Killzone review (IGN)
- Thread starter ManuVlad3.0
- Start date
Umm... most companies would be ecstatic to even have that kind of "gamble" possible.Deepak said:
Anyway I found this which on ign boards....
"i am still waiting for someone to explain to me how a game that wins ign's e3 ps2 best shooter and game of show can get such a low rating. while i do believe that they reviewed final code, i question the objectivity of Ivan Sullic when states in the video review that he is judging the game off of hype as opposed to what is there. Then he contradicts himself at the beginning of the written review by saying his viewpoint was not based off of hype. If this game is a bad as Ivan says it is then why would they give it all these awards at E3."
"and if all the crap than ivan said about the game was true then it would not have won that award. or the best shooter one as well. if the game had problems they would have said something in the previews... instead we get surprised with this rating. you can fault me for having high hopes for a game, but you can't fault me for expecting the previewers of the game to give me an honest impression of the game. so when i see the previews and then i see the review, i am left with two conclusions.
A. IGN is garbage because they don't realize they just contradicted everything they told us about the game until now.
B. IGN is garbage because they have a duty to tell us if a game is mediocre during the preview process, if this is the case, they failed their gamer base horribly "
*******
I am waiting for GS review.
"i am still waiting for someone to explain to me how a game that wins ign's e3 ps2 best shooter and game of show can get such a low rating. while i do believe that they reviewed final code, i question the objectivity of Ivan Sullic when states in the video review that he is judging the game off of hype as opposed to what is there. Then he contradicts himself at the beginning of the written review by saying his viewpoint was not based off of hype. If this game is a bad as Ivan says it is then why would they give it all these awards at E3."
"and if all the crap than ivan said about the game was true then it would not have won that award. or the best shooter one as well. if the game had problems they would have said something in the previews... instead we get surprised with this rating. you can fault me for having high hopes for a game, but you can't fault me for expecting the previewers of the game to give me an honest impression of the game. so when i see the previews and then i see the review, i am left with two conclusions.
A. IGN is garbage because they don't realize they just contradicted everything they told us about the game until now.
B. IGN is garbage because they have a duty to tell us if a game is mediocre during the preview process, if this is the case, they failed their gamer base horribly "
*******
I am waiting for GS review.
Likely he knew it sold "lots." How many people know exactly how many copies Enter the Matrix sold without doing a search? Yet another critically panned game that we all know "sold well."PC-Engine said:
I assume his random thought was: "Huh. It'll probably sell well anyway." same as other games. It's still hot hype backing it, it still looks good in ads, it's still the only notable FPS (for the PS2) coming out this holiday season, it's still got big online multiplayer... it could still sell very well.
That last part, in fact, was my biggest issue with the review. How did the online multiplayer get two pathetically incomplete mentions if they could base a whole damn article with 100x more information on it months ago? Isn't online multiplayer--like--a big deal to FPS'es?
Retarded.It wasn't just E3 hype, though. They had a few follow-ups with longer plays of later builds, and were still pretty glowing. Certainly nothing approaching the attitude the author adopted.
Huh :? Why so touchy over some "sold well" comment? Isn't that going a bit too far PC?
Anyway, bringing Halo to any topic not about Halo is not the wisest thing if one wants to keep the thread civil... though I must admit that MS releasing just Halo2 as their ace card for this holiday season does show a lot of confidence.
Killzone.. I never really expected it to live up to all the hype.
8 out of ten is more than I expected.
It will sell well, not as well as GTA:SA, Halo 2, Matrix.... but about as well as The Getaway, Fable or some other of the many overhyped games that were slight disappointments in the end
In fact, the Killzone does give me the same feelings as The Getaway.... an average game that I might want to buy but likely won't as it sounds a little rough around the edges and a little bit boring experience.
Edit:
Anyway, bringing Halo to any topic not about Halo is not the wisest thing if one wants to keep the thread civil
... though I must admit that MS releasing just Halo2 as their ace card for this holiday season does show a lot of confidence.Killzone.. I never really expected it to live up to all the hype.
8 out of ten is more than I expected.
It will sell well, not as well as GTA:SA, Halo 2, Matrix.... but about as well as The Getaway, Fable or some other of the many overhyped games that were slight disappointments in the end
In fact, the Killzone does give me the same feelings as The Getaway.... an average game that I might want to buy but likely won't as it sounds a little rough around the edges and a little bit boring experience.
