• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Killzone Liberation is awesome. 1up fails!

dyls said:
The four-star system is the only worthwhile review system out there, imo. It gives a much better sense of quality without being overly reliant on percentages. In this system a three-star game, while mathematically only working out to a 7.5, implies a very solid effort and a worthwhile title. Four-star games are true classics, something that will stand the test of time-- no more of this 'game A got a 9.6 and game B got a 9.3 so game A is clearly superior on all fronts.'
The problem with that scale is that there are far too many games out there and a 4 star system is useless to determine which game is good/great over another. Like if only classics deserve 4 stars then basically every other good/great game will get 3 stars. So that means every year about 50 3 star level games come out and as a consumer I have no way of knowing which game I will like more, based solely on the score. That's why just about every star system out there is actually a 5 start system with 1/2 divisions, so it's REALLY a 10 point scale (like 4 1/2 stars on Gamespy or an older PS magazine).

The 4-5 star system only works for movies because you can actually afford to watch a bunch of movies at once and even then most of them are divided in 1/2 partitions. The game medium is tricky but so far the "Grade school" system works well where everything is rated according to the ABCD F scale (C = 70% being average and anything below 60% is not that great). That's pretty much the unofficial accepted scale for games whether people want to accept it or not.

It goes without saying that a 96% game is not really that much better than a 93% game and just about everything applies on a person by person basis. For any one person a 64% game might be better than a 94% game, depending on the genre preference or other subjective quality in a game (like the look of the main character).
 
none of this is new. none of it.

electronic gaming monthly: 0-10, 5 is the middle
gmr: 0-10, 5 was the middle
xbn: 0-10, 5 was the middle
1up: 0-10, 5 is the middle
cgw: 0-5 stars, 2.5 was the middle
opm: 0-5 whatevers, 2.5 was the middle

now, all of the ziff publications are based on egm's scale, which predates gamerankings/metacritics by a lot.
 
It all comes from love, all from love baby. It is a bit disheartening that 1up and the related sites all seem to be having a pretty bad week though.
 
Would fans of MERCs and Neo Contra like a game like Killzone PSP? The top down shooting action reminds me a lot of those games...
 
djtiesto said:
Would fans of MERCs and Neo Contra like a game like Killzone PSP? The top down shooting action reminds me a lot of those games...

Definitely. It's a bit more strategic, but to me, the game very much feels like a modern version of something like MERCS.
 
eXxy said:
What's the point of a 1-10 scale if you're only using five points of it?

People aren't not using the entire scale, they're just using a different one...

1 has typically in most publications denoted absolute worthlessness. Literally less then the worth of the cost of goods it was printed on. While numbers between 1-5 have denoted varying degrees of failure.

That said, I'm not even really complaining about 1up's scale been too harsh (after all, relative to itself, if 5 is average, then the average game is only a 5), so much as I am annoyed at the lack of parity between its scale and other scales.

If 1up/EGM could convince other sites to take up this crusade... revise their scaling so that review figures aren't so skewed in the 6-10 range.

The old adage of the percentage squared (for reviews) is more likely to yield the current 1up style scaling. 70% suddenly becomes 48%, 80% suddenly becomes 64%.

I say that, and while it manages to have a little heuristic relevancy, it's probably not true; so then the problem is, what is the 1up scale and how do I equate it to the unspoken industry standard scale?
 
skip said:
none of this is new. none of it.

electronic gaming monthly: 0-10, 5 is the middle
gmr: 0-10, 5 was the middle
xbn: 0-10, 5 was the middle
1up: 0-10, 5 is the middle
cgw: 0-5 stars, 2.5 was the middle
opm: 0-5 whatevers, 2.5 was the middle

now, all of the ziff publications are based on egm's scale, which predates gamerankings/metacritics by a lot.

This is only true if the review of all those publications have a mean sum around 5. Indeed, I'd expect one or two of them to have below 5.

