Support NeoGAF

[patchday]

I've never seen people this butthurt about a review score before. Killzone has ALWAYS been average. Always. If you are a fan, go buy the game and enjoy it. Who gives a fuck about reviews.

GG is anything but average yo. Checkout their tech papers. They are top notch code slingers

edit- I should add I loved the multiplayer. was very unique in how the cutscenes would play at the beginning and end of multiplayer matches. Single player? I dont give a care (but I enjoyed that too). What makes KZ3 special was the MP. DISCLAIMER: I never played Kz2 though

 

[liger05]

Remember that time when killzone was proclaimed as a halo killer. That is never happening!!

Personally I'm disappointed in such a mixed bag with the reviews as I'm really on the fence about keeping my PS4 pre order or not. Was hoping this game was going to be a must have but doesn't look like it is.

Scratching another game off an already average launch lineup.

 

[NullPointer]

And if they do continue the Killzone franchise, I think it should be a multiplayer only title.

What is it about multiplayer only players pretending that single player doesn't exist or shouldn't exist?

You don't see campaign players living in the same bubble. You'll get people shitting on pigeon-holing multiplayer into a series like Tomb Raider or Bioshock, but even then people will try it out and change their minds, like Uncharted 2 and even AC, which won over crowds even though many thought those modes would be shit.

But holy hell, with every shooter we see the same posts: "Who gets this for single player? Single player doesn't matter. Drop the single player and go multiplayer only". I've just been seeing it more and more. Even Diablo is living in a revisionist world where the only people that played it were online.

Sorry, but it ain't so.

 

[Kydd BlaZe]

Remember that time when killzone was proclaimed as a halo killer. That is never happening!!

Personally I'm disappointed in such a mixed bag with the reviews as I'm really on the fence about keeping my PS4 pre order or not. Was hoping this game was going to be a must have but doesn't look like it is.

Scratching another game off an already average launch lineup.

Pretty much where I'm at right now as well.

 

[Sidzed2]

I'm expecting Killzone to be a pretty, enjoyable, but uneven game, mostly on account of the usual launch issues (being rushed to completion, etc).

I think that those who have any sort of affection for the Killzone IP (which I do) will get a bit more out of it.

Relax, people. It's going to be okay.

 

[bryanee]

Remember that time when killzone was proclaimed as a halo killer. That is never happening!!

Didn't you said the same thing on neurope?

 

[mugoldeneagle03]

I know us multiplayer only guys get a lot of shit sometimes, but it's reviews like these that make me glad I'm an online fan first, story second.

Gorgeous graphics, better controls? As long as there aren't many technical issues, which it doesn't sound like there is, this is still a day 1 must buy for me. Along side BF4 my winter is pretty much set in stone.

Pumped.

 

[daman824]

Like when he gave Simcity a 9.5? That went over real well.

No. Most people expected this game to be in the high 80's low 90's on metacritic. Basically, a game that many people on this site decided was good before they played it got a bad score so they freak out at the reviewer. Had Geis given this game a 9.5/10, people would be singing a different song. I'm not saying Geis is such a good guy. But every single bad review here has been attacked while a site that gives the game a 9.5/10 when the metacritic average is 74 doesn't even get a mention.

Simcity was a game that everyone decided to hate before playing (not saying it's good) and got upset when a good review came out.

 

[Odrion]

(late reply, sorry)

Isn't a game getting mostly 7s and 8s good?

I see 8s from less reputable sites, and mostly 7s or less from the mainstream outlets. And this is an industry that inflates their scores, this is an industry that treats anything under 7 as a total failure of a product.

For an example, COD: Ghosts is being seen as a total pile of dogshit, and it's been getting similar scores. And this is the launch period where everyone is hyped and these scores are typically inflated. So uh, yeah. These scores are not good. Killzone: Shadow Fall will probably be referred to as a bad videogame a year from now.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

I know us multiplayer only guys get a lot of shit sometimes, but it's reviews like these that make me glad I'm an online fan first, story second.

Gorgeous graphics, better controls? As long as there aren't many technical issues, which it doesn't sound like there is, this is still a day 1 must buy for me. Along side BF4 my winter is pretty much set in stone.

Pumped.

I'm thinking so as well. Also, your avatar is wins because that show fucking won.

I also forgot: I can get BF4 on my PC for free. I have like $400 in SteamBuxx thanks to some Marketplace sales.

