Ok, I picked up Killzone Liberation (psp) a couple days ago from EB and have been playing it for a while now. Suffice it to say that the game is borderline fantastic. From the graphics, the story, the mechanics, the challenges (it's a pretty tough game), the scale of everything and the great audio effects. It isn't perfect (Rico's vioce over can get annoying sometimes
Eat lead asshole
), and it may be a bit linear, but the overall presentation/experience is great. I think IGN's 9.0 and Gamespots 8.3 definitely nailed it and I personally would give the game an 8.7. I think it would have gotten a higher score if infrastructure mode was available out the gate, though the devs said it will be available shortly after through a patch. But I don't understand why 1up gave the game a ....5.0 :s
If that score was for the original game, then I'd say that was justified, but KZ:Lib is a much better game than the first one. I know the 1up brigade will jump in to defend their coworker who reviewed it but even on their site, folks are definitely disagreeing with the review.For the Gaffers who picked up the game, what would you rate it?
1up fails more than IGN imo. theyre show is great though. i might pick this up soon, i enjoyed killzone (wasnt spectacular but it was fun) and psp is on a bit of a roll lately
The entire 1up editorial staff is under some new doctrine that doesn't allow them to use the 7-9 scale anymore. That's where all these low review scores are coming from-
Dark Messiah - 5
NWN2 - 5
Killzone - 5
The editors were basically told that they had to make 5 the "average" score. Whereas a game that usually would get a 7 gets a 5... a game that would have gotten a 5 gets a 3, etc.
I know what you mean. Kinda retarded. Has there ever been a case where a game receives very generally positive reviews but one site rates it very poorly, then later has to re-review it? Can publishers ask for a re-review if they feel their game wasn't reviewed fairly?
Does that new doctrine say anything about BS hyping games in their previews? The fawning they did over Splinter Cell PSP in their one episode was ridiculous and the best part about it was that they didnÂ’t even review it when the game finally came out. I guess Ubi money can only go so far.
Previews are almost always embarrassingly low on facts. 1up isn't alone with that. They are fluff pieces, structured by the publishers, needed as content by the sites, and endlessly paraded for free by fanboys.
If there's a problem with 1up reviews for me, it's that the reviews often have very little substance. At least they are occasionally fun to read.
I still think this developer is definitely subpar, but I want to try the game. Maybe when they deliver all the content (online modes).
I think whats interesting is that even before the multiplayer update, many of the user reviews are giving it 8's and 9's. Gotta wonder how IGN(9.0) and Gamespot(8.3) would have scored the game if it were included out of the box.
I think this comment in the review is pretty ridiculous myself.
Supposedly, through some miraculous update, there will be an online deathmatch option available. But seeing how well Liberation follows through on its promising premise, I wouldn't count on it.
Not sure what Killzone you're playing, but i thought the PSP version was terrible. I didn't find it interesting enough to even want to finish a level. Shooting guys isn't fun, and that's pretty much the whole game no?
Not sure what Gears of War you're playing, but i thought the X360 version was terrible. I didn't find it interesting enough to even want to finish a level. Shooting guys isn't fun, and that's pretty much the whole game no?
Not sure what Killzone you're playing, but i thought the PSP version was terrible. I didn't find it interesting enough to even want to finish a level. Shooting guys isn't fun, and that's pretty much the whole game no?
Not a joke post. Of course lots of games are about shooting guys, but if that core mechanic isn't compelling all by itself there's no real reason to keep playing. There's too many other good games out to waste time with this one.
I was pretty happy they released that demo, because I found the game to not any fun at all and saved the 30 bucks.
Not sure what Killzone you're playing, but i thought the PSP version was terrible. I didn't find it interesting enough to even want to finish a level. Shooting guys isn't fun, and that's pretty much the whole game no?
Then you probably shouldn't have bought a shooter game But seriously, the game is challenging but fair (read:no cheap deaths), you just can't run into an open space and open fire, you'll get killed. I actually had to put the game on easy so I could progress through. this coming from someone who enjoys tough games like Ninja Gaiden/DMC (though those game are in a different genre/category).
