By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - How would you feel if someone gave Killzone2 a 7 without seeing multiplayer

dahuman on 26 June 2009
starcraft said:
It is extremely rare too see a high rated shooter with poor graphics. For shooter fans (in general), graphics are very important, and seem to play a greater role in creating immersion than in other genres.

This reviewer took it too far, but too my mind he has a point. From the outset when Nintendo created the Wii with the specifications they did, they were choosing to ignore much of the shooter market.

looking at Wii Fit.... I somehow can't say they made the wrong choice..... but I do like the controls better I guess because I don't like dual analog for shooting as much.



Around the Network
CaptainDJ on 26 June 2009

If anyone bases there opinions off of this site, http://www.gamestyle.net/ , you are crazy. :O



http://www.ganggarrison.com/

http://www.halolz.com/

 

Kantor on 26 June 2009

Now, I'm perplexed as to when Zenfoldor became a Wii fanboy...



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

ZenfoldorVGI on 26 June 2009
Kantor said:
Now, I'm perplexed as to when Zenfoldor became a Wii fanboy...

This has nothing to do with the Wii, this particular game, or any numerical score. This has to do with someone reviewing a game they didn't play, and flaming a console instead of discussing the game. It is poor reviewing at best, and devistating to the credibility of the industry press as worst.

It is absolutely atrocious and I won't stand for it. I will protest. That is all I can do.

If you think this is about the Wii, or The Conduit(sp?) then you TOTALLY missed the point.

How would you feel if Gamepro gave Killzone 2 a 7 because it was on the PS3, didn't play the online mode, and spent the whole review talking about how awesome the game would have been on XBL?

Would you still defend it?

Would you?



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.

Broncos724 on 26 June 2009

Is it really worth getting upset over?



Around the Network
Onyxmeth on 26 June 2009
starcraft said:
It is extremely rare too see a high rated shooter with poor graphics. For shooter fans (in general), graphics are very important, and seem to play a greater role in creating immersion than in other genres.

This reviewer took it too far, but too my mind he has a point. From the outset when Nintendo created the Wii with the specifications they did, they were choosing to ignore much of the shooter market.

Well to be fair, the shooter market was a seedling last generation in comparison to this one on consoles. Nintendo didn't really "choose to ignore" anyone. The two HD consoles created a dominant shooter market and happened to be graphical powerhouses in comparison to the Wii. So yes, Nintendo is having trouble benefitting from it, but it wasn't really there as they were planning out the Wii to be a deciding factor on how powerful to make the console.

In my opinion though, I think the failure lies more in the lazily implemented online setup the Wii has, as opposed to the dip in graphics.



Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.



ZenfoldorVGI on 26 June 2009
Broncos724 said:
Is it really worth getting upset over?

I'm not upset, and it invigorates me to have a just cause. It is no trouble. This reviewer should be upset though.



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.

psrock on 26 June 2009
Onyxmeth said:
psrock said:

One question, who do you blame for the wii lack of graphical power?

While on a daily basis we hear about Sony being blamed for 360 third party games looking better since they make it hard to develop for, just this week someone make thread on how Nintendo consoles are more reliable than xbox360 and Ps3, but the Minute someone brings up the Wii's weakness, a meltdown takes place.

Nitendo decided not to make a powerful console which will never looked as good as the competition, they shift their focus on motion control which payed off greatly, but when developers try to bring FPS to it, which the competition  has tons of amazing versions to begin with, it will be imposible to live up to the hype. And, i blame Nintendo for it. And yes, people will bring up the control, and one of the important aspect of a game too, but it's not all there is to a game since all games if worked on properly can have great control too.

Well I believe the problem stems that we have five platforms of differing quality in graphics, and each is supposed to be judged on it's own merits. If we were to review a DS or PSP game, do we knock off points because the games do not look like 360/PS3 games, or do we judge them based on other games on the same platform? I would do the latter. Your argument points to you doing the former.

The reason the PS3 gets knocked for it's difficult to program for structure is because it shares 90% of it's games with the 360. If it didn't, it wouldn't be such a big deal.