 

[Gartooth]

Most review events are this way

oh nevermind then, I never actually knew that. I always assumed publishers gave the reviewers games ahead of time rather than having a review event.

 

[velociraptor]

The fuck is up with these random 'KILLZONE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A SHIT FRANCHISE' style posts? Killzone 2 and 3 were both critically well received. Now Shadowfall receives a few bad scores and all hell has broken lose? C'mon...

 

[Seanspeed]

I agree with what you said.

But some people here are questioning the credibility of these reviewers like Arthur Gies, which is clearly a moron, as AmirOx explained. That polygon reviewer and his reviews are seriously a joke.

Some people? Its pretty much every other post in this thread.

It seems people should just dismiss his opinion if they feel they have a good reason to and just move on. There's very little point getting hung up on one singular review unless you're super invested and hurt by anybody saying something bad about something you were excited for.

 

[ANDS]

What is it about multiplayer only players pretending that single player doesn't exist or shouldn't exist?

You don't see campaign players living in the same bubble. You'll get people shitting on pigeon-holing multiplayer into a series like Tomb Raider or Bioshock, but even then people will try it out and change their minds, like Uncharted 2 and even AC, which won over crowds even though many thought those modes would be shit.

But holy hell, with every shooter we see the same posts: "Who gets this for single player? Single player doesn't matter. Drop the single player and go multiplayer only". I've just been seeing it more and more. Even Diablo is living in a revisionist world where the only people that played it were online.

Sorry, but it ain't so.

It depends on the game. BF and CoD are there as MP games, with a side of SP. This will not change at any point in the future.

On the other hand not all shooters are interested in MP, and those that might have an itch probably don't have the data or resources on what makes good MP that EA and Activision have. Thus you don't see people going "Ugh, who cares about the SP in this shooter, show me the MP - " because that isn't the side the bread is buttered on.

 

[MilkBeard]

Kotaku is actually on their way up the ladder.
Alot of good articles lately.

It's so interesting to see this happen. A few months ago people used to shit on Kotaku like nobody's business. Lately that has changed a bit, especially with some of their next gen rumor coverage.

That spotlight seems to have shifted to Polygon, and I can't say that I entirely disagree. Polygon so far, in my opinion, has amounted to little more than being a beautifully designed website. There seems to be a niche audience for their style of writing and viewpoints, but I have found that it doesn't appeal to me, nor do I usually agree with their reviews.

 

[perineumlick]

Well, I'd argue that's mostly because it never really found its own identity. It chased after the big boys in key areas, while never catching on with the things it did uniquely. And the identity it did find (or became known for) was the sluggish controls and delayed death reactions, which repelled some people.

I'd argue that KZ did have it's own identity; the gritty, bombed out industrial cityscapes, and hectic warfare; the Nazi-ish enemies with glowing red eyes, the deliberate pace and movement, but the popularity of the COD formula caused a lot of gamers to rebel against KZ's different feel and look. Hence KZ3 and it's COD style campaign, with similar feeling controls, and setpieces for the sake of spectacle. Suddenly some yearned for a return to the former style and aesthetic of KZ2; gamers are a fickle bunch.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

The fuck is up with these random 'KILLZONE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A SHIT FRANCHISE' style posts? Killzone 2 and 3 were both critically well received. Now Shadowfall receives a few bad scores and all hell has broken lose? C'mon...

I think it's the crowd that compares KZ directly to Halo and CoD, see that it doesn't score as high and pass.

KZ has always scored high. It's just never scored *as high* as the Gold Standard games of the genre. For some, if it's not equal, it's not good enough to spend time with. It's not fair, but that's just how some people see it.

I'd argue that KZ did have it's own identity; the gritty, bombed out industrial cityscapes, and hectic warfare; the Nazi-ish enemies with glowing red eyes, the deliberate pace and movement, but the popularity of the COD formula caused a lot of gamers to rebel against KZ's different feel and look. Hence KZ3 and it's COD style campaign, with similar feeling controls, and setpieces for the sake of spectacle. Suddenly some yearned for a return to the former style and aesthetic of KZ2; gamers are a fickle bunch.

It's also never grown into a "10 million copies sold" halo franchise either. People notice that and skip it. Again, it's not fair but that's how it is.

 

[velociraptor]

I think it's the crowd that compares KZ directly to Halo and CoD, see that it doesn't score as high and pass.