Can you honestly go back and say that since the new scaling mandate, that the mean of all reviews are around 50%?

If you can, fine, I'll shut up.

But right now, it's confusing... because we know you've listed the mathematical means of all those numbers... but have you actually listed the average score of the review scores?

Moreover, is there a linear distribution to the scores or a normal distribution? Even if you guys aren't going to kow-tow to any arbitary industry average, then at least let your readers know what kinda scale you're working off.

No one should give one shit about any of this when scoring a game on their own scale. The only thing that matters when reviewing a game, is the game. Not who made it, how their jobs may be on the line, how a company is run, blah blah bullshit. The moment this happens, the whole thing crumbles, and the point of a review is moot.

What's the point of a 1-10 scale, if you only use 5 points of it?

Bah. All magazines and sites should adopt the school grading system, this way things are kept simple for the idiots who continue to put too much worth on the score. But then again, once a game is scored a C- through F, it'll be "think of the employees!"

The reviewers cannot worry about the impact that they have on others, less their own reviews become negatively affected, that much is true.

But as far as a publication goes, when deciding the scale with which they work with... it's not a bad thing to realise that they don't live in a vaccuum; so again, either ziff gets other publishers on board to a similar scale, or they should respect a standard scale.
 
I don't think it should be ZD's responsibility to build a consensus about review scales.

Don't blame ZD when the real blame should be on these review aggregators. Now any upstart who wants to review games is pressured to adopt the same 0-10 scale as everyone else instead of being creative.

Music review site Buddyhead.com used to use the "Axl Rose Scale" for music reviews, where they had 5 ranked images of Axl Rose. Hilarious.

But the real real blame is on the consumers, who are so focused on numbers and averages they can't read review text and make their own decisions.
 
chespace said:
I was just about to pick this game up tomorrow until I read TTP's impressions. Sounds rather repetitive and the firefights un-dynamic.

Note: I have not played the demo either.


I agree, pick up the demo. Relying on reviews is fine and all, especially if you know your reviewers trends, but they're never foolproof and they aint got nothing on actually getting to play the game yourself.
 
sugarhigh4242 said:
But the real real blame is on the consumers, who are so focused on numbers and averages they can't read review text and make their own decisions.
One review states that Killzone Liberation is an abortion on the PSP while another hails it as a great technical achievement and one of the better PSP titles easily. The text of the reviews are just as misleading for a consumer as are the scores. And then I read the impressions here at GAF where one guy is saying its at least an 8.7 game (great, fun game) and another person is saying its trash and doesn't deserve over a 5.0. If I were a person on the fence on whether to buy Killzone Liberation or not, I would STILL be on the fence even after doing a lot of collective research on it... :lol
 
sugarhigh4242 said:
But the real real blame is on the consumers, who are so focused on numbers and averages they can't read review text and make their own decisions.

To be honest... I really don't want to have to read 10 reviews to figure out the aggregate opinion. Given that a single opinion isn't a necessarily a good inicator of quality as there can be large differences in your taste and reviewer tastes, an aggregation of several reviews is your better bet towards figuring out an objective view of things. Of course, you can't extract anything definite for meta data usage by just using text, so it's not exactly illogical or even unfair to use the average score across several considered opinions (which are what you hope reviews are) to determine a relatively objective merit of the game.

Besides... after the NWN2 debacle, can you really put that much heed into a single review, much less one from 1up?

It's good they pulled that shit... but only after a large amount of backlash; if it hadn't recieved that backlash... if the game that was been reviewed wasn't as popular, would they have just written the negativity off as whining? Would they be as bothered by their editorial oversight?

Not that you can really prevent this kinda stuff from ever happening... but the hardline stance on been an island unto themselves (as far as review ratings go), only exacerbates problems that stem from these situations.
 
