Rpruett said:
It has nothing to do with a single review saying the sun doesn't shine out of Kill Zone 2's ass. It has everything to do with this guy saying that Kill Zone 2 "Isn't worth playing" when 98% of the other opinions out there completely contrast with that. Especially, when you look at this guy's track record for reviewing games. Apparently, Having a poor plot for a First Person Shooter (What first person has a 'good' plot by the way?), Being shorter than you want and not having variety in level design means that a game is absolutely unplayable. The guy has no credibility and the only person that is tooth and nail defending the guy with this is the OP. |
I would suggest you reread this thread. I am not defending him Tooth and Nail. And I am not the only one who has attempted to defend here.
Note this comment (on this same page), by The_God_Of_War: I trust Tom Chick over the 40+ AAA reviews.
Well, I guess if the PS3 needs Killzone 2 THAT badly, then one has to feel that no one should comment on the level design being uniform, the plot being weak (not saying it is), or is short. It is possible some people won't like Killzone 2, as Tom Chick pointed out.
I am going to comment here in closing, by saying, if Tom Chick has NO credibility, I am curious who does. One can say he may not have a lot of credibility, but none? Is one supposed to look to the likes of the former Crazzyman as a source of truth?
