Let's get this straight from the off; Killzone 2 has raised the bar for graphics. Somehow Sony has delivered on the promises of its ambitious 'target' video. But does it have the gameplay and depth to match?
The "first" 8.7 from a website that "really" got a press code and not faking it like Pocket lint. Seriously though, stupid nitpicker..
Stop saying killzowned and come up with your own saying instead of jumping on the bandwagon like everyone else. Jeeze
97 Computer and Video Games Halo 3 is the gaming equivalent of a Hollywood blockbuster. It's not going to revolutionise the genre - it's not meant to - it's meant to be great fun, which it is. Never lose sight of that. The visuals, guns, vehicles, enemies, set-pieces, musical score... they've all been cranked up to 11 to create an experience up there with the best sci-fi properties. "It's not going to revolutionise the genre - it's not meant to.." "It's not going to revolutionise the genre - it's not meant to.." "It's not going to revolutionise the genre - it's not meant to.." my paste is broken or something, but its interesting that Halo3 gets a pass for not revolutionizing anything, because its not meant to, No. Its meant to be great fun, but KZ2 has to revolutionize. Ah, double standards are the BEST aren't they? Someone had to flop it, for no good reasons and so far, no one can find any reasons to flop KZ2 that they also didn't express great love for with Halo3. Rucky, yeah its amazing. Its an actual standard,I call it the ps3 scale. if its a ps3 exclusive it has to do the following: 1. Innovate 2. Be multiplatform If it can't do both, then -3 to .1 points. Its BS and I think its clear to see this here. The PS3 just can't have a Halo or a GTA or a COD4 where everyone just goes ape-sh3t insane over it, gives it a buncha BS 10's and drools over it until its released. Then they start to flop the problems afterwards, but not time for reviews. I can't see how anyone can see CVG's comments on Halo3 vs Kz2 as anything other than BS. They Review Halo3 as a game, based on fun. But KZ2 is graded on the PS3 scale*. Gameplay is thrown aside, a electron microscope is unleashed, and now they will go into every "issue" as if its a gameplay killing problem. Kz2 has been called garbage since day 1 because of the "underwhelming" gameplay of the first. Everyone pretended that GG was literally going to make the f irst game over. And not only that the graphics were FOREVER questioned. GG delivered on all fronts according to other sites, and most of us got to play the beta to confirm how amazing and unique KZ2 is. Again, we all knew it was going to happen. But look at the reasons, and how they are the exact opposite when it comes to Halo3. SPecifically with CVG, this isn't some ps3 conspiracy.. just look at the reviews. They derail Halo3 from the "innovation" arguments, and focus on fun. Why dont they do that for KZ2? GG always said they want to make a good fps. They never said they want to reinvent the wheel, they just said a good FPS experience with some things we have never seen and nothers we have. They never called it the END-ALL-GAME. They never called it a halo killer. I just wish someone would bash KZ2 with legit reasons. I shouldn't be able to find a review that has the same negatives turned to positives for other titles.
It's amazing how much the term "PS3 exclusive" can effect the way these reviewers look at the game huh? @SUP3R I don't think Blademask is saying 8.7 is a flop but the fact that there are no consistencies with these reviews certainly put the whole 'media is bias' into question.
Holy hell, it got 8.7 out of 10 (may as well call it 9/10) and you're STILL complaining! There's really no pleasing some people.
8.7 = Flop? You fail at life Blademask, you fail HARD.
Nice comaprison Blademask. If that doesn't prove that there are double standards and bias in gaming media then I don't think anything ever will.
Thank you Blademask for pointing out the hypocrisy and double standards of some sites. Remember, the bias is all a "conspiracy" though! Right?
SUP3R dont act like you dont know what blademask is talking about. There's always some guy in a thread.."8.9 is a flop?!?!", no its reviews saying the same thing for 2 different games but scored differently depending on expectations, hype, or basically just to nitpick.