KZ has always scored high. It's just never scored *as high* as the Gold Standard games of the genre. For some, if it's not equal, it's not good enough to spend time with. It's not fair, but that's just how some people see it.

I dunno - 91 on metacritic is pretty high.

 

[B.O.O.M]

No matter how you feel about the games focus, which doesn't account for the rest of the gaming world btw, it doesn't change the fact that most reviewers will play the campaign through as fast as possible and a few hours of multiplayer. They need to get that review up in time, son.

Also, lol@ Killzones passable campaigns being in the same league as CoD's best, let alone better.

You are making up things now. I never said that. But yes KZ overall has done SP better this gen than COD. One good game of COD doesn't change that. Maybe I should have clarified this gen to avoid confusion.

What you make no sense. Your logic can be applied to you too. And if you think COD, BF place most importance on the SP component then I have no idea what to tell you. They don't. That's just how those franchises have evolved.

You keep using hyperbole such as they don't have time to hit lvl 70 etc but you don't need to go that far to have a good analysis of the MP component. It definitely takes more than just 'experiment with it a bit'

Call of Duty existed before COD4.

Definitely. the good old days. But that's not what the franchise is now/what it has become

 

[NullPointer]

It depends on the game. BF and CoD are there as MP games, with a side of SP. This will not change at any point in the future.

You have a point with BF which is trying to reel in a new campaign audience. But again, COD existed before COD4.

And again, you don't see campaign players asking for multiplayer to get cut, or wondering aloud why people would buy a game for the multi. Its annoying.

 

[haZethew0rld]

Killzone can't be that bad considering he gave TLoU a 7.5...

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

What is it about multiplayer only players pretending that single player doesn't exist or shouldn't exist?

You don't see campaign players living in the same bubble. You'll get people shitting on pigeon-holing multiplayer into a series like Tomb Raider or Bioshock, but even then people will try it out and change their minds, like Uncharted 2 and even AC, which won over crowds even though many thought those modes would be shit.

But holy hell, with every shooter we see the same posts: "Who gets this for single player? Single player doesn't matter. Drop the single player and go multiplayer only". I've just been seeing it more and more. Even Diablo is living in a revisionist world where the only people that played it were online.

Sorry, but it ain't so.

Dude, I'm sorry but this is not true at all. NeoGAF has so many anti-multiplayer gamers it isn't even funny.

 

[-tetsuo-]

I dunno - 91 on metacritic is pretty high.

As negative as I seem in this thread towards the series, I was always a stalwart defender of Killzone 2. The problem is, the other 2 aren't anywhere near as good. KZ3 rated mid 80s because hyped up AAA releases hardly score lower.

 

[NullPointer]

Dude, I'm sorry but this is not true at all. NeoGAF has so many anti-multiplayer gamers it isn't even funny.

Asking for multiplayer modes to get cut from games that have always had them? Where?

 

[bhlaab]

Also, lol@ Killzones passable campaigns being in the same league as CoD's best, let alone better.

CoD campaigns are unmitigated garbage

 

[KittyKittyBangBang]

looks like most of the criticism is centered around the campaign. Since I got this for MP. I'm not too worried.

 

[Dr. Kitty Muffins]

What is it about multiplayer only players pretending that single player doesn't exist or shouldn't exist?

You don't see campaign players living in the same bubble. You'll get people shitting on pigeon-holing multiplayer into a series like Tomb Raider or Bioshock, but even then people will try it out and change their minds, like Uncharted 2 and even AC, which won over crowds even though many thought those modes would be shit.

But holy hell, with every shooter we see the same posts: "Who gets this for single player? Single player doesn't matter. Drop the single player and go multiplayer only". I've just been seeing it more and more. Even Diablo is living in a revisionist world where the only people that played it were online.

Sorry, but it ain't so.

I'm mainly single player campaign guy myself. I just see the multiplayer being the strength of the Killzone franchise and that would make it easy to develop in the background while they move on to bigger, new IP projects.

 

[sol_bad]

That Polygon score is incredible, they score it low because it covers FPS clichés but for the series itself it is covering much new ground.
Yet they rate CoD:Ghosts a 7 when it's pretty much the same thing as the last 4 CoD games?

I personally don't care about review scores, I haven't for years, I value the opinions of GAF way more. I just find Polygon's review of Killzone and CoD:Ghosts interesting.