You're comparing a hypothetical multiplatform 360/PS3 effort with an exclusive Wii title. There is the difference.

@Zen-I'm fairly sure reviewers didn't play Smash Bros. online actually. That's how it got such good reviews.

You see it as a problem, i see it as a choice. Sony made the choice to make the PS3 expensive and difficult, Nintendo decided not to make the wii as powerful as the other two. I am not going to ignore these choices when games are affected by them. We are talking about FPS here, we are talking about developers who talked day and night about how good the Conduit look. I hated the review, but the part people keep making a big deal about really is Nintendo's own doing.



 Next Gen 

11/20/09 04:25 makingmusic476 Warning Other (Your avatar is borderline NSFW. Please keep it for as long as possible.)
ZenfoldorVGI on 26 June 2009
psrock said:
Onyxmeth said:
psrock said:

One question, who do you blame for the wii lack of graphical power?

While on a daily basis we hear about Sony being blamed for 360 third party games looking better since they make it hard to develop for, just this week someone make thread on how Nintendo consoles are more reliable than xbox360 and Ps3, but the Minute someone brings up the Wii's weakness, a meltdown takes place.

Nitendo decided not to make a powerful console which will never looked as good as the competition, they shift their focus on motion control which payed off greatly, but when developers try to bring FPS to it, which the competition  has tons of amazing versions to begin with, it will be imposible to live up to the hype. And, i blame Nintendo for it. And yes, people will bring up the control, and one of the important aspect of a game too, but it's not all there is to a game since all games if worked on properly can have great control too.

Well I believe the problem stems that we have five platforms of differing quality in graphics, and each is supposed to be judged on it's own merits. If we were to review a DS or PSP game, do we knock off points because the games do not look like 360/PS3 games, or do we judge them based on other games on the same platform? I would do the latter. Your argument points to you doing the former.

The reason the PS3 gets knocked for it's difficult to program for structure is because it shares 90% of it's games with the 360. If it didn't, it wouldn't be such a big deal.

You're comparing a hypothetical multiplatform 360/PS3 effort with an exclusive Wii title. There is the difference.

@Zen-I'm fairly sure reviewers didn't play Smash Bros. online actually. That's how it got such good reviews.

You see it as a problem, i see it as a choice. Sony made the choice to make the PS3 expensive and difficult, Nintendo decided not to make the wii as powerful as the other two. I am not going to ignore these choices when games are affected by them. We are talking about FPS here, we are talking about developers who talked day and night about how good the Conduit look. I hated the review, but the part people keep making a big deal about really is Nintendo's own doing.

Yes, but is it the correct place to flame the Wii and Nintendo, in a 3rd party videogame review? Also, is it ok to not play the game, and just assume that it isn't worth playing because it is on the Wii?

That is not right.



I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.

NO NO, NO NO NO.

Kantor on 26 June 2009
ZenfoldorVGI said:
Kantor said:
Now, I'm perplexed as to when Zenfoldor became a Wii fanboy...

This has nothing to do with the Wii, this particular game, or any numerical score. This has to do with someone reviewing a game they didn't play, and flaming a console instead of discussing the game. It is poor reviewing at best, and devistating to the credibility of the industry press as worst.

It is absolutely atrocious and I won't stand for it. I will protest. That is all I can do.

If you think this is about the Wii, or The Conduit(sp?) then you TOTALLY missed the point.

How would you feel if Gamepro gave Killzone 2 a 7 because it was on the PS3, didn't play the online mode, and spent the whole review talking about how awesome the game would have been on XBL?

Would you still defend it?

Would you?

Read my previous post. I'm not defending GamePro, I think this reviewer is a moron with no idea of how to write a proper review (see: GameSpot).

I would expect this thread from you if it was a review of Halo Wars, or Gears 2, but I never thought I would see the day when YOU would defend the Wii. I realise it's the same problem whether it's a PS3, 360 or Wii game, but people generally change their opinions when the console changes. I do, and I admit to it



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective