velociraptor
Junior Member
Uh.... those things that you have mentioned don't necessarily make a game more fun.
-
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
That's fine. It still needs to be discussed in the review.
Stack rankings? Maybe reviewers already used up all their high scores on Bioshock:Infinite, Last of Us and GTA V, and now have to meet their quota on lower scored games.
Ships? You cant drive ships in BF4. You can drive boats and jet ski's but not the big ass ships, they're just spawn points.
Admittedly being on a console and played with a controller "no auto aim" does translate to me as "give me a mouse, thanks." Even with the DS4's improved sticks it's a pain relative to pointers or mice.
Battlefield 4's multiplayer (on the PC) is an objectively a better game than any Killzone. That's not even up for debate. Technical issues not withstanding, it's an amazing game. I have a PS4 with KZ:SF arriving tomorrow, and I'm sure I'll enjoy it, but Battlefield 4 is in an entirely different league. No other shooter does it what it does in multiplayer.
What the hell, none of those things necessarily make a MP game great. Did Counter Strike Source have vehicles and destructibility? No. Did Modern Warfare? No. The quality of a multiplayer game is not by the numbers. It's about the feel, the balance, the maps, the weapons, general tactility and feedback and so on. Killzone has some of the best gunplay and skill based shooting there is in any shooter full stop. That's what makes it's multiplayer so appealing.
Jonathan28
Banned
Haha true.
I heard KIllzone 2 was good, I haven't played it yet, I might since it should be really cheap now. I still need to play the Dragon Age games first though.
Should've been an A.
RedRedSuit
Member
In other words, it's a subjective opinion about which you feel quite strongly.
GhostWriter24
Member
I give Killzone 4:
7 Pink Unicorns out of 4 and a half Buffalo Nickels
7 Pink Unicorns out of 4 and a half Buffalo Nickels
fuzzyreactor
Banned
lol, i love how people convince themselves that their opinion is some objective fact
Yeah, have to agree on this. Some of the most fun I've ever had in online shooters has been small maps with no vehicles.
Jonathan28
Banned
They can only use their "Citizen Kane of Gaming" card 3 times a year. Sucks for those other games I guess.
I've noticed it too. One possible explanation.
This year brought us some real gems earlier on. Bioshock Infinite, TLoU, and GTAV all in succession. I know people going on about how those games "ruined other games" by being too good is eye-roll inducing, but I feel there may be some truth to it. Notice how many reviews focus on the narrative lately. Before, it used to be who gives a fuck about the story in games. Now, bad storytelling could potentially ruin the experience because new expectations have been set.
I'm not saying that all games need a good story now, I'm only using that as one sample aspect. But I think it's possible that in the eyes of many (including reviewers), a lot of games that would previous be considered acceptable now feel like cheap imitations.
Was better than the last two Halo games, so fair enough.
The review feels like a list of instances in the game that he didn't like. Or nitpicks. That somehow add up to a review. So in that sense, yes there are specifics. But there's no sense of how the game plays or how it feels or how challenging or immersive it is. Just a list of things he doesn't like.
As for the overall picture, he just says it's made up of a bunch of elements that have been done before better. Well you can damn any game with broad strokes like this if you want to. That's not good criticism. What if I barely play FPS games and am intrigued by this one because of its look and setting? Will I really care if it fails to measure up to other games in the genre? It feels like very lazy, rushed writing.
Compare it to Sessler's rather negative review. That review gives an excellent impression of both the overall flow of the game as well as its mechanics. He doesn't just compare it to Far Cry or Halo and say it doesn't measure up.
RedRedSuit
Member
I will say that the "games are ruined" effect applies to me.
I just finished Far Cry 3 on PC and found that game amazing. So open, yet with such solid and varied gunplay... so many gameplay possibilities, excellent integration of stealth. It makes it difficult going back to a strictly linear "experience" type of FPS. Sometimes it's easy to just get jaded.
(Similarly, I used to enjoy Star Trek for what it was, but after something like Battlestar Galactica it just because too laughable to watch, due to how limited and basic it was.)
However, I don't think that explains away these types of reviews in this case. I think this one might just be a dud -- way too much vitriol for it to not be the case.
TGO
Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
This
And for example using the post above, I think Far Cry 3 is boring and not very good as an FPS, yet loads of people love it.
Shame they aren't releasing a demo for people to try.
IISANDERII
Member
I'm really only interested in multiplayer and some of those reviews are bogus[eg only couple paragraphs devoted] so would I be a fool to get KillZone?
I already have Ghost but wouldn't mind another one. Reading here, should I go for Battlefield4, is this a no-brainer?
I already have Ghost but wouldn't mind another one. Reading here, should I go for Battlefield4, is this a no-brainer?
Nastrodamous
Member
get battlefield
WordsintheWater
Member
There's nothing objective about what you just said.
TacticalFox88
Banned
I love how simply *because* BF4 has vehicles, huge maps, etc it AUTOMATICALLY makes it a better MP game than KZSF, when they're both trying to do different things.
This fucking forum I swear.