Not a joke post. Of course lots of games are about shooting guys, but if that core mechanic isn't compelling all by itself there's no real reason to keep playing. There's too many other good games out to waste time with this one.
I was pretty happy they released that demo, because I found the game to not any fun at all and saved the 30 bucks.
Not a joke post. Of course lots of games are about shooting guys, but if that core mechanic isn't compelling all by itself there's no real reason to keep playing. There's too many other good games out to waste time with this one.
I was pretty happy they released that demo, because I found the game to not any fun at all and saved the 30 bucks.
Core mechanic? what do you want to happen when you shoot a guy? you shoot him, he dies. I think the ragdoll physics make it pretty cool on its own, especially when you get into the shotgun and crossbow. But then again I've only played the demo so far (and I loved it btw), but then again... it sounds like you have only played the demo as well.
I take it you're making these judgements based soley on the demo. Believe me, you are wrong if you think the game's core mechanics aren't fun/engaging.
The entire 1up editorial staff is under some new doctrine that doesn't allow them to use the 7-9 scale anymore. That's where all these low review scores are coming from-
Dark Messiah - 5
NWN2 - 5
Killzone - 5
The editors were basically told that they had to make 5 the "average" score. Whereas a game that usually would get a 7 gets a 5... a game that would have gotten a 5 gets a 3, etc.
He probably didn't give it more of chance. I hated the demo and put it down after 2-3 plays. I picked up the retail copy (BB giftcard) and gave the game some serious play time. I've enjoyed it a lot.
Aiming and shooting from that overhead view doesn't work for me. That's why I'm asking if there's anything else to it.
Are there different weapons that are more fun to fire than the demo weapons? How tactical do you have to get against the AI later? How's the pacing? Is the plot engaging enough to play through?
I think there's several flaws with saying the average game should score 5.
That's not the average. The average game score would be the average of all the scores given out... 5 is merely the middle of the scale. Well, not even that, 5.5 is. Also, to assume the average game is a 5/10 doesn't work as that seems to indicate no game goes through QA. Well, some don't seem to, but that's beside the point. A 5 could be a game that leaves you with neither a positive nor negative overall feeling at the end of playing it. Well, really 5.5 would be that. Well, maybe not that description at all, as the 1 to 10 is just a scale.
If the average game score is a 7, and a 7 means good, well, then that means there are a lot of good games out. And to be honest, there's nothing wrong with that. There are many fantastic games out, but some may not appeal to all audiences. Do we live in a golden age of gaming, where there are great games most months? Oh yeah.
If it's 5 out of 10 on 1up's scale, fine. But that doesn't mean it's an average game purely as its five: it means whatever 5 means on the 1up scale, and the 1up scale isn't the IGN scale... as it's wrong to assume 5/10 means average. It's just that point on the scale.
And that's why GameRanking sucks: it assumes a 5/10 on 1up is the same as a 50% from... whatever American mag uses percentage.
This exactly the reason why Killzone Liberation got a 5 from 1UP.com, the editor took too much of the actual review to bash on the original Killzone and took no effort to analyze the technical aspects of the game.
Sounds like a personal problem then. I found the duck and cover shooting to be quite useful and fun. Controls are easy to get used to after about 10 minutes or so. Tossing grenades is proably one of my favorite parts when timed right. and that crossbow is so satisfying.
SaggyMonkey said:
Are there different weapons that are more fun to fire than the demo weapons? How tactical do you have to get against the AI later? How's the pacing? Is the plot engaging enough to play through?
From my understanding the demo has all the weapons unlocked (in the real game you gain them progressively), but in the final game you can upgrade your weapons with money gained throughout the game. And then you have vehicles and maned turrets that are placed through out the levels. The AI is pretty intense from what I've seen, they flank you, act appropriate when coming in teams and when by themselves. Theres several kinds of enemies you have to adapt to. Theres also a few boss battles in the game from what I hear. Really, the only big serious complaint I'm seeing about the game is that it might be too short. But it seems theres a bunch of replay value in it. Even in the demo I found myself playing several times over, trying different routes, and this is without the upgrading of weapons. Another angle on combat is using your "buddy" to help you flank the enemy using easy comands on the dpad, but I havent experienced it for myself so I couldnt tell you for sure how good/bad it is.
