. lol
1
Shooters (or FPS for that matter) have been around for a while and reviewing one has become a subtle art in itself. It's like comparing one expensive wine over another, or how one digital SLR camera stacks up to the rest. Innovation, if done right, is good but ultimately, shooters have very similar mechanics, gameplay and objectives that what the reviewer has to point out are the subtle nuances that makes one better over another. Things like how realistically AI comrades and enemies move and behave, how real the feeling of being in a devastating war, how your bullet registers on your targets, how real explosions and the ensuing debris are rendered, how exhilirating the feel and sound of your weapon when you pull that trigger, and that satisfying feel of progress whenever you cleared an area of enemies. Nitpicking over story, additional gameplay modes, or who has bigger bosses is like looking for more fizz in a bottle of 1998 Clos des Goisses or wishing there was more than 100000x zoom in a Nikon D90. Having finally played KZ2, I can say, Guerilla has perfected the science of the shooter and deserves more than having a lower score than FEAR 2.
It`s laughable how EDGE find the swearing in this game an issue,yet seem to love it in Hotd:overkill.
Also,they do`nt seem to like being a grunt caught up in a war,he did`nt start,just trying to survive,in this game,yet had NO such issues with say COD4,or ANY of the 3 Halo titles,where,your the LAST superhuman,but quite happy to let All and sundery order you about.
Often wonder WHY Edge does`nt put Reviewers Names on their reviews,as they obviousily conflict with what is classed as acceptable.
Mind you,we Are talking of a magazine,who at the time,had NO problems airbrushing up XBOX D.O.A screenshots.
Fanboy?No..i own a PS3+360 elite.
Non-Edge fan?Not really,subscriber,have every issue,just had hoped for a better standard of jurnolism.
I'm only half-way through the game myself, but feel that Edge's score is much closer to my opinion than the 100% scores proliferating the web (I'm feeling it will end up around 80% IMO). The controls are sub-par (very floaty and weak cover mechanic), the camera perspective is bizarre (either we're playing the shortest combatant in the Universe or the camera is set at his chest). The graphics are great, but there's a significant price to pay for them - constant microloads which slam the frame rate to an absolute halt quite often within a level. Add in a laughable story, mediocre voice acting and an extrememly linear, highly scripted single player campaign and you have a solid, but not spectacular shooter. It's like a fun summer movie - great while it lasts, but you know it's cardboard thin and will not make a lasting impression.
I think the greater scandal is not what Edge gave this game, but how other reviewers gave out 100% scores and what they got in return for those scores (curiously, almost every 100% score was allowed to post their scores earlier than the sites giving lower scores). I'm glad I bought the game, but it's not the greatest shooter ever and has far too many flaw to warrant the astronomic scores it has received by sites with an inherent bias (official Playstation magazine) or that allowed themselves to be bullied by the increasingly vocal and fanatical Sony Defense Force.
Question for you -- How should the controls feel like? -> cod 4?
Take the multiplayer into account not just the single player, single biggest mistake edge made in the review process.
Also all publishings released about the same time, great reviews are still coming in for the game, it got a lot more 9s than 10's. It definitely deserves the 9's so yes edges 7 is scandalous. Even Kotaku seems to be having a dig at Edge for the crap review (read Kotakus review and you'll see what I mean)
Ive clocked the single player its a definite 9 (it just gets better and better, left me in awe in certain places) Also the Helghan voice acting is superb, the ISA is a bit shit, sev is alright the rest are ott.. The mp is a 10 in my book.
Whereas for some people if a game is going to get more than 7 the story is important and is just as vital as the game play. Some people actually want decent characterisation and dialogue in a game rated higher than 7 or 8. They want also want co-op. Basically whart they want is something more than what Killzone 2 offers which is a decent solid shooter wrapped up with pretty graphics that offers little by way of innovation or engaging decent story lines.
The stereotype black man who can't string a sentence together without swearing it grating a little to say the least.
