Typomancer
Neo Member
I agree. Just makes me want to play the game myself. Jeffs situational awareness in the game is close to zero, he makes little use of the OWL just sort of sucked watching them play to be honest.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Killzone Shadow Fall Review Thread
- Thread starter Pandemic
- Start date
I agree. Just makes me want to play the game myself. Jeffs situational awareness in the game is close to zero, he makes little use of the OWL just sort of sucked watching them play to be honest.
ThisWreckage
Banned
Click bait garbage from a site that openly took cash from Microsoft and is headed by a troll that backs out of bets and leaks NDAs to others? Fuck yes it should be banned.
Commanche Raisin Toast
Member
I'm with you.
What's mind bottling is just how much they've cleaned up, revamped, and refocused the overall look and feel of KZ in this game, yet that seems to be glossed over in a lot of these reviews.
No more boring ISA (sorry it's true), the shadow marshal actually seems like an awesome thing to play as, the enemy designs have improved ten fold, Rico is gone, the weapon designs are better than they've ever been, the MP has been refocused and looks amazing...
And combined with how awesome Mercenaries was, it seems like the series got a second wind and a second chance to prove itself. Plenty other series have refused to change and get great scores regardless.
biggersmaller
Banned
I'm ignorant on this whole Polygon issue. Can someone please clarify? Is there evidence to justify a ban?
I don't typically read reviews and really rely more on community reactions (GAF). So I don't care - but am curious.
I don't typically read reviews and really rely more on community reactions (GAF). So I don't care - but am curious.
There are only 18 Critics in that review, I would rather wait until there is atleast double that to form an opinion thats relative to the others
BotoxAgent
Member
yes and yes
So basically the 'gaming press' reviewed the game without truly testing out one of the best parts, something the series is renowned for (yes, Killzone 2's multiplayer was awe-inspiring, shut it haters)?
Why am I not surprised? Haha, Battlefield/COD gets a pass for their shitty ass campaigns because they have great multi (in BF's case) and popular multi (in COD's case), but KZ gets hated for because some didn't like the campaign? Yet didn't even go in depth on the multiplayer?
This is what we fucking get when we listen to a bunch of posers that get locked in hotels for a day or two to hurriedly review a game. I honestly feel sorry for anyone who gives a damn what most of these hacks say. There are so few good journalists in gaming that it's pointless to even read reviews anymore in most cases.
Can I add a 'fuck yes' amen to yours, sir?
Colonel Nasty
Member
They had the best PS4 review on the net. But you also think Monte Ellis is good so clearly you let biases cloud your judgement. Hey-O
RedRedSuit
Member
It was solid... but a bit uninspired. On paper it ticked the same boxes, but the intensity was lacking. Perhaps the plentiful ammo boxes and less stark visual design and reduced tactical options explain it. It was worth playing at the time, but the only battles I remember fondly were the larger ones in the snow. On the other hand I remember everything about KZ2.
In the end, KZ2 felt like a tough, difficult slog through the battles of a real war, whereas KZ3 was more of the usual CoD-style rollercoaster, where it's more you being taken for a ride than accomplishing something.
I don't understand the reasoning for why you believe that it would be judged more harshly. I think Playstation exclusives are generally judged quite fairly. Perhaps it's just that KZ4, like all of its predecessors, simply is a series that ranges from mediocre to pretty good. And in this launch window KZ4 finds itself in a predicament because it's going up against the two strongest multiplayer shooter franchises in gaming.
Naughty Dog seems to be doing just fine with their reviews despite this supposed bias. I guess it helps when your studio has the talent to churn out GOTY candidates constantly.
super-famicom
Member
Same here, I loved KZ2 MP. And as far as FPS SP campaign being "stale or unoriginal" goes, the only single player campaigns I've played this generation are Modern Warfare, Modern Warfare 2, Black Ops, maybe 1/4 of BF3, and Killzone 2. I really enjoyed each of those campaigns (minus BF3, that was terrible) and I haven't played enough FPS to develop fatigue over it, so I know I will enjoy Shadow Fall's campaign and will spend a lot of time playing the MP.
That's how I've felt about the KZ games I played. It's an average series that gets AAA treatment because of it's general narrative in the gaming world. It never holds my attention but always gets my money.
NOT THIS TIME
I THINK
mickcenary
Member
Mannnnn. I hate this. I hate this. It just seems like a massive injustice to review such a game without a decent emphasis on its MP component. That would leave 90% of AAA shooters with shitty scores.
NullPointer
Member
KZ3 starts off well enough, but ends like a wet fart.
