• 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

W

WordsintheWater

Member
Man-is-Obsolete said:
Exactly. But anyways, I am more concerned that people actually let these reviews affect their purchase decision. Why can't people form their own opinion? The media has been put on full blast the last couple of years, and now all of sudden we are supposed to take their reviews seriously?

If before yesterday the game looked good to you and like something you would enjoy, don't return it because Author Gies gave it a 5/10, or because the Metacritic is at a 74. First off, a 74 isn't even a bad game, secondly it achieved a 74 despite people not playing MP. lol
Click to expand...

My younger brother is like that anything with a 7 or below he turns sour on, even if I play it first and tell him it's good. He thinks I'm just saying it cause I bought it. Right now reviews for Knack are terrible and I know it won't be a great game, but I enjoyed it at the kiosk so I went ahead and bought it anyways, I will judge on my own.
 
tfur

tfur

Member
I tell you what...

This game better suck in at least some congruent accordance to what some of these reviews portray.

I also find it a bit misguided for a reviewer to wholly recommend other technically broken games.

I am glad the twitch streaming will nullify the need for much of these guys.
 
A

alterno69

Banned
I'm watching an online MP stream and i can't believe this game is getting 4 and 5 out of 10 out there, that's for like stuff that's broken and shit, this looks just like Killzone MP always has. That's at least worth a 7 even if the SP was totally broken.
 
R

RedRedSuit

Member
Man-is-Obsolete said:
Exactly. But anyways, I am more concerned that people actually let these reviews affect their purchase decision. Why can't people form their own opinion?
Click to expand...

Because:

(1) I care primarily about single-player.

(2) Because the cost of "forming my own opinion" in this case is approximately $460 and a potential 10-15 hours of unpleasantness.

I really dislike this "form your own opinion" argument whenever it comes up. It isn't practical. Reviews exist for a reason.

And as for media being "blasted" over the past few years -- yes, they may be off by 5 points or so at times, but no game rated at 74 is really a 90 due to the moneyhatzzz.
 
N

nib95

Banned
WordsintheWater said:
I don't understand how you can properly review something that is heavily handicapped on one of its main components. They could have just reviewed singleplayer and then updated scores accordingly. If I am not mistaken Battlefield 4 has a 3 hour terrible campaign, but multiplayer is so good it elevated it to high scores. They should just change the review score after they have played the multiplayer extensively, you can't just play a few games and come to a conclusion about it.
Click to expand...

I agree. This will be a game that further puts the integrity of gaming journalism in to the fray, not even because of the scores, but because of the content and absolutely hap hazard and vapid nature of the review content. How can you omit to focus on the core component of a game? The multiplayer.

Games like BF4 offer a 3-4 hour linear campaign that is forgiven and rightly so, multiplayer is given the review focus. Games like Shadow Fall offer a 10+ hour semi open ended campaign that is lambasted, and the multiplayer largely ignored. Iinstead the game is reviewed almost solely on the SP, worse still, so much of the attention given to it's narrative. The SP campaign is admittedly more ambitious and content heavy than some of the most popular shooters, but that is not reason to gloss over the MP. It's bizarre.
 
graywolf323

graywolf323

Member
Derrick01 said:
Why is he reviewing this? Next USGamer will have me reviewing Jrpgs and shmups.
Click to expand...

USGamer also had Kat Bailey (another big RPG gamer) review Battlefield 4 (she gave it a 3.5/5) which like Parish reviewing Killzone seems like an odd choice

someone named Mike Williams reviewed Ghosts for them (not familiar with him) and gave it a 3/5
 
th4tguy

th4tguy

Member
Man-is-Obsolete said:
This is also the problem with Meta critic. A 2/5 translates to a 4/10, but a 2/5 should be weighted differently than a 4/10. They are two unique scales and the scoring is not as 1:1 as metacritic makes it.
Click to expand...

but 2/5 is equal to 40%.....It IS exactly the same thing. What shouldn't be the case is review outlets reviewing a game simply based off single player and only 3 hours of multiplayer at a hosted event.
 
