S
SpongebobSquaredance
Unconfirmed Member
soldiers also don't regenerate health.
Was Killzone ShadowFall ahead of it's time?
- Thread starter Mr. PlayStation
- Start date
- Opinion
thelastword
Banned
Yeah, but you can't get everything......At some point you have to strike a balance or you would remove the fun from games entirely....I know there was a shooter or two where you get hit you die forever, you crash a car you miss the whole season. There might be a place for these if the market is viable enough, but I suspect it's really not worth it....I think a mix of realism is fair that keeps the fun intact and thereby give a little more authenticity to the gameplay mechanics and physics. Straight arcade gameplay seems to me something from 30 years ago with guncons and wackamole aiming.....
Justin9mm
Member
Well anyone who knows anything about gaming, specifically anyone with experience playing shooters can easily see it falls flat in many areas. Statistically if 2348 people who played the game gave it an average of 6.8. That is an average shooter in my book. Just because you enjoyed the game doesn't make my statement about it being average untrue.
You can argue that reviews don't count etc. everyone has different opinions blah blah, but if the overwhelming majority statistically think the game is average, then guess what.. It's probably average to the current expected standards at the time of release.
Last edited:
Makoto-Yuki
Banned
nah it was a forgettable launch game. i only played it cause it came with my PS4. my friend asked for a loan of it and never gave it back....don't even care. it wasn't a good game.
Explosive Zombie
Banned
Argumentum ad populum. I don't think 2,348 people is the overwhelming majority of people who played a game that sold in excess of 2.1 million copies its first year on the market. And even among that 2,348 you will have large variations in the scores given to come to an average like 6.8. Also to be 6.8 means the majority of people had to give the game higher than 5.0, 5.0 is the middle score. Now... we all know people don't view a 5.0 as being a 5.0 in gaming, but this applies more to the press than gamers. The community score you have no problem citing is going to be full of people scoring it 1s and 2s while the worst critical score is 5.0. When it comes to critical consensus I would agree that a score around 6.8 looks bad but considering Metacritic USERS have no trouble using the full score range the same score doesn't mean the same thing. I mean, what would it say about Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, the top-selling game of the last year which sits at 3.3 User score? And that's with double the people scoring it on Killzone Shadow Fall and when I say double I mean JUST ON THE PS4. What is an exceptional shooter by Metacritic user score standards? Doom Eternal sits at 8.3! 8.3 is not even 2 full points ahead of a game like Shadow Fall! Hmmm... how about the first Crysis? 8.1... ooo... Counter-Strike Global Offensive? 7.4... ouch... I know, Halo: Combat Evolved... oh... also 8.5... hmmm... Half-Life 2? 8.4. I decided to check... the best shooter of all time based on Metacritic user score is the Orange Box at 9.2 so we have an effective ceiling of 9.2 for a shooter on Metacritic, but what's the floor? 1.2 for a Modern Warfare 3 DS port... so what's the average between 9.2 and 1.2? It's about 4.5... guess Shadow Fall is above average according to the perfect sample group that is Metacritic users.
Last edited:
longdi
Banned
sounds like GG games i tried.
technically impressive, but lack that dynamism and creativity, and weak AI.
Justin9mm
Member
First of all I meant majority out of reviewers, 2348 is a good representation of the average. If you asked all people who bought it to rate it, the result statistically would most likely be close to the same, the 2348 people are representative numbers from around the globe by all sorts of people not from one place, the score is most likely accurate to the general consensus. There was no review review bombing or underlying agenda that cause everyone to give an average rating.
Second, We will look at COD MW which was review bombed due to Russian political representation and had nothing to do with how good the game was or wasn't. Just like TLOU2 for having a so called agenda in it's story narrative.
Reading Doom Eternal, I consider 6.8 and 8.3 user average to be a big difference. You also have to look at Critic to User, if both scores are similar to each other on a game then that is a more of a true representation as everyone agrees with the game. We all know Critic is usually a little more inflated as User is more critical. But when you have a game like MW for example where Critic is 80 and User is 3.3, either the critics are very wrong or their is some underlying agenda and as I said, it was review bombed!
