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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Could Killzone 2 drop below 90% on meta?

Max King of the Wild on 24 February 2009

2 more reviews came in one wa san 8 score dropped to 91. i still doubt itll get under 90



Around the Network
Max King of the Wild on 24 February 2009

i think the other was the onion im surprised they gave it a 91



Max King of the Wild on 24 February 2009

still needs 7 70s to go under 90 too



snyperdud on 24 February 2009

If it did,does it really matter?
I'm still buying it either way.As well as a bunch of other people.



Add me on Steam

senortaco on 24 February 2009
MaxwellGT2000 said:
MontanaHatchet said:
I've been wondering for the longest time why people use Metacritic instead of Gamerankings anyways. Why? WHY?!!!

 

Yeah Gamerankings use more reviews, though they're both owned by Cnet, which also own gamespot.  I like IGN's ranking as well, but it's hard to navigate that site @_@

 

You know what I always wondered this...Why does CNet own both Metacritic & Gamerankings?

...Like whats the point?



The Interweb is about overreaction, this is what makes it great!

...Imagine how boring the interweb would be if everyone thought logically?

Around the Network
Mummelmann on 24 February 2009
MaxwellGT2000 said:
As I cited in the OP here's the Meta quote for Absolute games review:

70 - Absolute Games
Zero - that's how many fresh ideas Killzone 2 brings to the table. Had it been released alongside Soldier of Fortune or Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, it would have made a big fuss. Today, after Call of Duty 4, Gears of War 2 and Half-Life 2: Episode Two, its gameplay looks weak. Very few enemy variations, cliched situations repeat over and over again, and there is not enough story to fill a Saturday morning cartoon.

 

Have they played Call of Duty 4? It certainly suffers from the same faults... (Yes, I loved it).



JRPG on 24 February 2009

It would be funny if it does drop below 90% A nice big 89% would shut up some of these fanboys.

:D



saicho on 24 February 2009
MaxwellGT2000 said:
saicho said:
blazinhead89 said:
Duplicate thread . And I know I Love the gameplay from the demo , So it wouldn't matter, 89 or 90 , it's still the same game

but it's the difference between a AAA game or not.

 

Heh that's one attitude I wished would change, I believe Benga said it best when AAA usually means a game is hyped beyond belief, is hugely anticipated, and meta scores have nothing to do with that other then trying to justify the hype. 

Personally a AAA game is something that in 10 years from now you're like "I want to play that again it was amazing" and the game just holds up as a staple of the industry, much like Okami, many of the Zelda titles, Viewtiful Joe, PoP Sands of Time, etc.

not my definition but I was told that.

 



MikeB predicts that the PS3 will sell about 140 million units by the end of 2016 and triple the amount of 360s in the long run.

SpartanFX on 24 February 2009
JRPG said:
It would be funny if it does drop below 70% A nice big 89% would shut up some of these fanboys.

:D

 

more than worrying about the  fanboys,you need some math class my friend



 

 

 

dhummel on 24 February 2009
senortaco said:
MaxwellGT2000 said:
MontanaHatchet said:
I've been wondering for the longest time why people use Metacritic instead of Gamerankings anyways. Why? WHY?!!!

 

Yeah Gamerankings use more reviews, though they're both owned by Cnet, which also own gamespot.  I like IGN's ranking as well, but it's hard to navigate that site @_@

 

You know what I always wondered this...Why does CNet own both Metacritic & Gamerankings?

...Like whats the point?

The point of a website from the company's perspective is revenue from ads dictated by site traffic. I doubt they care that two of their sites are on the same subject.