I wish more people would take this advice, we'd see a lot fewer of these divisive click-bait reviews...
Killzone Shadow Fall Review Thread
- Thread starter Pandemic
- Start date
I wish more people would take this advice, we'd see a lot fewer of these divisive click-bait reviews...
thelurkinghorror
Member
So not being a fan of shooters I've been ignoring the Killzone series all these years and in light of all this decided to try the Killzone 3 demo (on couch co-op). It's actually not bad at all. The shooting mechanics felt a lot better than the BF4 beta and the graphics were better too. So I don't understand why a sequel to this game would be rated lower than BF4 at least. I guess one company pays better
Different games with different highlights, BF4 surely has more legs thanks to awesome multiplayer
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
CVG, who have decided not to post a score until they have played more of the multiplayer, seem to be in love with the campaign:
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/437885/reviews/review-in-progress-killzone-shadow-fall-review/
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/437885/reviews/review-in-progress-killzone-shadow-fall-review/
If you're not a fan of shooters, then this probably explains why you don't understand. Battlefield is pretty freakin amazing.So not being a fan of shooters I've been ignoring the Killzone series all these years and in light of all this decided to try the Killzone 3 demo (on couch co-op). It's actually not bad at all. The shooting mechanics felt a lot better than the BF4 beta and the graphics were better too. So I don't understand why a sequel to this game would be rated lower than BF4 at least. I guess one company pays better
HeavenlyStriker
Member
don't generally read reviews nor don't care for them.
we have our own mind. and form our own opinion as we get experience them.
so it's either you like killzone gameplay or you don't.
and I enjoyed killzone 3 coop a lot when i played it with my bud. loved those amazing arsenal of weapons you get...
honestly don't know what some these reviewers expect. something groundbreaking and new? next gen gameplay or something? lol
for a launch title and the amount of content you're getting.
I think it should satisfy many gamers.
linear levels or not, all i know is i'm going to be blown away by some of the shit i will be seeing as i'm playing the game on hard.
oh yea.
we have our own mind. and form our own opinion as we get experience them.
so it's either you like killzone gameplay or you don't.
and I enjoyed killzone 3 coop a lot when i played it with my bud. loved those amazing arsenal of weapons you get...
honestly don't know what some these reviewers expect. something groundbreaking and new? next gen gameplay or something? lol
for a launch title and the amount of content you're getting.
I think it should satisfy many gamers.
linear levels or not, all i know is i'm going to be blown away by some of the shit i will be seeing as i'm playing the game on hard.
oh yea.
iJudged
Banned
These are some pretty good scores, polygon should be ashamed of them selves.
maquiladora
Member
I'm not buying a PS4 because of the handful of launch games available. I'm buying it for Infamous, The Order and all the unanounced games in the coming months and years to come.
I want to hear your impressions of the game since you've clearly played it and disagree with Polygon. So tell me what you think of the game.
Rising_Hei
Member
Good scores overall, polygon are the ones breaking the overall score in metacritic.
And these review almost don't count the multiplayer, which looks like an interesting step forward for this kind of FPS
And these review almost don't count the multiplayer, which looks like an interesting step forward for this kind of FPS
hokagespit
Member
these reviews make me feel so weird. all the negativity because everything is the same. why the frick does call of duty get scored so much better? its definitely the same damn thing.
metalslimer
Member
Well I agree, but then I'm also not buying at launch then so I can wait til all the kinks with everything are ironed out. There seems to be a weird disconnect in here of people trying to convince themselves reviews don't and their own personal opinion does but at the same time getting bent out of shape over that Polygon review.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
There's no point getting one at launch if you aren't interested in the launch lineup. The value proposition for the console will never be worse than it is at launch, because over time you will get lowered prices, cheaper and more numerous games, and revised hardware. You won't know about any major hardware issues that might show up, you won't know about possibly overlooked problems with the platform, etc etc etc.
I plan to buy mid to late 2014 depending on my financial situation and how the platform turns out.
UnrealEck
Member
If I was buying a PS4 it would have been for games like Killzone. The exclusives. But there's just not enough of them that justify the purchase for now. Maybe when some of the other Playstation regulars hit the console it'll be cheaper too and will warrant buying.
Right now I think a lot of people want that shiney new piece of hardware. Lots of hype and excitement surrounds console launches.
