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."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
red5ive3602d ago

oh stop being so negative.

Chris3993602d ago (Edited 3602d ago )

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.

wardrox3602d ago

Already on it:

... wait :P

N4360G3602d ago

LOL it's more like don't trust GameSpot!!

InfectedDK3602d ago (Edited 3602d 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.

3602d ago
acedoh3602d ago

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.

MikeMichaels3602d ago (Edited 3602d ago )

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.

Ghoul3602d ago (Edited 3602d 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

decapitator3602d 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.

822119863602d ago

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...

Spydiggity3602d ago (Edited 3602d 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.

XxZxX3602d 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.

pain777pas3602d 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.

BulletToothtony3602d ago

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

Danja3601d 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.....

pixelsword3601d ago (Edited 3601d ago ) needn't have played the game to see that such a time investment is in order.

Who payed them to say crap this time?

JOEdANGEL3601d ago (Edited 3601d 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?

Danja3601d 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 dong3601d ago

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!!

callahan093601d ago (Edited 3601d 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?


surprise surprise, another anti sony campaign

FrankenLife3601d 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.

Spydiggity3601d ago (Edited 3601d ago )

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!

+ Show (20) more repliesLast reply 3601d ago
Says you3602d ago (Edited 3602d ago )

Should rename themselves Gamelies or GameBox 360 or MicroSpot and terrandragon I think you should rename yourself retard.

terrandragon3602d ago

You should rename yourself BlindFanBoy

Morgan Webb of Lies3602d 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!!!!

Score3601d 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 II3602d ago

Don't Trust Gamespot Reviews. I Said

GWAVE3602d 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".

wardrox3602d 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.

ActionBastard3602d ago

Wardrox: Where was all that when COD4 was reviewed?

wardrox3602d 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_dogg20073602d 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.

GiantEnemyCrab3602d 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.

GWAVE3602d 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_dogg20073602d 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?

theEnemy3601d ago

what about the gaymers that trust GameSpot ?


FrankenLife3601d ago

@the enemy

Well they can look for gullible in dictionary.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 3601d ago
rucky3602d ago (Edited 3602d ago )

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?

Ghoul3602d 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