I think that a lot of people who haven't played the game don't appreicate just how awesome a game this is. I've played it a fair bit now, and I can safely say that I haven't enjoyed a game this much in a good long while. It really is that awesome. I would also say that the demo doesn't do the game justice - I played through it and thought that it seemed solid, but I could seeing it getting repetitive pretty quick. After the first few missions though, you really get into the game, and when you do, it is really awesome.

That's not to say that the game doesn't have flaws - I find the tank pretty tedious to control, and trying to constantly order a team mate to move can be awkward. Oh yeah, and Rico is as annoying as ever. But when the game leaves you to your own devices, it really can be great fun, and really addictive, and it's easy enough to over look these few flaws. It is hard, but it never really gets frustrating since you have regular checkpoints (most of the time) and your death generally seems justified - you don't ever feel like there was nothing you could have done, and that it really wasn't your fault.

There's a fair bit of exploring - the game won't always hold your hand and tell you which ways you can and can't go, but sadly the only real benefit of the exploring will be getting more Vetka, the game's currency which you use to buy new weapons, or upgrade exisiting ones. The whole system of choosing a weapon at the start of the level does seem kind of pointless, since most of the time you'll be picking up new ones throughout the level to match new situations anyway, but I still enjoy the fact that the game isn't 100% linear.

As for the level design (or probably more the art style and the look of the levels, than the actual structure of them), it's just as stunning as the original's. Some of the levels in the first game I still remember as some of the most awesome looking I have seen in any game - particulary the snow one (Onwards and Upwards, I think). You may not be able to get quite as much scope in KL's levels, mainly due to the new perspective, but they are still as beautiful as ever. Gives me hope that the KZ PS3 will be the same.

I could talk about all the different aspects of what i think makes KL so good forever, but at the end of the day, it just all seems to come together amazingly to make one really fun game. And as for that bull**** at the end of the 1Up review, I would be stunned if the Guerilla didn't add online dethmatches, and that has to be the most awesome prospect of them all for the game. I think Gamespot and IGN have pretty got the score right on this one. And after that KH2 review I never thought I'd say this, but I'm probably leaning more towards IGN's score. It will be no doubt worthy of a 9 when the online is added, unless they really balls it up. In my opinion it is already, but I guess not everybody will have the same opinion. I (really) look forward to seeing Killzone for PS3.

So in Summary -
- SaggyMonkey - stop spreading bull**** as if you know everything about the game there is to know - you haven't even played the full game - the demo is nothing in comparison.
- 1Up score is pure ****. I actually can't see how anybody could give this game a 5. I know everyone has an opinion and all, but seriously, a 5 is just retarded - who gives a **** what scoring system they use - it doesn't deserve a 5 on even the most harsh scale.
- One awesome game - easily my favourite on PSP so far.
- Great Job Guerilla! :D
 
I didnt get a chance to pick this up yesterday, but I nabbed it right after class today (25 bucks after some left over store credit), just got home so I'm gonna start playing. :D
 
So what's the gameplay like? What are the controls and what's the core mechanic?
 
TTP said:
Just like Gears of War. But with a top-down view.
Now that you mention it, it is kinda similar to gears gameplay/controls wise with a different camera angle.

Anyways, just got to Rico at the begining of the game, his voice over is pretty annoying, but I'm liking it so far. :)
 
Zaptruder said:
This is only true if the review of all those publications have a mean sum around 5. Indeed, I'd expect one or two of them to have below 5.

Can you honestly go back and say that since the new scaling mandate, that the mean of all reviews are around 50%?

If you can, fine, I'll shut up.

Yes, I'll like to see Skip address this because he always conveniently overlooks posts that say this.
 
I'm having a lot of fun with the game. I thought the demo was really ho-hum, but the gun fights are surprisingly good despite being relatively simple. Anyone else get a great deal of joy out of tossing a grenade at a couple of guys and finishing them off while they're still on the ground after the explosion? It's so satisfying. Not quite curb stomp satisfying, but satisfying nonetheless. :) I'm in section 3 or 4 of chapter II. Just got the game last night.
 
chespace said:
So what's the gameplay like? What are the controls and what's the core mechanic?

The controls are perfect for the most part. Like I said, the only real problems I found are with the tank and when ordering your team mate around, it can be kinda difficult. The targetting kind of locks onto targets if your looking it that sort of direction, so it's not really hard to aim. You'll know when you are aiming at an enemy, since their health bar will pop up above them. You can also hold L1 when locked onto an enemy to strafe whilst locked onto them, but I never really use it. I porbably should.

The main mechanic in fighting probably is ducking and covering. All you do is hold R1 to stay ducked. Shooting is done with Square. A lot of it does revolve around getting behind boxes, ducking and then popping up when the time is right, but saying that does make it sound really repetitive and boring, which really isn't the case. There is a lot more to it, but that's just the kinda of main idea around which the rest of it revolves. The idea is be applied to more difficult situations, for example, there might be enemies shotting from two different sides, and you have to get yourself into a position where your covered from both positions. But that might not be a possibility, so you might ahve to go and get a sniper or something. And one other thing - grenades are your friend in this game :) Also, when you get a bit further in, you'll want to watch out for who you're actually fighting. You get some pretty tough guys with shotguns. Basically stay far away from them, otherwise you'll get owned, quick. I don't really do the game justice. There's a beach level at near the start where you have a lot of mines and lasers set that you have dodge. When you get battles with these combined it can be intense (and funny) at times. There ar emines that slowly home in on you in the level. They can be pretty annoying actually at times, since they do keep coming, but if you can manage to use them against the enemy, you get a good laugh. The AI doesn't really strike me as being particulary good or bad. It does everything it needs to, and doesn't really get too annoying, like it often did in the first game. It all just seems to come together well, and is really good fun with everything combined.

The difficulty can be pretty high at times - This is probably a bit of a stupid comparison, but it's reminiscent for me of Resident Evil 4, where you're often near death, and you feel like you're scraping around for anything that might make it the slightest bit easier for you - any health packs in crates lying around, extra ammo or failing that, having to switch to a new weapon altogether, like I often would do have to do in RE4. Beforing going into battle, you really will want to make sure that you've got everything you can that'll make it even the slightest bit easier - 'cause you're gonna need it. It can be unbalanced at times I guess. Often you'll get a supply depot with about 3 or 4 health packs in, and you can't see why. But other times, like I say, you'll be scraping. Often it'll end up with you having to just leg it up to the enemy and hit them - it does a lot of damage, and stops them from being able to shoot you until they get up (at which poin you can hit 'em again :)), but you can't really do it when there's more than one around. For me, these are the best bits, because you'll find yourself using everything you can to improve your bleak looking chances.

Possibly the biggest problem for me, which I seemed to have forgotten to mention before, is that barrels are actually really hard to aim at. What's supposed to happen, it that you aim in roughly the right direction, then hit L1, and your player will automatically lock on to it so you can shoot it. But the problem is, that it doesn't just lock onto barrels, it locks onto crates and any other breakable objects, and it can be very difficult to aim at unless your right next to it, in which case, you probably don't want to be doing so. You'll get over it.
 
I have to wonder about how long the game's gonna last, but so far, I'm enjoying this more than VCS. :) Any word on the online update?
 
I played the game on my recent plane trip and I'm now at 'world' 3. This game can't get enough praise. It's so weird to play a top down shooter which takes several qualities straight out of fps games like good a.i that keeps things interesting, physiqs and not least great gun gameplay.
 
This is a goddamn good game and a 5/10 on no matter how fubar'd a scale is nigh indefensible. I'm on the 3rd act (out of 4), and I can tell this'll already be one of my favorite PSP games EVER (hell I was already sold on the two-minute demo).

So far the only technical hitch bringing it down from a perfect 10 is the at-times sluggish framerate, which is a result of the kick-ass graphics. But this isn't a typical run-n-gun shooter, its more methodically-paced and tactical, which is why I consider the framerate drops a HITCH, not a detriment to the gameplay. Still, Sony should stop being retards and unlock the 333mhz setting already. Also, the load times are pleasantly brief. I had almost gotten used to long-ass loading times in PSP games. Almost.