 

[SmoothRunningGun]

Polygon also admitted that they barely touched mp. How can anyone take that site seriously? GameInformer is holding their review back until Friday so they can can spend more time with mp.

 

[Figboy79]

He played multiplayer before reviewing. Reviewers never play that much of it. I mean I don't see any reviewers getting to level 70 in cod before they write a review.

It's a launch game. I know a lot of people were expecting high 80's low 90's but it's a rushed launch game.

You don't have to reach Level 70, but, personally, I like to spend a good two hours+ on a game's multi-player before I begin to evaluate it.

I remember when I got into the Killzone 2 and Warhawk betas back in the day, and that first hour I wasn't too sold on either. By the end of that first hour, when I was more familiar with the map, the controls, the overall game/metagame of it, I was hooked. I played the living shit out of those two betas, and Warhawk is still some of the most fun I've had online since the original Halo.

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

Asking for multiplayer modes to get cut from games that have always had them? Where?

It's not exactly the same both ways, but the thing is, almost no games have a "tacked on" single player. Tons of money and time goes usually goes into them these days, and it can take away from resources that would otherwise go into the multiplayer where the multiplayer is more popular. Battlefield is about the best example I can think of. They have never had a good campaign, but you can tell how much money they've been throwing at them as of late.

Now I'm not saying Killzone is the same as I've actually heard that people enjoy Killzone campaigns, but in a general sense I don't think it's so one sided as you say. Anti multiplayer people usually don't care either way about multiplayer in the games they like because they are often outsourced or tacked on and therefore don't legitimately affect the core game as much.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

I dunno - 91 on metacritic is pretty high.

I agree. But it's...hard to explain I guess. CoD: MW definied the generation in only MP FPS in the way that Halo 2 did it the generation before. When you leave that kind of imprint on a generation, people don't forget it and default to your software and sequels when possible, regardless of what the competition is scoring.

For example, BF2 and BF3 were objectively excellent games, yet both sold only a fraction of what the recent CoD games sold, despite the recent CoD games being reviewed less favorably. CoD2 and MW made an impression on gamers...a footprint that carried the sales of their subsequent releases.

KZ is a known entity, mostly for its visual prowess for those of us who haven't played much KZ. But it's also still remembered for being hyped as a Halo killer and getting toasted in critical reviews. Sometimes it's hard to make a first impression all over again. To that end, none of its entries have captured people such as to define FPS play in a given generation. It hit 91 on Metacritic once, but most entries in the series are in the 70s range, far below the averages your halo FPS products over the last decade (Halo, CoD primarily). In short, it's been a really solid, "also ran" franchise like Resistance. I think people were hoping this KZ would be that "generational trend-setter" given the lack of overall quality for launch FPS games, and the disappointment even in this thread is palpable. It certainly has (or had) an opportunity to be that...unfortunately it appears more divisive than hoped.

I'm still debating on keeping mine and probably will because I'd like to try Killzone for myself...but yea, I don't know how else to explain it.

 

[blastprocessor]

Spoiler

Being streamed here,

http://www.twitch.tv/gameguypgh

 

[Doran902]

CoD campaigns are unmitigated garbage

hey now, i loved mw1, mw2, waw and i thought ghosts was actually quite fun

mw1 might be one of the best ever

 

[-tetsuo-]

CoD campaigns are unmitigated garbage

All 10 of them? Really?

 

[Audible Phonetics]

some real fickle gaffers allowing a single persons opinion to influence an entire buying situation smh

 

[fuzzyreactor]

All 10 of them? Really?

they stopped being worth playing after COD2

 

[ProfessorMoran]

Remember that time when killzone was proclaimed as a halo killer. That is never happening!!

Personally I'm disappointed in such a mixed bag with the reviews as I'm really on the fence about keeping my PS4 pre order or not. Was hoping this game was going to be a must have but doesn't look like it is.

Scratching another game off an already average launch lineup.

HALO is already dead.

 

[toastyToast]

Well, I just got my copy in the mail. Still looking forward to playing it beyond the visual spectacle. The gunplay in KZ doesn't get the credit it deserves, everything feels so fucking chunky. Best standard assault rifle in any series

 

[malboroking]

Simcity was a game that everyone decided to hate before playing (not saying it's good) and got upset when a good review came out.