T

timetokill

Banned
Mifune said:
Damn, Parish really hated it.

It's a pretty vague review though when it comes to gameplay. He just lists a bunch of gameplay conventions that pop up in the campaign and derides the game for resorting to cliches. There's very little in the way of specific criticism outside of the narrative description.
Click to expand...

I thought he was fairly specific enough about the gameplay stuff he didn't like. He spends several paragraphs on it... 5 at my count, just on a quick reglance.
 
MaximusPayne

MaximusPayne

Member
0oRQO5e.png




Good shot...
 
E

Eusis

Member
Man-is-Obsolete said:
This is also the problem with Meta critic. A 2/5 translates to a 4/10, but a 2/5 should be weighted differently than a 4/10. They are two unique scales and the scoring is not as 1:1 as metacritic makes it.
Click to expand...
Better than how they try to adapt letters at least, here it's just literally doubling and you get the same percentage as it were, but this kind of highlights the flaws with Metacritic trying to nail everyone like it were an actual science. A 2 out of 5 IS numerically the same as 4 out of 10, but review scores are more something you give out of FEELING, not something assigned by strapping gear on your head and measuring the responses a game gave then calculating that as the True Score.
twofold said:
Same. I thought he did a decent job of articulating why he didn't like the game.
Click to expand...
Yeah, people brought up the story focus but he DID more or less say "but who cares if the gameplay's good, right? It's a shooter!" And still wasn't very impressed.
 
C

Curufinwe

Member
twofold said:
Same. I thought he did a decent job of articulating why he didn't like the game.
Click to expand...

Their BF4 review uses a completely different approach. In that they talk about both components of the game, rather than completely ignoring one of them.

http://www.usgamer.net/articles/once-more-unto-the-mediocre-breach-a-battlefield-iv-review

As it is, the single-player continues to have relatively little of what I like most about Battlefield -- the huge, chaotic battles that define the multiplayer.

Thankfully, once the single-player is out of the way, Battlefield 4 largely finds its feet.
Click to expand...
 
M

Man-is-Obsolete

Member
RedRedSuit said:
Because:

(1) I care primarily about single-player.

(2) Because the cost of "forming my own opinion" in this case is approximately $460 and a potential 10-15 hours of unpleasantness.

I really dislike this "form your own opinion" argument whenever it comes up. It isn't practical. Reviews exist for a reason.

And as for media being "blasted" over the past few years -- yes, they may be off by 5 points or so at times, but no game rated at 74 is really a 90 due to the moneyhatzzz.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know man. If you were that flimsy on buying a console at launch perhaps March would have been a better time anyways. Besides you aren't spending $460 just to play Killzone, you are spending $400 to play games on a console for the next 10 years, and $60 to play killzone now. I also didn't mention moneyhats at all, but I also don't think a 74 is a bad congregate score. Games are getting reviewed much more harshly, for whatever reason, this past year so you might want to adjust your buying habits based on Metacritic, which is a terrible metric to base your purchase on anyways.
 
3

3rdamention

Member
I will play through the Killzone Single Player just for the fun. I look at it like a Roller Coaster Ride. It is a quick fun thrill, like when you go to a theme park. Even if a Roller Coaster is just "ok", you still ride it because it is still pretty fun. Or you see some other ride, it looks like it "might" be fun, but you ride it anyway.



So yeah, I am comparing Killzone to a Roller Coaster, lol. I know, I know, the game is $60 and for the same price, you get a ticket to a theme park and can ride lots of different rides. Well, I am not buying Killzone for the "ok" or "might be fun" ride, I am buying it for the multiplayer.



Anyways, I, like probably a majority of the people on these forums, am buying Killzone for the multiplayer. The multiplayer was fantastic on Killzone 2, I was solid at it, and I am excited now for Killzone SF Multi. It is more like that Roller Coaster that is very fun, thrilling, and you ride it multiple times.


Ok, I am done here lol...
 
