| CGI-Quality said:
No. that was NOT my point. My point was just because one game did bad, in an entirely different gen no less, doesn't mean the sequel will follow suit. One big difference between KZ1 and KZ2 is that there's a lot riding on the success of Killzone 2. This wasn't the case with KZ1 in the PS2 days. The PS2 already had LOTS of killer titles and was in the lead so they did not have to work as hard on the title to prove much. In the case of KZ2, however, they have LOTS to live up to including: meeting the 2005 target CGI, making the gameplay far better than it was in the original and becoming one of the definitve titles of the PS3. Now, early reviews and beta testers have already said the game is miles above the original and that is where a lot of the current hype comes from. You already explained why Lair/Haze CANNOT be compared to KZ2 because the early reviews and demos ALL spoke badly of both, hence, it killed their hype!!! I only mentioned budget because Sony has invested FAR more into Killzone 2 than either of those other titles. It's budget however won't guarantee that it will be an awesome game. However, KZ2's hype grows more and more with each review that trickles in coupled with beta testers accounts of their experience. None of these early players of the title have had a bad thing to say about it, that's my point! |
I think there is a little revisionist history going on here ...
The first review for Lair was from Play magazine at 90% followed soon after by Gamedaily at 60% which caused quite a few arguments, and there were generally positive previews being released for Lair several weeks before it was released.
Haze didn't have as good of an initial review (gamedaily gave it a 7/10 which was one of its best scores) but also had generally positive previews several weeks before it was released.
The one thing I would really like people to start paying attention to is that highly anticipated games tend to be very front loaded in terms of critical reception ...
