Killzone 2 A little TOO overrated!

[Kantor]

terislb said:

Kantor said:

terislb said:

Rpruett said:

terislb said:
well the game is pretty much like any other shooter..in both the good and the bad things , maybe it does a few minor things better but doesent change the overall impression of having it all seen before ,so yes its overrated

 

I grow so tired of the 'lack of innovation'  or whatever lame reasoning that is.  What did Halo do that was NEVER before seen? What did COD do that was NEVER before seen?    It just gets tiresome to hear.   The truth is, very few games have really defined the genre and most games are just running some varied, improved version of that.

 

Kill Zone 2 is an excellent AAA game.  It's not Jesus re-incarnated.   It's all about expectations.  If you want to play a good game?  Kill Zone 2 is exactly that.  Just as advertised.   If you thought Kill Zone 2 was going to redefine every element of First Person Shooters and just blow your mind on every possible level,  you were setting yourself up for failure.   Since almost no games ever do that.

 

 

thats the point halo and cod are overrated aswell.. and if you have been playing fps since doom you can take the same concept only for so long .

the games are good but they are overrated because its the same concept in just another shallow empty shell

i got what i expected out of killzone 2. but take a look all those who advertise it as the best fps of this generation or a "masterpiece that is ahead of its time" you and me may say its a good game just like any other.. but they wont

thats also what pissed me off about the 9.0 score on gamespot there are games far more deserving of such scores

It's fully deserving of that nine. A game doesn't need o be innovative to be good. If every game was like Flower, I would quit gaming. We need refinements. New ideas are great, but improved old ideas are better. We'd have nothing but a bunch of great concepts with poor execution.

GameSpot hands out 9s like pamphlets, anyway. Resistance 2 got a 9 (which it didn't deserve), LBP got a 9, KZ2 got a 9, CoD4 got a 9, Gears 2 got a 9, hell, Assassin's Creed got a 9 (cough overrated).

Assassin's Creed was pretty innovative. It was also quite a mess. Fun to play (most of the time), but a mess. If CoD4 warrants a 9/10, so does KZ2.

Unless you're saying that CoD4 doesn't deserve that score. I would have to say that you were wrong. It did nothing massively new with the genre, but what was there it did so incredibly well, that it didn't matter.

You can have an innovative game that deserves a 9, but if you think, say, Mirror's Edge deserves a 9, and KZ2 doesn't, I may have to ask you to step outside

 

 

oh here we go again. let me put it this way... if a game gets a 9 ouf of 10 that should mean that this game is near perfect.. which none of those games are they are fun but they are far from perfect and thus should get the appriopriate score

lets say some new godly fps shows up that is better than even half life was and it gets a 10 ..the distinction to those other games is too slim because its "only" 1 digit better

you mention halo ,killzone ,cod and mirrors ege.. none of them are really that great you have to look beyond this generation . you will see how insignificant those games are to the genre

i cant say this oftem enough i donth think those games are bad im saying whoever is giving those games a 9 is either a philistine bastard or should simply play more fps games

as for that oversimplification that every game would be like flower if it was more innovative ...what im trying to say is if every shooter repeats the forumla over and over again that is one thing thats kinda part of the that particular genre... if it repeats the same stereotypic characters and story twists thats another  thing if wouldnt kill them to actually think of something new it that department   a game needs something to set it apart from the masses that should be the story an the enviroment  and not some gimmik as was the case in fracture for example

bottom line.. new gameplay mechanics in a shallow genre that is all about graphics that are top notch for 4 months..is hard to accomplish actually trying to make the game interesting is not it takes some effort and talent and thats what i expect of a game with a a 9

if you compare those games to say haflife  or the old medal of honour games for the psx you see how a 9er game should look like

A nine is not near-perfect. A 10 is near perfect. Let me explain the reviewing scale as it exists for GameSpot right now. The bold is my opinion.

10= Near perfection of the genre. Very few games have achieved this, in FPS. Perhaps Half Life 2.

9.5= Pinnacle of the genre For example, Halo Combat Evolved. Deus Ex (from what I've seen of it).

9.0= One of the best examples of quality in a genre. This is where KZ2 is, and where it deserves to be. Also CoD4, Halo 3.

8.5= Fine example of quality in a genre. Unreal Tournament III, Resistance 2

8.0= A very good game, as compared to others in the genre. Battlefield Bad Company.

7.5= Worth playing, for a fan of the genre. Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway.

4.0-7.0= A game which is topped by the majority of games in its genre. Haze.

1.0-3.5= A disgraceful attempt at a game. Nothing comes to mind, for FPS.

Notice how it gets closer together near the bottom. Also notice that GameSpot gave out two 9.5 scores in 2008. Two 10/10 scores, at least ten 9/10 scores.

GameSpot aren't as strict as you might think. They just aren't quick to hand out "pinnacle of the genre", while IGN are much more willing to do so. Or so you'd think, but in actual fact, the IGN scale is nothing like this. It changes from reviewer to reviewer. Then of course, GameSpot have their messups: Assassin's Creed is one of the best examples of quality in its genre, while Shadow of The Colossus is not...