Try our new beta!Click here
Submitted by wardrox 2564d ago | news

Don't Trust Killzone 2 Reviews. GameSpot Said.

Negative Gamer writes:

"The review embargo for Killzone 2 is up and the reviews are pouring out. But are they accurate?

More precisely, how accurate are the review comments on the multiplayer aspect of the game? A game not released to the public for another three weeks. G4TV say about the multiplayer that it's "good fun, but you will only get the most out of it if you commit to spending some serious days and weeks racking up those promotions."

G4TV have played the multiplayer for days and weeks? O rly? Why is it then that GameSpot haven't posted a review, instead saying they will be holding off for a few days, citing multiplayer inexperience." (Culture, Killzone 2, PS3)

« 1 2 3 »
red5ive  +   2564d ago
oh stop being so negative.
Chris399  +   2564d ago
*cough* "Kane and Lynch".
Zero credibility or integrity left.

Perhaps they're waiting for a bag of money to arrive on their doorstep before making the final grade on their review.

An analogy:

GS is like a cheating wife that goes to Las Vegas for a weekend "business" trip, and tells you to be faithful while she's gone. She doesn't call while she's away and comes back with a case of crabs.
#1.1 (Edited 2564d ago ) | Agree(51) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply
wardrox  +   2564d ago
one step ahead
Already on it:

... wait :P
N4360G  +   2564d ago
LOL it's more like don't trust GameSpot!!
InfectedDK  +   2564d ago
Agreed and why is it that I should trust Gamespot more than 33 other reviews? Im just asking.. This is one of the most lame comments ive heard for a long time. They really are judging with a crown on their heads.
#1.4 (Edited 2564d ago ) | Agree(26) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
FelinePornographer   2564d ago | Spam
acedoh  +   2564d ago
Gamespot is....
a very sad site. They used to be top dog along side IGN and now they have managed to fall further into the depths of mediocrity. I am sure they are upset that they had to wait to release their review unlike IGN.
MikeMichaels  +   2564d ago
How? Why?
Because the review kit included a code allowing the reviewers to level up in little time.

Opposed the the dozen plus hours the normal gamer will need.

Shheeesh...Gamespot *smacks forehead*

Edit: Sheessh to this site for attempting to fantasize the reason Gamespot isn't doing their review yet.
#1.7 (Edited 2564d ago ) | Agree(19) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Ghoul  +   2564d ago
Btw I think its very very sad that they need to test the multiplayer as they said to a deeper extend.

Ok but WHY DID NO ONE did this with gears2 the game is so bad fuxxed up in online mode i would have cut 10% of points for this mess called multiplayer. Ups sorry i forgot its a 360 game.

Its not like they didnt have dev commands to level faster,
Had the online beta to test the online mode

idiocity i say
#1.8 (Edited 2564d ago ) | Agree(30) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
decapitator  +   2564d ago
it would do the people who write these articles a lot of good if they actually LISTENED and report what they heard rather than some crap which aint even totally true. *sigh.
82211986  +   2564d ago
Well if you wanna believe reviews
check mine out

I have pretty much covered up everything in the game, Hype no hype I still give really hard reviews for most games. Most seem to forget Gamespot IGN,your beloved blogs all run on revenues from game companies and other places they will give a it a mighty high scores. In my review I did not cover the multiplayer mode even though it was pretty well expained by Sony execs like for most other blogs...cause there were no servers up for the game, so assessing a games multiplayer sans its online mode in its full glory is a crime...I shall provide an update when the game officially releases...
Spydiggity  +   2564d ago
to the guy talkin about gears 2.

i couldn't agree more about gears 2 being broken. BUT...when they did the multiplayer reviews of the game, they played lan games. the game wasn't available on live yet so their experience was where there was no off host. and most of the bugs and glitches exist due to exploiting being off host. and the host advantages like a working shotgun wouldn't show up either because on a lan, everyone is effectively host.

so it is tru that when gears 2 launched it had noticable problems and obviously wasn't play tested for live very well, if at all; but it is untrue that the reviewers new about these problems and still gave it favorable reviews because from their perspective those flaws didn't exist.

it should also be noted that epic and ms have fixed many of the bugs since it launched. and i finally started playin it again cuz they fixed host shotgun advantage.
#1.11 (Edited 2564d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(8) | Report | Reply
XxZxX  +   2564d ago
Chris399, that is awesome analogy, just hit them with the shampoo.

