GRS: Guerrilla's follow up to the action fest that was Killzone 2 falls short in every area, save from the graphics. It's still a rock solid action game, but now feels more streamlined, not as heavy and the multiplayer leaves a lot to wish for.
These guys rate this game the same score as Crackdown 2 ( the author should stop smoking it.) and surprise surprise they gave Black Ops a 9. I have played and completed all of the above games and that score is straight up bullsh!t. Killzone 3 fu##ing annihilates these two games in every department.
Which is why reviews suck nowadays, they can not be trusted at face value. A lot of reviewers tend to nit pick now and deduct massive points for small flaws that don't effect gameplay. The way I see it, playing the game for yourself is the best way to review it.
Yeah nobody deducts points for Bulletstorms lack of a Jump mechanic.
reviews are basically opinion pieces... @snakemustdie - then whats the point? if you dont get the reviewers opinion about the game its really just a factsheet. you find a reviewer who share the same taste in games you do and you follow that persons word if reviews are really that important in what kind of game you want to get
That's the problem. Reviews are supposed to be objective and tells us what are the pros and cons of the game. Even if you don't like FPS games for example, you need to see and criticize the game from an objective point of view so that people will get the idea of what the game is about. If reviews are just opinion pieces then there is no reason for every industry to have a review. Another thing, reviews this days are so inconsistent that they mark down games for minor flaws in which certain games with similar flaws gets a free pass.
If it was an opinion piece then yup I get it but a review of a product like a game, it should at least be consistent within a site, but when a similar game on another platform get points added or no mention for what another gets points deducted then it screams platform bias.
I find it weird that he said the games mp is unbalanced and gave 5 on durability.
The review is pretty bad. This Petter guy gives us 2 sentences for multiplayer. The rest is a comparision between kz2 and kz3.
i bet he picked the game up on release day, played it for a couple of hours and was able to deduce that it was a 7/10 rushed reviews like this one just scream undone, and unprofessional if anything, people should look to the blogs/reviews that get written on this site...so much detail and actual comprehension instead of 2 sentences for a MP component that has gotten deeper over KZ2
lol, Swedish people need to stick to clogs and windmills. Leave the games for the people who know about them . Seriously, what part of your ass did you pull this score from?, must have been a very dark place.
lol im a swede :P but yeah they could've give it a 8 or a 9.
Windmills and sweeds I think you mean the dutch. I love how many panties are in a crunch from a 7 of 10 that means its good right? Cant wait to play just got it now. Just relax and play the game not the scores or the sales.
Swedes are currently developing Battlefield 3. I think they know a thing or two about how an FPS should play. Btw, clogs and windmills are typically used when referring to the dutch.
like being Swedish has anything to do with them giving it a 7. If it was an American site you would have just said "America journalists are biased against sony." hes only one person and 7 isnt bad. Most scores are alot higher than that so dont cry to much over one persons review.
This is why I only trust user reviews.
kz3 is a 9/10.. not perfect, but amazing experience.
Whatever buying. I spit on reviewers either they kiss so much ass or nit pick and give uncredible reviews. I want to make the judgement not some ugly ass reveiwer who most likely single reading Marvel comics.
Can SOMEONE please point out what's so great with the review? Loads of people will buy KZ3 mainly for the multiplayer component and this guy gives us ONE sentence on what to expect. "Imbalanced" he says, yet he doesn't specify or gives us any info after that. Nevermind the score, mind the review. It's incredibly dull to read a review that only compares it with its predec while only giving us info on the singleplayer part. Please, enlighten me. What's so great about that wall of nonsense for a review? Give us the whole game, or don't bother.
The game is awesome. 7/10 my ass. I wonder what kind of Godly game would deserve a 10 let alone a 9 from these guys. I think people had such high expectations that they were disappointed that the game wasn't flawless (obviously), but if you just play the game with no expectations you'll see that the game deserves a 9-9.5
I can't help but laugh at how many of you are getting upset over 1 review. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong or right. The same goes for your own opinion of the score it should get. There's nothing to back anyone's review of it. It's just sad to see people get on here and bitch and complain about 1 review instead of ignoring it and playing the dang game.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.