Killzone Shadow Fall Review Thread
- Thread starter Pandemic
- Start date
jacksepticeye
Member
Feared this due to time limitations and they always showed the same levels over and over
Do you follow Arthur Gies on twitter? LOL that will tell you all you need to know.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
Look at my edit to the post for a bit more info. But yeah, it's not conclusive, but it is suggestive.
Great review. He has some great praise for the feel of combat, the variety of options you have for engagement, the OWL, and the AI. I didn't watch, just listened but it's very informative and says a lot of good things. His criticisms of the campaign are expected but didn't seem too high on the multiplayer. He gave it a three but the stuff he says bodes well for what one would typically expect a Killzone game to do right.
i think the confusion is that its not Polygon as a whole...its Gies....if Gies did the Knack review it would be a 0/10....maybe a 1/10
good post...i would be interested to know (not expecting you to do it for me lol) how many of the reviews (on both sides) Gies wrote himself...
Phoenician_Viking
Banned
False. It was made GG games Cambridge.
GrizzleBoy
Banned
I commented on this before, but I literally don't remember a single person till now complementing the gameplay of this game. Its literally always been about the looks.
For some reason not many picked up on it, but Killzone is still Killzone. Put a shiny wrapper on it and its still Killzone. Unless things under the hood make tremendous strides, its not going to massively alter its public perception.
We are allowed to say "but the graphics are awesome". Reviewers can't. Reviewers don't review games for people like ourselves, because while the general public will appreciate a jump in visual fidelity, that isn't what gaming is about.
I suppose its a saving grace in a way in that there are definitely people who would just be happy with Killzone as it is in high(er)-def just like there are a regiment of people who would have preferred BF3/BF4 to literally have been BF2 with hi res textures. But that isn't enough for everybody.
Another saving grace is that since they're already so experience with technical development of the game, they can spend more time refining mechanics for the next round.
For some reason not many picked up on it, but Killzone is still Killzone. Put a shiny wrapper on it and its still Killzone. Unless things under the hood make tremendous strides, its not going to massively alter its public perception.
We are allowed to say "but the graphics are awesome". Reviewers can't. Reviewers don't review games for people like ourselves, because while the general public will appreciate a jump in visual fidelity, that isn't what gaming is about.
I suppose its a saving grace in a way in that there are definitely people who would just be happy with Killzone as it is in high(er)-def just like there are a regiment of people who would have preferred BF3/BF4 to literally have been BF2 with hi res textures. But that isn't enough for everybody.
Another saving grace is that since they're already so experience with technical development of the game, they can spend more time refining mechanics for the next round.
Confidence Man
Member
Exactly what I was afraid of, from the Eurogamer review:
All the talk about open, objective based design and it gets tossed aside at some point.
All the talk about open, objective based design and it gets tossed aside at some point.
Has anyone noticed that the mp review portion was based on their time at the review event? An event that lasted less than 24 hours where the entire system was given a thorough run down along with every other game. With such time constraints, how can anyone honestly say they gave the online a thorough run down before passing judgment? Single player I can understand but this mp review in under a day is total BS.
Never played a Killzone game before.
I expected Shadow Fall to be a standard shooter with mindblowing visuals on consoles. Turns out the game is just that. And games like that shouldn't get 9/10 scores. Especially if it belongs to a franchise that never received that high scores before.
Got the game today, and I'm still very much looking forward to play it.
I expected Shadow Fall to be a standard shooter with mindblowing visuals on consoles. Turns out the game is just that. And games like that shouldn't get 9/10 scores. Especially if it belongs to a franchise that never received that high scores before.
Got the game today, and I'm still very much looking forward to play it.
Ravensmash
Member
I'm not seeing the reason why they should be banned.
Last of Us is one of the best games I've ever played, but I'm not naive to think that others think differently - just check out the discussion threads on here.