I think it's funny when some mags and sites like EDGE and recently 1UP try to be "harsh" by stating 5 is the average. It just says so much about their lack of inteligence when they do not even understand the concept of average. As has been mentioned, 5 is merely the middle of the scale, the mediocre, neither good or bad. An average, in the case of game reviews, is the sum of each and every single game's review and then divided by the number of games out there. That is an average. Not too difficult, is it??
It's really bad enough when journalists try to generate worthless controversy, but then to be idiot enough to confuse two very simple mathematical concepts and then review according to that is plain stupidity.
Not sure what Killzone you're playing, but i thought the PSP version was terrible. I didn't find it interesting enough to even want to finish a level. Shooting guys isn't fun, and that's pretty much the whole game no?
Does the tallied average of EGM/1UP scores reflect that?
You guys are screwing up metacritic scores with your new stance. What the hell you all trying to do? If your 5 = someone else's 7, then what? People bash the hell on 1up/EGM is what.
Ive purchased the game aswell and it by no means is a 5.0 game. What people fail to realize is once you actually learn how to aim and shoot the fun level increases ten fold. You have to learn how to use cover and strafe. There were instances where I felt it was a little cheap on the enemy placement but since there is an abundant amount of checkpoints its not hard to over come.
The bonus challenges are fun and add to the replay value. New skills are unlocked based on how fast you complete them. The challenges affect your single player game by unlocking a series of bonus skills into the mix. When Rico your AI buddy joins in a mission hes actually pretty helpfull. He does say some pretty lame stuff though but I mean honestly I dont buy psp games looking for great voice acting.
Ive also played online using Xlink Kai and it was great fun. There is a good variety to the weapons and the maps are pretty large. Its all about grenades and guns online. Not to mention the sweet flame thrower. They also have there own version of the Gears of War Torque bow just without the aiming mechanic. When your tired of fragging people you can play your single player missions in coop online which I also did. That was very fun except for the the sometimes teleporting shotgun guys.
The developers have stated since the begining that they will add an infrastructure mode through a downloadable patch along with additional maps to multiplayer and content to single player. In the menu of the game they have options to visit killzone.com or go straight to downloads which shows there serious. Ive allready unlocked wallpapers that will be available to download. Its not something mystical like the review would have you believe it will happen.
All in all the game most definitley does not deserve a 5.0. Without the internet stuff in place its an easy 8.5. Had all the internet stuff been in at launch it would have gotten alot more 9+ reviews. That 5.0 review was a joke. The only reason that thing didnt get pulled was because the NWN community is alot more vocal than the KillZone community. Maybe next time 1up will have some review a psp game that doesnt suck and thinks they have better things to do than review psp game.
From my understanding the demo has all the weapons unlocked (in the real game you gain them progressively), but in the final game you can upgrade your weapons with money gained throughout the game.
But you have to choose your weapon before the mission, so if you go with a sniper rifle in a mission that turns out to be shotgun fest you have to change it anyway by accessing crates scattered through the level (u can have one weapon at the time). It has to be noted that you can use all those weapons u can purchase even if you dont' buy them. They are in those crates. By unlocking weapons you just unlock the possibility to choose with wich weapon to (blindly) start a mission. You soon learn to forget about the weapon store and just get what those crates offer you (they usually have two different weapons to choose from).
They only "serious" upgrade you can make to your character is the amount of granades you can carry and stuff like that. But you have to complete some rather dull minigames to get those upgrades. You dont get those kind of indeed useful upgrades if you just stick with the campain. (Which is stupid IMO)
Here is were most of the trial and error shit hits the fan. Ok, I got those helghasts thank to my awesome shotgun but hey, wtf, those bold enemies are tossing granades at me FROM THE DISTANCE. I need a standard rifle, where is it? WHERE IS IT?? Oh, now that I think of it I think it was in that crate 2 miles back in the level. Gotta go there and come back then. That's cool. (Not really).
Theres also a few boss battles in the game from what I hear.
