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

Forums - Gaming - Do you agree with the way people approach metacritic on Killzone and Killer Instinct

foodfather on 19 November 2013

The reason Killzone is being treated differently is because it is a pure next gen game, yet it doesn't do anything better than its current gen counterparts (CODG & BF4 as far as SP or MP goes). Since visuals alone don't equal a great game, Killzone is reviews accordingly for what it is, bad campaign, good MP.

As for Killer Instinct, lack of content is just unacceptable. Not sure how much the game will retain since it is f2p, but I am glad reviews are picking up on this. Its also good to see nostalgia hasn't blinded some reviewers which is often the case when a classic gaming franchise returns.



Around the Network
NYANKS on 19 November 2013
J_Allard said:
NYANKS said:
I hated when reviewers did somethign like this to Socom. A lot of places gave it bad reviews because the online multiplayer was having problems right at launch. They didn't review the game, they just reviewed the launch. The game was fine a few days after, but the review damage was done. Kinda sucks.

Confrontation and SOCOM 4 were both garbage long after release, whether it was bugs or just terrible gameplay. Whichever one you're referring to, they both got the shitty scores they deserved. I think if you release a buggy, non-working game, you should be penalized for it. If it's not ready, don't release it.

To the OP, I don't have a problem with the way the reviews were done. Killzone is a FPS with a heavy emphasis on story and SP. It's not like CoD or BF where almost every preview and event revolves around MP. Plus since KZ doesn't have as strong of a MP component as those franchises, it makes the SP that much more important. As for KI, I think the same logic as SOCOM applies. How the game launches is all they can review. More content coming later is nice, but I don't have an issue with them reviewing what is there right now. You get what, 8 or 9 fighters for $40? Could be wrong there.

There may have been lag and issues (which were mostly resolved), but most people who love Socom were ok with the gameplay.  The lag and techincal bugs just muddied the experience for a while.  It would have even been ok if they gave a lower score for only seven levels or annoying bugs, but some reviewers just went "laggy = shit game" instead of even analyzing what was on the table.  I guess what I'm asking for is a little journalistic integrity, but I may be asking too much from this industry, reviewers as a whole have a lot of work to do imo.