Right now I think a lot of people want that shiney new piece of hardware. Lots of hype and excitement surrounds console launches.
MDSLKTR
Member
No need to be a wisecrack. They showed that the website is pure filth from here on. Tomorrow everyone will ridicule their reviews for good.
metalslimer
Member
Agreed, it also allows you to pick up the launch games for cheaper, see how the platform is selling and the chance of a price cut, and see the future of the platform. Honestly I really can't see the benefit of buying at launch unless you absolutely love the games there
lol
Rising_Hei
Member
And then again, if everyone thought like that, the industry would dissappear
I don't see the console getting any cheaper for years, games? you won't buy many if you stick with PS+, or you can just buy a handful and wait for them to drop, just like everyone does with current gen titles
The difference in money spent won't be high if you adquire the console now (if we're talking about PS4) or if you do it next year, but you have 12 months of enjoyment and games that you won't be able to recover because time passed
Online wasn't working until two days ago i guess, so.......
metalslimer
Member
And then again, if everyone thought like that, the industry would dissappear
I don't see the console getting any cheaper for years, games? you won't buy many if you stick with PS+, or you can just buy a handful and wait for them to drop, just like everyone does with current gen titles
The difference in money spent won't be high if you adquire the console now (if we're talking about PS4) or if you do it next year, but you have 12 months of enjoyment and games that you won't be able to recover because time passed
Oh I love the people who buy at launch for any device. And besides the Wii I don't think any device has not had any kind of deal or price drop within a year of launch
Rising_Hei
Member
This time is different with PS4, they don't have a margin to make it cheaper fast like it happens with most big consoles... it's very tight already, PS4 is almost like an SLIM console being launched
dreamer3kx
Member
Poly sure wouldnt know, they barely played it.
Not really, which is why these reviews are all silly to me.
I like the giant bomb approach to waiting until they have had a good amount of time with the game and all features, rather than rushing to get the first score out of the door *cough* for hits.
Yes, this is how a review should be done !
Agreed 100%, dark. Exactly my thoughts as I read through reviews.
MarshMellow96
Member
Sessler said it lacked "spark"; Gies apparently said that he had "experimented with it".
BakedSardine
Banned
Let's break down the Polygon score using scientific methods and how data is typically handled in scientific study.
Quick math lesson - 95% of all numbers in a data set fall within 2 standard deviations from the mean. Scores/Data that fall outside 2 standard deviations from the mean are typically deemed "outliers" because there is less than a 5% chance that it is a "true" data point. This is why in any scientific paper the "gold standard" for proving that something is likely to be true is to look for a p-value of less than 0.05 (i.e. you can say with 95%+ confidence that your conclusions are accurate based on the data).
Using the scores at the top of this page, including the Polygon score, gives us the following:
Total Scores: 13
Mean: 7.769
Std Deviation: 1.179
Gies score lies 2.35 standard deviations away from the mean, meaning that there is less than a 5% chance that his score is a "valid" piece of data.
If Metacritic was smart, it would use this method, throw out all scores more than 2 standard deviations from the mean (on both the high and low end) and use the mean of the remaining data that as the Metacritic score. If we do that here, it rejects Gies score of 5 and gives a mean of 8/10, which seems about right. I won't quibble if it's really a 7 or 9 out of 10, but certainly not a 5.
Quick math lesson - 95% of all numbers in a data set fall within 2 standard deviations from the mean. Scores/Data that fall outside 2 standard deviations from the mean are typically deemed "outliers" because there is less than a 5% chance that it is a "true" data point. This is why in any scientific paper the "gold standard" for proving that something is likely to be true is to look for a p-value of less than 0.05 (i.e. you can say with 95%+ confidence that your conclusions are accurate based on the data).
Using the scores at the top of this page, including the Polygon score, gives us the following:
Total Scores: 13
Mean: 7.769
Std Deviation: 1.179
Gies score lies 2.35 standard deviations away from the mean, meaning that there is less than a 5% chance that his score is a "valid" piece of data.
If Metacritic was smart, it would use this method, throw out all scores more than 2 standard deviations from the mean (on both the high and low end) and use the mean of the remaining data that as the Metacritic score. If we do that here, it rejects Gies score of 5 and gives a mean of 8/10, which seems about right. I won't quibble if it's really a 7 or 9 out of 10, but certainly not a 5.
It really should.
Reviews are essentially aids to help the public make a decision. It does the public NO GOOD to rush them out half of the answer.