On to the core gameplay mechanics, which are ROCK SOLID. Shooting, ducking, performing evasive rolls, lobbing nades, strafing, all the actions feel really polished. Nobody's gonna play this game and complain about the lack of a 2nd analog.

In conclusion, this game rocks.
 
Okay chick-a-dees, I bought this game for myself as an early Christmas present. With PSP software bomba'ing left and right and Toysrus coupons, I grabbed this at a great price and I've played through the first five missions.

This game is really great and I think it demonstrates the massive potential of the Killzone franchise. Firstly, the graphics and presentation are really fantastic. The game never really has framerate problems, there is virtually no ghosting due to smart color choices, and the animation is pretty good for a little handheld game. I think all the characters are easy to make out and it is pretty easy to see where you are firing and when shots are coming in at you. The voice acting is pretty good and the few FMVs present are very high quality.

Control wise, the game's design demonstrates Guerilla understood what the PSP does NOT do well and avoided it. The fixed overhead perspective, combined with the widescreen aspect ratio of the PSP, allows you to see pretty far in every direction without having to futz with the camera. It's easy to move and aim using the nub and the R trigger. The L trigger for snap-to-special item mechanic also works pretty well. It keeps the game from being difficult while still making it challenging to play.

The missions are perfect length-- about 15 to 20 minutes. I can pick it up from sleep mode and blast through a little area with well spaced checkpoints allowing me to stop for a break.

I've found the game challenging, but not frustrating. Once you get the pop and stop mechanic down, things seem to work pretty well.

Killzone seems to be a franchise TRYING to find itself in terms of atmosphere, characterization, and those types of things in order to set itself apart from the standard run of the mill shooter. I believe the presentation is there, but some work could be done on the characterization. Everyone is a little too cliched for me to actually care about the world.

So far, the game is probably an 8.5/10. It might get even better, but I find a distinct lack of "set pieces" in the game that make firefights particularly memorable. While I find the game's gunplay to be pretty satisfying (the guns feel nice), I don't really remember any particular encounter like I do in Resistance or Gears of War.

Also, did the multiplayer pack ever come out? I get a server error when I attempt to connect.

Great game by Sony's newest developer (I think).
 
Bud said:
I didn't expect this game to bomb so hard

only ±45k sold going by ioi's inflated numbers

PSP games bombing is basically as guaranteed an event as Kathleen wearing arm socks lolz
 
IcebergSlim3000 said:
Not only wasnt that funny it had nothing to do with the topic and you bumped a seriously old thread.

I bumped a seriously old thread to put my brand new impressions in it?
 
Zenith said:
except you totally ignore the point that the vast, vast majority of review sites have their "average" at around 6/7. and no, 1UP hasn't used the same review scale on all its games. this "5/10 is the average" is new.
Although it may be new, it's imo correct and everybody else is wrong (if they're saying 7 = average).

And what Elostyle meant was: 'if every game is reviewed by 1up and by other review sites, every game's average on gamerankings will be affected by 1up's different review scale, so Gameranking's average is once again equally measured for all the games'
I think


Oh, and there was something about K:L I wanted to say.. it looks good but I'm not interested in the genre/'franchise' much. I forgot, sorry for the derailment :(
 
Sadly if you take into account a score of 50% in tests or anything what it means is it's a failure. This is probably the major reason average is a 7. I don't see how you could say an average game is a 5, but I guess that is what they are thinking and feel it's an odd practice. I mean would you ever jump for joy for getting a 5/10 on a quiz?
 
Because a 5/10 on a quiz is not "average." The scale has to be adjusted.

Even so, it's gamerankings score (even with busted shit) is still almost 80. It demonstrates that Guerrilla has consistently gotten better.
 
Top Bottom