Doom Eternal 87 Critic and User 8.3.. General consensus, the game is good.
KZ Shadow Fall Critic 73 and User 6.8... Game to me says average, that's my opinion as with many other people.
I used Metacritic as an example to point out the game is perceived as average because you asked how it was widely known. I know it's not the be all and end all and not all that reliable. But a google search will tell you its average by many people around the world. The game looked very good but it was very flawed compared to previous titles. If you like it then great, by I go by averages and statistics.
AltogetherAndrews
Banned
Replaying this right now, and I'll say that it really does look amazing. The environments in particular are second to none.
With that said, it's a real drag to actually play the damned game lol.
With that said, it's a real drag to actually play the damned game lol.
Last edited:
Explosive Zombie
Banned
That wasn't the point behind my widely known question, which was rhetorical. I'm glad you're pointing out review bombing, but you seem to be saying that the only reason a game gets low scores from users is ancillary to the quality of the game, so where does that leave us? You've just narrowed the field of possible scores for a game to get and be "legit" drastically, haven't you? Also how big a difference is there to you between mass review bombing and just sporadic review bombing... like whatever issue upset LOTS of people with the new Call of Duty could have upset a portion of the people reviewing Shadow Fall, no? What do you mean you go by averages and statistics by the way? Are you saying you don't have your own viewpoints, you simply like or don't like what averages and statistics tell you to? That must be a sad existence.
But let's get to another crucial problem with your analysis... the sample size... you can tell me in a scientific study over 2,000 people sampled is a good enough amount but sample size is as dependent on WHERE the sample comes from. So, 2,348 is a good enough amount to know what METACRITIC USERS think of something, I suppose, assuming they aren't disingenuously review bombing... an event you acknowledged occurs... but it's not representative of the population that played Killzone Shadow Fall, it can't even be verified all of them ever played the game or played it enough to have a viewpoint worth considering. In a scientific study you'd have a diversity of types of people and it'd be controlled enough to know your results were good.
But... as I said... you're doing argumentum ad populum... here...
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so".
Key word here being FALLACIOUS. Most of why I even engage you on your own fallacious grounds is because it's kinda funny to me seeing the logical pretzel you can twist into trying to defend the idea that the Metacritic user score tells you how good a game is. You've even now begun telling me you have to make some kind of weird mathematical calculation between user and critic score or something? It's especially weird because you're totally ignoring that in order to get to an average score you would need to have about as many HIGH scores as LOW... or, in Shadow Fall's case... the most scores were positive, then the second most were mixed and the least scores were negative... 1,185 people gave it 8-10, 714 gave it 7-5. Let's stick with review bombing because to me... CLEARLY anything below 5 is review bombing, I mean, c'mon, it's WIDELY KNOWN the game is at least a 5... so let's discount all the scores below 5, which would pretty easily increase the score... I mean... none of the critic reviews are below 5... clearly below 5 people are trolls review bombing. Guess it's above average after all.
INC
Member
Infested Goblin
Member
Every this generation open world game looks better than best looking linear games from last generation. Even crossgen dragon age Inquisition on ps 4
killatopak
Member
I think so.
First case I ever encountered resolution reconstruction.
First case I ever encountered resolution reconstruction.
Justin9mm
Member
I only used Metacritic as one example of where you can find evidence the game is average, it's not the defining proof. I know the scoring system is completely flawed. I go by my own experience of playing the game. And yes, there are games that have low scores on Metacritic that I found to be good and that I'd rate much higher.. But that's not to say there is some truth in some of those low-average ratings.
But if you actually took some time to research KZ Shadow Fall on google, searching forums and discussions etc. You will find the game wasn't exactly stellar. I bought the PS4 day 1 and had it day 1 when it was a launch title, I finished it and it looked fucking amazing but I'm sorry the game did not live up to it's predecessors. It was at launch buggy, audio issues, story was awful, full of plot holes. Objectives of what to do were a mess sometimes not even telling you what to do. Horrible AI, so much shit wrong in this game.