I think you're missing the boat here. Guerrilla ultimately is going for an experience that puts you into the shoes of a pissant grunt taking part in an interplanetary struggle. I think that this is where the story and dialogue hit a home run. Kotaku's review probably describes this in a way that is better than what I could, but as a lowlife grunt, Guerrilla makes it clear that your priorities are to get out alive, keeping as many of your comrades alive as possible. I think that a more intricate plot or some kind of emphatic didactic from a squadmate would make the experience seem ingenious. As it stands, it makes you feel like just another "one of the guys" on the ground trying to look out for his squad members, and the story and dialogue are uniquely fitting. And from that I talk out of experience having been in a hot zone myself.
And you're missing the point. That "lowlife grunt" story has been done better and with more class by other people, the story and dialogue are nothing special or out of the ordinary or unique enough to say anything otherwise.
Killzone 2 is a good solid shooter with nothing new and that why it got a respectable 7.
The multiplayer brings nothing new ?
The multiplayer alone is enough to +2 the single player giving it the 9 :)
Name me the shooters that have done the grunt story better..
Give it a rest mate and learn to accept that other people have different opinions and likes and dislikes otherwise you're gonna have problems in life.
You're starting to come across as a bit crazy.
I asked and stated very simple things.
Firstly, you say it brings nothing new but forget to take the multiplayer into account at all. This is a big mistake on your part and on Edges part. The game is comprised of three main components killzone, warzone and skirmish. So when reviewing ideally all three need to be taken into account.
You are very right people can and do have different views and thats a great thing. Just check on every major games magazine and check the comments for killzone 2. The majority love this game and would give it the 9s and 10s, Only a very slight minority don't like the game.
I don't know you or your agenda. I do know that you believe edge to be correct with its review, while the vast majority of players and reviewers have found the game to be an advancement over the genre, have praised its multiplayer and even a few publishings have had a direct dig at edge for this crap review and score.
If you want to answer my original question set to you and back up your claim, feel free. If you want to come back with any derogatory comment feel free to do so as well. The derogatory comment will only prove that your argument has no legs to stand on.
If you ever work out that their is no 'right' and their is no 'wrong' you will realise you did nothing but chat complete bo11ox on this comments section.
There is a right and wrong in this case. This is about quality and quality is not just opinion is not just subjective. I read an interesting piece today It stated this:
"You can think that cubic zirconia is prettier than that diamond...doesn't change the obvious fact that one is of a higher quality."
I have intentionally left out a link to the article and to the writer, so if they come across this ever, I am sorry for quoting you without linking to you.
There are ways of evaluating quality, for example:
Graphics would be a factor, Fun would be a very important factor, Sound would be another factor, so would Gameplay, Story, Multiplayer, voice acting, longevity, etc .. etc ..
Reviewers will base their reviews on these factors and they will also inevitably compare to other titles within the genre for a holistic overview and comparison. The review should never be completely subjective if it is to hold weight.
Edge editors and reviewers are paid for this. They are paid to look at quality playability and the fun value of a game and they seem to fail miserably time and time again (especially where the platform seems to be playstation 3)..
Just fyi http://www.better-english.com/easier/theyre.htm, I make the mistake a lot myself.
"Edge editors and reviewers are paid for this. They are paid to look at quality playability and the fun value of a game and they seem to fail miserably time and time again (especially where the platform seems to be playstation 3)".. Just why, WHY is it that every time some ps3 owner gets a review for a game on their system that they THINK justifies the stupidly high price of their console over a 360, the score doesnt reflect this? Is it because they are clutching at short grass on a cliff face desparetly trying not to fall into common sense that,for all of that supposed performance power over the 360 is in fact NOT at all coming to fruitition? Here we go, name any game on 360 since "the darkness" that has not got the ability to run in 1080p, Now can you or anyone reading this explain to me why the game that is supposedly too much for xbox to handle, can only run at 720p just like 90percent of ps3 games? Sony must be pushing developers TO cocentrate on graphics just so that Sony doesnt again get egg on their face AND lose customers due to their repetedly false claims of power and performance...CGI footage of games "then" yet to be made Motorstorm,Metal Gear solid and Killzone. When these did come out, they where NOT EVEN CLOSE to the looks of the footage,yet it was claimed it would be noo problem at all for ps3 to attain! Gears of wars anounced and in game graphics shown running on development stations, and the public didnt think possible at all,yet when released, HAD better visuals than the shown footage, people aint forgot this,but still gave sony 1 chance to prove em selfs because they found of the brand. will they be still stubborn when they see the next generation of 360 games looking not only better than KZ2,but also in 1080p?What does a multiplatform magazine gain by alienating a large portion of readers with poor reviews? that sounds like your accuse them of bad buisness as well has poor journalism.Dont worry though,at least you got a good blue ray player for the price bracket like sony intended ;)
It's just generally accepted that a magazine / newspaper will follow the tastes of the time. A classic example is The Sun newspaper. It will support to the hilt, the government of the day - until it senses a turning tide in readership opinion. Then it will change over. After all it has to sell newspapers, and to do that, it has to play 'follow the reader'.
