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

So how would you measure a game then? By how loudly fans proclaim a games brilliance on the internet? We know that  you can't force people to play a game for over 150 hours on average and you can't just make the game number 1 on Xbox Live consistantly. Furthermore Sonys efforts to make visually pleasing games have been totally wasted because the highest selling games have not been the most visually pleasing. If Killzone 2 got a 91 average with the 'best visuals' this generation then its gameplay would have to be deficient compared to a game which got 91 average without as good visuals with all else being equal.

You can't really measure a game, more just play it yourself and see what you think of it. The way I persoanlly measure whether or not a game lives up to its name is by seeing how it compares to its previous installments. Now I know KZ2 had a undescribable amount of hype, but it was leaps and bounds better than KZ1. Halo 3 and GTA4 to me and many did not beat their previous installments. 

 

Killzone 1 was only a little above average. So you think going from average to excellent meets hype better than going from excellent to excellent because the latter example there isn't much change whilst the former is quite a huge change? Theres nothing even remotely objective about that. Just because there weren't many fans to disapoint doesn't give a free pass for a game or developer.



Tease.