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

Forums - Sony - MEGamers Reviews killzone 2 - 9.9 /10

headshot91 on 16 January 2009

its not really solid for me, never heard of it before, its not a big website or mag not really that much to be hyped about, this review



Around the Network
disolitude on 16 January 2009
Carl2291 said:
disolitude said:
This is a BS review.

First of all I can't even open the page.

Secondly how does a no name publisher like this get an early copy of killzone 2.

Thirdly, any game that says "It makes -insert current best game on competitirs console - looks like a high school attempt..." is a fanboy and a half.

Guerrilla Games prolly wrote this review themeslves.

 

Your calling it a BS review... yet you havent read it yet?

Once the link works, I will. The whole site seems down. I'm just saying...why doesn't IGN have an early copy? And these guys do? Please... I understand te official PS3 magazine doing early reviews but not some obscure gaming site. It just doesn't work like that.

Also, that comment for gears 2 is pure fanboy thread. Why didn't he use Uncharted as gears 2 smokes Uncharted. Gears 2 isnt even the same genre as killzone 2... that comment is just out of place for an actual unbiased reviewer.

 



disolitude on 16 January 2009
blazinhead89 said:
@NYANKS ingore him, hes a halo fanboy (He prefers halo to COD)

oh no...me and 600,000 other xbox users that log in to Halo every day.

 



Kantor on 16 January 2009
NYANKS said:
I think rather than raw number scores, you should just look at the order in which they put the shooters. Obviously the raw numbers are on the high side, but IGN and "reliable" (even they mess up sometimes) sites will give it in the mid 9's most likely as well. But like I said, they seem like shooter fanboys and they think its apparently better than Halo. Take that however you want.

Being better than Halo 3 isn't hard. CoD4 is better than Halo 3. Hell, World at War is better than Halo 3. I'm pretty sure KZ2 is better than CoD4. And thus, better than World at War and Halo 3.

@vlad321: Come on, you don't see a pattern? MGS4 gets the same score as Wii Music? Gears 2 gets A while R2 gets B+? Soulcalibur IV gets A? (that's not fanboyish, that's just stupid).



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

NYANKS on 16 January 2009
disolitude said:
Carl2291 said:
disolitude said:
This is a BS review.

First of all I can't even open the page.

Secondly how does a no name publisher like this get an early copy of killzone 2.

Thirdly, any game that says "It makes -insert current best game on competitirs console - looks like a high school attempt..." is a fanboy and a half.

Guerrilla Games prolly wrote this review themeslves.

 

Your calling it a BS review... yet you havent read it yet?

Once the link works, I will. The whole site seems down. I'm just saying...why doesn't IGN have an early copy? And these guys do? Please... I understand te official PS3 magazine doing early reviews but not some obscure gaming site. It just doesn't work like that.

Also, that comment for gears 2 is pure fanboy thread. Why didn't he use Uncharted as gears 2 smokes Uncharted. Gears 2 isnt even the same genre as killzone 2... that comment is just out of place for an actual unbiased reviewer.

 

Like IGN is unbiased towards Wii Music? lol just saying. 

 



Around the Network
disolitude on 16 January 2009
Kantor said:
NYANKS said:
I think rather than raw number scores, you should just look at the order in which they put the shooters. Obviously the raw numbers are on the high side, but IGN and "reliable" (even they mess up sometimes) sites will give it in the mid 9's most likely as well. But like I said, they seem like shooter fanboys and they think its apparently better than Halo. Take that however you want.

Being better than Halo 3 isn't hard. CoD4 is better than Halo 3. Hell, World at War is better than Halo 3. I'm pretty sure KZ2 is better than CoD4. And thus, better than World at War and Halo 3.

Yawn! Personal opinions galore...

 



disolitude on 16 January 2009
NYANKS said:
disolitude said:
Carl2291 said:
disolitude said:
This is a BS review.

First of all I can't even open the page.

Secondly how does a no name publisher like this get an early copy of killzone 2.

Thirdly, any game that says "It makes -insert current best game on competitirs console - looks like a high school attempt..." is a fanboy and a half.

Guerrilla Games prolly wrote this review themeslves.

 

Your calling it a BS review... yet you havent read it yet?

Once the link works, I will. The whole site seems down. I'm just saying...why doesn't IGN have an early copy? And these guys do? Please... I understand te official PS3 magazine doing early reviews but not some obscure gaming site. It just doesn't work like that.

Also, that comment for gears 2 is pure fanboy thread. Why didn't he use Uncharted as gears 2 smokes Uncharted. Gears 2 isnt even the same genre as killzone 2... that comment is just out of place for an actual unbiased reviewer.

 

Like IGN is unbiased towards Wii Music? lol just saying. 

 

lol...lets skip that for now and focus at the matter at hand. :)

 



headshot91 on 16 January 2009
disolitude said:
Carl2291 said:
disolitude said:
This is a BS review.

First of all I can't even open the page.

Secondly how does a no name publisher like this get an early copy of killzone 2.

Thirdly, any game that says "It makes -insert current best game on competitirs console - looks like a high school attempt..." is a fanboy and a half.

Guerrilla Games prolly wrote this review themeslves.

 

Your calling it a BS review... yet you havent read it yet?

Once the link works, I will. The whole site seems down. I'm just saying...why doesn't IGN have an early copy? And these guys do? Please... I understand te official PS3 magazine doing early reviews but not some obscure gaming site. It just doesn't work like that.

Also, that comment for gears 2 is pure fanboy thread. Why didn't he use Uncharted as gears 2 smokes Uncharted. Gears 2 isnt even the same genre as killzone 2... that comment is just out of place for an actual unbiased reviewer.

 

 

 while i dont think guerilla wrote it, i concur with disolitude to be honest. It is very early and they have a review (i tohught the review embargo was lifted for non official ps websites in early feb?!) I would take this review with a pinch of salt as i have never heard of it before and i would wait till more mainstream websites give their verdict



Kantor on 16 January 2009
disolitude said:
Kantor said:
NYANKS said:
I think rather than raw number scores, you should just look at the order in which they put the shooters. Obviously the raw numbers are on the high side, but IGN and "reliable" (even they mess up sometimes) sites will give it in the mid 9's most likely as well. But like I said, they seem like shooter fanboys and they think its apparently better than Halo. Take that however you want.

Being better than Halo 3 isn't hard. CoD4 is better than Halo 3. Hell, World at War is better than Halo 3. I'm pretty sure KZ2 is better than CoD4. And thus, better than World at War and Halo 3.

Yawn! Personal opinions galore...

 

If anybody in this thread thinks that Halo 3 is better than CoD4, please speak.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Gilgamesh on 16 January 2009

Someone might as well make a Killzone 2 review thread sinse it'll likely get a lot of high scores and many people are going to be making threads about it. I would but I'm to lazy to look through peoples sources and adding up numbers....

Edit: OT: Fergot to add my comment...*ahem* KILLZONE 2 WILL BE HUGE!