Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > Video Game Talk
Reload this Page >

KILLZONE -- Don't believe the reviews!!!

Video Game Talk The Place to talk about and trade Video & PC Games

KILLZONE -- Don't believe the reviews!!!

Old 12-28-04, 08:36 AM
  #1  
wlj
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Thread Starter
 
wlj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Tobacco Road
Posts: 3,187
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
KILLZONE -- Don't believe the reviews!!!

Let me start off by saying....I have Halo and Halo 2. Those 2 games are two of the best I have ever played. Now with that being said...you can see I am not a PS2 fanboy because I own a Xbox as well. I got Killzone for Christmas this year...I was very skeptical about the game due to the multitude of mediocre reviews that I have seen for the game....although PSM gave the game a 9.5 .... most sites and mags gave it between 6.9 and 8.0. Give or take. All I have read say the game is terrible looking, framerate is bad and interferes with gameplay, and the AI is terrible. Let me just say...false, false, and false. Sure the game does not look as great as Halo 2...that is because it is on a weaker system...but let me tell you this is one hell of a fun game. The environments are very good looking and they give you a feeling of being in the middle of a gigantic war. Sure the framerate is not good all time...but it never takes away from the gameplay. The AI is pretty good..in some ways they are better than Halo's. GASP yes I said it. Let me clarify. It is more easy on Halo to kill the enemies with grenades...the helghast in killzone do a better job of "dodging" grenades. In Killzone you have to rely on your ability to shoot rather than throwing grenades. I also love the different playable characters in killzone...it really adds alot of replay value due to the different objectives and styles of each player. What are your thoughts on Killzone??? Please don't misunderstand me....if you have both systems and can only afford one game --- buy Halo or Halo 2. But if you can afford both...Killzone is a very fun FPS that you don't want to miss.



wlj
Old 12-28-04, 12:42 PM
  #2  
wlj
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Thread Starter
 
wlj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Tobacco Road
Posts: 3,187
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
LOL...I guess I am only person on this board that has this game.


wlj
Old 12-28-04, 12:46 PM
  #3  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If I wasn't poor, I'd buy it.
Old 12-28-04, 12:50 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 23,225
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Another FPS? I'll take trust in the reviews for this one.
Old 12-28-04, 01:21 PM
  #5  
Retired
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 27,449
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Ditto what Pixy said. An FPS has to the a triple AAA quality game for me to bother with. Probably my least favorite genre out of the ones I at least play occasionally. And all the reviews can't be wrong, especially EGM who's my most trusted review source.
Old 12-28-04, 01:23 PM
  #6  
DVD Talk Legend
 
darkside's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 19,862
Received 8 Likes on 5 Posts
I've defintely liked games before that got mediocre reviews. ESPN College Hoops 2K5 has rarely left my PS2 and it was a 6.0-8.0 game on most sites. The EA game got better reviews and I wouldn't play it if someone gave it to me for free.

Reviews can be helpful, but sometimes the strengths of the game can overcome its weaknesses that are pointed out by reviewers.
Old 12-28-04, 01:59 PM
  #7  
Retired
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 27,449
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
And people misinterpret reviews. For places using a 10 point scale, a score of 5.0 is AVERAGE. Doesn't mean it's a crappy game. Just that it's a run of the mill, average game in that genre. Nothing terrible, but nothing special either.

So a score of 6.0-8.0 is above average (and highly so at the high end).

So in regards to my earlier post, I'm not a big FPS fan, but do like the cream of the crop games in the genre like Halo that are reviwed with solid 9's and 10's.

And of course, there are always reviews people just don't agree with as there simply people's opinions.
Old 12-28-04, 02:54 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 3,393
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
As your post is also a review of the game, I will follow your advice and not believe it.
Old 12-28-04, 03:20 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I thought Killzone was a very good game. Yes it does have some problems, but on the whole I thought it was rather entertaining and I didn't feel ripped off when it was over. If you go in thinking "this is going to be the greatest game I've ever played" then you're going to be dissapointed. But if you play with an open mind you'll definitley enjoy this one alot more.