This fucking forum I swear.
maybe it's just a case that with all the invention and thematic exploration being pioneered in the indie scene, the videogame industry can finally afford to give big dumb blockbuster games big dumb blockbuster review scores.
no one pre-booking a ticket for white house down saw the lack of oscar nominations as a deal breaker.
no one pre-booking a ticket for white house down saw the lack of oscar nominations as a deal breaker.
RedRedSuit
Member
A nice tidy conclusion, but it ignores the fact that big blockbusters don't have to be dumb and do in fact often get very nice review scores... even though it's considered bad form to give them Oscars.
This implies that big-budget shooters never got bad scores at some point in time. Which is demonstrably false.
A lot of UT fans did
Dreams-Visions
Member
Those things are all a matter of taste and quality.
UT3 had many of those things, but wasn't a very good game. Halo has always been small, but nobody would say it's MP has suffered because of it. Quite the opposite, really.
It's definitely not that.
NullPointer
Member
Nymphae
Banned
All opinions are valid, right? It's an interesting question, I mean should you put huge fans of a franchise on the review? Or someone who actively hates the genre/franchise instead? Or shoot for a middle ground? I personally would rather read a review from a person who was looking forward to playing the game, and has a good background with similar titles.
i see lmao
BadlyCookedTurkey
Member
Too much trash about the score for me to hunt the whole way through this thread.
Anywhere where there is decent footage of people playing the game online?
Anywhere where there is decent footage of people playing the game online?
fuzzyreactor
Banned
I feel like game are now just being developed with only reviewers in mind. This a bad thing as reviewers only have so much time and aren't playing games for their lasting appeal but for how quickly and easily they are having fun/doing good.
I don't understand why people here can't really except the fact that KZF is just a decent game.
Just because you like the franchise doesn't mean that every reviewer should like it. The result is clear it's just a decent game. That's it.
Not many complained when the same reviewers gave TLOU 10's or uncharted 10's. If the game is good, it will get good reviews. So stop hating the reviewers. It's their option. Deal with it.
(Although polygon reviewer is a moron and his review is a joke)
Just because you like the franchise doesn't mean that every reviewer should like it. The result is clear it's just a decent game. That's it.
Not many complained when the same reviewers gave TLOU 10's or uncharted 10's. If the game is good, it will get good reviews. So stop hating the reviewers. It's their option. Deal with it.
(Although polygon reviewer is a moron and his review is a joke)
I'm mostly confused that some of the criticisms are that KZ does some things other FPS games do, and the story isn't very good. But isn't that the same for 90% of FPS games? I haven't read much about how the actual mechanics of shooting feel, the reviews seem to spend a long time talking about the setting, the story, the characters, and cliches.
RedRedSuit
Member
Have you ever noticed that a game is more than the sum of its parts? Sometimes two games, on paper, have all the same stuff, but one works and the other doesn't.
I agree that typically reviewers don't articulate this very well, so they just go back to what they know -- the usual complaints of "generic," "no evolution," etc. While that is annoying to read, and good writers are hard to come by, if the general consensus (even if not that well articulated) is "the game was just not that good to play," that is probably the bottom line.
It's tempting to try to squirm out of it by confusing inarticulate reviewing with an ultimately incorrect assessment... but more often than not that leads to disappointment when actually experiencing the game and having to admit the reviewers were right.
Yeah, most of the reviews are focusing on the things the series have never done well instead of the stuff that it's always done well.
We'll all find out within 24 hours.
My guess, mediocre campaign and fun multiplayer, but reviewers barely got to play multiplayer for enough time to promote it in their review.
BF4 campaign is shit as well but overall the game is praised after reviewers got to play a ton of multiplayer on one of the other many platforms they've had review copies for.
I'd sooner expect it's just not to their preferences than that they have some damn agenda.
Admittedly I suspect more of us were more optimistic for Killzone's campaign while having little to no hope for BF4's campaign, and it probably IS miles ahead of BF4's at least. BF3 and 4 are completely and absolutely frustrating examples of squandering an attempt to adapt the MP's core gameplay to a SP framework in favor of a very mundane campaign. Doubly so that they would focus on selling the SP at conventions and kind of ignoring the MP, it's to the point where I legitimately wonder if they're absolute god damn idiots.
Jim Sterling's review for the Escapist
3,5/5
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/art...st&utm_medium=index_carousel&utm_campaign=all
3,5/5
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/art...st&utm_medium=index_carousel&utm_campaign=all
Really? ODST was and still is better than any Killzone game to date. With that said, I haven't played Shadow Fall yet.
It's certainly a conspiracy at the very least.
Wait, you really think that?
PeregrinSe7en
Member
FrenchMovieTheme
Member
Different strokes I guess
My guess...
Single player.
SP has moments of greatness, but is overall messy, with a weak story and unusual pacing. Some areas being less polished than others. Open ended levels stand out, but unfortunately they are too few. OWL does however offer good tactical diversity.
7 -8/10
Multiplayer.
MP is fantastic, with excellent skill based gunplay, great map design and overall well balanced weapons. Free DLC maps and countless challenges add even more value. 24 players keeps things tight and focused, with more intimate encounters and what feels like more old school firefight scenarios.
8-9/10