I never said 8.7(a score alone) is a flop. They are "FLOPPING" kz2 by giving it a low score, to which they have praised other titles in the past by the same reasons given. If you cant grasp that, oh well. You probably wont read this either.. just see that I said "flop" again, so that means I just confirmed what you want to think anyway.
Future can't afford to put their eggs in any particular basket, especially in the UK, where I'm sure Imagine Publishing would love to bag an official magazine. Don't get too hung up on the overinflated Halo 3 score, the same site did give LBP 9.6 and MGS4 9.5. And the same reviewer gave Resistance 2 an 8, so it's definitely heading in the right direction. I think the guy has been fairly open with the flaws he found in the game though, such as lack of variety and lack of co-op. It's not like that's nit-picking.
His complaints never centered around KZ2 NOT revolutionizing as you said Halo3 got a pass for, NO in fact according to some of his complaints its just the opposite, he's saying KZ2 did NOT match some of the great advancements that are displayed in other shooters, check it out: "It's a shame that there's barely any difference in the types of Helghast soldiers. Some run faster than others it seems, charging at you with a knife to stab you before you shoot them. But otherwise you'll spend the whole game shooting near-indistinguishable, orange-eyed enemies." "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" "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." "Our only other complaints are the total lack of a co-op mode, which is unacceptable in this era of shooters." "Also surpising for such a high-profile title are the characters' lack of personality, with the exception of Rico who slips f-words into every sentence he bellows. The other characters are utterly and instantly forgettable, which is a crying shame." "As a package it's far short of something like Halo's impressive roster modes and matchmaking options." -CVG -So in the end it makes your whole "ps3 exclusive" rant, rather mute since the score is actually reflective of what his OPINION overall of the game was, and he gave some valid reasons why....you don't have to agree but your conspiracy theory/rant & anti-Halo3 post just sounds like sour grapes. I thought it was a good review, a bit short though. JOY
Don't worry about it. SUP3R had put me on ignore and has continued to report the stories on my site that I submit here on N4G because my site is somehow "biased" towards the PS3 every single time I call out a site for their anti-PS3 bias, as if no one should be allowed to say anything about that. I'm not surprised that he's calling you out here and trying to put words in your mouth. I got what you said extremely well (that if a reviewer is going to say the same thing about both games, then they should be scored the same way, or else risk showing biased because you somehow don't like the system the game is on, which is sad really, because if the game is good, great, a masterpiece, who CARES what system its on?). To me, the reviewer was fair in the context (he did explain himself well and we'll have to wait and see if he pulled a Chris Buffa with the review or not because we don't have the game in our hands yet), but was somewhat harsher with how much he took off of the score than what was maybe necessary. For what it's worth, too, CVG isn't the most trusted review mag/site out there (compared to people like IGN, GameInformer and Gamepro), and just because one part of the publishing company can be fair (the platform specific mags OPM, OXM, and Nintendo Power, for instance), that doesn't necessarily mean the people on the other side of the building will be. That being said, though, SUP3R is just trying so hard to justify the score or to call someone out for calling THIS review out.
Can't say it better myself. Bubble up. If Halo Wars were to be reviewed tomorrow and get points knocked off for not reinventing the wheel while being fun, I would be the first one to question the scoring as well. And yes we as gamers, not fanboys, are complaining because games should be judged fairly. They shouldn't give a free pass to one game and nitpick another game for it.
Unfortunately I said that they derailed Halo3 from even the comparisson of re-inventing the wheel. More importantly its stated that they went into why the game is fun, versus its featureset.Thats what Im pointing out. Which leaves the title to be concentrated on for the Gameplay "fun" of the game for what it was, now what it could be or buh buh should be. Its pretty clear that the same could easily be done with KZ2. Look at it for what it offers, which is what is generally done for non-ps3 exclusive games, versus what the game lacks/should have had then deduct points for doing so. Instead, Its compared to every other game under the sun, and points are subtracted- as if its supposed to be those games and mimic their confrontations/gameplay/CROUCH BUTTON. COD4 is another title that came out with no Co-op. And was heavily praised in a sea of other Co-OP games at the time. Co-Op isn't some new next gen feature. Some games have it, others dont. To pretend that in KZ2's specific case, its a must, is ridiculous. To pretend that enemy variety is all of a sudden the hot button of 2009 is also a joke. Most games get passes for doing nothing new, missing co-op, using unique controls. Kz2 doesn't.