I had very modest expectations for Shadow Fall's campaign. KZ2 and KZ3 were basically just very sexy Call of Duty campaigns. Enjoyable for the hectic firefights and the visual spectacle, but rigidly linear and completely forgettable. I wasn't expecting any different from SF, the series is what it is. But if it can come close to KZ2's multiplayer, a lackluster campaign wouldn't hold me back. I spent at least a hundred hours playing Warzone mode, I can't believe the whole concept of rotating objectives hasn't been used in other games outside of that turd Brink.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
3 out of 5
+Really gorgeous
-Terrible storytelling
+the open level design is engaging and replayable
-Not enough of those, and the non-combat traversal sections are kinda whatever
+/-Multiplayer is competent, but unremarkable
Phat Michael
Banned
Or maybe the first party games were just better on the X360 and he preferred them? I know it's astonishing that this could be possible but have you considered that?
These threads are so funny. Polygon bias, so much hate.
dragonbane
Member
Polygon's reviews for Sony's biggest exclusives in 2013 so far:
Beyond: Two Souls - 8
The Last of Us - 7.5
GoW: Ascension - 7
Knack - 6
Killzone: SF - 5
lol
Beyond: Two Souls - 8
The Last of Us - 7.5
GoW: Ascension - 7
Knack - 6
Killzone: SF - 5
lol
StoppedInTracks
Member
Yeah I think Gies gave KZ: SF 5/10 just to be "edgy", "distinct" and tweeted all over the world. If you exclude that it leaves a score of 6/10.
Still not good for a AAAA launch system seller :/
It really doesn't seem to be anything like the campaigns in the previous games, however.
TheBaronOfNA
Banned
Sound fair to me. In line of what others reviews are mentioning it.
This perspective literally sickens me.
My guess is that this helps the scores. It's a perfectly controlled MP environment that has them playing against friends.
pretty done
Member
Wait so KZ isn't even better than a bunch of horrible minigames? Might have to toss it on craigslist. I know you wouldn't lie when it comes to Nintendo
Killzone is an excellent choice for people buying the PS4 at launch. The graphics alone will thrill new owners enough for them to fall in love with the tech. They may revisit it down the track and find it an average game, but in that first week or two the game will be an awesome showcase for the abilities of the PS4.
Just a couple of notes though. Professional video game reviewers need to try and see past that 'shiny new toy' syndrome and give the gameplay an honest score.
Calling for a ban on reputable sites simply because they don't agree with your point of view is, well, a little sad and desperate.
I don't think you understand how to use logic properly.
You see, if Polygon scores a Sony exclusive low, then they are biased Microsoft shills who were paid off to give a low score.
If they give a Sony exclusive a high score, then it's ok because it's true.
It's so simple I can't believe people don't get it.
The Mana Legend
Banned
Wait so KZ isn't even better than a bunch of horrible minigames? Might have to toss it on craigslist. I know you wouldn't lie when it comes to Nintendo
"Horrible minigames?" Lolno.
Plus, two completely different games. I'm not sure why anyone is comparing them.
Evidence that the devs just ran out of time. At least they didn't end it with a black screen with a wall of text.
Sesslers review sounds fair, though personally I LOVE KZ multiplayer, so for me that adds a tonne of value. Plus free DLC maps FTW. It sounds like the first half of the game (the open ended stuff) is really compelling, and the later stuff is more linear and traditional. They probably ran out of time and could not keep the open ended quality throughout the entire game. Still, promising none-the-less.
No surprise coming from the likes of them. Still a must buy for me when I get my PS4.
It's that very fact that many reviewers were angry about. The 'review event' BS is all down to Sony.
phosphor112
Banned
Lol, Gies...
PSNation - 9.5/10
Destructoid - 9/10
Gametrailers - 8,8/10
Multiplayer.it - 8,7/10
Everyeye.it - 8/10
Meristation.com (Espagne) - 8,5/10
IGN - 8/10
OPM UK - 8/10
GamesRadar - 4/5
Eurogamer - 7/10
Gamespot - 7/10
Joystiq - 3,5/5
TorontoSun - 3,5/5
Adam Sessler - 3/5
Polygon - 5/10
***
Kotaku - No
Destructoid - 9/10
Gametrailers - 8,8/10
Multiplayer.it - 8,7/10
Everyeye.it - 8/10
Meristation.com (Espagne) - 8,5/10
IGN - 8/10
OPM UK - 8/10
GamesRadar - 4/5
Eurogamer - 7/10
Gamespot - 7/10
Joystiq - 3,5/5
TorontoSun - 3,5/5
Adam Sessler - 3/5
Polygon - 5/10
***
Kotaku - No
I don't and the comparison posted doesn't really jive with the bias people are saying they have.