R

RedRedSuit

Member
Man-is-Obsolete said:
Well, I don't know man. If you were that flimsy on buying a console at launch perhaps March would have been a better time anyways. Besides you aren't spending $460 just to play Killzone, you are spending $400 to play games on a console for the next 10 years, and $60 to play killzone now. I also didn't mention moneyhats at all, but I also don't think a 74 is a bad congregate score. Games are getting reviewed much more harshly, for whatever reason, this past year so you might want to adjust your buying habits based on Metacritic, which is a terrible metric to base your purchase on anyways.
Click to expand...

- It's not a "terrible" metric. It's certainly better than nothing or "I thought the previews and GIFs looked good!". Disregarding a game with a rating like this is a very practical decision.

- Fair point about it not being $460. Okay, let's knock it down to $60. Point stands.

- 74 is a just-slightly-above-average aggregate score, assuming the reviews in question appear to be legitimate. Think of the average game out there... it's not very good.
 
J

Jonathan28

Banned
Shadow Fall's Metascore is 74? I can't say I'm surprised, I've personally never been a fan of the series, it just doesn't do it for me.

I have actually been really surprised at the attention Shadow Fall has been getting since it was announced, I never saw people on the internet give the series this much attention before. I was expecting more of the same, though being a launch title may explain why.

Also, are people really asking for a gaming site to be banned for giving a game they haven't even played themselves a low score? Bloody hell...
 
R

RedRedSuit

Member
Jonathan28 said:
Shadow Fall's Metascore is 74? I can't say I'm surprised, I've personally never been a fan of the series, it just doesn't do it for me.
Click to expand...

That isn't a lack of surprise. That is "I am glad reviews now -- but not before -- agree with me."

I have actually been really surprised at the attention Shadow Fall has been getting since it was announced, I never saw people on the internet give the series this much attention before.
Click to expand...

Killzone 2 was hugely hyped. (It delivered.)
 
V

velociraptor

Junior Member
Man-is-Obsolete said:
Games are getting reviewed much more harshly, for whatever reason, this past year so you might want to adjust your buying habits based on Metacritic, which is a terrible metric to base your purchase on anyways.
Click to expand...
That does seem to be the case:

COD Ghosts - 72
Batman Arkham Origins - 74
Battlefield 4 - 83
 
N

nib95

Banned
I will say this, I'm fairly confident the SP in Shadow Fall is going to be ho hum. In that sense I do think GG need to move on to something else because they clearly lack the talent to get a decent story in the campaign etc, but the reason it pains me to say that is because I do not want to lose out on the multiplayer.

Only reason I really play these games is the multiplayer. As I've said many times, KZ2's multiplayer was the second best I've ever played, second only to Counter Strike Sources. And honestly, already Shadow Fall's multiplayer looks considerably better and more balanced, than KZ3's, which was still decent, just not up to KZ2's standards. So that is a big thing.

It's a shame that because of a lacklustre SP campaign, KZ fans may lose out on the franchise and lose out on what is some of the best multiplayer in gaming.
 
N

nelsonroyale

Member
graywolf323 said:
USGamer just put up their review written by Jeremy Parish (formerly of 1UP fame)

http://www.usgamer.net/articles/killzone-shadow-fall-review-setting-a-low-bar-for-ps4-shooters

seems pretty overly harsh to me
Click to expand...

Decent incoherent rant, pretty shocking review. Firstly, the writing was amateurish, but most of the criticisms he levels are 'generic', a word he bandies about ad absurdum.

Narrow range of similar looking foes? Sounds like a criticism that can be levelled at most FPS out there not called Bioshock Infinite. It is a pity if they haven't included more combat against the flying drones and mechs etc.

Weak gunplay that lacks impact? Remains to be seen, but I have always found the gunplay in KZ has a good sense of weight. Probably my fave along with crysis.

Cliched narrative? No doubt this is most likely accurate, but I have yet to play a FPS with a really good story. HL2 had a decent story well told, but that's about it.

The game might be as weak as he indicates, but I think the grade he gives is more appropriate for the quality of his review.
 
V

velociraptor

Junior Member
nib95 said:
I will say this, I'm fairly confident the SP in Shadow Fall is going to be ho hum. In that sense I do think GG need to move on to something else because they clearly lack the talent to get a decent story in the campaign etc, but the reason it pains me to say that is because I do not want to lose out on the multiplayer.

