Maxim = Killzone 2 70%

[Kantor]

Hyruken said:

ChronotriggerJM said:
I wouldn't put much faith in the review, but I still view it as a bad omen :P If the "common folk" weren't immediately impressed by the likes of Killzone 2, and if an official magazine only gave it a 9. Maybe it's not all that and a bag of chips :P

 

 Have to say i agree with this. I'm pumped for KZ2, had it on pre-order for a longtime.

But

If the OPM gives it a 9 that sounds a bit worrying. People have to remember KZ2 is basically Sony's A card. The game they made themselves and the game they paid shead loads of cash to make. The game that could not be played on a different console etc.. etc.. Normally Sony will come out and give that type of game a 10/10. By giving it a 90% score normally indicates to me they marked down for a reason. If this game is as bad ass as we are lead to believe would Maxim who are not games critics be easily impressed by it? Would they not be amazed at the "holy shit" momments that we have become used to over the years? Would they not be easier to impress then say the actual gaming critics? If the non critics think it is lousy i'm not sure how you can say the critics will be impressed?

I saw KZ2 last year being played and my only concern for the game at that point in the 20mins or so i saw was it was major repetative. You had the same looking bad guy that looked exactly the same as the bad guy next to him. The effects were awesome but the AI was dumb as shit. One was just wondering around gormless and another was running at the guy playing it not actually firing or anything. I'm sure in that year they will have worked on it but it would not surprise me one bit if Killzone 2 turned out to be one of if not thee best looking game to date but yet has no actual gameplay to it, all flash and no substance etc... So i remain caustious about the game but regardless of reviews i will still play it myself as the only review that matters to me is my own. Other reviews are nice to read and get an indication of how the general population think of it.

Firstly, the OPM didn't give it a 9, they gave it a 10.

I assume you're referring to OPM UK, so I'll address that.

Official PlayStation Magazine's reviewers have proven time and time again that they do not give high scores to a game just because it's a hyped exclusive. Example:

Uncharted. Extremely hyped game. From Naughty Dog, the legendary developers of the good Crash games and the Jak series.

OPM US: 4/5.

OPM UK tends to be tougher than its American counterpart, however. Stricter, and less fond of shooters. A 9/10 from OPM UK is no bad thing, not at all. I'd say it's equivalent to an A from 1UP. It's not overly rare, but it does mark excellence.

Meanwhile, a real game reviewer which doesn't contain porn, in case anybody wants to dismiss OPM as biased for some reason, although it's not a very famous one, MEGamers, gave it a 9.9/10. Are they PS3 fanboys? The guys who gave Halo 3 9.8/10? I don't think so...

So, kindly explain to me how an opinion can vary so much between two fair reviewers that the difference between scores is 29%.

I think we can also take the two sentence "review" as a sign of how credible this magazine is.

Okay, imagine this scenario. GameSpot and IGN have given Alan Wake a 9.5/10. It has a 94 on metacritic, and everybody loves it.

Now, TIME Magazine comes along and gives it 7/10, saying "The graphics were nice, and it was kind of fun. But it was violent, and that makes me sad". What do you think?