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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Is there going to be a problem with the Killzone 2 reviews, can we trust?

Kasz216 on 24 January 2009
Squilliam said:

It seems completely out of order that the reviews are coming in now, fully a month ahead of schedule. Now I know this is an excellent game, but are Sony manipulating the review process by allowing sites with favourable reviews to release wayyy early and thus put pressure on other sites who want to be in on the scoop as well?

I am suspicious of the events as they are unfolding, this is completely out of line with the majority if not almost every single other game that has been released to date.

So what do you think? Is there a little underhanded craftyness going on here?

 

Isn't this what EVERY company does with there "quotas".  Give it good reviews and you can release it early.  Not if it's below "__" though.

It's another reason reviews are uncredible.  For any game.



Around the Network
windbane on 24 January 2009
Squilliam said:
Hmmm, I guess the best way to get a handle on how good the game is by comparing the sales of the closest rival which is Call of Duty 4 and if sales are lower but reviews are higher then one can call it a manipulated review process. If sales are higher but reviews are lower then the game was likely unfairly treated by critics. Because you see, theres a strong correlation between a high review and high sales between Metacritic and vgchartz.

I concede at this point that it is impossible to know for sure. But the standards for games have increased substantially this generation, what was once a shoe-in for a high score is now moving into also-ran territory.

 

Wow, you are the same guy that created a thread saying R1 was better than R2 and that the SALES proved it!

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=57620

Let me tell you again:  sales may coincide with reviews sometimes, but strong sales of a game do not guarantee quality!  Everyone (I thought) knows that.  There are hundreds of examples of games that are highly rated and don't sell well and games that are lowly rated and sell great.  Please understand this.

Also, your choice to crusade against KZ2 is indeed an odd decision considering reviews come out this early for games all the time.  I've already given you many reasons for the early reviews, and there is nothing strange about it.



NeoRatt on 24 January 2009
Kasz216 said:
Squilliam said:

It seems completely out of order that the reviews are coming in now, fully a month ahead of schedule. Now I know this is an excellent game, but are Sony manipulating the review process by allowing sites with favourable reviews to release wayyy early and thus put pressure on other sites who want to be in on the scoop as well?

I am suspicious of the events as they are unfolding, this is completely out of line with the majority if not almost every single other game that has been released to date.

So what do you think? Is there a little underhanded craftyness going on here?

 

Isn't this what EVERY company does with there "quotas".  Give it good reviews and you can release it early.  Not if it's below "__" though.

It's another reason reviews are uncredible.  For any game.

I don't know how that makes reviews uncredible? 

If it is a PlayStation or XBox exclusive reviewer I take them with a grain of salt...

If it is from the multiplatform reviewers I am more apt to listen.

Most reviews are about finding some reviewers that align with your likes and dislikes.  Reviews are opinions from reviewers.  Every review is biased in some way.

 



Squilliam on 24 January 2009
windbane said:
Squilliam said:
Hmmm, I guess the best way to get a handle on how good the game is by comparing the sales of the closest rival which is Call of Duty 4 and if sales are lower but reviews are higher then one can call it a manipulated review process. If sales are higher but reviews are lower then the game was likely unfairly treated by critics. Because you see, theres a strong correlation between a high review and high sales between Metacritic and vgchartz.

I concede at this point that it is impossible to know for sure. But the standards for games have increased substantially this generation, what was once a shoe-in for a high score is now moving into also-ran territory.

 

Wow, you are the same guy that created a thread saying R1 was better than R2 and that the SALES proved it!

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=57620

Let me tell you again:  sales may coincide with reviews sometimes, but strong sales of a game do not guarantee quality!  Everyone (I thought) knows that.  There are hundreds of examples of games that are highly rated and don't sell well and games that are lowly rated and sell great.  Please understand this.

Also, your choice to crusade against KZ2 is indeed an odd decision considering reviews come out this early for games all the time.  I've already given you many reasons for the early reviews, and there is nothing strange about it.
  • Games are a mass market phenomenom.
  • This is a sales site.
  • The quality I was referring to was mass market appeal.
  • Killzone 2 is expensive, so therefore its targetting as wide an audience as possible.
  • Metacritic measures the wide appeal to a broad spectrum of reviewers its not a focused measurement.
  • There is an extremely strong link between sales and appeal and metacritic scores.
  • Therefore if sales are low then either A: The reviewers got it wrong. B. The game lacks appeal to a wide audience (See above) or C. A combination of the above. Furthermore we do have a benchmark in Call of Duty 4. 94% 4 Million sales on the PS3.

 



Tease.

Munkeh111 on 24 January 2009
Squilliam said:
windbane said:
Squilliam said:
Hmmm, I guess the best way to get a handle on how good the game is by comparing the sales of the closest rival which is Call of Duty 4 and if sales are lower but reviews are higher then one can call it a manipulated review process. If sales are higher but reviews are lower then the game was likely unfairly treated by critics. Because you see, theres a strong correlation between a high review and high sales between Metacritic and vgchartz.