PatientGamer
Member
Yes! There wasn't single game that came close to the graphical fidelity of Shadow Fall back in 2014. In fact, I'd harbor a guess that most games released over the last 6 years still struggle to match Shadow Fall's graphics and textures.
Explosive Zombie
Banned
You keep repeating the same logical fallacy. I think the game IS stellar, I love the game. It doesn't matter to me how many people you can google agreeing with YOU instead of ME. That is not how my brain operates, it's not how I consume media. It's also not the way I discuss media, if you want a discussion of media you need to stop making it clear you have the right position and I have the wrong position while discussing something SUBJECTIVE. You need to give YOUR reasons why you think it was average if you want me to engage you on why I think otherwise. Just telling me you're right because other people say so as well does nothing for me.
You gave me some of your reasons for finding it average in that post the problem is your reasons are incredibly vague and could apply to many games that DO receive high praise. Was it buggy at launch? I don't know, I didn't buy it at launch. Audio issues? Don't recall any, cite an example. Story was awful? I remember it having a more interesting core concept than past iterations what with the Helghast having to live side by side with you in a sort of reservation, beginning the game with a family being forcibly evicted. How well they explored that is not really in my memory banks, I mostly play the games for the combat and visuals. Plot holes... I'm not a fan of plot hole complaints on the internet, I find people rarely know what an actual plot hole is. The objectives of what to do? Again, I don't recall but I do recall that besides a few early missions the game was fairly linear so I have trouble believing it was all that confusing. AI seemed fine to me, what was horrible about it?
Justin9mm
Member
Ok mate, I will just say I think you are wrong, you can think the game is stellar but I'm not going to take my time going into to detail about the story, plotholes, AI etc. You can read about the same thing from many sources, but hey, I guess they are wrong too! You are obviously blinded by pretty graphics and nothing else matters to you, either that or you are just a blind fan of the series. Not sure which one it is but you have rose coloured glasses on. You had said you play the game for combat and visuals. Yes the shooting is fun, yes its pretty. That does not make the game good and that's not the defining criteria of a good game.
If it was just combat and visuals then the TLOU2 did deserve all those 10's from critics? Because those two things are on point.
It's your opinion but I'm not the one who started this by telling me my opinion was wrong so I will tell you the same thing and call it a day. I'm not going to respond anymore. There's no point debating this.
Explosive Zombie
Banned
dude you cannot be serious you're literally trying to tell me what the criteria for what a good game is as if you are the one person who knows what that is and can determine it for everyone else regardless of the game.
I can't even tell what point you're trying to make with The last of us 2 section. You just seem to be missing the point that no one is right or wrong in their opinion. Your inability to engage in an honest manner about your opinion and relying on other people's opinions is kind of sad and antithetical to good discussion so it makes it a good thing that you're probably not going to respond again.
Abear21
Banned
I bought this day one with the PS4, while graphically it was amazing, multiplayer was a dud.
Killzone 3 had great MP maps and a fun balance, SF threw it all away. The hit detection and weight of everything felt great, but the maps and modes were all wrong imo. If they had nailed the multiplayer I would say yes, the single player was solid, but sadly that's not the case.
Killzone 3 had great MP maps and a fun balance, SF threw it all away. The hit detection and weight of everything felt great, but the maps and modes were all wrong imo. If they had nailed the multiplayer I would say yes, the single player was solid, but sadly that's not the case.
gunslikewhoa
Member
I lasted a couple hours at most with this before the horrible FOV made me quit.
Justin9mm
Member
You cannot be serious, I'm trying to fucking tell you that I'm one of many many many many many people that think the game is average, stop twisting my words.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion but yes people can be wrong, ever heard of the saying 'majority rules'
I have engaged with you enough and we don't see eye to eye obviously. I'm 37, been gaming since I was about 6, I also did a stint QA testing in UK. I believe I know a thing or two about games and how they are developed.
