Usually I don't care about metacritic and scores but these two was ones that stood out to me and how they were reviewed. Killzone on one side got criticized for the story but all websites I have seen loved the multiplayer. However if you give a 10 to multiplayer and a 5 to singleplayer the whole score becomes 75. That was being hypothetical of course but I always thought the most important thing in Killzone was its multiplayer.
Killer Insinct on the other hand reviewers are loving the gameplay and are even mentioning it among the best fighters. However they're criticizing the lack of content at launch. With this game in particular I was hoping they would take into consideration that there is a ton of content coming after launch including story.
Anyways, this isn't really so much a disagreement with the scores as reviewers have to review what is available to them and that the Story is important to people for Killzone and the content is an important piece to Killer Instinct. My disagreement is with the way people approach metacritic. Instead of reading the reviews for these games they are going to be looking at the scores only. Where Killzone seems to succeed in multiplayer many people will look right over it because of the 75 overall score and lack of a good story. Killzone on the other hand could be reviewed a year from now with more content and get an 80-85+ metacritic with more content but it will be unlikely for reviewers to review it once again.
My question is do you agree with how people are viewing the scores on these two games in partcicular where it seems the content of the reviews are more important than the scores?
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
