Kotaku 
Enter your username and password.
Denver, 6:42 AM
Wed Nov 25
53 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip us:
Editor-In-Chief:
Brian Crecente
| AIM | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Stephen Totilo
| AIM | Twitter
Senior Editor:
Michael McWhertor
| AIM | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor, Japan:
Brian Ashcraft
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, East Coast:
Michael Fahey
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Oceania:
Luke Plunkett
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Weekends:
Owen Good
| AIM | Twitter
Correspondent, San Francisco:
AJ Glasser
| AIM | Twitter
Columnist:
Leigh Alexander
Columnist:
Tim Rogers
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
02/10/09
Now, if only I could find a way to filter the Internet as not to get spoiled of EDGE's next issue, because we receive it 1 month later here in Portugal...
02/10/09
02/09/09
02/09/09
02/09/09
02/09/09
02/09/09
02/09/09
[www.metacritic.com]
But yeah, Edge giving KZ2 a 7 doesn't bother me. It's still a good game. Funny thing though, Halo 3 got a 10. Where's the deep story in that game?
02/09/09
Look at the user ratings and sheer number of ratings for Halo 3, Gears 2, and Killzone 2. It's pathetic.
02/09/09
02/09/09
@Fishballs: My point was that if they deduce points for a bad plot, then they might want to apply it to all the games they review? More features doesn't make a game perfect.
Then again, I assume different people reviewed both games.
02/10/09
02/10/09
02/09/09
I mean, carry on and debate the purpose of reviews or the different uses of the 10-point scale or what different reviewers think are most important in a game all you want, but damn. You know, not everybody has to be awestruck and wowed by this game. It's simply that simple.
02/09/09
Most of their complaints with the game seem to be story based, which is fine, I'll take their word that it may not be much to remember. But honestly I wasn't looking forward to the story anyway, and maybe that's an indictment on my view of FPSes, but it's true. If Edge wants to hold FPS developers to a higher standard for singleplayer stories, then that's fine if they're consistent.
They seemed to like the smart AI, technical achievements, and multiplayer plenty, but by the end of the review those praises seem overshadowed.
Also, does the reviewer not want the game to tell the player what to do, where to go? Maybe KZ2 overkills it, but I guess
02/09/09
..I guess I don't want a game to leave me out in the dark on a battlefield with no idea as to where I'm supposed to go.
02/09/09
Have games gotten to near perfection these last few years? Are they above all others that have come before them? The mere thought of this is down right laughable.
Now, reviews are by and large pointless. Most gamers I know look at them to see their opinions of a game reflected by whoever is reviewing said game. Adding a "score" at the end of a review might as well be a sign that reads: This wall-o-text seen before me is pointless, don't take me seriously.
I'd imagine that doing away with scores could cut the number of idiotic posts on various websites in half while at the same time improving the image of said reviewer/website/publication.
That's just me though. I read a review to find out what works, what doesn't and why. Scores to me just degrade the entire process of reviewing.
02/09/09
Exactly.
What exactly makes all of these games so amazing.
It seems that any game that is hyped now-a-days is likely to get a 5/5 just because it's hyped.
Most reviews don't give me a good idea as to why this game is head and shoulders above its competition which is what a 9 or above indicates.
Scores should be thrown out of the window completely. I want to know if the game is good, what type of gamers would like it, and if it is a standout in its genre.
However, if scores must be used, I much rather prefer a 5 star rating system because I have no idea what the quantifiable difference between a 9.1 and a 9.2 is which is another thing that helps to render these 100 point rating systems absolutely useless.
If a 5 star rating system is used, then I expect the majority of games to be 3/5 because that is average. If the majority of games are not the average then there is obviously a problem. A 4/5 is a standout with a 5/5 being a classic.
And, like you say, the scores just encourage people to skip the actual reviews just to see the scores. Then the review is null because it could not accomplish what it was made to do, inform the consumer. This is why Kotaku's reviews are some of the best in the industry, they don't use the flawed, hype driven scoring system.
02/09/09
If they actually had legitimate beefs with the game then I wouldn't mind them giving it an average score, but I've had enough of this pretentious attitude in movies, music, and games. Not everything under the sun has to be a criticism or allegory or social commentary of current events. Frankly I could give half a fuck about current events, I watch movies and play games so I don't have to worry about that shit.