KZ2 was more memorable, more unique and had a much more powerful presentation across the board.
Have you? Because yes I have.
ThisWreckage
Banned
You're wrong. The things Shadow Fall was criticized for and what made points get deducted are exactly the bullet points that others games are either a) praised for or b) mysteriously ignored. When was the last time Halo, Call of Duty, or Battlefield added any innovation whatsoever? It's wash, rinse, and repeat for ALL of these games. It's what makes a fps a fps in this industry.
I see a lot of these comments in the thread. As far as I'm concerned, a game being 'average' or getting critically average reviews from some news sites does not constitute a reason for any publisher to stop funding a development studio. Gorilla Games provides a decent 'go to' experience for Sony launch hardware. It seems as though the game is not 'bad,' but rather, the mileage varies from 'average' to 'great' depending on who is playing.
Does a game have to be 'blow your socks off awesome' to justify its own existence? I don't think so, anyway.
In my opinion, this is a good thing. Let's hope it continues on and is applied across the board - gaming culture, both media and consumers, need to adhere to at least basic standards of aesthetic quality when it comes to assessing a given game.
Originally it was supposed to be a Halo-killer, then that didn't pan out and with KZ2 it was the graphical tour de force for the PS3. It was an interesting game with shooting mechanics (particularly aiming acceleration on the thumbsticks) that made me really appreciate what IW had done with Modern Warfare a year earlier. And then Uncharted 2 came out about 6 months after KZ2 and managed to exceed KZ2 on a technical level, while also delivering one of the best action-adventure games of all time.
I think Sony was smart to put KZ4 at launch because Guerilla always deliver great graphics, but are never going to be the studio to evolve shooters into whatever they'll become over the next few years. It's unfortunate for them to have to compete with BF4 & Ghosts, but that's a comparison that wouldn't be any easier if KZ4 was coming in 2014 instead.
-MD-
Member
According to who lol?
Makes sense.
A good game vs Killzone 4. Should be higher tbh.
Appollowexx
Member
Reviews are lower than expected.
I have a soft spot for Killzone though. I love the art direction, the lore, the weapons - the Helgast are some of the coolest enemy designs ever. The story seems like it will be a real change of pace and the campaign is reportedly quite lengthy.
Multiplayer should be good fun.
The soundtrack seems amazing.
I'm going to get a copy packed in with my PS4 so I'll try it for myself.
I have a soft spot for Killzone though. I love the art direction, the lore, the weapons - the Helgast are some of the coolest enemy designs ever. The story seems like it will be a real change of pace and the campaign is reportedly quite lengthy.
Multiplayer should be good fun.
The soundtrack seems amazing.
I'm going to get a copy packed in with my PS4 so I'll try it for myself.
TheBaronOfNA
Banned
RedRedSuit
Member
If the gaming press were to actually do their jobs, they would call out Sony for having such a shitty launch lineup.
All of those studios worldwide and they couldn't properly plan or come up with anything better than another Killzone for PS4 launch.
Sony Santa Monica should have been working on a PS4 launch title 2-3 years ago instead of milking the tit dry on another God of War game (Ascension).
All of those studios worldwide and they couldn't properly plan or come up with anything better than another Killzone for PS4 launch.
Sony Santa Monica should have been working on a PS4 launch title 2-3 years ago instead of milking the tit dry on another God of War game (Ascension).
BadlyCookedTurkey
Member
MP has been the best bit about Killzone since the first game in the franchise. (Even though PS2 online community was tiny)
Seems really stupid to review an FPS when you have played like 2 or 3 games of multiplayer.
Looking forward to actually hearing about the multiplayer from online players.
Seems really stupid to review an FPS when you have played like 2 or 3 games of multiplayer.
Looking forward to actually hearing about the multiplayer from online players.
-MD-
Member
RedRedSuit
Member
Kind of, yeah.
disastermouse
Banned
OK, it isn't a 2013 Halo launch-game-wise. I still can't wait to play it. 8 isn't bad for a launch game, but I do worry that Forza and KI will be better launch games (Ryse is meh, but journos are going to inflate scores because it can't be as bad as it's expected to be).
Warframe may take up more of my MP time if I can't get into KZ MP.
Warframe may take up more of my MP time if I can't get into KZ MP.
ThisWreckage
Banned
Do some research. Santa Monica has two teams and one team has been working on a title since early 2010. Ascension was created by their B team.
NullPointer
Member
Count me in on that action.