One of the things people kept harping on was this "Halo killer" idea that the gaming press latched onto. I've played Halo (wasn't too fond of it though but that's another story) and I have to say that this game has very little in common with it. If anything it has more in common with the Medal of Honor series than any other game. Imagine World War II if it was fought about 100 years in the future. That gives you a pretty good idea of what the atmosphere is like.
Old 12-28-04, 03:23 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Newberg, OR
Posts: 17,560
Received 51 Likes on 42 Posts
Originally Posted by Josh Hinkle
And people misinterpret reviews. For places using a 10 point scale, a score of 5.0 is AVERAGE. Doesn't mean it's a crappy game. Just that it's a run of the mill, average game in that genre. Nothing terrible, but nothing special either.
While that would be nice if it were true, it is far from reality. In actuality, it is closer to the school grading system, where 70%-79% is the average grade of C. If you average the scores of reviews across major sites, the average score is closer to 7.0-7.5 than 5.0. Head to IGN, Gamespot, etc and count the number of games that scored 5.0 or below and then the number that scored above that.
Old 12-28-04, 03:23 PM
  #11  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Blu-Ray: We Don't Need No Stinkin' Petition
Posts: 6,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This sounds like a good budget pick up at best. FPS games have to be perfect in order to warrant the $50 price tag. Otherwise, waiting until its $20 will get you the same game, and you don't feel cheated because you waited so long.
Old 12-28-04, 03:36 PM
  #12  
Retired
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 27,449
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Jeremy517
While that would be nice if it were true, it is far from reality. In actuality, it is closer to the school grading system, where 70%-79% is the average grade of C. If you average the scores of reviews across major sites, the average score is closer to 7.0-7.5 than 5.0. Head to IGN, Gamespot, etc and count the number of games that scored 5.0 or below and then the number that scored above that.
I don't bother with the online review sites. Just EGM. I'd imagine their average score is closer to 5.0 as they are tougher IMO than the online sites.

Also, I don't think you can really average that way. Just because say 10 straight games get above 5.0 doesn't make 5.0 not the score a game of average quality gets. It just means that all those games were above average.

There's a difference between average score awarded and the score given to games of average quality in the respective genre. The first is just a mathematical average of scores actually awarded. The second is a benchmark used by the reviewers. Start at 5, add points if it's better than average, take away points if it's worse.
Old 12-28-04, 03:40 PM
  #13  
wlj
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Thread Starter
 
wlj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Tobacco Road
Posts: 3,187
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
I would not call a game that received a 5.0 an average game. I agree that a 10 point scale is usually interpreted like a school grade scale. So a 5.0 would in actuality be a 50 which is a failing grade. Personally I feel that Killzone should have received an 8.8 or 8.9 score. Its a solid B+ game.


wlj
Old 12-28-04, 03:45 PM
  #14  
Retired
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 27,449
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Iin EGM the editor has stated on multiple occasions that in their magazine a 5.0 is average.

Not all review places may hold that standard, but that is the one EGM uses, and why you see some many games in the 4-6 range their compared to the online sites where a crap game tends to get scores in the 6/60% range.
Old 12-28-04, 05:04 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Newberg, OR
Posts: 17,560
Received 51 Likes on 42 Posts
Originally Posted by Josh Hinkle
Also, I don't think you can really average that way. Just because say 10 straight games get above 5.0 doesn't make 5.0 not the score a game of average quality gets. It just means that all those games were above average.
I wasn't just looking at 10 straight games (or 20, 30, etc). I looked at the entire lineups for this-gen consoles. If above 5.0 is average in most sites, then 90% of games are above average, which clearly isn't true.

Originally Posted by Josh Hinkle
The second is a benchmark used by the reviewers. Start at 5, add points if it's better than average, take away points if it's worse.
Unfortunately you can count the number of publications that use that method on one hand (maybe even one finger).

This, of course, is the problem with comparing numbers (as I know you know). The scale on one magazine/site is different than others. It seriously throws off any kind of game rankings (like gamerankings.com). Gamerankings.com would be better off if they figured in the average ranking across the console for a particular site (and have that be ever-adjusting as more and more reviews come out). Maybe take the number of standard deviations above/below that site's mean, then average that number with numbers on other sites. With that scale, a 0 would be closer to average, with good games being > 0 and bad games being < 0. No longer would it matter that OXM, for example, gives 50% of games a 9.0 or higher.
Old 12-28-04, 06:00 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Is the demo a pretty accurate representation of the final game? Sometimes they aren't and I'm thinking of trying the demo again. I didn't give it much of a chance previously but that was mainly because of time constraints.
Old 12-28-04, 06:40 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 23,466
Received 7 Likes on 1 Post
I borrowed Killzone... I am about halfway through or so. I thought it sucked. I don't know, maybe it gets better... doubt it. Graphics are nice for PS2, but the gameplay is pretty weak compared to everything else I've played. The first time I shot a water bottle off a watercooler and it popped up and made a cool bloosh noise and fell on the ground, I thought it was kinda cool... then I decided to hit another one because it looked kinda scripted. Sure enough, the bottle popped up off the cooler in the same exact way and fell on the ground in exactly the same spot in relationship to the cooler.

No biggie really, but then I noticed how scripted everything else was. This game has no AI - everything is just a crappy script. This was one of the least immersive games I've ever played. It wasn't all bad though - I found some things I liked about it... and the graphics were pretty nice for a PS2 title. Heck, even looked nicer than some Xbox titles. The game had potential and I would've liked to have seen it on a PC or something where they could give you better control and more enemies and more room to program better AI.
Old 12-28-04, 08:40 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: So Cal
Posts: 7,071
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I thought it was OK, better than Halo and H2 in my opinion. Those games were waaay too redundant.

