Quantcast
Somethings wrong with reviews and Killzone: Mercenary proves it

Forums - Sony Discussion - Somethings wrong with reviews and Killzone: Mercenary proves it

First of all, i bought a PS: Vita just for this game and was in love with it as soon as i played the beta. The full game was even better.

Playing the beta i thought this game would get at least 85-90% on metacritic, most of my friedns on psn who played the beta also, thought so, too.

So, after the first few reviews went in, i was shocked, everything from 50%-100% was there, averaging at 77% atm on metacritic.

After reading a few reviews i asked myself why the f**k do they review the game the same as a full ps3 or 360 console game?!

Thats something thats only  common for sony (or microsoft consoles but as they got no mobile handheld device its irrelevant here), i mean, its a 40$ game on a handheld, not a 60$ game on a homeconsole, so why is it treated as such? ive never seen something like that for Wii or 3DS games, i mean if a game like Killzone: Mercenary gets 8/10 for its 'presentation' despite having the best graphics just because it doesnt look exactly the same as Killzone 3 on PS3, there has to be something wrong.

Why do 3ds (and wii before the wii u came out) games get reviewed differently? Never are they compared to there bigger console brothers or to the hd twins, neiter technically nor gameplaywise, so why is it different with games on sony platforms? It just seems unfair to me, and the user reviews, you know the people who actually bought the games and are most of the time not biased, share my views just looking at the user reviews on amazon or metacritic:

User reviews for KZ:M 

Metacritic: Average 9,2/10.

On the Playstation Store (you have to buy the game before rating it): 4,8x/5 (just for comparison thats higher than Uncharted, Gravity Rush and so on, Call of duty got 4,0 btw)

on amazon us,germany,uk,jp (yes even japan) at least 4,5 stars most of the times 5 out of 5.

Seems a little high for a game rated average 77/100 from 'professional critics', doesnt it?



Fedor Emelianenko - Greatest Fighter and most humble man to ever walk the earth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVVrNOQtlzY

Around the Network

Haven't played Mercenary or read your post, but I agree 100%.



I agree, I posted about this on the Playstation forums. Mercenary is an amazing game by ANY standards. It is easily the best of it's genre on its platform, and one of the best games for the platform period. It plays and looks amazing, and best of all, it really is the FIRST full fledged MP shooter, MP is outstanding.

Why did reviews then seem to give it the treatment it did? If it is the best on its platform ever (It is), reviews certainly ignored that fact, and compare it to full fledged console games, of which it stacks up well I might add. i think it is better then KZ3.

Vita games really seem to bring out the BS reviews, mercenary convined me of this.



Whats soo bad about a 77 if anything that stands for a good game. Geez alot of the scores these days feels over inflated.



Not sure why you're complaining here, 77% is a great score. Every game that scores above 70 is considered to be a good game, "average game" is one that scores between 5 and 7, and, if you liked the game, I don't see why you should care about review scores. Scores are just the opinion of someone else, they won't reflect the enjoyment you had out of the game, since, as you stated, the user score is much higher than the one from the gaming journalists.



Around the Network

The morons that were reviewing it were comparing it to the console versions on the series.  You judge a handheld game on a different standard, I didn't see anyone coparing Super Mario 3D Land to Galaxy.



iamdeath said:
 it really is the FIRST full fledged MP shooter, MP is outstanding.


Quake 3 Arena, Unreal Tournament, Turok: Rage Wars were heavily focused on MP.  Starsiege: Tribes, Team Fortress, and a few other PC games are pretty much 100% MP.



Can't comment about this game specifically, but there's been "something wrong" with video game reviews for a long time, so we're way past the pointing of needing one particular game to highlight that.

I recommend you check out rockpapershotgun, as they give great, detailed reviews, and instead of giving you some subjective score at the end, they just tell you whether or not the game is worth playing or not



I agree, after being in all three beta's and buying the full game I find no reason why it should be under a 80. Some reviews actually gave Killzone a lower score than Resistance. Seems like most people are caught up in this belief that since Sony's marketing team did the whole "console quality on the go" thing that they should review Vita games as if they're on PS3.



PSN: extremeM

PlayStation Vita Japanese Software Sales (Media Create Physical/ Famitsu Digital)

KingdomHeartsFan said:

The morons that were reviewing it were comparing it to the console versions on the series.  You judge a handheld game on a different standard, I didn't see anyone coparing Super Mario 3D Land to Galaxy.


@Bold:

Exactly, thats my point.

@Other replies:

My problem isnt that it got 77%, but that Vita games are always compared to more expensive Console titles and therefore underrated, imo, while, for example, 3DS games arent.

I just used the score to prove my point.



Fedor Emelianenko - Greatest Fighter and most humble man to ever walk the earth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVVrNOQtlzY