• 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: Mercenary Reviews Thread

I can't speak for any other outlet, but those were two reviews by two different reviewers. They didn't come at the games with the same experiences, same personal likes and dislikes, same eye for judging a game's elements, same hopes for what the game might do right.

A score, if it is anything, is one person's judgement of a game given their experience with that game, and relative to that game. I gave the original Persona 3 a 9.5 (if I remember correctly), and I gave The Last of Us a 9.5. That doesn't mean they're on the exact same level of quality, because that's an utterly impossible comparison to make. That means, when looking at each game as an individual experience, if 0 is the worst judgement I can pass, 5.0 is average, and 10 is excellent, each accomplished what they set out to accomplish enough, and engrossed me into their worlds enough, that I thought the experience was worth that score.

I think it's impossible to have any scoring system where you can directly compare the scores for two different things, because there's so many variables in what each game is about and what it's trying to do.




Two different reviewers. Reviewers aren't robots who all come at reviewing a game from the exact same perspective.

Then why assign a score if not to normalize the review alongside the gamut of other reviews? Why assign a score at all then? When I took exams In college I consistently scored in a certain range with a few exceptions that generally were attributable to the proportion of effort and time I spent studying, and to a lesser to extent if the instructor who graded my exam appreciated what I had to say.

Reviewing games is certainly not the same, but there are parallels to be drawn between academia and art/entertainment criticism.

I've asked several different professors about the quality of a particular piece of work I've done and gotten slightly different responses based on, as you say, what the beholder is looking for in a particular piece of work. The professor never questioned the validity of my work's existence, only the level of creativity, comprehensiveness and entertainment it provides. The professors surely had their own personal, subjective opinions about my work, but the focused more on grading me for how I accomplished what I set out to do, the standards I either attempted to meet, exceed, or even change in some way.

I've read multiple reviews for Killzone that continually question the merit of the game's existence on a portable console because their expectations for portable games run contrary to what Killzone sets out to achieve. All standards for what makes a good game go out the window in favor or focusing on the platform the game is on. And in the end, we see a review with a lot of positive, a little negative, and then a rhetorical conclusion that asks 'why Sony even made the game,' which concludes the review, the game receiving a 6.

There simply must be standards by which critics must judge works of art and entertainment. Otherwise, there is no use for critics at all as we can all just chalk their experiences and thoughts about playing games to subjective musings and tunnel vision.

So if you are going to assign a score to a game, make sure you outline the standards that the game must meet to receive the score. And if you could care less about standards and just want to pen your thoughts about your playing experience, leave it as that and don't smear a perfectly good opinion with a numerical yardstick where the units used to measure constantly change, because that will simply confuse many readers and create pseudo benchmarks that are simply not accurate.

And by you, of course, I mean any and all who review video games. This is my personal opinion, and certainly not gospel.
 

mollipen

Member
Then why assign a score if not to normalize the review alongside the gamut of other reviews? Why assign a score at all then? When I took exams In college I consistently scored in a certain range with a few exceptions that generally were attributable to the proportion of effort and time I spent studying, and to a lesser to extent if the instructor who graded my exam appreciated what I had to say.

Okay, so let me try to explain a bit more about my personal feeling on all of this (and yes, this is my personal feeling on the matter).

When you took an exam in college, there was a very clearly defined way to judge how you did on it, right? If there were 10 questions and you got one wrong, there was nothing subjective about that result. Nine out of your ten answers were right, one was wrong. You could compare your grade on the exam to that of any other student because success or failure were tangible concepts.

I don't think that same way of thinking can be brought to reviewing entertainment. How does a movie succeed or fail? My opinion on Kill Bill was totally different than that of one of my friends. I loved the homage to Asian cinema and the characters; he thought it was nothing but a lazy Xeroxing of other movies. (To be fair, he was also pre-biased against Tarrantino.)

I'm not in any way saying that a score is some arbitrary number that gives no indication as to the quality of a game. What I'm saying is that I feel a score represents the success or failure of that particular game at doing what it's trying to do, and when we say that, for example, every 6.5 means that every game with that score is on the exact same quality level, you're getting into an impossible argument.

So I gave The Last of Us a 9.5, because I felt that for what it tried to do, it accomplished to a very high level. But what happens when The Last of Us 2 comes out? If it does just as good of a job as the original game did, but then improves on elements, wouldn't I then be forced to give it a 10 if we're saying every score is directly comparable to one another? And then if TLOU 3 hits, would I have to give it a 10.5?

I think that if we say that every game that gets a score is then on the exact same level in the entire history of games, you get into this maddening world where you have to rank every single game that comes out on a "better than" or "less than" scale. Is The Last of Us as a 9.5 better or worse than Persona 3? And is my next 9.5 better or worse than The Last of Us, and is it better or worse than Persona 3? And where does my next 9.5 fit on the hierarchy of those three games? And I previously gave Dark Souls a 9.5 - where does it then fit into that list?

The argument I'm making is better for games! Isn't it? I'm saying that every game should be judged on it's own merits, not in comparison to everything else out there. And nothing I'm saying diminishes the meaning of a score in any way. A 0 still means the game failed. A 5 still means it was an average experience. A 10 still means it was excellent.

Would a 5-star hamburger and a 5-star French dish be the exact same eating experience? They're both obviously excellent, because each earned five stars for what they are. But you can't really say that you'll have the exact same dining experience eating both simply because they got the exact same rating.

That's all I'm saying.
 

EatChildren

Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
I've heard it stated as fact that if you finish the campaign in under 5 hours you were playing on baby mode. Why are you playing on baby mode?

I'm playing on normal, because I'm usually fair poo at twin stick shooters, but in retrospect I should have upped to hard.
 
The argument I'm making is better for games! Isn't it? I'm saying that every game should be judged on it's own merits, not in comparison to everything else out there. And nothing I'm saying diminishes the meaning of a score in any way. A 0 still means the game failed. A 5 still means it was an average experience. A 10 still means it was excellent.


That's all I'm saying.

I agree, but does the general public? When they see a score, their natural inclination is to compare it to other scores. That is what we as humans do. You might be judging a game solely in its own merits within the vacuum of your play-session, which is very much a valid form of entertainment critique, but others might not be doing that, and that causes sites like Metacritic to falsely report a particular consensus on a video game that is based on very different review methodology.

So again, for sites and publications that don't weigh scores directly against other games in a similar category and time period released, it's likely best to just avoid the score altogether and just skip the aggregation curve.

Unfortunately, the popularity of sites like Metacritic and Gamerankings will make sure that doesn't happen; Most reviewers will continue to put out scores to be averaged.

I personally think that a shift to a Rotten Tomatoes style of aggregation is necessary, where a score is given based on the number of reviewers who gave a game a favorable review, rather than giving a normalized average.
 

mollipen

Member
So again, for sites and publications that don't weigh scores directly against other games in a similar category and time period released, it's likely best to just avoid the score altogether and just skip the aggregation curve.

Let me ask this: should Saints Row IV and Grand Theft Auto V have their scores directly weighed against one another? They're technically in a similar category, and definitely a similar time period, but the end experience is very, very different, as is the goal of each.
 
Let me ask this: should Saints Row IV and Grand Theft Auto V have their scores directly weighed against one another? They're technically in a similar category, and definitely a similar time period, but the end experience is very, very different, as is the goal of each.

When you ignore the semantics and slight differences in gameplay mechanics, the two games really don't have such different goals.

But it isn't the game that should determine if the score should be weighted, it is the reviewer.

For example, if I am reviewing a game and I want to have my review weighted against others, I would avoid myself entirely from the picture and just focus and each aspect of the game and how well it accomplishes what it wants to do, rather than the overall impression the game has on me personally.

Graphics and art design, gameplay mechanics, replayablity, sound design, and quality of narrative are all categories I've noticed having slowly eroded away in reviews, replaced by things that stood out to the reviewer and the general impression a game left on them.

That's fine, great even. It allows for some creative writing that expresses so much more than just a breakdown of the sum of a game's parts. The problem is the review score is still tacked on the end, a relic of a more scientific, methodical, and impersonal style of reviewing games that hasn't made its stage left exit.

Just stick to either of these review styles to give readers an effective summary of whether a game is good or not, but mixing the two often leaves readers wondering why there is a disconnect between the written piece and the score.

Some folks want a mechanical breakdown of a game, and others want to be engrossed in the author's own experience playing the game. A good review publication will remain consistent in their style and will inform the reader of their goal in reviewing the game.
 
Review scores don't surprise me one bit.

Lots of great reviews, and ho-hum reviews from people that seemingly don't care about handheld gaming.

Totally expected, but whatever. Beta was amazing. Getting this day one.
 
Official PlayStation Magazine UK:

Killzone Mercenary - 70

Resistance Burning Skies - 80


Polygon:

Killzone Mercenary - 6

Resistance Burning Skies - 6.5


EGM:

Killzone Mercenary - 6.5

Resistance Burning Skies - 6.5


Video Gamer:

Killzone Mercenary - 6

Resistance Burning Skies - 6


I don't get it.

Have you stopped for a moment to think that perhaps this game is as bad as Resistance behind the pretty graphics?
 

Laughing Banana

Weeping Pickle
Who is that dude talking down on Killzones art, like seriously. Look at my DP, i drew it so yes i can talk about art more than you ever will and if you had half a brain, it should not be difficult for you to tell which art took much effort to bring to life.
Also wassup with these inconsistent reviews, its actually getting under my skin

The seriousness of this whole review business really can bring the worst out of people, huh.
 
Except for Eurogamer, I don't know the first 26 review sites in the OP. Lots of high scores, which doesn't reflect what I've been hearing.
 
I've played the beta and no sane person could say that with a straight face.

Ill say it. The vita sticks are too loose so aiming inst great and the lack of extra four buttons totally shows. Its fairly average. I don't think it should get extra praise if its the just the most competent handheld fps. Looks great though.
 
It still doesn't really make any sense. Animal Crossing Art direction is absolutely awful. it looks like a cheap iOS game. Entirely uninspired on virtually every angel when it comes to it's art direction. The only unique and interesting looking things in the game are objects from other games.

Graphically, the game is extremely lackluster and doesn't push the 3DS in any way really. Yet here it scores the same... It's just kinda odd. I'm not arguing any of the reviews, but KZM is a landmark in handheld graphics. It's basically the Crysis of the handheld world.

... are you judging it solely off that screenshot? Have you seen the game in action? The "rolling world" design is very unique to the series. The things they've done with the terrain this time around look great. Everything just screams charming. Its definitely not awful and its silly to say it looks like a "cheap iOS game" or is "entirely uninspired on virtually every angle". You're being a little rash here.

Bwwojlu.jpg
 
Ignore all reviews and judge for yourself, this goes for all games. Look at gameplay, play a demo or beta (knowing that it is a beta and wont be perfect because its a beta). Use reviews for information like how many maps there are etc. Consider what actual people who played it have to say and know that what u like someone else may hate and vice versa. To many problems with reviewers both overhyping and giving good games bad score.
 

nib95

Banned

adin75

Member
Because length is equal to quality. Right.

No, and thankfully my wife agrees ;)

I personally am loving this game, the campaign is fun and I will no doubt play it multiple times. The multi is a hell of a lot of fun, my only gripe with it is team balancing, 1v4 matches are not so enjoyable.
 
I just did the math on review averages on Metacritic, 41 reviews as of now, and the score is just straight up wrong. The current average should be 81, not 77. Does Metacritic not average in all the scores?
 

i-zombie

Neo Member
Not all reviews are weighted equally on Metacritic. A review from Edge or IGN is more influential on the score than PushSquare for example, but Metacritic has not revealed it's algorithm.
 