Yeah, that's why his sim city review was ridiculous. Amirox posted a good summary of that debacle. Kill zone is getting the exact reviews I figured it would get, 7s and 8s, which means its a good but not great game. That has nothing to do with Gies being a complete turd. Gies has a history of giving outlying scores simply to be contrarian. He did it with Simcity, he did it with The Last Of Us, and now he's doing it with Killzone. It's fine, it's just one review, but Gies has done this many times before. It's nothing but click bait.

 

[beast786]

Day 1 for me. So damn excited. Next Gen is here

 

[hwateber]

You don't have to reach Level 70, but, personally, I like to spend a good two hours+ on a game's multi-player before I begin to evaluate it.

I remember when I got into the Killzone 2 and Warhawk betas back in the day, and that first hour I wasn't too sold on either. By the end of that first hour, when I was more familiar with the map, the controls, the overall game/metagame of it, I was hooked. I played the living shit out of those two betas, and Warhawk is still some of the most fun I've had online since the original Halo.

I remember the KZ2 beta, it was crazy times. Whatever happened to kittonwy?

 

[Tookay]

I'd argue that KZ did have it's own identity; the gritty, bombed out industrial cityscapes, and hectic warfare; the Nazi-ish enemies with glowing red eyes, the deliberate pace and movement, but the popularity of the COD formula caused a lot of gamers to rebel against KZ's different feel and look. Hence KZ3 and it's COD style campaign, with similar feeling controls, and setpieces for the sake of spectacle. Suddenly some yearned for a return to the former style and aesthetic of KZ2; gamers are a fickle bunch.

It kind of had that dark identity, but for two games. Now, we have two console sequels (KZ3 and SF) that have largely abandoned that style to chase after the setpiece/twitch/COD gameplay. Furthermore, the competition has not taken notice of KZ, nor have they attempted to copy the series in the areas that it has differentiated itself in. There never was a moment where KZ became a trendsetter that everybody took notes from, the way they did to Halo 2 or COD4. So we're left with the feeling that it's a franchise chasing after the big boys, which brings all sorts of confused reactions and expectations from gamers.

It's like a slightly more restrained version of Resistance in the sense that it hasn't been a consistent series in gameplay or theme.

 

[Melchiah]

I'm keeping an open mind, and waiting when I get it on my hands. After all, RFOM was often called a mediocre shooter, but for me it was one of the highlights of last gen. I played the campaign through 4-5 times by myself, and three times on co-op.

It also seems to me that KZ series is often reviewed with different and perhaps more harsh perspective, than many of the other established shooter series.

 

[MilkBeard]

I wonder what Gaf's reactions will be when we all finally get to play the game. I'm curious. Sometimes they differ greatly from reviewers, sometimes they are very very much in line. I'm playing the game for myself to see.

The reason why I feel my opinion will be drastically different: I don't normally play many first person shooters. I don't give a rats ass about Call of Duty, or Battlefield, or how Killzone stacks up with them. All I care about is if the game is fun, if I like the design, etc.

The reason why I'm going to be playing Killzone is because the aesthetic is very interesting, I really dig the sci-fi nature of the new title. It looks very beautiful, and very creative (in a design sense). I also like the sound of having variety in the gameplay in terms of sanbox and also the tech gadgets.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

I see 8s from less reputable sites, and mostly 7s or less from the mainstream outlets. And this is an industry that inflates their scores, this is an industry that treats anything under 7 as a total failure of a product.

For an example, COD: Ghosts is being seen as a total pile of dogshit, and it's been getting similar scores. And this is the launch period where everyone is hyped and these scores are typically inflated. So uh, yeah. These scores are not good. Killzone: Shadow Fall will probably be referred to as a bad videogame a year from now.

Or a good or above avarage game with some unfair scores.

 

[Zoned]

Polygon also admitted that they barely touched mp. How can anyone take that site seriously? GameInformer is holding their review back until Friday so they can can spend more time with mp.

When knack can get a score of more than 8.25 from them so most probably KZF will get at least an 8.5. Not that it is directly related, but GI are pretty lenient in scoring. Their 9 is like 7-7.5 from GS or EG.

 

[Silky]

relevant

 

[Dante316]

Can we all relax! Its less than 48 hrs away. We can decide if it sucks or not. Keep in mind the multiplayerseems to be good.

 

[sn00zer]

Holy shit the biggest complaint in the polygon review is "no meaningful evolution" and they gave Ghosts a 7/10......the hell?