This is a post about Killzone 2. Now, as a non-PS3 owning individual, you might think I’m not the best person to talk about such a game, given that Ihaven’t played the game, and have no intention of doing so.
Never the less, it has recently come to my attention that despite the really quite high scores the game has been getting from critics, apparently this isn’t enough for the soon-to-be-fans (who, like me, can’t have played it yet), as they decide to storm the comments on such reviews with accusations of false review techniques, obvious bias towards the Xbox, and general semi-coherent insults. As a result I thought that rather than allowing the tumour caused by such internet idiocy fester without vengeance, I would post some examples of the comments from the 8.7/10 CVG review with some kind of reasoning and balance. Or, failing that, I’ll employ the trusty point-and-laugh technique.
First off, from CVG:
My god, this is going to get hundreds of posts. If this had been an Xbox360 exclusive this would have got 9.7 or 10.
I wish CVG had got an impartial reviewer not an obvious xbot fanboy.
Only time will tell if the overall experience truly deserves that score.
Oh and now MGS4 has a good story does it. I thought when the review came out it was slated for the long cut scenes.
Doesn’t really matter either way as I am have it pre-ordered.
This is a fairly typical example of the comments on the CVG review – the commenter stops by to pass what he seems to think is fairer judgememnt than the reviewer provides, despite not having played the game, and basing everything on other reviews. His first point is that, were this an Xbox exclusive, it would have scored higher than it did as a PS3 exclusive. This could be a somewhat fair comment, taken from another angle – most Xbox exclusives are high-scoring. However, this is generally because they are games that Microsoft sees potential in, and by making it an exclusive provide them with money to further the game’s quality. It it not the reviewer’s bias that makes them score Xbox exclusives highly, it is the quality of the exclusives in question.
Second of all, it is not obvious at all that the reviewer is, as he puts it, an “xbot fanboy”. In fact, there is no real mention of the Xbox 360 at all throughout the review, barring a couple of throw-away comments on the multiplayer and set pieces. The multiplayer comment seems well founded – the reviewer compares it with Halo, saying:
The list of multiplayer modes is fairly mundane – deathmatch, CTF and the like. As a package it’s far short of something like Halo’s impressive roster modes and matchmaking options.
This is a very fair comment, as the Halo games are the benchmark titles when looking at multiplayer, and I’m sure many Xbox titles have been compared to it as well. Saying that one game’s features are better than another’s is not necessarily comparing the consoles upon which they run.
As for his comment about Metal Gear Solid 4, it’s quite clear that the game did not get slated at all, given the fact that it recieved 9.5/10 from the same website, and even with that said, complaining about long cut scenes doesn’t mean that the story they tell is poor.
However, the commenter does make one fair point in his inane ramblings – “Only time will tell if the overall experience truly deserves that score”. Yes, that’s true. So why the hell are you telling the person who has actually played the game that he is wrong about something you have no idea about? You stupid, stupid person.
Next, another from CVG:
If any reviewer scores down a game for something it doesn’t have they are pathetic. Someone gave the Mario example and I’ll say it’s like scoring down Gears of War because it doesn’t have zombie horde mode. I’d say just on the technical side this game deserves a 12/10. Being the most polished of any console game. Just because it doesn’t innovate doesn’t make it a bad game. What it does it does better than any game.
First off, that first sentance has been picked up by a lot of other people on this review, and I think it’s bullshit. You can be fully justified in criticizing a game for not having something, as long as it’s relevant. His example of GoW not having a zombie mode is stupid, as it would make no sense in the context of the game. Yes, marking down Fallout 3 for not having wind that accurately alters your walking speed would be rediculous, but marking down a game which for the majority of the time the player is accompanied by a squad for not allowing another player to play alongside you is, in my opinion justified.
Also, no game deserved 12/20. No game deserves 10/10, and saying that “just on the technical side” as if the score can only go up is naive and stupid. Yes it might look good, but scoring doesn’t work that way. Perhaps you should read the review rather than look at the number at the bottom and complaining about it. You’re going the get the game, yes? The review complimented a lot about it, yes? Stop being so insecure about the console you bought and enjoy the game for fuck’s sake.
And another thing, in my opinion innovation in games is just as important as graphics. If there’s no innovation, we’ll get what we had with the Halo games – competant shooters, which are basically better looking carbon copies of the last one in the series.