Real Message From Gamespot
----------------------------- ------------------------------- ---------
We told you Microsoft haven't paid us yet. We are holding off giving Kilzone Reviews until Microsoft paid us. For those who give real and fair score to KillZone 2, F*ck you all, you are spoiling my money maker. If readers found out that our scores are always brutally lower than the overall score on PS3 system, they will go away. So those who give fair score to KillZone 2, stop it, You are killing us, we already have variety site to compete with, I really can't make my car payments.

For readers, don't trust them, trust us like Microsoft do. Please.
pain777pas  +   2564d ago
Kevin Vanhorn is saving gamespot. I do trust most of his reviews. He's not the most outlandish personality but his critisms and review scores have been.
BulletToothtony  +   2564d ago
In all honesty.. his points don't make sense...
A LOT of websites were in the beta they already loved the multiplayer... EVEN in beta...

Now i know is not ALL reviewers have but guess what... What does multiplayer mean?? With other people.. in this game even with bots.. Plus offline multiplayer.. IGN said they have been playing plenty of multiplayer..

Gamespot it's just full of bullcrap, they haven't received a copy.. end of story.. they're known for their lies.. they just won't admit it..

I hate that website
Danja  +   2564d ago
you heard it here 1st ppl..Ignore the IGN , Gamepro , GT and the 1UP reviews plus all the other countless 10/10 and 9/10 reviews and wait on GS to give an honest review about this game..

right they are just sayin this bcuz they are gonna nit-pick the crap outta this game and come up with some dumbass faults,..

like the A.I is to smart like they did with the Uncharted review..

or the Weapons are too heavy , or that FPS shouldn't have a cover system and it's a total Gears rip off.....
pixelsword  +   2564d ago
The comment is called a "projection", Gamespot; needn't have played the game to see that such a time investment is in order.

Who payed them to say crap this time?
#1.16 (Edited 2564d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
JOEdANGEL  +   2564d ago
The headline is erroneous. Gamespot didn't say don't trust other reviews. They just said that they would rather play with the multiplayer longer so they could give a more accurate review. They didn't say anything about other reviews, the guy writing the article made that up. You should actually read the reason on gamespot rather than trusting whatever this douche says.

Whats with all the gamespot hate on this site anyways? Did you really like Kane & Lynch all that much?
#1.17 (Edited 2564d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Danja  +   2564d ago
remember the R&C review ????

7.5 - because they claimed it had too much Variety ?

or the Uncharted review - 8.5 - the A.I is too smart..??
king dong  +   2563d ago
i've got a better idea
why dont you wait until you have the game yourselves, and then can judge for yourseleves!!

the only review that should count is your OWN!

no-one, or any web-sites opinion should count as much yours!!
callahan09  +   2563d ago
We should trust the reviews as much as we trust any reviews (not saying we should trust any of them all that much, just so we're clear). There's no reason to trust KZ2 reviews any less. No game gets played extensively before these joker reviewers give their critique. They don't play games to play them, they play games to criticize them, and I'll tell you right now that they don't get into a game to be able to judge it accurately the way a person who spent their money on the game would. This applies to all reviews, so we shouldn't have a special case of dis-trust for the Killzone 2 reviews because they're doing the same damn thing they always do.

Anyway, I just checked out MetaCritic and Killzone 2 has a 94 according to its specific page, but on the main page it has a big 93 written next to it. Why the discrepancy?
#1.20 (Edited 2563d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
EXCLUSIVEGAMER  +   2563d ago
surprise surprise, another anti sony campaign
FrankenLife  +   2563d ago
First of all, GS didn't say that exactly. They want to wait on the review so they can get more time playing the multiplayer. Though I bet it also has to do with getting more hits by posting more previews. If they posted their review now, then people would stop checking the site for their review.

Also it is worth mentioning that GS and more specifically Kevin writes untrustworthy reviews. I haven't trusted GS since the changing of the guard. Go to giant bomb if you want reviews from the true GS crew.
Spydiggity  +   2563d ago
....what is going on with n4g?
i make a comment about the broken mechanics of gears of war and get 8 disagrees and 2 agrees. then the idiot below me makes unfounded (likely false) claims about gamespot's reviews being bought out by microsoft and he gets 14 agrees and 2 disagrees.

this is the problem with n4g. too many retard fanboys and not enough gamers. use your heads!

it's the content of a comment that should be judged. not some moron's blind dedication to a corporation.