I concede at this point that it is impossible to know for sure. But the standards for games have increased substantially this generation, what was once a shoe-in for a high score is now moving into also-ran territory.

 

Wow, you are the same guy that created a thread saying R1 was better than R2 and that the SALES proved it!

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=57620

Let me tell you again:  sales may coincide with reviews sometimes, but strong sales of a game do not guarantee quality!  Everyone (I thought) knows that.  There are hundreds of examples of games that are highly rated and don't sell well and games that are lowly rated and sell great.  Please understand this.

Also, your choice to crusade against KZ2 is indeed an odd decision considering reviews come out this early for games all the time.  I've already given you many reasons for the early reviews, and there is nothing strange about it.
  • Games are a mass market phenomenom.
  • This is a sales site.
  • The quality I was referring to was mass market appeal.
  • Killzone 2 is expensive, so therefore its targetting as wide an audience as possible.
  • Metacritic measures the wide appeal to a broad spectrum of reviewers its not a focused measurement.
  • There is an extremely strong link between sales and appeal and metacritic scores.
  • Therefore if sales are low then either A: The reviewers got it wrong. B. The game lacks appeal to a wide audience (See above) or C. A combination of the above. Furthermore we do have a benchmark in Call of Duty 4. 94% 4 Million sales on the PS3.

 

 

Carnival games, Need for Speed Undercover. I think you will agree their sales did not match their reviews



Around the Network
windbane on 24 January 2009
Munkeh111 said:
Squilliam said:
windbane said:
Squilliam said:
Hmmm, I guess the best way to get a handle on how good the game is by comparing the sales of the closest rival which is Call of Duty 4 and if sales are lower but reviews are higher then one can call it a manipulated review process. If sales are higher but reviews are lower then the game was likely unfairly treated by critics. Because you see, theres a strong correlation between a high review and high sales between Metacritic and vgchartz.

I concede at this point that it is impossible to know for sure. But the standards for games have increased substantially this generation, what was once a shoe-in for a high score is now moving into also-ran territory.

 

Wow, you are the same guy that created a thread saying R1 was better than R2 and that the SALES proved it!

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=57620

Let me tell you again: sales may coincide with reviews sometimes, but strong sales of a game do not guarantee quality! Everyone (I thought) knows that. There are hundreds of examples of games that are highly rated and don't sell well and games that are lowly rated and sell great. Please understand this.

Also, your choice to crusade against KZ2 is indeed an odd decision considering reviews come out this early for games all the time. I've already given you many reasons for the early reviews, and there is nothing strange about it.
  • Games are a mass market phenomenom.
  • This is a sales site.
  • The quality I was referring to was mass market appeal.
  • Killzone 2 is expensive, so therefore its targetting as wide an audience as possible.
  • Metacritic measures the wide appeal to a broad spectrum of reviewers its not a focused measurement.
  • There is an extremely strong link between sales and appeal and metacritic scores.
  • Therefore if sales are low then either A: The reviewers got it wrong. B. The game lacks appeal to a wide audience (See above) or C. A combination of the above. Furthermore we do have a benchmark in Call of Duty 4. 94% 4 Million sales on the PS3.

 

 

Carnival games, Need for Speed Undercover. I think you will agree their sales did not match their reviews

 

and hundreds of others.  There are too many factors in how well a game sells to act like quality is directly related to game sales.

1.  Wii Music is part of the mass market phenomenom, but it selling well doesn't mean reviews are wrong.

2.  this being a sales site has nothing to do with the quality of games as they relate to sales

3.  mass market appeal is not just dependant on metacritic.  it's also effected by time of release, ads, previews, genre, install base

4.  KZ2 is targeting as wide an audience is possible that can afford to buy yet another FPS, sure.  That doesn't mean that metacritic scores will directly effect the sales and that +/- 5% from CoD4 on metaciritic is going to be directly related to the sales.

5.  Do you really need us to keep listing the games that show a complete lack of coorelation between reviews and game sales?  Really?  Are you that oblivious?

6.  Or perhaps 50 other factors that go into selling a videogame.



chanskie on 03 February 2009

I always skeptical about a game review. I look at it and take note from it and that's it. In the end, every games you need to judge it by yourself and based on each person's preferences. Nothing is set in concrete. GTA4, what...one of the highest rating review game in the game history, and i found it boring and repetitive. the Last Remnant with lower than average score in many website...i found it fun and interesting. Every reviewer were here to give their opinion based their liking and dislikes...this is all about internet forum...so, why attack them for what they doing? You only believe when you wanted to and you do know your own game rating on each game after you played them...and with your own preferences.....This is what i think anyway...... cheers...end.