Thank you:

2012: Journey - 2nd most GOTY-awarded game

2011: Uncharted 3 - 4th most GOTY-awarded game

2010: Heavy Rain - 3rd most GOTY-awarded game / GoW - 4th most GOTY-awarded game

2009: Uncharted 2 - most GOTY-awarded game

2008: LBP - 4th most GOTY-awarded game

2013 will probably be between GTA5 and TLoU

F0X said: JoeTheBro said: tbone51 said: Nintendo still has the highest Score of Next gen this holiday and Overall In GEN 8 :P irrelevant *evil laugh ....... *runs away Now For knack to hit a 60 @BOLD Forgetting Perssonna 4? Lies. Ocarina of Time 3D is at 94, while Persona 4: Golden is at 93. Tied with the 3DS eShop version of Cave Story, to boot. http://www.metacritic.com/game/3ds/the-legend-of-zelda-ocarina-of-time-3d http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-vita/persona-4-golden

Persona 4 Golden was at 95 until the European reviews broke it!

Let's just pretend it's 95!

No matter how good it is, people will have to buy it because there is nothing else to buy, right? At least for exclusives that is.

Pretty much. 

That doesn't really help your case since it's not exactly "dominating" lol ^_^;

to be honest the polygon review sure was not objective. if you read it you can tell that it was made by someone who a) does not like fps games in general or suffers some kind of fps fatique or b) expected clearly more than just another fps for next gen. i know that because i don't like fps games as well. if i would review any fps if would probably read exactly like that.

Yeah it does take adjusting to.  The only level I was bored in was the train one with tons of latters...

0 to 40% Rubbish
41% to 65% Average
66% to 85% Good
86%+ A must have

That's how i see it but i knew Killzone would be a good game anyway

It's back to 74 thanks to a 3/5 from Giant Bomb. But honestly, why so few reviews? Only 26 reviews for a launch title. I would understand the ones that were released in other platforms but it's weird as an exclusive. Although a review or 2 do seem to add every day.

I just read the Giant Bomb review and the 3/5 review seems pretty bs to me. Giant Bomb made the statement that the single player while sometimes being entertaining isn't very good throughout, but during the very short time they're talking about multiplayer, they throw praise at it except for one small issue. It got me thinking, so I looked up their Battlefield 4 review. 4/5. Short and crappy single player, issues with the multiplayer but good multiplayer nonetheless.

So Battlefield gets a pass because it's known that the previous game delivered an absolute shit storyline, but they throw far more weight towards Killzone's campaign? This isn't really specifically about Killzone, it's how gaming sites allow biased reviews like this to be published. If you're going to score against one game, you should score against the other game for the exact same issue. Different reviewers, but they're getting paid as that specific company and should be held up to the same basic standards. If the campaign matters here, then it should also matter here, if it doesn't matter here, then shouldn't matter here. Looks like bias to me.

*edit*

Doing further research and reading Jeff Gertsmann's Killzone 3 review shows further proof of how biased the review is.  The first four paragraphs of Killzone 3 are about the story and how disappointing it is, with six more paragraphs detailing the multiplayer.  Both games have disappointing story, both games have great multiiplayer, but the Shadow Fall review is incredibly half assed and in two paragraphs of talking about muliplayer, the only thing that is said is that it's good and that there's an issue about your loadouts when there are restrictions due to the custom warzones, requiring you to set your load outs up for that specific warzone.  The review doesn't go into any other detail about the multiplayer.  Nothing detailing how the challenges for each weapon work, nothing detailing the perks like they did with Killzone 3.  It's like his review has some sort of hidden agenda so he just threw it up and called it a day.