Just gave a friend my old PS3 with some best of's for the generation and had zero issues with Killzone 2 being one of the highlights.
reynal1287
Member
I respect other peoples reviews/opinions, but why this kotaku guy gets to review the game when obviously he doesn't like anything about the killzone series or cares about it http://kotaku.com/there-s-a-small-chance-i-could-care-about-killzone-sha-514132084 or lolgies who hates the series. I agree that the game is a love it or hate it game and that the story isn't that good, but Cod got a NOT YET and kz got a NO. Different reviewers i know but still a joke since cod is doing the same thing from last year.
sleeping_dragon
Banned
Dat American biased! How on earth did COD ghost get higher score than this? Well I know, its because is made by an American companies and reviews by Americans gaming so-called journalists who couldn't differentiate between a 720P and a 1080P version of the same game.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
I am noticing a lot of people saying polygon isn't worth trusting because of their sim city review. But I checked that today on their site and it had updated their score (after all the problems with live servers) several times. And even though the game works pretty well now (last I played a month ago) they still have it scored at only a 6.5. So what exactly is polygon at fault for? For trusting that the game they reviewed would be the game at release? Even if you blame them for that, they changed their score which is also in line with their review policy (looked at that today as well).
Regarding KZSF, I think it is getting some shaft because of the newness of the next generation. People don't know what to expect. If their mind isn't blown they'll score lower than perhaps a few months ago. But score isn't everything anyway. In fact, it is just a glance at how good a game is imo. Gotta pay more attention to the issues the reviewer had and less with the number.
Regarding KZSF, I think it is getting some shaft because of the newness of the next generation. People don't know what to expect. If their mind isn't blown they'll score lower than perhaps a few months ago. But score isn't everything anyway. In fact, it is just a glance at how good a game is imo. Gotta pay more attention to the issues the reviewer had and less with the number.
What game have they been working on since 2010? The Order? That's not coming out until late next year right? So 4 years they've been working on something? Thats like MMO development time.
Stabby McSter
Member
Has any review compared it to Killzone: Mercenary? It's the only Killzone that I've played besides the first one, and I really enjoyed it.
But that doesn't really address his main point.
He's saying that Sony Santa Monica should have had a launch title.
They didn't.
So whether or not they've been working on something since 2010 with their A-team is irrelevant, because they still didn't plan properly (in his view).
Nobody publically knows what their other game is yet, but it's not The Order. That's Ready at Dawn. SSM just helps here and there.
Triggerhappytel
Member
Backs out of bets and leaks NDAs? What does this mean?
Monty Mole
Member
Are you referring to a specific review, or a grand conspiracy theory about all reviewers in the industry who have come up with the insidious plan to unfairly knock Killzone and pump up Halo, CoD, and BF? How clever of them to have all given Naughty Dog's games great reviews to keep us from discovering the plot to undermine Sony's first party games. And it's even more fiendish that they gave Ghosts lower scores that prior entries in the series for exactly the reasons that you're saying they've ignored.
I won't try to defend Ghosts, but in the case of Battlefield, you're wrong. It's in many ways similar to its predecessors in the fact that it's still 64p multiplayer with tanks, jets, heli's, squads, and four classes. But it's by far the most refined form of that type of multiplayer, and with maps (with the exception of one) that actually were designed for 64 players.
You can't look at reviews merely in comparison to their predecessors, but to the genre as a whole. I suspect that a big part of Ghosts' scores were the result of it coming out a week after BF4 and not comparing favorably against its rival. And then KZ4 comes along and many reviewers seem to have played it and thought "hmmm, this is even worse than Ghosts, so I can't score it higher."
Whilst a nice concept I doubt very much scoring standards have somehow jumped a notch at the start of this generation. The faults of this game seem to be universal shortcomings, boiling down to the fact that parts of the campaign are simply not much fun. It's more plausible that the shiny new graphics have the opposite effect of making the flaws easier to overlook, and the same game in current gen clothing would be judged more harshly.
Either way, the resounding impression is a mediocre game and a big disappointment following the hype. I'll form my own opinions in due course, but in the meantime Battlefield 4 will get my money instead.
ThisWreckage
Banned
I am referring to Polygon. Do not be obtuse.
Arthur Gies made a bet with a GAFer. He lost the bet. He then never returned to GAF and never paid up.
Evilore also called him officially the most untrustworthy person in the games industry or some thing like that after one particular incident involving Notch.
nelsonroyale
Member
Crysis 2 was pretty poor. Easily the most disappointing sequel I played this gen. And Crysis was my favourite FPS.
TheBaronOfNA
Banned
Somehow I doubt that is worst than Ghosts.