edit: another thing i've been noticing a lot more on this site is this counter fanboy claim. if someone calls someone else a ps3 fanboy, then they must obviously be a 360 fanboy or vise-versa. this makes no sense. look at the guy below me. saying gamespot should rename themselves to 360 whatever. that's an absolutely ridiculous statement and is obviously a fanboy thing to say. so he gets called out about it. and the guy that called him out is now being accused of being the fanboy. that makes no sense. we should be calling out the fanboys, not defending them, or trying to remove other ppl's credibility by calling them fanboys too.

i get accused all the time of being a 360 fanboy because i just happen to SLIGHTLY prefer the 360 games over ps3. i still have both systems and i actually rarely play both cuz i prefer PC, but i have absolutely NO loyalty to MS. I'm just fed up with the hypocrisy.

it's obvious why this jerk below me, Says you, has one bubble. but why on earth does he have so many agrees for such a stupid statement? are there really so many illogical people on this site that people can get away with saying stuff like this and actually get the support of the community? it's crazy!
#1.23 (Edited 2563d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Says you  +   2564d ago
What are they talking about now GameSpot they
Should rename themselves Gamelies or GameBox 360 or MicroSpot and terrandragon I think you should rename yourself retard.
#2 (Edited 2564d ago ) | Agree(17) | Disagree(11) | Report | Reply
terrandragon  +   2564d ago
You should rename yourself BlindFanBoy
Morgan Webb of Lies  +   2564d ago
If you like the ps3, you are a blind fanboy who needs medication to cope with your sad reality.

If you like the 360, you get to fantasize about girls like me, and you also get to fantasize about getting games this year, or exclusives ever again.

But who cares about Games anyway, the important thing is that I, Morgan Webb, like the 360 and that's all anyone ever needs. That and those cool Halo 3 figurines....collect em all!!!!
Score  +   2564d ago
"If you like the 360, you get to fantasize about girls like me"

If you own a PS3, you don't have to fantasize 'cause the bi†ches cum a runnin'
Gerry Mark II  +   2564d ago
Don't Trust Gamespot Reviews. I Said
GWAVE  +   2564d ago
And I said.

Even putting aside Gamespot's atrocious reputation, why wouldn't I trust the reviews that are out? If it was only one or two reviews, I MIGHT perk my ears and listen to Gamespot's reasoning. But KZ2 has an average of 93 based on 36 reviews. I'm supposed to dismiss 36 reviews for GAMESPOT? Really?

The very definition of an "LOL".
wardrox  +   2564d ago

The issue here is one of the exposure the reviewers had to the multiplayer. For a game like killzone where the Multiplayer is so deep, the fact there have only been 3 multiplayer sessions for US reviewers (according to GameSpot) is the issue.
ActionBastard  +   2564d ago
Wardrox: Where was all that when COD4 was reviewed?
wardrox  +   2564d ago
@Action Bastard

damn good question.

Tbh, with any game with a large multiplayer segment, these sites should do 2 reviews. One for the single player and the game in general now, then hold back a few weeks for the multiplayer.

Otherwise it's like reviewing an MMO before reaching the level cap or something.
d_dogg2007  +   2564d ago
Taking their sweet ass time to review the multiplayer not to see if its amazing but to nitpick. Did you see that lousy video of their impressions so freakin unprofessional makes them look so bad after every other credible site has been giving this game nothing but praise. ANd please tell me why wasnt the multiplayer of gears2 reviewed deeper I mean didnt they just release a patch like 2 weeks ago to finally make it playable, but well just sweep that under the rug. Gamespot has zero credibility left.

Killzone 2 is finally showing the media's true bias towards the ps3 and haters will be damned.
GiantEnemyCrab  +   2564d ago
d_dogg2007: Have you played Gears 2 online? Because it sounds like you are just throwing out what you read online. The game was never broken beyond playable. There were some glitchers and people exploiting as well as a problem with the matchmaking taking longer than it should. I played the game since launch day and why it had a few problems it was far from unplayable.
GWAVE  +   2564d ago

While I applaud your desire to stop any untruthful statements about a game, Gears 2's online was the very definition of unplayable: being unable to enter a match anywhere from 5 to 20 minutes is unplayable, as in, you're not playing! Not to mention the lag, because there were enough laggy game matches for me to take notice. The lag wasn't terrible, but to wait 10+ minutes to enter a match only to be timed out or crippled by slow p2p connection lag isn't my idea of "playable".
d_dogg2007  +   2564d ago
Of course i played it. I don't just talk for the sake of talking. I always do my research, however they had to release a sizeable patch because of the condition, yet no reviewer goes and says anything about waiting for live servers for any game this generation. This is a first. And why choose killzone 2 that happens to be the biggest game for the ps3 this year?
theEnemy  +   2564d ago
what about the gaymers that trust GameSpot ?