What about Halo running at the sub-HD resolution? There is just so many things you can nitpick on if you choose to. But like Bladestar pointed out, since the review is focused on the fun factor for Halo, it should be the same for Killzone 2. Not to mention sites that reward Halo and Gears a 10 for graphics, but a 9 or 9.5 for Killzone 2. Even if you don't think Killzone 2 is superior graphically to the said shooters, you should be able to tell it is on par with them. It's when things like this happen people start complaining. Not because it is not a 10.
Completely agree, man. It's sad that it's come to this. I'm not mad that they gave Killzone 2 a lower score, but it's the idiotic reasoning behind the score that pisses me off. From the review: "It's a shame that there's barely any difference in the types of Helghast soldiers. Some run faster than others it seems, charging at you with a knife to stab you before you shoot them. But otherwise you'll spend the whole game shooting near-indistinguishable, orange-eyed enemies." What the f*ck? That's like reviewing a COD game and complaining all the nazis look alike. "Our only other complaints are the total lack of a co-op mode, which is unacceptable in this era of shooters" Huh? A game like Bioshock got a 9.5 and it had no multiplayer at all. http://www.computerandvideo... "Also surpising for such a high-profile title are the characters' lack of personality, with the exception of Rico who slips f-words into every sentence he bellows. The other characters are utterly and instantly forgettable, which is a crying shame" Oh please. They define "personality" as someone who drops F-bombs all the time. What kind of retarded logic are they using over there. There are already too many steroid pumped up "F*CK YEAH!" type of characters in shooters and these guys want more? Like Blademask said, when it comes to PS3 exclusives people want to pull out a magnifying glass and a pair of tweezers and pick apart every little thing while in other games, completely ignoring glaring glitches and bugs, lackluster stories, and cookie cutter sterotyped characters. (Gears and Halo) They didn't review Killzone 2. They reviewed "This isn't Halo 3" because that's obviously what they wanted to play and in THIS age of shooters, Halo 3 is stuck in the past while bigger and better games have come along with the times. And it's time for CVG to do the same.
OK, so first you implied his review was bias because according to you Halo3 got a pass for NOT being revolutionary, NOW your arguement is that it should NOT be compared to other shooters based on the things/features it lacks. You sound almost as if your saying "just tell us how good it is" forget the flaws even if he has a problem with them. Again your arguement is mute because as you say "Look at it for what it offers", so your whole post assumes that he's not taking all the things that KZ2 does right into account. Thats simply not the case, I read it he seems to like so many things about the game, YOUR FLAW is that you just can't accept the fact that when its all said and done, when you add up everything he likes about KZ2 and the things doesn't like about KZ2 it translates to a 8.7 in HIS OPINION and EXPERIENCE. Game Reviews are not a science, the sum of the parts makes a total experience...if this guy was just rippin' on the game for the hell of it then I would question his creditability too, but no matter how hard you sony loyalists try your conspiracy theories are BASELESS when you analyze the data/reviews with a open mind. JOY
"1.18 - nah, its just you and sony loyalists.." Here you go again. Can you get through a comment without making personal attacks? PLEASE consider that not all of us own JUST the PS3, alright? "OK, so first you implied his review was bias because according to you Halo3 got a pass for NOT being revolutionary, NOW your arguement is that it should NOT be compared to other shooters based on the things/features it lacks." Nope, that's not what was said at ALL. They said that if the reviewer excuses such for one game, then the reviewer should be fair and excuse it for other games. If COD4 got a pass for not having co-op, then why should the same reviewer mark down KZ2 for not having it without feeling the necessity to explain himself as to why it's alright for that game to not have co-op but not okay for THIS game to not have it? It's that simple. It's not about comparing games, yet you somehow made it into that because you so want to be right and to show that you're stronger than the strawmen you're building. "You sound almost as if your saying "just tell us how good it is" forget the flaws even if he has a problem with them." An argument you put right into the mouths of those you're responding to. You're completely missing (or don't care to get) the point. If he marked KZ2 down for the flaws, then Halo 3 should be marked down if that game had the exact same flaws. That's all they're saying, yet you're making it about something much more. "Again your arguement is mute because as you say "Look at it for what it offers", so your whole post assumes that he's not taking all the things that KZ2 does right into account. That's simply not the case, I read it he seems to like so many things about the game," Yeah, he did like a lot about the game, I'll give you that, but you're not getting the point in which the people you're responding to have pointed out. "YOUR FLAW is that you just can't accept the fact that when its all said and done, when you add up everything he likes about KZ2 and the things doesn't like about KZ2 it translates to a 8.7 in HIS OPINION and EXPERIENCE." While a game that he points out has the exact same flaws gets a 9 or better? Doesn't that seem off to you? Yeah, it IS an opinion (which, by the way, we have the right to express our disagreement towards), but you're spinning the entire argument into something completely different from what is actually being argued. "Game Reviews are not a science, the sum of the parts makes a total experience...if this guy was just rippin' on the game for the hell of it then I would question his creditability too," And I'VE said that until we have the game in OUR hands, we won't know. And when you began your comment with "nah, its just you and sony loyalists..", that kind of says that you would be kind of hesitant to do what you said you would....oh wait... "but no matter how hard you sony loyalists" ...never mind, I didn't have to re-quote your beginning, as you do a great job on your own. Check some of our bios (click the user names). You MIGHT see a few things that might surprise you, and consider that we MIGHT own more than just the PS3 before you go running your mouth...with all due respect, of course. "try your conspiracy theories are BASELESS when you analyze the data/reviews with a open mind." Only you're basing YOUR reply on things no one here ever said. You're putting words into people's mouths and spinning the argument in order to validate your words and your "need" to build strawmen.
I use terms "sony loyalists" and "sdf" on purpose to emphasize my point, sure it pisses *sony folks off but if you read between the lines you would understand that theres a broader meaning behind those words, instead of the usual fanboy label. Now I don't need to check anybody's bio to know whether *I consider them a normal ps3fan or sony loyalist...ya see I own a ps3 myself but unlike most on this site I'm not sony's slave and if you haven't noticed I do prefer the 360. Owning a console does NOT make YOU or ME unbiased. Ya see thats the problem on this site, frankly there is just a lack of logic and deductive reasoning skills. I know, I know so of course now I'm a xbot or whatever, but I think I just say what NEEDS to be said because basicly this site is overun with so many sony loyalist with stock in sdf that there's little room for a opposing opinion whether that opinion is sensible or not....but don't worry its in my nature NOT to follow the crowd, if you can't tell I rather enjoy analyzing the BS hypocrisy on this site and throwing it in their faces. It's not a popularity contest to me disagree's don't matter, bubbles don't matter...I'm satisfied with just giving my 2 cents. Now let me tell you why this comment is yet again flawed: "Nope, that's not what was said at ALL. They said that if the reviewer excuses such for one game, then the reviewer should be fair and excuse it for other games. If COD4 got a pass for not having co-op, then why should the same reviewer mark down KZ2 for not having it without feeling the necessity to explain himself as to why it's alright for that game to not have co-op but not okay for THIS game to not have it? It's that simple." Yet again, you make the same mistake of assuming the guy *only "marked down KZ2" for not having this or that, as if he has some checklist with COD or Halo beside KZ2 marking it off for every feature it lacks that the others have, its not a black or white issue....Why can't you understand that an overall score is a reflection of how he felt about the game as a whole. I mean the guy has to rate the game somewhere based on his gaming experience so of course in order from him to that