02/09/09
I look at it this way. We need to review games based on what their goal is as a game, and how well they meet that goal. Killzone 2 didn't want to be artistic, and didn't try to be. I could complain that Call of Duty doesn't capture the helplessness of the average soldier, but that's not what it's about. It's about heroics in the face of adversity. Review what's there, not what you would have made the game about.
Oh, and a side note- I'm not saying that we can't criticize games for not having things. They (the devs) wanted Killzone 2 to be an intense, action packed, fun FPS. Co-op fits with that goal exactly, and was omitted. Criticize them for that. I'm just saying that you shouldn't get mad at them for not having, say, a comprehensive system for acrobatics, because they just aren't part of what the game is supposed to be.
02/09/09
I liked the social commentary in MGS4, but there's no need to penalize other games for not doing so.
02/09/09
Now for those that can appreciated varying perspectives (without necessarily having to buy into any single idea) can gain a lot of knowledge from them. I mean this is how philosophy and logic came about. This is the basis of the arts as we know it. This is how people grow and discover. This is not a bad thing. Even these opinions you have about Edge, if it's worth it to you, can probably let you discover a great deal about yourself if you're honest in asking yourself why you feel that way. It's OK to establish you disagree with something but the real value is asking yourself why. Edge's 7/10 might be the best gaming-related introspective you've ever done.
02/09/09
Like what Chalkdust and Dangeresque said, if something just wants to be what it is, and nothing else, then don't criticize it because of that.
Okenny, this is a major pet peeve I have with the media industry. Edge pissed me off because they did the same thing that tons of other critics and moviegoers have already done to piss me off. I dislike when people have expectations for something to be more than it is. The 7/10 doesn't bother me, what bothers me is that they made a worthless and baseless criticism.
Don't preach to me about being introspective and tell me that I don't know where the basis of my opinions lie. Asking everything to be a social commentary and criticizing those things that don't is a really annoying trend, and anybody that follows that trend is likely to piss me off.
02/09/09
02/09/09
02/09/09
I have to agree.
02/10/09
I'm still buying the game, but this hardly seems like an invalid review.
02/10/09
too often reviewers tread the line of contradiction, and they are let off the hook, for whatever reason. obviuosly console bias does not play a role,(silliest thing ever said) but i think when u say game like killzone has a story akin to listening to the generic H.S. jocks or the like, do other games not meet those same faults? (Gears 1 anyone?)
the difference is that when a games strengths are overwhelmingly positive, issues of whether or not the story is Oscar worthy take a complete back seat. in my honest opinion the most compelling game written( even with its faults) has to be MGS4, yes it is quirky and has so many different intricacies, but when you view the franchise as a whole in their depiction of war, it has the most ballsy take on the action genre period. but i will digress.
i actually enjoyed reading Edge's review, and at the end of the day it is just their opinion.... but i worry about the criticism leveled at games period. Every developer of any game has a right to their own interpretation. When MGS had this deep rotted story it gets hammered by press and alike, and then when a game is not of that caliber it gets slammed as well.
lets have some levity in these reviews and i promise less people will have such an issue, which really goes across the board, not just pointing the finger at Edge.
/end rant
02/09/09
I don't think that is true at all. Here's a quote from Edge in their 10/10 review of Halo 3.
In substance it's nothing new, merely a magnificent, beautiful monster of an FPS sequel. In concept and execution, though, Halo 3 is the future.
02/09/09
02/09/09
02/09/09
Still a big deal now. No game since has done what Halo did first, and best, even half as well.
02/09/09
Anything Halo 1 did was pretty much already done, from what I can think of.
02/09/09
There is very little innovation in the industry, in my opinion. But there are some games that shine through, for me it was Bioshock with its crazy architecture/ environment/story, etc, or HL2 and its physics mechanics. But I guess one could say innovation is relative.
All in all, I'd prefer to see a higher rate of perfection than innovation, because sometimes innovation can just get in the way of the fun.
02/10/09
So, following your logic, MAG's 256-player MP mode is not innovative because it's just the regular 16-player MP multiplied by 16...
Halo 3 was a VERY innovative game with multiplayer features that have been copied or emulated in every FPS since its release.
Saying that the game is not innovative or that it doesn't deserve the praise is simply an ignorant statement.
KZ2 does not innovate. It has beautiful graphics, beautiful sound, awesome physics, a mediocre SP campaign and a pick-the-best-features-from-other-games-and-glue-them-together MP mode.
I'll probably play it at my friend's house and I'll probably love it, but that doesn't mean it deserves universal praise.
02/10/09
Name some innovations that Halo 3 has made? Because I honestly cannot see any at all. I have played it quite a bit, and to me its just an average shooter with a terrible plotline and an above average multiplayer.
And like others have said, kindly refrain from judging KZ2 until you've actually played it. I'm not sure whether it would deserve universal praise either, as I haven't played it other than the demo. But I don't judge games solely on innovation. For me, a game doesn't have to be innovative to earn praise but if it can perfect the genre, then I am all for it.
02/10/09
[kotaku.com]
02/10/09
It seems to me that Edge has a hard-on for MS/Halo 3.
02/09/09
It's refreshing that a publication is able to surpass the glean and pizzaz of a game with a bloated-budget and grade it far more objectively than typically done. Though, I wish Edge was that discerning with Halo 3...
02/09/09
02/09/09
02/09/09
02/09/09
02/09/09
02/09/09
02/09/09
02/09/09
02/09/09
Or, do you really believe, based even off of your limited impressions, that Killzone 2 somehow succeeds in being LESS innovative than Gears of War 2?
02/09/09
Have you played it? Have you really?? Did you know it was the first FPS to have a four-player online cooperative campaign? The first FPS to have built-in real-time multiplayer map-editing? The first FPS to have built-in recordings of entire multiplayer AND campaign rounds, also including an editor for recording? The first FPS to allow players to directly download screenshots from each other while waiting in the multiplayer lobby?
And that's not even gameplay advances! Detachable turrets, deployable gravlifts, deployable force fields, doors you can walk through but not shoot through, new vehicles, new weapons...
JESUS CHRIST PEOPLE. How you can get away with saying, nay, assuming Halo 3 is such a crock of derivation without getting so much as a whimper of protest in return is wholly, utterly beyond me.
02/09/09
Guess what game that quote was from a review for???if you said Halo2 you were correct. Likewise:
"It's fitting that we're able to steal a line from the script to sum everything up. No spoilers here, just an epitaph, from the moment Cortana turns to Master Chief and says this: "It's not a new plan. But we know it'll work."
Now it's just out of hand. Not only did halo 2 have very little innovation in its central game, but they flat out say it is no different than anything before. I don't think they have a hard-on for innovation, they have a hard-on for M$.
My real aim was to analyze the truth of if they really want innovation or not. They clearly did (past tense perhaps?) not want innovation with the Halo series in their reviews.
02/09/09
The message that should be getting through to you here is that they rate games on a harsher metric on both platforms.
02/10/09
are you serious?
Have you not heard of pc gaming? Coop multiplayer (even with more than 4 players) online has been part of gaming for years!!
DOOM 2 HAD 4+ COOP MULTIPLAYER FOR GODS SAKE (1996)
DOOM HAD 4+ COOP MULTIPLAYER (1993)
HEXEN,
HERETIC,
RISE OF THE TRIAD,
DUKE NUKEM 3D
(and yes they can be set up to work over the internet)
what planet are you on? The first to have coop online? geez...
and the rest of your points? I like how none of the 'innovative' things are the actual gameplay themselves. Just all extra tacked on features. so what your saying is that yes the 'game' ISNT actually innovative.
how about you get your head out your ass and look at the actual facts before you claim its the 'first' to have X Y and Z.
''And that's not even gameplay advances! Detachable turrets, deployable gravlifts, deployable force fields, doors you can walk through but not shoot through, new vehicles, new weapons...''
seriously.. THATS your argument? doors you can walk through but not shoot through? deployable force fields, detachable turrets? Go play the ORIGINAL unreal tournament... (with or without any of the official mods/updates released for it).
02/10/09
"they can be set up to"... excuse me? Fucking Pac-Man can be set up to record rounds, have cooperative play over the internet, include a level editor, whatever, you name it -- but that doesn't mean the game was made with those features.
And you are wholly unjustified in calling the features "tacked on". As a group of players, you can seamlessly switch from playing the campaign to editing a map, or playing a multiplayer match, or watching a recording of gameplay. These features are completely integrated with each other. You don't even come close to that degree of cohesion by simply slapping a bunch of extra features together.
02/09/09
02/09/09
02/09/09
02/09/09