FrankenLife  +   2563d ago
@the enemy

Well they can look for gullible in dictionary.
rucky  +   2564d ago
Don't Trust Killzone 2 Reviews. GameSpot Said.
So what we're supposed to trust Gamespot? Are we forgetting that controversies in scores started with them? The Gamespot/Gerstmann scandal? the Uncharted/RCTOD scores?
#4 (Edited 2564d ago ) | Agree(12) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply
Ghoul  +   2564d ago

we should ignore the 20 perfect score and the 20 90's and rather trust gamespot the site i disrepsect MOST on the web ????

even if gamespot wasnt bad (wich it certainly is) 40 peoples reviews and opinion WEIGHT MORE then the 1 Opinion from gamespot.

Nuff said
Rise Of The Bad Guy  +   2564d ago
Even though they fired the numbskull that took off points from Ratchet&Clank:TOD for having variety,I still don't trust the remaining Gamespot editorial staff for unbiased and honest reviews.

Maybe it's because they all sip Coffee from "I <3 Microsoft" mugs
Cajun Chicken  +   2564d ago
...Kane and Lynch?

Hmm, might just ignore Gamespot and pay attention to everyone else.
Spike47  +   2564d ago
if they give K2 anything lower than an 8.5 I say they are biased.

EDIT: Wardox, I don't need to play this game to distinguish a biased review from one that is fair.
#8 (Edited 2564d ago ) | Agree(9) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
wardrox  +   2564d ago
Wait, if they give a game they have played and you haven't a 9... they're bias? lol.
Aclay  +   2564d ago
Mr. Sark at X-Play had been playing Killzone 2's multiplayer extensively and his Impressions of KZ2's multiplayer was posted here on N4G not too long ago:

^^After watching that, it definantly sounded like Mr. Stark had spent PLENTY of time with KZ2's multiplayer.

Gamespot said that they were going to hold off on the review and play the game on Live servers when it releases and play through it more, but that doesn't mean that other reviews thus far can't be trusted, that's just silly. Eurogamer wouldn't have given KZ2 a 9 if they didn't think it was worth that score, that's for sure and the same thing goes for other sites because PS3 exclusives don't get Free Passes, especially not Killzone 2.
#9 (Edited 2564d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply
Halo3Mgs4  +   2564d ago
don't know why they are doing this. holding off a review to play with "live servers"
i expect these reviewers to go back and re-review gears of war 2
Unicron  +   2564d ago
I never, ever, EVER see ANY review site, INCLUDING Gamespot, take the time to really dig into a mulitplayer online component of a game. Socom, Halo, Gears, Resistance, CoD4... NONE of those got weeks and weeks of REAL playtime on REAL production servers before they were reviewed.

While it's a practice that SHOULD exist, can someone tell me WHY it's being brought up specifically NOW?

GWAVE  +   2564d ago
No real reason. They probably want some arbitrary way to boost their credibility in the eyes of the internet.
d_dogg2007  +   2564d ago
Too late, reputation is all you have thats precious to your image. Once that is tarnished it takes a hell of a lot of work to get back even remotely close to what it used to be.

What goes around comes around, don't think gamers are stupid we see what goes on.
Orange  +   2564d ago
Maybe GameSpot didn't get into the beta.
InfectedDK  +   2564d ago
Lol! Good one!

And why is it that I should trust Gamespot more than 33 other reviews? Im just asking.. This is one of the most lame comments ive heard for a long time. They really are judging with a crown on their heads.
Helghast Slayer  +   2564d ago
Gamespot sucks period. These rejects should not be given the benefit to express their idiocy. We have enough reviews as it is and the masses give it two thumbs up.
Helghast Slayer  +   2564d ago
I guarantee they'll score it low just to bring the meta score down below their beloved Halo3 and Gears2 lol. A turd is more reliable than these scums.
Kleptic  +   2564d ago
this is all too funny...

now its trust gamespot?...and don't trust anyone else? mean the same GS that fired Gerstmann for giving an unbiased review of a sh!tty game? mean the same GS that just had some douche saying killzone 2 'has the weakest character models since oblivion'?...

no thanks...enough reviews praised the game to know that its exceeded the hype...PS3 owners are in for one of the best games of this generation in just a few short weeks...thats all that matters now...

