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?

Killzone no..

No one here can make a comment on KI cause no one has played the released copy

Have not played KI so I cannot comment, but KZ is a very good title and it is very open and the levels are the best I have seen in the series. It is easily an 8+.

From my time with Killzone, my expectations have been exceeded for a launch title. The graphics, gameplay, and multiplayer are great, and while I'm not very far into the story, I greatly enjoy the setting and Cold War-esque atmosphere.

I'm more so asking about the approach people are having on the scores rather than the content of the reviews.  Critics seem to love both of these games but are criticizing certain elements of the game which is dropping the scores.  A lot of people wont read or watch the reviews which is my concern.  Instead they just look at the scores.

And yet the VGX already nominated KI for best fighting game, Forza 5 for best racing game, and Super Mario 3D world for best action game and GOTY. VGX judges own a time machine/crystal ball confirmed?

Oh and they also nominated COD Ghosts but not KZ SF even if KZ is getting equal or better reviews. But of course they can't by no earthly conception leave out COD, oh no.

can't say much about killzone but i think it's fair what they do with killer instinct. they can only review what they get and everyone who can read will see that the game will be much better next year. but right now it seems to be a game with great mechanics but not enough content to give it a metascore of 80+

Personally, I felt past Killzone games were tremendously over rated. Not terrible, just over rated. I'm having a hard time imagining Shadowfall is actually worse.

Killer Instinct's score seems reasonable considering it has so  little content at the moment. It probably won't feel like a complete game until late next year.

why would they need a crystal ball? they played the games the last days so that they know how they find killer instinct, mario and forza. and i think if gran turismo would release this week, gran turismo would be also nominated since they would have played the review version.

sometimes those games are worthy of a score reduction because of those problems,  some times they are not,  It depends on the player.  So its really hard to tell until a larger percentile has played it and reported in. 

For killzone i dont think it deserves the bad marks and i am loving the MP.   We cant really tell for KI because we havent played it.  i dont know if they have released exact details on whats behind the paywall and not(i dont follow xbox much), and we dont have a group of public opinion weighing in on how this effects the overall game.  The game might be awesome and make you want to buy a little here and there..   or it might ruin the whole thing.  

edit:  also, not sure on this but didnt they say something about KZ having free map packs later on?   are they going to have expansion packs aswell to purchase or is it all free?   Free future content would be seen much better than content you have to buy.