leo-j said: Rath said: Killzone3 said: Rath said: @iclim. As far as I can see they arent biased, its just sony fans trying to discredit their review on lair -.- Watch the shows people. Watch them talk about halo3 and killzone2 in the same show and tell me they arent anti PS3, they do their best to defend Halo3 weak showing while they do their best to kill the Killzone hype. Being overly skeptical after the trailer. They are overly defencive of Halos weak showing, yet overly skeptycal over a Killzones great showing. Tbh. The first Killzone got 73.2%, Halo got 95.6% and Halo 2 got 94.6%. (numbers from gamerankings) Can you see why they may be sceptical for KZ2 and not for Halo3?    Also you may not realise this but other people than you have different opinions, just because they dont agree with you doesnt make them biased.  Why do all the 360 fanboys keep bringing up the first killzone(no offense not calling you a fanboy) there idiots they dont know crud about the game. And when you bring it up they say "The first one sucked and the secound one will suck"...they just dont get it, was the first game nominated for best of e3..more importantly was halo 3 nominated for best of e3..And dont take this as an offense Im just using your post as an example..

Best of E3 = Fun 5 minute demo, looks good, cute booth babe and lots of PR guys giving free swag The truth about Killzone was that it was hyped (beyond belief) to be a Halo 2 killer and failed to come close to Halo 2 in critical acclaim or sales; Killzone 2 may be better than Killzone but I'm not sure a company can go from producing games that get reviews in the 75% range to getting reviews in the 95% range ... I'm also not sure a game series can go from selling (roughly) 1 Million copies to selling 5+ million copies.

HappySqurriel said: Best of E3 = Fun 5 minute demo, looks good, cute booth babe and lots of PR guys giving free swag The truth about Killzone was that it was hyped (beyond belief) to be a Halo 2 killer and failed to come close to Halo 2 in critical acclaim or sales; Killzone 2 may be better than Killzone but I'm not sure a company can go from producing games that get reviews in the 75% range to getting reviews in the 95% range ... I'm also not sure a game series can go from selling (roughly) 1 Million copies to selling 5+ million copies.

It's not fair when you use logic in this argument. Don't you know that sequels of poorly received overhyped games automatically sell 5x as many copies?

5.5/10. WHAT? These guys must have been playing the game with the USB cord still plugged into the controller. Besides if you want a non bias review pick up a GameInformer or go on IGN.com. They've been honest to me.......I think?

You guys must really care about this game to get all up in arms over a review. I remember seeing average reviews to many games that I anticipated and I never went to a forum complaining about the scores. I find most reviews from GS, IGN, and EGM to be valid. The thing is if your blinded by anticipation alone you won't accept a bad review. If I play a demo and really like the game then I get it, bad review or not.

HappySqurriel said: leo-j said: Rath said: Killzone3 said: Rath said: @iclim. As far as I can see they arent biased, its just sony fans trying to discredit their review on lair -.- Watch the shows people. Watch them talk about halo3 and killzone2 in the same show and tell me they arent anti PS3, they do their best to defend Halo3 weak showing while they do their best to kill the Killzone hype. Being overly skeptical after the trailer. They are overly defencive of Halos weak showing, yet overly skeptycal over a Killzones great showing. Tbh. The first Killzone got 73.2%, Halo got 95.6% and Halo 2 got 94.6%. (numbers from gamerankings) Can you see why they may be sceptical for KZ2 and not for Halo3?    Also you may not realise this but other people than you have different opinions, just because they dont agree with you doesnt make them biased.  Why do all the 360 fanboys keep bringing up the first killzone(no offense not calling you a fanboy) there idiots they dont know crud about the game. And when you bring it up they say "The first one sucked and the secound one will suck"...they just dont get it, was the first game nominated for best of e3..more importantly was halo 3 nominated for best of e3..And dont take this as an offense Im just using your post as an example..   Best of E3 = Fun 5 minute demo, looks good, cute booth babe and lots of PR guys giving free swag The truth about Killzone was that it was hyped (beyond belief) to be a Halo 2 killer and failed to come close to Halo 2 in critical acclaim or sales; Killzone 2 may be better than Killzone but I'm not sure a company can go from producing games that get reviews in the 75% range to getting reviews in the 95% range ... I'm also not sure a game series can go from selling (roughly) 1 Million copies to selling 5+ million copies.

