Killzone hype/expectations explained.

[twesterm]

vizunary said:

twesterm said:

vizunary said:

gorgepir said:

@vizunary

your list is not complete

 

I know it was not complete, I didn't want the post to be a mile long, but just look at the averages, a 70 for KZ on PS2, not great but it isn't just complete shit like some want you to believe. And 77 for KZ: Liberation, it was an excellent shooter, especially for a handheld. I never said that they were the super duper shiz nit of gaming, I was simply trying to point out that they were not the crap some say.

You may have known that it wasn't complete and it got a 77 on Metacritic but I'm guessing you didn't include any score below an 84 with a majority of the scores a 90+ for a purpose other than you didn't want a list a mile long. It's a lot more fun to be misleading and make people think the game you're defending is perfect rather than let people see all the scores.

I never said it was even great, let alone perfect. Don't put words in my post. I was in fact never particularly fond of the first Killzone, or any other FPS for that matter, I enjoy them but they are usually rentals, or I only own them for a month b4 they get traded in. I am enjoying KZ: Liberation quite a bit right now. I meant to include the avg in the first post anyways, plus it's not like I only included the top 5 reviews or anything, I think there were at least 10 or more in each list. I was simply pointing out that they were not absolutely horrible like some were making out. Remember you can always find shit reviews of any game, you give me Game of the Year, any year, and I can find an "official" review that says it's just a shiny turd.

Anyways, that's not even the point of the thread. I personally do have high hopes for KZ2. If it's as good as they say, then maybe I'll have another FPS to add to my permanent collection of games I actually keep, right now there is only Black, and it was $20 and I get to blow the hell out of everything when I'm in the mood to.

Of course every game has a random bad review, but when a game has a large list of bad reviews that says something. When you look at something likeKillzone for the PSP, it has a very wide arrange of reviews ranging from 40 to 100. What you did was only show the high end making people think the game is great, that's what happens when you leave out the low end of a very varied set of reviews like that.

So yeah, pardon me for getting a little worked up when someone tries to feed me bullshit like half of a list reviews that includes all of the high ones and none of the low ones.

As for the games of the year, Killzone PSP had an average of 77, the others had the following:

Gears of War (2007): 94
Shadow of the Colossus (2006): 91
Half-Life 2 (2005): 96
Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic (2004): 94
Metroid: Prime (2003): 97
Grand Theft Auto III (2002): 97
The Sims (2001): 91

Now if you look at the reviews for those games, you might notice the random bad review, but the numbers are fairly consistent (save for Shadow of the Colossus, that one varies a little more than the others). I don't put a lot of faith in reviewers, but when you see a long list of reviews and a good 90-95% of them all agree and are fairly close to each other, that means something. With Killzone PSP, they are all over the place so just showing the first part of the list means nothing and insults anyone that looks at it.