he has to point out WHY he rated the game as he did he will give his own *personal reasoning; so logic says if I like game A better than game B then naturally I will point out more flaws in game B, duh??? thats why it has a lower score than game A. Also its flawed to point out older releases and say they didn't have this or that feature and they didn't get knocked for it, WOW no shiii those games were rated on his impression of the game THEN and all of his gaming experience up to that point, should we now say HL to wasn't great because KZ2 looks better or should we say older shooters like COD4 are less of a game because they lacked co-op, hell NO, its called progress when a great feature is added to a genre its just expected that the next game will at least have it,(especially a big budget game) now theres a big difference between copying a games style and then we all end up with gimmicky clone of Gears cover system, we definitely want variety, what I refering to is a "standard" that is accepted as games within that genre PROGRESS and its a universal standard, for example the first shooters you only carried one weapon the whole game, as times changed dev's added variety to the weapons, now its pretty much standard for all shooters to allow you to utilize different weapons...its not even thought about its just a standard within the genre. How do you think that happens, because people love it and it seems natural that other devs will include it as a basic part of the game. At this stage I'm not suggesting that co-op is a standard, NO I'm sure there will be future shooters without it that I will enjoy, same as KZ2 but that doesn't mean I won't be annoyed that the devs didn't include it as a basic option and theres no denying that having the OPTION to play co-op in a shooter *should become standard. JOY
@JokesOnYou: They say THIS in the review? "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." While I admit that I did think "Oh My God!" when I first watched a Scarab explode in Halo 3, launching mortars at a Brumak in Gears 2 was wholly UNEXCITING. What was so exciting about planting your weapon in the ground behind some cover, holding a button down for a few seconds to launch a shot, watch it hit, repeat until creature is dead? Fighting against Brumak's in Gears 2 is pretty un-epic in my opinion. So what do I gather from the opinion of a reviewer that thinks something is epic that I didn't find epic? All I can gather from it is that we don't share in opinions across the board, so... if I can find something decidedly un-epic, that he found to be epic, then the whole thing just comes down to opinion, doesn't it? I guess this guy's opinion isn't going to be that meaningful to me. I also take issue with the fact that he compares this game to Xbox 360 exclusives. Look, this is a PS3 exclusive, so shouldn't you compare to this games that people will be playing on the PS3? I never see anybody comparing this game to the FPS games on the PS3, just to the big-name games on the 360, as if to fuel the fanboy wars by either proclaiming the 360 or the PS3 to have the best action game. Just judge the game on its own merits and leave the others out of it, huh?
Ahah, another pathetically ridiculous score. These noob journalist can't just keep up with the harshness of Killzone 2, it's quite evident why they prefer easier games.
Is every review score below 9 down to "noob" journo`s?
To answer your question above, No although if we take a second to read the article and note down previous shooter scores then we reach the verdict that they are indeed noobs with this score.
the difference in score, not the score itself. It really makes you wonder what score will this game get if it was possible on the 360. And it really makes ME wonder what score would Halo have gotten without the MS marketing and it being exclusive on the PS3.
at this point....nothing is stopping me along with a million other people from getting this once it drops on the 27th.
Sorry,not going to click that disgusting germ infested link. Welcome to my blocked folder.
Can you play offline multiplayer with bots splitscreen?????
Can you play with bots when you're playing online with your friends in a private match?
What the...Yes, you can play offline with bots. Can't believe people said "no."
Great score, but this game could get 5/10 and i would still get it. I love gears of war but i really don't see what is so special about halo3.....it just feels/looks dated. Good game just not worth the perfect scores it got from so many sites.
I agree although I have never been a Halo fan full stop.