EDGE magazine is no different. It's in the buisness afterall, to sell as many copies as possible. And if that means being populist, then so what? Until recently, PS3 has been the stubborn, aloof, troublesome teenager, complete with dug-in heels. It's older sibling, the 360, on the other hand, is the gregarious, popular, great-down-the-pub 'lad' whose also good at playing videogames. Who would you rather be associated with if you want to appear cool in front of your mates / readers?
I'm probably talking bollocks, but hey, I'm just throwing food for thought. I mean, if EDGE, as a well-intentioned parent, is guilty of favouritism between the siblings, then it's just a cruel fact of life, I'm afraid. If that ever was the case, then maybe they could, at least, set up some councelling sessions for us PS3 owners, lol!
so forget personal opinion, edge are just plain wrong? do you think edge should have read metatcritic to make sure the score they awarded was in line with others? please dont say yes.
The diamond value quote is complete rubbish as usual from you. How can you compare the value of stones to the value of videogames that all retail in the same price brackets? fyi I wont be responding to any other of your nonsensical, self delusional, self admitted and unashamedly ps3 bias posts after this one. You have completely lost the plot. I can't believe I've let myself be drawn into an argument with a full grown ps3 wielding eric cartman. I f you admit you have a ps3 bias in earlier posts, how can anything you say on the subject be taken seriously.
Graphics would be a factor
remember the split opinion wind wakers graphics caused on the gamecube? there is no right and wrong.
Fun would be a very important factor
the level of enjoyment somebody gets from a game is totally dependent on individual taste. Am I really having to explain this to someone over 17? there is no right and wrong.
Sound would be another factor
wow seriously? your arguing people dont have individual taste as far as sound goes now? an individuals view is wrong as far as pieces of music go? utter rubbish, there is no right and wrong.
..Multiplayer
some people dont even play multiplayer.
This all feels like some kind of intervention when somebody wont admit they have a drug problem.
Its ok bo11ox there are different points of view..no, no dont cry..
there are different points of view *big hug*
Did you honestly expect edge to basically say in the review "well I didn't like the game but i'll give it a 9" as completely ludicrous as that might sound, because it didnt happen is the sole reason your account exists.
How could he compare stones to games? its called an analogy. and in this instance it works, and I for one, couldnt think of a more apt way of expressing, a no doubt very popular shared opinion. Cubic Zirconia to the untrained buying public may be said to be prettier than a diamond, but is the prettyness the only deciding factor to consider when buying a precious stone? of course not, but i guess your the type of person to buy a game based only on graphic, but hey, each to their own. Remember this,not all diamonds are equal, (inclusions,clarity,colour,size) and as such, reflected in price,kinda like games...you have your £49.99 AAA games and you have your Asda/Gamstation shovelware £15.99/£25.99 games to your not AAA but but a whole lot better than shovelware £39.99 games. Yes indeed the original stone analogy is indeed great, and after this, You now agree! ;)
We all have a bias towards a platform, I have a ps3 and I like the ps3 so I do have a bias towards it, I also like the wii so I am biased towards it. I also like my PC and I am biased towards PC gaming. I cant deny that I have a bias towards the platform, but should you use this to devalue my comment ?.
I call it how I see it and this review is rubbish, when the inevitable comparison is done to the other games of this genre KillZone 2 is sitting right up there with the best, not as an average fps. No they should not read metacritic they should give credit where credit is due.
Gears of War 2 - 9
Halo 3 - 10
F.E.A.R 2 - 8
KillZone 2 - 7 ? Seriously ?