Things I liked:

Nice weapon designs - although some parts were overdone and some weapons were totally useless.
Feeling of pressure and hectic gameplay - few games can inspire panic outside of survival-horror titles.
A.I. was pretty good - in most games with really good AI, you only ever notice if the game has a more methodical pace to it. The only thing i really noticed about the AI in Halo 2 was the ability of Jackals to kill you instantly on Legendary, and I wouldn't really call that strategic so much as cheap as hell.

and the bad:

The graphics get choppy too quickly
Boring level designs, ala Halo and Halo 2
Character selection totally useless
Old 12-28-04, 09:53 PM
  #19  
Retired
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 27,449
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Jeremy517

This, of course, is the problem with comparing numbers (as I know you know). The scale on one magazine/site is different than others. It seriously throws off any kind of game rankings (like gamerankings.com).

Yep, as far as I know EGM is the only review mag/site that uses that method. One of the many reasons that they're the only review source I remotely trust.

And I agree totally with your comments on gamerankings. It's a totally worthless site IMO.
Old 12-28-04, 11:27 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
GreenMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,578
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I like to use metacritic for videogame reviews (plus my print issue of EGM). I like them for movies too.

At least EGM will tear a game a new one if it deserves it. I swear everything in Gamepro is a 3.5 or better. PSM is even worse with the multitude of 7s and 8s.
Old 12-29-04, 08:35 AM
  #21  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 930
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I have to agree with wlj. I picked this up last week and I'm about halfway done. I think its fun and not as bad as everyone makes it out to be. Then again, they're just opinions and this one is mine.

I've also been playing this game online, and even though I suck and keep getting my a$$ handed to me, I'm still having fun. I'm not sure if this game will drop in price as quickly as other commercial flops, mainly because of the online funtion, it should be picked up when it does. Granted I didn't pay full price (only $5 actually), but I still don't think that detracts from the enjoyment of the game. If you can pick it up for ~$30 dollars I think its worth it.
Old 12-29-04, 09:44 AM
  #22  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 43,214
Received 1,606 Likes on 1,005 Posts
EGM's reviews say 5.0 is average?

I've had a subscription for a little over a year now (and subscribed during their first 2 years of publication) and they definitely use the "school" type system. I don't have an issue in front of me but in my memory every game that receives a 6.0 or below has little to nothing good said about it. 5.0 is usually crap and it's REALLY bad if it goes below that.

6.0-7.0 is an average score from EGM, regardless of what they might say.
Old 12-29-04, 11:25 AM
  #23  
Retired
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 27,449
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I respectfully disagree and I've been reading EGM since the beginning. A 5.0 game is something I don't want to play. But that's just because I don't play average games.

Games that get 2-4 in EGM are the ones that are flawed horribly and just totally suck. Games that get 5 and 6 are games that are ok. They're playable, but they're nothing great as their just formulaic and usually just a knockoff of something we've seen a thousand times before. Sometimes a game will get a 5 because it's a cool concept, but there's some control issues etc.

I guess we just have a different definition of what "average" is. To me average is a game that's not something I'd play, but it's at least playable and somewhat fun. Just not something to spend a lot on. Something in the 6-7 range is a little better, maybe worth picking up cheap if you're a big fan of the genre/series. 8 is a very good game, but maybe not quite worth picking up at full price. 9-10 are must have games, with the former having a few minor flaws and the later being near flawless.
Old 12-29-04, 12:31 PM
  #24  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 43,214
Received 1,606 Likes on 1,005 Posts
Originally Posted by Josh Hinkle
Games that get 2-4 in EGM are the ones that are flawed horribly and just totally suck. Games that get 5 and 6 are games that are ok. They're playable, but they're nothing great as their just formulaic and usually just a knockoff of something we've seen a thousand times before. Sometimes a game will get a 5 because it's a cool concept, but there's some control issues etc.
Again, without an issue in front of me, I can't think of a game that got a 5.0 that had anything good said about it. If there are some out there, that's the exception.

An "average" game should still be worth something...I've enjoyed plenty of ho-hum, me-too kinds of games. But if a game gets three 5.0s from EGM, I won't even consider it.
Old 12-29-04, 12:36 PM
  #25  
Retired
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 27,449
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
True, but remember that EGM skews negative in reviews in genereal even for well scored games (9/10's excluded). And trust me, the edior has said numerous times over the years that they score games with 5.0 as the average (I think it might even be mentioned in the beginning of the review section each month, it used to be there but I haven't checked recently). It just seems that if a games average, the reviewers like to focus on the negative aspects to write a more "buzzworthy" review.

To back this up further, I've read many reviews, and then looked at the score and thought "how'd he give that an 8 with all the gripes he had).

But like you, I won't consider a game that gets 5's in EGM either, as I won't play anything that's not a 9 or above in my personal opinion and I've yet to see anything to worse than 7's in EGM that I ended up liking that much. Too many games, and too little time, to waste on anything but cream of the crop games IMO.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.