GS is on life support still...and will remain that way until Cnet finally pulls the plug...then Gaintbomb will just change their domain to things may return to normal...where they are not the most fair group of guys, but still have a decent podcast and can be funny at times...
rbrtchng  +   2564d ago
You'd be surprised at how many PS3 owners and gamers in general think GS is absolutely unbiased and that there are no bias against the PS3 in journalism in any way.

I was on PS3 forums arguing with this guy who claims that these biases are just PS3 fanboys whining. I even cited a whole bunch of stuff, but he was still too stubborn to understand. What's worse is that some people actually agree with him.
burbulla  +   2564d ago
I think Gamespot just have a higher review requirement, I mean they said that they will no take the MGS4 pre-launch trip to Nasu, which many other game-sites took, but yet they gave a 10 to the game. Why is everyone being so negative? All they are saying is that they want to test the game more before they reveal their score. IMO when all is said and done they will give a pretty good score.
Kill Crow  +   2564d ago
only trust
the sites that give you games high scores ....
Kleptic  +   2563d ago
i'm not trying to be overly negative...its just that this article makes it sound like GS 'is the one to trust' thats all...when, in the past, they have been anything but on a lot of occasions...

i'm not making this an 'against the PS3 article'...GS has just been pretty lame overall the past year...the Kane and Lynch thing was what pushed them over for me, and that had nothing to do with the PS3...that was just the company letting a 15 year gaming professional go, a guy who arguably started the entire site (him an a few others), because kane and lynch absolutely sucked...and Eidos/Cnet where pissed about it...

the killzone 2 thing...that andre guy was just being a douche in the review preview 2 days ago...but no big deal...kevin is most likely doing the review, and I think it will be reviewed point was only that arguably the most unethical gaming site around is telling people that their review will have more credibility...i find that amusing...thats all...
ActionBastard  +   2564d ago
Hold on, I'm still reading their Kane and Lynch review.
TheHater  +   2564d ago
you almost made my spill my milk on my keyboard.
Johnny Rotten  +   2564d ago
this is a quote from 1 up's review
Multiplayer Thus Far
"As is often the case with game reviews, there isn't always enough time to play online multiplayer before the text is written. Because of this, I didn't get a chance to level up many of the character classes. And since this is such an integral part of the multiplayer experience I don't feel comfortable "reviewing" this part of the game yet -- but I can say for certain that I've played enough to know that my overall grade will not change based on more play. So with that in mind, here are at least my impressions from my time playing in the beta and with the review build so far"
~he then goes on to describe multiplayer then finishes with this:
"After the game launches, I'll be posting a blog to give some more in-depth thoughts on multiplayer after spending significant time with real opponents, but again, what I've played so far has been really, really good".
~that sounds fair to me, not sure what Gamespot's delay is for but to each thier own I guess.
#13 (Edited 2564d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Max Power  +   2564d ago
that right there...
is a tasteful way of having your cake and eating it too, with out getting fat. I read that and i was happy that they weren't going to put a number to it, but they know from what they played that it won't diminish the score they have given what they've played so far. kudos to them.
Frulond  +   2564d ago
&quot;After the game launches, I'll be posting a blog to give some more in-depth thoughts on multiplayer after spending significant time with real ...
so... I'm assuming he played only against bots in the online beta...

if he did it... that is sooooooooooooooooooooooooo dumb XD

T__T I so wish I was in the beta
Max Power  +   2564d ago
i also thinks he means will servers being taxed and with other players other than the dev team and other journalist.
Magic_The_Celt  +   2564d ago
ooooooooooh here we go :D this one is gonna be good, hold on my popcorns done.
Chubear  +   2564d ago
Y-e-a-h sure
Cause gamespot is the most reliable source of PS3 gaming info and must be trusted.
Marquis_de_Sade  +   2564d ago
I call shenanigans.
Rageanitus  +   2564d ago
same can be said about halo 3
Don't trust halo 3 reviews.....
Andras84  +   2564d ago
I'm sorry but...
..I don't trust GameSpot at all. They are the ones who sold out before and all that came to light. Did we forget about the Kain & Lynch thing? I don't think so.
thenickel  +   2564d ago
I'm sorry but I don't trust any review site period and will judge this game and any other for myself. To many times have i seen good games get bad scores and bad get good because of this broken review system.
ilkercruiser  +   2564d ago
Late Reviews
Late coming reviews are always more accurate than others.
Some games feel ordinary when you play a short time, but you play more and more it starts feel great and you become addicted.