The graphics are undeniably awesome (there has been no split on this like wind walkers so your arguement does not stand here, the graphics are probably the best on any console so far)
so is the sound (7.1 uncompressed sorround sound, come on )
so is the multiplayer (team fortress 2 meets cod 4 )
it is a fun game to play, so why the 7 ?
Please try to understand the diamond quote I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. Just read Prince Harrys comments, its the exact same problem I have with the review.
Please don't reply back as well. I am bored of this. The points have already been proven there is nothing left to discuss. I have made this as flattering as I can to your post so that you don't reply back. I don't want any more misconstrued replies thanks all the same.
those typos are quite rich after you actually searched the internet for a link for mine. Bored of KZ2 much?
typos as in spelling mistakes ? Sorry don't understand what you mean and cant be bothered any more.
And for both you and Arron here it is again, I posted this a while back:
[begin quote]
Are you trying to say a review/grade can never be wrong ? Is that what your implying ?
I could sit here and do a review of a play written by Shakespeare for example.. If I hadn't actually read the play and wrote any old crap for the review, would that mean because its an opinion piece that its not "factual science" my review would be correct ? If I happened to dislike Shakespeare and I decided to review his work trying to put him down any way which I could, what would that mean ?
Do you understand why your statement reads as bullshit ?
Read Prince Harry's comments above, he does a better job of explaining it than I can be bothered to do.
The review is also factually incorrect, information stated such as the game can be played in any random order is not true. The story line is stronger than they make out..
[end quote]
The cycle continues. Every point you lot have raised has already been answered. Im sure your English and History teachers would be very proud of your reasoning.
You do realize by your logic The reporters on the news and in newspapers could paint any picture they want for any situation depending on their mood, because ultimately its all opinion right ?
Stand outside and act like the Iraqi Information Minister Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf . http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/
Quoting shit like :
"I can say, and I am responsible for what I am saying, that they have
started to commit suicide under the walls of Baghdad. We
will encourage them to commit more suicides quickly."
Hey its his opinion right ? He believes and is publicly shouting that the American soldiers are commiting suicide.. Was this the reality though ?
This is like the edge review, complete bullshit. Like your comments trying to brown nose edge complete bullshit..
I have had enough.. All you can do is rehash the same shit. I might as well just go back and copy / paste responses. I cba. FYI I still play kz2. Ive also been playing sfiv a bit recently. Thats a wicked game as well.. (I aint been working much though, because these bullshit comments keep on spawning and they are all shit .. You have already admitted pretty much the review is biased. I thought you weren't going to post anymore.. My initial point has been proven this review smacks of bias and is a load of bo11ox :)
I don't mean to come across harsh, but please I beg you no more responses. I promise not to post any more if you dont. If you still believe that Edge was correct in this review so be it, but I promise you, your doing nothing more than hurting the games industry.
Edge feel free to delete my account. I have said all I need to say I have had enough and I need to get back to doing some proper work. I tried to delete the account earlier, but couldnt see the option. If you would be so kind I would appreciate it.
Thank you.
I hold no ill will towards any of you, in fact some people on this forum from just having a little battle with them I know are good people. I'm sorry if I have put down any one. I should never have started, hopefully some people have gotten some enlightenment out of the comments, sometimes you have to stand up for what you know is right.. Dude no offense to you or to ArronC07. Ultimately the point of games is fun and when its all taken to seriously it stops being fun. All the best to all of you and laters have a nice life.
"The review is also factually incorrect, information stated such as the game can be played in any random order is not true. The story line is stronger than they make out.."
They didn't say you can play it in any random order they said that the story is so paper thin that it if you did play it in any order you wouldn't notice.
You don't understand the review and you're complaining about it? That's classic.
See if you can follow this:
1) A review is someone's opinion on a product.
2) All opinion is biased, that is the nature of an opinion.
3) If you want an unbiased synopsis then read the Amazon product description.
Do you understand?
Please stop moaning to us because your own biased opinion differs from someone else's in this instance the reviewers.
For someone passing himself off as neutral and un-opinionated, you sure go on and on and on about your "7 is fair" rating.... hey wait a minute here, Arron... YOU wrote this review didn't ya! Ha!
Seriously. mate, if you can't stand the heat anymore... just stfu.
It is fair, in my opinion and I go on about how I'm not a fanboy and so by proxy am instantly superior to you.