You sound like that type of person who has to be right, you started this with your stupid Trump gif because you are a troll mate. You didn't respect my opinion at the start so why the fuck should I respect yours!?
Explosive Zombie
Banned
I didn't tell you your opinion was wrong. You didn't phrase it as an opinion. You phrased it is a fact we all know. Go back and look.
I know what you're doing, I've been calling it argumentum ad populum the entire time, haven't I?
The saying "majority rules" exists therefore the majority viewpoint is correct? What? I could picture someone with serious mental problems being WRONG about how much they enjoyed a game but I don't feel you're qualified to diagnose that at this time.
Do you only engage people you see eye to eye with? I guess so since you like agreeing with people so much. What does your age or when you started gaming have to do with anything? Or how much knowledge you have of game development? You'd think with so much experience and insight you could do more to back up your opinion than point out other people agree, right?
Wait... I sound like the person who needs to be right? Tell me again who's the person using the views of others to claim they have the right opinion? Show me where I tried to invalidate your experience with Shadow Fall?
Justin9mm
Member
Bottom line is, you don't think the game is average, I do.
You want to talk about argumentum and populum, that does not apply to everything in life. That's not why I think the game is average and I think it does not apply in this case. To me this more relates to topics like Politics and Religion for example. You can't just apply this theory because it suits your defence, I also don't agree with your view on this.
I mentioned my age and experience and knowledge because you did not even believe the flaws in the game I pointed out. I think it is important that someones opinion comes from experience. I never hated the game, I enjoyed some of it. But if you want to compare to other shooters which is what one does, besides the pretty graphics, the design did not hold up very well.
Explosive Zombie
Banned
I mean... yes...
I'm not sure you know what I'm saying when I bring up argumentum ad populum. I'm saying your entire argument is based on the idea that others feels as you do, this is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populum where you allege something must be true because others agree. If it doesn't apply then why did you resort to it? Wait... what does this have to do with politics or religion? What theory?
I didn't AGREE with all the flaws but in some cases asked you to elaborate, meaning I was open to your explanation. Experience can be used to make a more detailed and interesting viewpoint to read, you didn't use your experience to give me that, though, you used it as a bludgeon to claim you're right because of it.
Okay... now you're back to the same tired shit, "if you compare to other shoots... the design did not hold up very well." FOR YOU... THIS IS YOUR OPINION, you need to stop saying things like they're factual and I have to accept them, I DO NOT HAVE TO ACCEPT YOUR VIEWS AS TRUE. Explain why it fails to meet the standards of other shooters in the design department or admit you have no real argument and stop engaging me on this.
Justin9mm
Member
I'm not sure you know what I'm saying when bringing up argumentum ad populum. Do you even fully understand it, it seems not. How did you not understand what I meant? I just said as you gave the definition 'that an entire argument is based on the idea that others feel as you do' does not apply to everything in life and I don't think it applies in this situation. This more relates to politics and religion, you know ideology and beliefs.
You're basically saying that I think the game is average based on majority of reviews, that's not what I meant. I told you its average based off my own experience but if you don't believe me then go check the majority of reviews, that doesn't automatically mean argumentum ad populum applies here.
And what I said is factual - It does not hold up, it factually has flaws, the few things I said that were wrong about the game are fact. Are you going to tell me the sky is purple and then when I say it's blue, go ask everyone else you bring up argumentum ad populum, GTFO lol.
Your argument of argumentum ad populum is to suit your narrative. The game is flawed fact, backed up by a majority of sources who are experienced credited gamers.
This is definitely my last post as I've wasted enough time on someone trying to prove to be right. I told you can have your opinion. That is fine, it's not average to you, I accept that.
But you need to accept that I believe the game is average and flawed and that is the opinion of many others, you can't deny that. Regardless of your argumentum ad populum.
Last edited:
Bragr
Banned
I got it 2 years after it was released, I never found one game online, and I searched a lot. COD just sucks up all the shooter crowd online.