Ignore all reviews and judge for yourself, this goes for all games. Look at gameplay, play a demo or beta (knowing that it is a beta and wont be perfect because its a beta). Use reviews for information like how many maps there are etc. Consider what actual people who played it have to say and know that what u like someone else may hate and vice versa. To many problems with reviewers both overhyping and giving good games bad score.

Well said.

I've said it before game reviews are hurting the industry.
 

GrizzNKev

Banned
How is it that some of you have been following video games for most of your lives and still don't realize that reviews don't mean shit?

Stop stooping to the level of self-important attention hogs. Buy the game if you think it's cool, and don't if you don't.
 

Wario64

works for Gamestop (lol)
I hope the game gets good scores so that it gets a good Metacritic so that the developers get money so that they can feed their families
 

Lesiroth

Member
Ignore all reviews and judge for yourself, this goes for all games. Look at gameplay, play a demo or beta (knowing that it is a beta and wont be perfect because its a beta). Use reviews for information like how many maps there are etc. Consider what actual people who played it have to say and know that what u like someone else may hate and vice versa. To many problems with reviewers both overhyping and giving good games bad score.

I wonder how much weight they're giving to Nowgamer.
Hopefully none.
 
As someone who played and reviewed it. No it isn't. Not at all.

Well I don't know man, I'm just going off by most of the reviews so far. I'm really expecting EatChildren's review on the game though, I generally share his taste, minus Mass Effect.
 

Tygamr

Member
You know, the biggest issue with Metacritic is it seemingly doesn't account for outliers. They do give various websites different weights, but they don't seem to change the weight if the website has an opinion that is, well, 'out there'. If a site with a lot of weight gives a game a 6, and every other site reviews it at an 8 or higher, that 6 skews the average.
 

LAA

Member
Ha ha, all I can do is shake my head in disbelief. The KZ:Beta was already infinitely better than resistance. I played the demo of resistance once and that's it.

I'll tell you this too, I bet COD will be getting 9/10 from these same reviewers despite, IMO, being one of the least innovative games out there, and suddenly innovation wont matter then. Just the word innovation always brings me back to that DTOID review of MK7 where it was "not innovative" but the same reviewer beloved MW3 was very innovative... Put me off DTOID for a while. You just have to learn to ignore the scores, which is probably the hardest for the devs, and just see what they say and if you feels there's contradictions to what you felt playing the beta and make your mind up from there. Sad too, KZM seemed the most innovative too compared to previous games in the series.
 
Ha ha, all I can do is shake my head in disbelief. The KZ:Beta was already infinitely better than resistance. I played the demo of resistance once and that's it.

I'll tell you this too, I bet COD will be getting 9/10 from these same reviewers despite, IMO, being one of the least innovative games out there, and suddenly innovation wont matter then. Just the word innovation always brings me back to that DTOID review of MK7 where it was "not innovative" but the same reviewer beloved MW3 was very innovative... Put me off DTOID for a while. You just have to learn to ignore the scores, which is probably the hardest for the devs, and just see what they say and if you feels there's contradictions to what you felt playing the beta and make your mind up from there. Sad too, KZM seemed the most innovative too compared to previous games in the series.

This x 1000.

And people wonder why Killzone Shadow Fall is now more CODish...
 
IGN has praised contracts mode and multiplayer but says campaign is short. Overall, i think 8 is a pretty good score for Killzone: Mercenary.

IGN 8/10

Mercenary is a truly great shooter, one that was crafted with the hardcore shooter fan in mind. There’s a lot to love here -- even if its campaign is woefully short – from its deep Contracts mode to its engaging multiplayer functionality.
 
I thought IGN's review came at it in a way that I agreed with. The campaign is short, but the replayability is high, which I'm totally okay with. If each of the nine missions can be replayed in three specific ways, then the game is really more like 15-20 hrs for a completionist and that's before you get into playing the multiplayer...which is honestly why I'll be picking this up anyway.

I don't have the full game or anything...just a lot of hours sunk into the Beta...so I can't say that some of the lower scores are wrong, but I will say that Sony could've released the Beta as a full product and it would've been better than Resistance Burning Skies or CoD Black Ops Declassified.
 
Top Bottom