The saving grace of this game might be the team based multiplayer.
Another angle on combat is using your "buddy" to help you flank the enemy using easy comands on the dpad, but I havent experienced it for myself so I couldnt tell you for sure how good/bad it is.
Is this the most divisive game on GAF ever? I am seeing people here say this game is a 9.0 game (including journalists) and some gamers + journalists saying its 5.0 game and they agree with 1UP.com's score (X-play gave it 2/5 but I don't think that counts).
This exactly the reason why Killzone Liberation got a 5 from 1UP.com, the editor took too much of the actual review to bash on the original Killzone and took no effort to analyze the technical aspects of the game.
Yeah, after just reading this review, I'd say that's pretty accurate. The writer sounds like he's really got a hard-on for dissing the KZ franchise in general, and spends a fair amount of column inches in a very short review doing just that.
After staring at the package for a few days while trying to finish Contact, I just started playing the game yesterday. So far, I'm really enjoying it. It's a lot deeper than I thought it would be.
Unlike the previous poster, I like the dodging/ducking fire dynamic of the gameplay. Of course I grew up with all those 8-bit coin-op space shooters where this concept as central to gameplay was ingrained in my psyche early on, and and I understand younger players who don't have these skills and just want to play be like "Arrrrrrgh!" and go all-out Rambo-style won't "get" it.
Doesn't make it a bad game though.
So far (approx. 1/2 way through I'd guess,) It seems way above-average, if just average is what the 1up guys are saying it is, I'd disagree at this point. Is it perfect? No.
I'll wait until I finish it to pass final judgement though. Online play will also probably add a lot. I certainly enjoyed the small bit of ad-hoc I enjoyed in the demo, but I haven't had a chance to try it with this final copy of the game yet.
The fact that 1up's reviewer didn't take the time to review the ad-hoc mode, and instead of reviewing what's already in the game, criticizes what isn't there yet, was also disappointing.
Supposedly, through some miraculous update, there will be an online deathmatch option available. But seeing how well Liberation follows through on its promising premise, I wouldn't count on it.
That would be fair enough, but then we have guys like 1up's own skip coming in and saying 5.0s are average scores for their publications (I doubt that very much).
So is it a 7.0? (i.e. industry meta-average) or a 5.0? (i.e. half way between 1 and 10).
That would be fair enough, but then we have guys like 1up's own skip coming in and saying 5.0s are average scores for their publications (I doubt that very much).
So is it a 7.0? (i.e. industry meta-average) or a 5.0? (i.e. half way between 1 and 10).
But then what does resigning to the fact that the review is basically just a purely subjective opinion say about the applicability of review to the gaming population as a whole? If I'm a reviewer, and being completely indifferent to the whole RTS genre as a whole, I'm to review a Warcraft or Starcraft game, would it be ok that I give the game a 3 because I just don't give a rat's ass about the genre at all whatsoever, the gameplay or either of those brands, or that I don't care for gaming on PC as a whole?
I played the demo and liked it. I will be picking up the game soon. Honestly, I don't read any 1up reviews since they always slam PSP games other than Capcom Classics.
But then what does resigning to the fact that the review is basically just a purely subjective opinion say about the applicability of review to the gaming population as a whole? If I'm a reviewer, and being completely indifferent to the whole RTS genre as a whole, I'm to review a Warcraft or Starcraft game, would it be ok that I give the game a 3 because I just don't give a rat's ass about the genre at all whatsoever, the gameplay or either of those brands, or that I don't care for gaming on PC as a whole?
QFT. I think the reviewer was basing the review more on the fact that he isn't personally interested in the genre that the game falls into. If I was a reviewer reviewing Halo, would it be ok if I gave it a 6.5 or a 7 because I didn't like first person shooters, negating what the game does well within that genre?
But then what does resigning to the fact that the review is basically just a purely subjective opinion say about the applicability of review to the gaming population as a whole? If I'm a reviewer, and being completely indifferent to the whole RTS genre as a whole, I'm to review a Warcraft or Starcraft game, would it be ok that I give the game a 3 because I just don't give a rat's ass about the genre at all whatsoever, the gameplay or either of those brands, or that I don't care for gaming on PC as a whole?