This system of rushing out scores benefits no one.
edit:
^ wow @ BakedSardine dropping scientific knowledge on dat ass wu-tang style! Definitely a different perspective on things lol.
Let's break down the Polygon score using scientific methods and how data is typically handled in scientific study.
Quick math lesson - 95% of all numbers in a data set fall within 2 standard deviations from the mean. Scores/Data that fall outside 2 standard deviations from the mean are typically deemed "outliers" because there is less than a 5% chance that it is a "true" data point. This is why in any scientific paper the "gold standard" for proving that something is likely to be true is to look for a p-value of less than 0.05 (i.e. you can say with 95%+ confidence that your conclusions are accurate based on the data).
Using the scores at the top of this page, including the Polygon score, gives us the following:
Total Scores: 13
Mean: 7.769
Std Deviation: 1.179
Gies score lies 2.35 standard deviations away from the mean, meaning that there is less than a 5% chance that his score is a "valid" piece of data.
If Metacritic was smart, it would use this method, throw out all scores more than 2 standard deviations from the mean (on both the high and low end) and use the mean of the remaining data that as the Metacritic score. If we do that here, it rejects Gies score of 5 and gives a mean of 8/10, which seems about right. I won't quibble if it's really a 7 or 9 out of 10, but certainly not a 5.
Right, except the numbers come from logic, reasoning, and of course opinion, so that elementary school statistics bullshit doesn't apply here.
Agreed, and it's really annoying. Of course people will want first impressions, but calling them reviews seems a bit disingenuous. Hopefully Twitch streaming and Youtube will kill off these shitty day 1 reviews.
There are advantages to getting a console at launch, especially this generation. Being able to play games online with a predominantly core gamer demographic is nice, and there's also Twitch streaming which plenty of people will want to capitalise on. Many of the future Twitch celebs will start their streaming on day 1 (or whenever it's released). Although having said that there aren't any games I want exclusive to next gen right now, so I've made the same decision you have.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Plenty of people are interested in buying launch titles. And even if that was true, it wouldn't invalidate what I was saying.
I don't see the console getting any cheaper for years, games? you won't buy many if you stick with PS+, or you can just buy a handful and wait for them to drop, just like everyone does with current gen title
The difference in money spent won't be high if you adquire the console now (if we're talking about PS4) or if you do it next year, but you have 12 months of enjoyment and games that you won't be able to recover because time passed
The entire point of my post was that there is no point buying a system if nothing is out on it that you want. Your response here doesn't actually address that. You're not going to get 12 months of enjoyment out of a system with nothing you want, are you? It's going to sit there gathering dust until the game that you actually want comes out. Maybe you'll watch Blu-ray movies on it instead of your PS3 or something. Actually one of the biggest problems facing me and my kind is that I already have too much to play and not enough time to play it in, and buying a new system is only going to make sense if it has games I want to throw to the top of that queue.
So I say again - unless you're interested in the launch lineup, don't bother buying it at launch.
.05 is not the gold standard, it's just the convention that a lot of studies use, especially sociological or psychological ones where getting huge numbers of trials or participants can be difficult. The gold standard would be something like setting your p threshold to .001, which you do see in some disciplines.
toastyToast
Member
Sessler and Gametrailers mentioned the MP but that was probably in a LAN reviewers vs reviewers setup. Game Informer are waiting for the PS4 servers to go live before they put out their review
velociraptor
Junior Member
That's debatable. However, his post makes sense. It removes all outliers and gives a more accurate indication of the mean review score.
Louis Cyphre
Banned
This is where things may get interesting.
BakedSardine
Banned
Is there a reviewer with enough integrity to do reviews without a score (I think Shacknews does this, right?). If you watch Pawn Stars ever (which I know is contrived) we need someone like that Mark guy who comes in to look at historical American items and will always give a thorough analysis of the item, but will never put a value on it.
gamerforever
Banned
Decent enough launch game and a technical showcase.
In a way I am glad Driveclub was delayed as I think the extra time will make it a guaranteed 8/10.
Knack is lower than I would have thought. It is a shame and I doubt a franchise will emerge from this, kudos for trying to bring a new IP though.
Would love Sony to bring out a true platformer, something to compete with Mario.
In a way I am glad Driveclub was delayed as I think the extra time will make it a guaranteed 8/10.