Guys those are from GameRadar those that bashed Killzone 2 remember? The media are trying to bash this game, website are giving this game a score under 9.0, just to bring meta scores down, and their review have alot of spoilers, its a shame that big gaming websites like CVG , eurogames.de and video gamer gave it an 8 and cause it dosn't have a good story and no coop( like Cod4 and Halo3 had a f**king story?) and givin halo3 and gears a 10? wtf? ill tell you man if this game was Multi or 360 exclusive it will get 10's all over the place. Not only we have xbox fanboys, but we also have xbox fanboys gaming websites
"Spectacular from start to finish. It doesn't innovate (and no co-op is a cop out) but its visual prowess and insane action make Killzone 2 unmissable." I'm sorry but cod4 didn't have any co-op and i cant remember the last fps that did innovate the series, but halo3 and cod4 were both highly regarded anyway, and from the sounds of it, Killzone 2 does most things better then them. I think that they the hype got the better of this reviewer as his expectations were clearly too high since Killzone isn't the messiah he craved
"last fps that did innovate the series" Mirror's Edge. And that got 8/10s everywhere. When innovation hits, they don't like it. When a FPS that polishes everything to love about an FPS, they complain about no innovation. The media is pretty ridiculous.
Remember folks, these are personal opinions and not something that should be taken that seriously until you yourself play the game. The point of a review is to share a ***personal*** point of view of a game. Metal Gear Solid 4 got 80's from numerous sites (EuroGamer, Edge, Wired, GameDaily, etc). it doesn't mean that it was a bad game. MGS4 is raking in awards, for crying out loud. KillZone 2 is going to kick a$$. It is already known and it has been expressed in earlier builds and previews. If some people are crapping on it because it's a PS3 title, then let them be. Doesn't matter what Person A says because, when it comes down to it, our own experience with it is what really matters. Doesn't matter the game, you will always have a person out of a group have a less satisfying opinion than the others - if it weren't so, then discussions would just be boring.
...it's not his opinion that is the issue here, it's the inconstancy with other reviews and why someone would score a game lower that another when both games, according to the reviewer, had the exact same things said about them. That's the question here, and it IS a fair question to bring up, even though some people here might try to keep it from being a fair question. Maybe it was because the guy expected that out of the other game and could excuse it for that game but not for KZ2 because he expected a lot more, though he never says this and saying that might've put a LOT of these criticisms about his review to rest. And until the end of Feb, we won't know if he Chris Buffa'd this or not (a term I'm using for getting things about the game factually wrong, like GameDaily did with MGS4 and Socom Confrontation). Thing is, why SHOULD a game get knocked down lower just because it's on a certain system (which is what is a suspicion about this one from the comments here, and has been the story for so many PS3 exclusives and the reviews given to them)? Will the PS3 "survive"? Not when you have certain reviewers willing to trash any and every exclusive the system gets just because it IS a PS3 exclusive (and before ANYONE says I'm a PS3 fanboy by saying that, check my tags. I have a 360 now and can prove it, and I have a Wii, too, the latter people choose to completely ignore about me, so I don't want to HEAR that claim about me). EDIT: My bad, I didn't read that other paragraph which said to not give those reviewers or sites hits. However, I think it can be a problem if enough people that don't know what WE do about some of these sites stumble upon those reviews and believe them without being in the know or looking to see if they are in the majority or minority. It's a weird but kinda dangerous epidemic.
... another stupid site that want attention by giving a 8.x for KZ2... that's all.
so...in case of killzone2, it has to have coop and it has to innovate...hmmm check out what the website said about halo3 and cod4...both games with the same shi missing wow how pathetic... guess it has to be a multiplatform to be reviewed fairly
the double standard in the media is getting uncontrollable. How on earth can Halo 3 be praised for not innovating but just being fun, yet Killzone 2 has to innovate the genre for it to be a great game, couldn't it just be fun as well? the bias is too clear, they knock the game for not having Co-op, yet COD4 didn't have Co-op, but they were quite happy to praise the game no end, and dish out 10/10's like cake at a cake tasting party. truthfully I am getting sick and tired of reviewers who are rating the game down based on content that isn't there, no co-op? so what? It's like me rating down Skate 2 because there are no grenades... 8.7/10 my [email protected]@
There's some validity to your points, but also remember COD4 was almost a year and a half ago. WaW did have co-op. Times and expectations change quickly in this industry.