Yes, it would be perfectly fine. I don't see why you'd think it would be wrong. It happens all the time everywhere but rarely in the gaming industry. I want to read opinions, not some arbitrarily objectified fact collection and fun measure against the lowest common denominator of the abstract role model gamer. Are you seriously saying someone should give a game a score based on something different than how much that person enjoyed the time he/she had with it? Should every reviewer have a personal factor for each genre to properly weight the review score against the taste of said arbitrary gamer archetype. Sounds pretty absurd to me.
gbovo said:
QFT. I think the reviewer was basing the review more on the fact that he isn't personally interested in the genre that the game falls into. If I was a reviewer reviewing Halo, would it be ok if I gave it a 6.5 or a 7 because I didn't like first person shooters, negating what the game does well within that genre?
Is that a negative or positive of the game? I think it being rather neutral you can choose your weapon. If they were to give you a set weapon then you are stuck with that no doubt, but allowing you to select gives you the option. But if you dont like that you could always pick the same weapon everytime if you like.
TTP said:
so if you go with a sniper rifle in a mission that turns out to be shotgun fest you have to change it anyway by accessing crates scattered through the level (u can have one weapon at the time).
Not sure why you would pick the sniper at the start of a round anyways, would you not expect a round to have close quarter combat? I think a assult rifle or the mini gun would suffice, hey maybe even the crossbow.
TTP said:
It has to be noted that you can use all those weapons u can purchase even if you dont' buy them.
but doesnt that give you the option of getting a weapon you may not get early in the game, I think that depends on the situation once again being a neutral argument.
TTP said:
They are in those crates. By unlocking weapons you just unlock the possibility to choose with wich weapon to (blindly) start a mission.
From what I understand theres upgrades to the weapons themselves that cost money. And next to the grenades theres more health needles, doing more damage, taking less damage, etc.
TTP said:
But you have to complete some rather dull minigames to get those upgrades. You dont get those kind of indeed useful upgrades if you just stick with the campain. (Which is stupid IMO)
Dull would be pretty subjective, I'd have to try them out for myself. To be fair, usually minigames are often dull to me so I dont really doubt your opinon, but I do like the fact that minigames actually affect the single player rather than just being there for no reason.
TTP said:
Which help you out in specific, scripted situations. Not a big deal really. And they have stupid controls.
again controls would probably be subjective, I'd have to try for myself. For what its worth, I thought the controls in the demo were pretty iffy, but after about 10 minutes I seemed to adapt and started loving it.
TTP said:
Pretty unuseful. You kill a couple of guys with them and that's it. There are zero situations were you gotta use the turrets to survive.
From what I have seen it depends on the enemy. For example the bigger guys will full on attack you. Snipers will keep their position, and soldiers will adapt depending on how many there are and where you are (either keeping position or attacking you head on). Theres dogs that attack you full on, little robot mines that chase you that you can actually divert towards the enemy if you play your cards right. Grenadiers (sp?) will usually keep their ground, but if you get close they have a pretty deadly melee attack. I'm probably missing a few, but this is only what I've witness from videos (lots might I add).
TTP said:
Here is were most of the trial and error shit hits the fan. Ok, I got those helghasts thank to my awesome shotgun but hey, wtf, those bold enemies are tossing granades at me FROM THE DISTANCE. I need a standard rifle, where is it? WHERE IS IT?? Oh, now that I think of it I think it was in that crate 2 miles back in the level. Gotta go there and come back then. That's cool. (Not really).
Not sure what you mean here. Do you expect them to throw grenades from up close? Is it impossible for you to take a shotgun up close to those grenade throwing junkies?
Excuse me if I like challenging games, obviously they are not impossible to beat (if people are beating the game with time to spare) but challenging none the less.
fair enough, I'll have to see how that is tommorrow.
Anyways, obviously it seems like a "like it or not" type game, so I dont really knock the reviewers opinion, I couldnt really care less as I plan to buy the game very soon.... I just find it funny so many people are objecting the score after playing it. Not to mention a couple comments in the review that seem borderline ****ed up.