Some games feel great and unique in a short playing time, After a moment the game starts to draw circles and make you bore just like some hack&slash games.
#20 (Edited 2564d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
jack who  +   2564d ago
oh man like i said before *waits for gamespot review*
jack who  +   2564d ago
yeah nothing better than 6 reviews from 6 diff OPM you know
Rikyfree  +   2564d ago
or the 20+ other multiplatform sites.... FAIL.
Magic_The_Celt  +   2564d ago
You do realise its going to be 9+ :)
Ghyst  +   2564d ago
The only reason they would do this, is to give their biased bad review more "power" stupid xbots, i saw their preview, he said that killzone 2's graphics are barely above average, and the characters are horrible, and he has sex with his xbox every night.

So im supposed to trust their site after that? LOL
Ghyst  +   2564d ago
... skip the 40 reviews that said the game was good
wait for us to say its bad! and don't believe anyone else! they are wronggg, just usss. lol
DutyCalls  +   2564d ago
Any Doubt?
of the reality that the american media is in the extreme 360 fanboys
that they would stop at nothing to make irrational attacks
no respect for the consumer, nor developers, nobody is safe, not even fellow journalist

gamespot, say hi to 1up on your way out.

the nerve on some people........
Reshun  +   2564d ago
The irony..
Theoneneo81  +   2564d ago
im kinda 50 50 on this i fell this will be a great game but i think there trying to say play it for the game and not the reviews especially after GTA IV was a pure example of what there saying at least thats how it sounds to me.
Bathyj  +   2564d ago
The differnce is this game is a polished gem. GTA was a buggy mess.

Now I say polished, meaning that they went over it and over it and got everyting just right. A rare treat in this day and age with publishers releasing half finished games all the time, knowing they can patch it.

If truth be told, if GG wanted to do that there probably could have released it a year ago, as it still looked better than anything else back then. I'm sure the temptation was there to steal some of Gears thunder. But no, they did the right thing by the fans and made it the best they could.

I wouldn't listen to anyone having petty little niggles just trying to find something to bring it down, they didn't do that with GTA, Gears or Halo and those games all had big problems. If this game had any gamebreaking flaws we would have heard of them by now.

Some reveiwers are just too scared to give the game the credit it deserves because no ones got the guts to stand up and say I doubted this game from the very beginning, and I was wrong. Think about it, has anyone come out and admitted they were wrong about this game, because they sure were alot of doubters.
Theoneneo81  +   2564d ago
Yes but GTA IV got 8 9s and 10s i know killzone is gonna be great i think what Gamespot is saying is play the game for the game not because its getting excellent reviews.
silvacrest  +   2564d ago
sorry gamespot
But im gonna believe the 30+ reviews before i listen to you

given the fact that you dont even have a review yet why should anyone listen to you?
thebudgetgamer  +   2564d ago
they havent put out a review because
they want to be the sensational one that gives it a 6 or something like that. then they will say, but we really took our time.

DutyCalls  +   2564d ago
and then try to look all innocent and honest
Rikyfree  +   2564d ago
If gamespot would read, they would know that they could enter a code that would allow them to level up really fast. Then they could play around with all the classes and get a good feel. You know, like other reviewers have done.
Ghyst  +   2564d ago
You think they'd give a ps3 exclusive that easy a time? lol
|Why are journalists so critical of ps3 games? geez, eh, i've never seen them do this before ever, especially for an xbox game.
« 1 2 3 »

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
New stories

Naruto Shippuden Ultimate Ninja Storm 4 review: An entertaining fighter - Examiner

44m ago - The Fourth Great Ninja War has begun as Madara Uchiha wages battle against the hidden villages of... | PS4

Final Fantasy Explorers (3DS) Review | VGChartz

45m ago - VGChartz's Chris Matulich: "While there's plenty to like in Final Fantasy Explorers, like the wel... | 3DS

Track the Release Date for PlayStation VR

Now - Sony is yet to reveal the exact release date for PlayStation VR. Start tracking it now using | Promoted post

Review: MOP - Operation Cleanup (PlayStation 4) - Defunct Games

45m ago - Defunct Games reviews MOP: Operation Cleanup, available now on PlayStation 4 and coming soon to P... | PS4

Dead Island Retro Revenge Rated Over In Australia

53m ago - The Australian Classification Board has rated a peculiar game title named “Dead Island Retro Reve... | Mobile

Fable Legends - Heroes of Albion: Meet Celeste

5h ago - Lionhead "Time to take a closer look at Fable Legends' light Priestess and resident stargazer... | PC
Related content from friends