Shmunter
Member
Availability of online games grows faster than the actual user base. Titanfall 2 hit psn+ and I wonder if anybody is even bothering with that. Just so many options & most free.
They should put up Shadowfall on PSN, promote it with Pro patch and see what happens. But I doubt it would have legs even then.
Explosive Zombie
Banned
All argumentum ad populum means is you're using the fact that others agree to state something as being true. Which you've been doing. It does not only concern politics or religion, that's absurd. I'm not sure what you mean it doesn't apply? It's literally never a good argument, it's a LOGICAL FALLACY.
You used it as evidence you were correct, it's indisputable. What do you mean if I don't believe you? I've never said I don't believe you had a poor experience with the game. Also why would I check the majority of reviews to get YOUR TAKE ON IT if you are claiming you aren't just subscribing to popular opinion?
I don't recall you citing any facts and if you have facts then surely it would be easy to support them. What if 85% of the population caught a weird disease that made them see things as the wrong color and to 85% of the population the sky did look purple? Would it be purple?
Okay... this is getting absolutely absurd now. You tell me argument ad populum suits MY narrative but then go on to say your viewpoint of the game is FACT because of a MAJORITY of sources who are EXPERIENCED CREDITED GAMERS. Not only did you just perpetrate ANOTHER argumentum ad populum you also did appeal to authority, two fallacies!
Wow, we must be breaking new ground here! You can accept other people feel differently from you? Pretty crazy, hey how do you handle the fact that most of the reviews on Metacritic from "experienced credited gamers" being 8-10?
My argument has nothing to do with how many others feel, you still don't get why I keep using the argumentum ad populum phrase. Like this is beyond nuts, can you please just try and open your mind for one second... when I tell you you are using an ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM argument I am saying that you are RELYING ON THE FACT that others agree... I am not saying you are WRONG that a "majority" of others agree... I'm saying you're WRONG to think that's a strong argument as it's a KNOWN LOGICAL FALLACY.
Last edited:
Shmunter
Member
Would take a lot of guts for a dev to make a quintessentially linear almost corridor like game again. But that's what made it.
And then, the online with the slow pace. Who's got the balls outside of a tactical shooter to repeat such a design philosophy?
Common Sony, were waiting!
ZywyPL
Banned
Many people are sick and tired of the open-world formula already, some never liked it to begin with. That's actually one of the reasons there aren't many FPS out there anymore, everything just wen't into the open-world formula and it doesn't suit FPS titles as much as TPP games. But the success of Doom clearly shows there is a wide audience for the good 'ol corridor shooters. CoD is as linear as it can get, and again, it's success speaks for itself.
<cough> Battle Royale <cough>... KZ2 core gameplay might have been slow, but the MP itself was very intense and action packed, all thanks the great map designs and Warzone mode. If only the controls weren't so utter garbage the series might have been along the top dogs like CoD or Halo now. GG learned how to make good controls eventually, but they were never been able to make a decent game in both SP and MP.
Shmunter
Member
One things for sure. A next gen Killzone? Take my money.
pawel86ck
Banned
Not really. Crysis 3 back then was more impressive, but killzone SF was definitely the best looking FPS game on PS4.
When it comes to halo infinite graphics, game was build around xbox one and this consoles is too weak for 60fps in open world games. That's the only reason why killzone looks much better. Even halo 5 looks better than infinite.
When it comes to halo infinite graphics, game was build around xbox one and this consoles is too weak for 60fps in open world games. That's the only reason why killzone looks much better. Even halo 5 looks better than infinite.
Last edited:
LordOfChaos
Member
In graphics, yes, in level design, encounter design, and signposting, way behind.
I'd like to see them return to Killzone. Shadowfall was practically a rushed graphics demo for PS5.
I'd like to see them return to Killzone. Shadowfall was practically a rushed graphics demo for PS5.