Gies gave Deadspace 3 a 9.5 http://www.polygon.com/2013/2/5/3938326/dead-space-3-review and this a 5? Come on...
Gamespot seemed pretty up on it.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
I just summarized the data and compared the relevant numbers. Your explanation is ruled out because the comparison is to the aggregate score. A score below the average is negatively biased, a score above it is positively biased. We can see from the data that Polygon is harsher overall compared to the average outlet, and that there are possibly differences in how harsh they are when reviewing PS3 vs. 360 games. I offered a conservative interpretation of this data. There's no "hate" here.
Also relevant to your point, the PS3 games have a higher overall average than the 360 games, aggregated across all outlets. So it is not the case that the 360 games were "just better" and "he" (who is "he" in this case? It's a bunch of reviewers) preferred them.
Triggerhappytel
Member
First of all, I find it a bit ridiculous to call for a Polygon ban from this. At the very least, we should wait and see how they treat the Xbone launch titles before calling for their heads.
Yeah, it's kind of ridiculous that despite the meat and longevity of most modern FPSs being the multiplayer, they're usually just played for a few hours at a review event and given a cursory couple of paragraphs. I'm personally more interested in campaigns, but I recognise that MP is at least as important to a large part of the audience.
I agree with this. It's a real shame if it turns out to be true, because the level design from the gameplay footage I've seen (mainly the forest & hostage rescue) looked really exciting.
This is, I think, my main chagrin with reviewers at the moment. It's all very well to tar games with the 'unoriginal' brush, but there has to be absolute consitency in this criticism otherwise they just become hypocrites.
So anyway, it looks like the biggest criticisms are the over-familiarity and the badly-told story? I don't agree with marking down an FPS based on its story, but again, if reviewers are going to start picking holes because it all feels like old rope, they have to remain consistent. I expect to see this very same criticism applied to Forza 5 and Dead Rising 3, if that's the case.
Yeah, it's kind of ridiculous that despite the meat and longevity of most modern FPSs being the multiplayer, they're usually just played for a few hours at a review event and given a cursory couple of paragraphs. I'm personally more interested in campaigns, but I recognise that MP is at least as important to a large part of the audience.
I agree with this. It's a real shame if it turns out to be true, because the level design from the gameplay footage I've seen (mainly the forest & hostage rescue) looked really exciting.
This is, I think, my main chagrin with reviewers at the moment. It's all very well to tar games with the 'unoriginal' brush, but there has to be absolute consitency in this criticism otherwise they just become hypocrites.
So anyway, it looks like the biggest criticisms are the over-familiarity and the badly-told story? I don't agree with marking down an FPS based on its story, but again, if reviewers are going to start picking holes because it all feels like old rope, they have to remain consistent. I expect to see this very same criticism applied to Forza 5 and Dead Rising 3, if that's the case.
Risk Breaker
Member
Money is pretty important nowadays, you know? And 750k is QUITE an important sum for a videogames website.
Besides, it's Gies we're talking about, not a random polygon dude
What does that say about Killzone?
get2sammyb
Member
EDIT: Not really relevant.
The only shocker is seeing Beyond getting an 8, to me at least.
fluffydelusions
Member
kz3 didn't great reviews but I still had fun with it
SneakySneaks
Member
I think most of these are quite fair, with the big exception of LoU. I don't know how good Shadow Fall will be, but I've never agreed with Gies on taste before. But let's face it, if your site has Dead Space 3 rated higher than Last of Us, regardless of one's personal opinion, you are wrong.
TheBaronOfNA
Banned
I bet you will change your tune if you did.