continued.....
or think of it this way. If you rate a game a 6, but I think it's a 9, why would I ask you should I buy this game? We obviously don't see eye to eye. If I listened to you about every game I purchased I would probably miss out on a lot of games that I would have potentially enjoyed.

Tom Chick


what gender is it?

People have different opinions and preferences.  A good journalist and review is objective enough to be able to see general design flaws and point them out.  The good reviewer will also let it be know what he likes or doesn't like.  I, for example, consider Yahtzee of Zero Punctuation to be a good reviewer and journalist.  You know where he stands and his biases, and also where he is coming from.  He may have a style you don't find entertaining, but at least I believe he is on target.  I may not agree with what he writes, or his conclusions, but at least you can see where he is coming from and adjust accordingly.

When you are unprofessional, you turn your review into some sort of crusade.  Consider, for example, this case of "The Operational Art of War" being reviewed by someone who hates wargames (I believe the site canned this reviewer):

http://www.game-over.net/review/june/opwar/index.html

In a flurry of releases today I get stuck with The Operational Art of War Volume 1. Am I bitter? No, because I can take it out on this review. For those of you who happen to like playing Risk and Stratego with your families on Friday night this is the game for you. Avid war gamers (the four of you out there) go ahead and grab this. However if you have a computer more powerful than a 486SX and enjoy games with real excitement and replay value.. one word: SKIP.

This is the last time I let Phire choose a review for me. I hope I offended all you war-strat gamers with this butcher. I hope that I don't get nightmares from this game. I hope you take my words to heart and maybe we can kill off the war strategy genre once and for all.

When you have an agenda, either because you like a console, or hate another one, or hate a genre people like, you end up producing stuff like this, which is beyond unprofessional.  And what I can tell, it appears Killzone 2 is another games where useful opinions may be fewer and far between.  The question: "Should I buy or rent Killzone 2?" is replaced with about every other question.  If you want to know my opinion, I believe every PS3 owner who likes a FPS should get ahold of Killzone 2 and try it.  If they like it, then rent or buy.  I hope this opinion is agreeable.

 You're absolutely right. It's also the same two faults Edge was able to find (and based their whole review on). However they forget this is a GAME, and inexplicably (but we know better) they left almost everything about GAMEPLAY to the side. I'm sure I guy like that thinks GTAIV is the 8th wonder of the world, like Edge does, when it was more of the same old GTA, or let's forget about GTA, THERE ARE TONS OF GAMES REPEATING OLD, TRIED AND TESTED FORMULAS that are a world of fun AND have garnered critical acclaim. So I would say to these pricks boring us down with all this "oscar-worthy writing and direction stuff", cut the game some slack, I bet your gaming collection includes many games you love and still love to play that didn't reinvent the wheel and you've never looked down on them like you do with K2. It's all hypocrisy, bad intentions, sucking at FPS or a combination of all of them.

Why do so many PS3 fans believe Killzone 2(as well as majority of PS3 exclusives) are biased? I will tell you why...

When reviewers give a PS3 exclusive a bad review it is usually for some rediculous reason. Lets take Resistance 2. R2 got rid of it's weapon wheel(something I personally like). When R1 was out countless reviewers complained that the Weapon Wheel was too chaotic, not realistic. They said it should be like COD4's with 2 weapon limit. So when it was time for R2 that is exactly what they did. What happened then? All of a sudden we don't like the 2 weapon deal, we miss the Weapon Wheel. WTF?!

They nit pic what is good or bad depending on the game. Example? Heavenly Sword. AWESOME single player experience but really short, as well as no MP. Left 4 Dead, Horrible singleplayer experience, short, and only redeeming factor was the online and that still didn't last that long. Geuss which one got higher review scores?

or

Gears of War, Halo 3, Fear 2, COD4 and 5, all really great shooters. We seemingly cant get enough of them. O wait, whats that? Resistance 2 and Killzone 2 are coming! We dont care about them, they will probably suck. Wait, whats that? They dont suck!? Well we are tired of Shooters and FPSs anyway!

And the Killzone 2 stuff just gets really out of hand.

Best graphics?Check! Gameplay?Check!Great MP?Check!

But then the reviews start pouring in and the biases are revealed. I have never seen so many complaints about innovation in my life. Since when is a game not great just because it doesnt innovate in it's genre? And KZ2 does innovate. No other game immerses you on the battlefield like this game. They brought the fight alive. The animations and realism is the innovation, and dont forget about the FPS cover system that can only be found in this game. O, but we dont like the realism. Its TOO REAL! WTF is TOO REAL?! When you are strafing and shooting the reticule doesn't stay still, THATS LIFE!

Oh, then we get the stuff about the story/dialogue. While I also believe it is not the best, yet neither was Gears of War's. Why do we care all of a sudden about how bad the dialogue was when that little fact was almost completely omitted while reviewing GoW2?

That is about as crazy as saying Halo 3's story is as better then MGS4's!...........oh, wait, Gametrailers did that too, SURPRISE!

Again, what matters here regarding reviews is an answer to this one question:
Should I rent or buy ___________? Anything else is just videogame talk. It gets real stupid actually.

Anyhow, regarding L4D vs Heavenly Sword, I would figure multiplayer likely has greater replayability.

actually I personally believe that the single player is where most replayability should derive. What is going to happen a few months down the line when no one wants to play L4D anymore and have moved on? Does the game just die? All you will have left is the singleplayer. Pretty much in the end HS and L4D have opposing strengths and weaknesses.

And I have a feeling that you will come back and simply say that it is all a matter of opinion. I Agree.

SO why the hell are the two game's scores so different? The reviewers were obviously not being objective to that fact. If I were a  video game reviewer I would put all personal preferences aside and instead, review games on what I believe will be most liked by most. The most important factor is "Am I having Fun?","Am I Immersed?".

If he feels that KZ2 levels are boxed in and uninspired, he must really hate F.E.A.R... Talk about your gray hallways. Mass Effect also has some really blande level design but its still a decent game.

So from the review we've learnt that a First Person Shooter had a shitty storyline and some weird height issue... Because of those two issues and the fact that it brought nothing new to the genre its not worth buying...

Wow, thats just wow, its fair to have your opinion, but this is really picking at bones... he didn't even anaylze the two most important factors to any online FPS: gameplay and multiplayer.

Which is why he has no credibility.  Especially after claiming Far Cry 2 (Of all games) should be game of the year.   This is the type of review to get hits on his site and stir up drama.  Period.   Someone who throws chum in the water and likes to watch people feast on it,  is not credible in any way IMHO.