IbizaPocholo
NeoGAFs Kent Brockman
carloseduardocd
Member
Explosive Zombie
Banned
alucard0712_rus
Banned
I remember 2013. KZ was the first gamplay video from PS4.
I was blown away by the graphics, then the sound. It really felt like future! Still much prefer the look of this game!
I was blown away by the graphics, then the sound. It really felt like future! Still much prefer the look of this game!
Shifty1897
Member
I'm one minute into this video and this dude has already twisted the truth twice.
1. The PS4 is a 1.9 TF console, calling it a 1 TF console and saying the Series X is 12 times as powerful in not true.
2. They did not make Halo Infinite "for the Series X". It is a cross gen title, which means it has to support the base Xbox One, which is a weaker console than the PS4.
You don't have to exaggerate, comparing Killzone: Shadow Fall to Halo Infinite is a valid comparison and you can make a solid argument without stretching the truth.
1. The PS4 is a 1.9 TF console, calling it a 1 TF console and saying the Series X is 12 times as powerful in not true.
2. They did not make Halo Infinite "for the Series X". It is a cross gen title, which means it has to support the base Xbox One, which is a weaker console than the PS4.
You don't have to exaggerate, comparing Killzone: Shadow Fall to Halo Infinite is a valid comparison and you can make a solid argument without stretching the truth.
RJMacready73
Simps for Amouranth
I'd really love to replay KZ:SF on a PS5, is it a locked 4K/60? Or is it 1080/60,
When Sony revealed that gameplay clip of a flyover of an incredibly rich and detailed cityscape before seemlessly transitioning into some cracking fire fighting section and then back to a thrill ride over the city... It just blew you away, you knew an actual Next Generation of Gaming was upon us whereas the XSX & PS5 seem to be an iterative update on what we already have, there just hasn't been that same WOW moment, Christ I remember this place was filled with endless clips of KZ and thon racing game that's eluding me.. good times,
Anyways yeah I'd love to replay it as I was probably one of the few who actually enjoyed the shit out of it, each level was a technical marvel and just stunning to traverse through, I'd love to go back and revisit it with super clean 4K and 60fps especially on my soon to arrive LG CX... Just need to find a fucking PS5 first
When Sony revealed that gameplay clip of a flyover of an incredibly rich and detailed cityscape before seemlessly transitioning into some cracking fire fighting section and then back to a thrill ride over the city... It just blew you away, you knew an actual Next Generation of Gaming was upon us whereas the XSX & PS5 seem to be an iterative update on what we already have, there just hasn't been that same WOW moment, Christ I remember this place was filled with endless clips of KZ and thon racing game that's eluding me.. good times,
Anyways yeah I'd love to replay it as I was probably one of the few who actually enjoyed the shit out of it, each level was a technical marvel and just stunning to traverse through, I'd love to go back and revisit it with super clean 4K and 60fps especially on my soon to arrive LG CX... Just need to find a fucking PS5 first
alabtrosMyster
Member
Saying a game is average (I.E. good, but not great) according to a critics tool like metacritics... doesn't mean nobody finds it awesome, I loved some parts of Killzone:SF, but I think the story was cringy at times, the "flying" sections needed some tweaks to really work, and a few levels diminished the whole package--It should have been delayed a couple of months back. So I get why the critics and users did not give it more 8 or 9s, despite the genius level design shown in many areas. Tools like open critics and meta critics allow us to get an idea of how a cultural product is generally received, obviously many don't agree, some people think Ruze Son of Rome is better Killzone:SF, they make arguments for it and all, I personally prefer this killzone:SF game over any Halo game.
Killzone:SF remains one of my favorite console FPS.
Dr. Kitty Muffins
Member
Sony really needs to take a fresh stab at the FPS genre.
Miggytronz
Member
is Boost Mode on PS5 doing anything for the game. Im thinking no.
I actually wouldnt mind a Remaster of it for PS5 and PC.
I actually wouldnt mind a Remaster of it for PS5 and PC.
Perrott
Member
60fps in the singleplayer campaign.