Only reason I really play these games is the multiplayer. As I've said many times, KZ2's multiplayer was the second best I've ever played, second only to Counter Strike Sources. And honestly, already Shadow Fall's multiplayer looks considerably better and more balanced, than KZ3's, which was still decent, just not up to KZ2's standards. So that is a big thing.

It's a shame that because of a lacklustre SP campaign, KZ fans may lose out on the franchise and lose out on what is some of the best multiplayer in gaming.
Click to expand...
It doesn't really matter - how far can this franchise really go? There isn't really much scope for development with Killzone. It's always going to be an ISA vs Helghast skirmish. I don't think most people care about the lore.
 
L

Lord Error

Insane For Sony
StoppedInTracks said:
LOL, ok the game might be bad (KZ3 was bad) but not 4/10 bad.

That is a bit ridiculous. Polygon was trying to be edgy with 5/10. 4/10 from Parish is just too much.
Click to expand...
I'm about to complete KZ3 now, and I'd give it 6/10. It's seriously unsatisfying in many ways - the story and characters go out of their way to annoy you (worse than in KZ2), visuals are kind of messy and uninspired (compared to KZ2) 90% of the time, but while you actually play it, it's still a fun game where enemies jump from cover to cover, shooting feels great, MAWLR battle was fun and looked great etc.

I honestly can't see KZSF being worse than 3, it just looks far more interesting and inspired on both visual and gameplay front what with the OWL and mini sandbox environments. I fuly expect the story and characters to be the bottom of the barrel suck again, but there's only so much detriment you can put on that.
 
D

Derrick01

Banned
Odrion said:
What did Origins do that City didn't? What same things did Origins do better?
Click to expand...

Why does it have to do things that City didn't? City was a game that got a 95 on metacritic but 1 game similar to it is bad when yearly franchises get passes for it every year?

As for what it did better: Combat was faster paced and they added a new fun enemy to fight. The boss fights were on average better than City's (although nothing as good as Freeze). The side quests were MUCH better. The story was a thousand times better than both AA and AC. The detective mode was improved slightly.
 
I

IcyEyes

Member
graywolf323 said:
I just gave it a closer read and I agree with you

I like Parish but this is a bad review, he complains about lack of moral choices? brings up stuff like Bioshock and hates that you don't have a non-lethal option? wtf Jeremy
Click to expand...

That is my "problem" with reviews like this. It's not the score (I have *loved* games with very low metascores), it's about the reasons why the reviewer thinks the game is bad or good.

I mean for me it's the same if a reviewer writes: "Killzone! Graphics! 10 !" or "Killzone, Shooter, meh, 4".
 
tfur

tfur

Member
I wonder how the lack of auto aim is effecting some of these reviewers.

After watching the GameRadar twitch of Knack, its clear the difficulty was affecting their view.

Also, I don't see how you can compare COD, KZ and Battlefield. These are all quite different games even though FPS.
 
F

Fun Factor

Formerly FTWer
Curufinwe said:
Their BF4 review uses a completely different approach. In that they talk about both components of the game, rather than completely ignoring one of them.

http://www.usgamer.net/articles/once-more-unto-the-mediocre-breach-a-battlefield-iv-review
Click to expand...

To be fair, the Multiplayer in BF4 kicks the living shit out of Killzone 4's.

24 players vs. 64 players.
Relatively tiny small maps vs. huge massive maps in epic scale.
Tons or vehicles, tanks jets & ships vs. none whatsoever.
Full destructibility vs limited destructibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The Outlast Trials | Review Thread
Community Analysis Review
3
787
Bartski replied
Foamstars | Review Thread
44
3K
havoc00 replied
  • Poll
Hellblade 2 | Review Thread
Analysis Review 50 51 52 53 54
3K
123K
BigLee74 replied
Another Crab's Treasure | Review Thread
Analysis Review
14
2K
Orbital2060 replied
Homeworld 3 | Review Thread
Analysis Review
22
2K
amigastar replied
Top Bottom