Knack is lower than I would have thought. It is a shame and I doubt a franchise will emerge from this, kudos for trying to bring a new IP though.
Would love Sony to bring out a true platformer, something to compete with Mario.
EightBitNate
Member
I think almost all of these launch titles could have used more time in the oven. Glad DC wasn't rushed out before it was ready.
Coolbgdog12
Member
The score really doesn't matter man. That polygon score is really what's making it seem like less than stellar game. I don't take reviews seriously anymore. After I played Beyond Two Souls I was done with the review system.
The COD resolution thing is just another example of rushing to get scores out. Most of the reviewers didn't care to even analyze, or ask about the situation. And now it's obvious to see who are trying to cover up the egg on their faces.
I also noted that it was kind of odd on the Rev3 review of Knack. If you watch the whole video, It's almost like she genuinely wanted to give the game a higher score, but couldn't. Not claiming conspiracy or anything crazy like that, but she definitely seemed to enjoy the game. Even going as far as saying "don't worry about the review score, but listen to my words".
I also noted that it was kind of odd on the Rev3 review of Knack. If you watch the whole video, It's almost like she genuinely wanted to give the game a higher score, but couldn't. Not claiming conspiracy or anything crazy like that, but she definitely seemed to enjoy the game. Even going as far as saying "don't worry about the review score, but listen to my words".
BakedSardine
Banned
Of course it does - how do you think they ever do any scientific research in the areas of psychiatry or even drugs to treat mental disorders where the data is often very subjective. You can analyze a set of subjective data in a purely objective manner (e.g. customer service scores).
Consider going to a restaurant or returning an item to a store - what most people view as very good service, you may view as below average service - it doesn't mean that to YOU the service should be considered very good, it just means that your perceptions of what "good service" is does not lie within the norms of society and should not be looked upon as a barometer for how the general public will view the same thing.
Agree - the goalposts can always be moved depending on the size of the data set.
Of course it makes sense if you want to brand certain opinions as false, but what the fuck kind of attitude is that
Your analogy has no relevance since metacritic only takes reviews from established review sites who understand what the 'norms' are.
?
Let's break down the Polygon score using scientific methods and how data is typically handled in scientific study.
Quick math lesson - 95% of all numbers in a data set fall within 2 standard deviations from the mean. Scores/Data that fall outside 2 standard deviations from the mean are typically deemed "outliers" because there is less than a 5% chance that it is a "true" data point. This is why in any scientific paper the "gold standard" for proving that something is likely to be true is to look for a p-value of less than 0.05 (i.e. you can say with 95%+ confidence that your conclusions are accurate based on the data).
Using the scores at the top of this page, including the Polygon score, gives us the following:
Total Scores: 13
Mean: 7.769
Std Deviation: 1.179
Gies score lies 2.35 standard deviations away from the mean, meaning that there is less than a 5% chance that his score is a "valid" piece of data.
If Metacritic was smart, it would use this method, throw out all scores more than 2 standard deviations from the mean (on both the high and low end) and use the mean of the remaining data that as the Metacritic score. If we do that here, it rejects Gies score of 5 and gives a mean of 8/10, which seems about right. I won't quibble if it's really a 7 or 9 out of 10, but certainly not a 5.
I love this math things
fuzzyreactor
Banned
People need to read this. If what he says is true, this game will be fantastic and likely the last time I ever even look at reviews from the majority of these sites. They simply just don't get what makes a good game anymore.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
The rationalization, defense force spin jobs for games they KNOW aren't a 5/10 becauser reasons has reached a new low today, I think.
velociraptor
Junior Member
Considering the preconceived biases of Gies, I think it's safe to say we can dismiss his opinion outright. On the flipside, anyone who scores a game a full 100 also is suspect. This suggests it's a perfect game.
95% confidence interval makes more sense and gives a more representative average score.
BakedSardine
Banned
There is no use getting into a pissing contest - the data are the data. You analyze the data set in front of you without pre-conceived notions that all data are necessarily accurate - which is why rejecting scores on the high AND low end makes sense.
I'm not even refuting that for Gies Killzone is a 5/10 game. I'm simply saying that for 95% of the public, his score on this game likely has no relevance to how they would perceive the game and should not let that cloud their judgement.
you would be surprised how many studies rely on this "elementary school statistics bullshit" (lol). but let me guess, these arent truly scientific right?