What are you talking about it sold 2million copies,  and I really fail to believe that you doubt guerilla with sony, Sony has created some of the best games out(similar to nintendo), killzone2 looks good in everyway, if you played the first killzone you would know why it got an average rating of a 7.4 , and again its different hardware. You'll be happy to see it get editor's choice at gamespot

 

It sold 2

I think some people are being motivated by the propaganda aspect of this game rather then the game itself. A game should be good for you not good for your console. When a game is real good most reviewers will score it quite high. When a game is average it will cover the spread. When a game is bad most reviewers will score it bad. You cannot will a game to be fantastic. This is probably a average game the fact that the scores can shift so much is a testament to that.

Where exactly is the bias in these reviews well it is the tastes of the reviewer not to a particular console. Remember they get to play on all these consoles for free. They have likes and they have dislikes in gaming that is it. A good rule of thumb is to determine exactly what those differences are. Now if your a hardcore player you should give more weight to their words. They are very much like you playing a lot of games. However if you are a casual player you can probably give a score a upwards bump. I always make allowances myself for reviews. I do not have to curve a lot, but I always have to allow some curve.

I remember a few years back the staff at EGM rating Star Wars Galaxies for the PC. This was a game I was playing and enjoying. They gave it a pretty harsh review. They had valid points. However some of the things they saw as negatives were things I saw as positives. Were they wrong no they were not, but I had to accept that our tastes differed. Especially since the genre was not something they were fans of to begin with. The review was very biased towards a console player viewpoint. Which is not would I would have liked the game to have been.

However I would prefer a reviewer to be harsh in their judgments. Rather then play it soft of pander to me. I do not need to be vindicated by a reviewer. I need them to serve as a watch dog. I need to know what is wrong rather then get a rosy picture. One of those wrong things might be a major turn off for me. I might end up wasting money only to find out that the camera control blows.

Some of the people in this thread giving Lair such a hard time are the same ones that talk about reviews not being important in the grand scheme of things.

Seriously, you guys just need to lay off this one game. Maybe if this was the only thing Sony had coming out for months, but none of you have played the game, and many of you don't even want to give it a chance. It is pretty pathetic when a lot of you WANT this game to be BAD. That is the definition of a fanboy.

leo-j said: What are you talking about it sold 2million copies,  and I really fail to believe that you doubt guerilla with sony, Sony has created some of the best games out(similar to nintendo), killzone2 looks good in everyway, if you played the first killzone you would know why it got an average rating of a 7.4 , and again its different hardware. You'll be happy to see it get editor's choice at gamespot   It sold 2

Killzone fell off of the charts having sold less than 450,000 copies in North America and (being a FPS) didn't sell particularly well in Japan ... This means that for it to have sold 2 Million copies it would have had to break 1 Million units in Europe alone. Certainly it isn't an impossibility but I haven't heard of a game (that isn't soccer) that has sold 2 or 3 to 1 in Europe as compared to North America.

Beyond that, I have high expectations for Battalion Wars 2 because I saw huge potential in Battalion Wars; they seem to be addressing most of the issues I had with the game while adding a lot of interesting features. Battalion Wars also sold in a similar range to Killzone in North America. Unlike Killzone 2 I don't see people hyping this game as a 5 Million selling game that will receive reviews in the 9 to 10 range; it is possible, but only a fool would assume that a game that performed in this range previously would some how "magically" have a far superior sequel.

This is becoming retarded. You shouldn't let reviewers make your decision whether the game sucks or not. People care too much about scores, its becoming like how wrestling fans care too much about buyrates and TV ratings more than the actual product itself.

Goddbless said: You guys must really care about this game to get all up in arms over a review. I remember seeing average reviews to many games that I anticipated and I never went to a forum complaining about the scores.

lol that's what a forum is for.  Everything is exaggerated here.

But you know it cuts both ways, Sony fans have been on the defensive for months now so they'll push back as hard as they've been pushed.

It's natural people want validation in their beliefs.  The negative review certainly validated a lot of people's beliefs.  While others will seek validation elsewhere.

It gets nasty when being right gets personal.