The problem with your theory is that nothing else has come out since COD4 and Halo 3 to raise the bar, so why is Killzone 2 held to some higher standard? The point is, Killzone 2 has features its competitors are lacking, while its competitors also have some features that are missing in KZ2. Resistance 2 had 60 player multi-player, does that mean that all shooters from here on out must have 60 players or else have their scores knocked down? Killzone 2 has the first fully first-person cover system, does that mean that that feature must be included in every future FPS game? I think you get my point. Co-op is a feature, but not a required feature. Different games offer a different combination of features and should only be judged on what they offer, not on what any one person wishes they offered. I can tell you one thing, the multi-player in Killzone 2 was significantly better than the multi-player of its competitors.
@Traveler, Agreed. So if the stupid media is going to hold the same standard for every FPS coming out in the future as they did with Killzone 2. Then Bioshock 2 Sea of Dreams must have at least 32 player multiplayer, and 4 player co-op. Who gives a crap about the single player experience right? Even though I'm pretty sure when Bioshock 2 hits, we'll see 10/10s everywhere even if it has no co-op or no multiplayer.
Review sites, some of them, are very biased in their reviews. This particular one is an EXCELLENT example of that. While 8.7 is still a good score to score it lower because it didn't innovate and had no co-op didn't stop them from lavishing praise on Halo 3 or CoD 4. It just amazes me how much hatred, jealousy and bias is shown toward Sony/PS3 on these sites. The gaming media has become nothing more than a circus with very few respectable reviewers left.
...so it begins.
They absolutely need to be called out on that and provide an answer for their fanboyish review because they are doing a complete disservice to anyone who wants to play the game and are looking for reviews but only getting stupid fanboy opinions. No opinions have NO place in the review of a videogame. If whatever the reviewer has a beef with doesn't detract from the gameplay and ability to enjoy the game as it was meant to be,than it is just opinion and has no place in a review.
Did the same person who reviewed KZ2 also review Halo 3?
Good luck to him it wont make me cancel my pre order and it wont stop me enjoying this game when its released roll on thursday for euro demo PSN/XBL: Arkrite
Yeah hopefully it will be available before 8:00 am.
get in the way of the actual service he should be providing, just because you think the game needed co-op doesn't mean you should rate it down for not having it, silly idiotic review, this one should be challenged! How can cod 4 escape without needing co-op? but Killzone 2 doesn't? and with the cons listed, was that enough to pull it all the way into 8.7? joke CVG's review is a joke.
It's called a conspiracy. >_>
Cvg should stop reviewing ps3 games.I will leave it at that.
Great score but I question their logic.
Look at the Box, it don't say 'xBox 360' so they won't give it 10/10!!! ;-D I have worked out the internet now!!! ;-D Sounds like a 10/10 to me;)
Maybe they have no logic...*scratches head*
Good score but not good enough. For 5 yrs in the works KZ2 should not be getting any lower than a 9.7 IMO.
Are you not going to play the game because of a review score that's based off of someones opinion? Play the game, and if YOU think it's a good or bad game than you can give your own score on it. -777-
Case and point = Too Human 10 Years in the Making average review = 6/10
Did you ever think that maybe you should play the game yourself and not give a f*ck about what people say about the game? Did you ever think that some of these people could be biased?
Unlike Too Human, KZ2 was develop with the PS3 hardware from the very beginning and did not cost 50 mil+. Resistance 2, Gears 2 had higher ratings and both only took about 21 months to make.
Too Human only took 3yrs of development on the Xbox 360 and was made on two engines. First was UE3, then the lawsuit came and they had to make it from scratch. Know what it is your talking about Magic before making claims.
Jason...so what? The game still didn't do well.
Count how many microsoft adds there mag has, I'm sorry but if you run down games?GiVe us unbiased reasons why?=zaps I've played against c&vg staff, they shouldn't be reviewing games, if there crap players!!!psn mr chaptem. Ranked number 1 cod4 till I got bored.
i've seen quite a few of ur posts and there all really good and unbiast so bubbles for you!
Why do most reviewers whine about CO-Op Bioshock got flamed for no multiplayer and now K2 is getting flamed for no CO - Op.