Even though i havent layed the game, his criticisms sound valid to me

He said the story was laughably bad.

Which it is.

Horde mode is fun as hell though.

Overall he just seems to not like Killzone 2 because it doesn't do anything new... doesn't reinvent the wheel, and while awesome... it's just... the same thing.

I think that's a fair opinion... a lot of people who are getting tired of FPS are still going to be tired of Killzone.

I mean FPS really haven't evolved much since the Doom days.   I mean what have been the biggest editions to the genre?

Limiting the amount of guns you can have, Cover System.... and that's all i got.  Co-op maybe?

I'd say Bots... but nobody freaking uses bots.

I've actually known Tom Chick for a long long time, over 5+ years now that I thinking about it. I agree with a lot of his opinions, disagree with another fair share. Can't really say what this one is, but it's definitely not something I'd take with jsut a grain of salt.

@Kasz
Cover System = Crouch button in 1st person, except that they throw in chest-high walls all over the place so you can actually use it. It's really nothing new AT ALL. It's been around since Quake

I didn't think the story was "laughably bad".  It wasn't great for a movie, but pretty good for the game.  I thought it fleshed out the world fine, and the plot twisted towards the end was pretty cool.  There are still loose ends it needs to tie up with the third installment.  I also had fune with Gears 2.

In regards to Bots.  I use bots.  I like Bots.  I don't like to play online against other people, as I like to adjust my setting and win when I choose to.  I think Tom commented that bots without ability to play them and level up your character makes bots not that great an option.

Penny Arcade noticed Tom Chick's review also and brought it up.

Oh yes, the "Chest High walls" comment reminds me of Zero Punctuation's review of the game, which had myself chuckling then, and did just now.

All hail Chest High Walls, that make cover systems work!

It has nothing to do with a single review saying the sun doesn't shine out of Kill Zone 2's ass.     It has everything to do with this guy saying that Kill Zone 2 "Isn't worth playing"  when 98% of the other opinions out there completely contrast with that.  Especially,  when you look at this guy's track record for reviewing games. 

Apparently,   Having a poor plot for a First Person Shooter (What first person has a 'good' plot by the way?),  Being shorter than you want and not having variety in level design means that a game is absolutely unplayable.   The guy has no credibility and the only person that is tooth and nail defending the guy with this is the OP.

Apparently every other cult classic shooters has a wonderful plot with a Hollywood cast of voice actors and is only playable, if that's the case.

personaly i agree with him

there is no clever twist in the game its just an
average looking (gameplay, level design, art direction) with very pretty graphics

not at all. he doesnt like the game because of the story mostly. there goes some credibility down the drain right off the bat. then the op makes it seem like this guy is a big voice in the industry but no one has any clue who he is. so the op kinda hurt his image. then his opinion is greatly outnumbered by different ones. which makes you think how qualified this guy actually is especially when you take into consideration how much he dwells on on a fps story and compares it to a aaa game. please follow along and dont put words in our mouths to make us seem so petty

I would suggest you reread this thread.  I am not defending him Tooth and Nail.  And I am not the only one who has attempted to defend here. 

Note this comment (on this same page), by The_God_Of_War: I trust Tom Chick over the 40+ AAA reviews.

Well, I guess if the PS3 needs Killzone 2 THAT badly, then one has to feel that no one should comment on the level design being uniform, the plot being weak (not saying it is), or is short.  It is possible some people won't like Killzone 2, as Tom Chick pointed out.

I am going to comment here in closing, by saying, if Tom Chick has NO credibility, I am curious who does.  One can say he may not have a lot of credibility, but none?  Is one supposed to look to the likes of the former Crazzyman as a source of truth?