Edit:
Now that should bring the mods attention, shame on you PC-Engine!PC-Engine said:
marconelly! said:
I think we shouldn't jump to conclusions so early. Even according to IGN review, they did extremely well on graphics/sound count. Atleast their tech base is solid. Only thing they need to work upon is gameplay part which I believe they will given time. Sony must have seen something in Gureilla to buy it. I'll give them more chances.
Isn't Insomniac a Sony first/second party? And anyway you can't buy each and every developer out their.
<sigh> You need an exact number to care about ANYTHING?PC-Engine said:Um yeah so WTF does "sold well" mean?
If you don't have some ballpark number "sold well" means zilch.
And btw who the f*k defines "sold well"?
F*King dumb as a rock.
I think the point is, why are YOU making a huge deal out of a throwaway comment?
I gave you that figure--and a link--at the end of Page 1! <boggles>PC-Engine said:Thanks for the figure Vyze, that's all I wanted to know.
At least I know why you were feeling frustrated now, and we didn't know why...
Link
"Hey everybody. As you can tell, there has been a whole bunch of negative reaction towards our review of Killzone. As Editor-in-Chief of IGNPS2, I see it as my responsibility to inform you about what's going down so that you hear it directly from us and so that none of this hearsay nonsense that's been going around on countless other threads continues to proliferate.
Anyhow. The publisher Sony Computer Entertainment of America designated the build we were given of Killzone reviewable. In our entire history as a site, when a pre-release build is given to us and told to us by the publisher that it is to be "reviewed" we base our judgments off of that code. We obviously can't review something based on "what could be fixed" just as much as we can't review something based on "what could be worse." Speculation shouldn't be a part of our review process, because if we were to assume that a negative aspect of a game could be fixed in some later build, then one could also assume that something we found to be positive could also change directions (say, for instance, we liked the challenge in a game but the developer made a last minute decision to dumb it down -- that means we might not like it so much anymore)
That said, we were provided with a bulleted list of issues to look for in our "reviewable" copy of Killzone:
1.) Occasional debug code could make the screen go blue/green/pink
2.) Cinematics were not entirely finished (logos, for instance, we missing)
3.) Online play needed a specific DNS address to play -- auto connect wasn't working
Other than that, there were no specific bugs or hitches mentioned with our build (which we received on October 1). That said, anything else we ran into was fair game if it was a negative or a positive in that build. We have confirmed that the build that we were given was the same reviewable build sent to other online publications -- (no retail builds will be sent out until tomorrow).
That said we are more than willing to play through the Killzone retail copy to see if there is any significant changes over the build we were given for review. If there is, then we'll surely mention them and make the adjustments to our review accordingly (Ivan has beaten the game twice, so it shouldn't be a problem for him to find out rather quickly).
I would just like to point out in our own defense, that if better versions of the game were available before our review was published they were not made available to us. Nor were we told that better versions even existed in the first place (which we don't know they were, I guess we'll find out when we buy a final copy this week). In a nutshell, if Sony or Guerilla wants to use the one-month age of that build as a defensive point as to why certain issues we had with the game were there, we're left to wonder how those parties could expect us to review that game fairly in the first place? As we obviously can't see the future and can't determine what might not be an issue unless we can actually play it for ourselves. Hence, reviewing the product for what it is based on what we were given.
We'll let you know ASAP if we find any changes (or if we don't). Thanks for reading.
-- Jeremy Dunham
Editor-in-Chief, IGNPS2"
Link
"Quote from the another post by Viper99:
"I can personally confirm that they did NOT get the final build, in fact we went through 24 more builds from the "review" code and final. ""
"Okay - I have to step in for a second here. I don't believe there is any blame to be handed out to anyone, including IGN.
We all try, to the best of our ability, to get code out for review that is close to final. But there are deadlines to consider, and we have to send code out as best we can. No blame should be cast on the development team for that.
As for buggy code, um guys - it happens. We are also fixing bugs and glitches up until the moment they tear the build out of our hands. For that matter, we will probably find new things in online play that people try to exploit and cheat with, so we have patching as a way to combat this.
All reviewers, including the staff at IGN, do their best to review a game based on what we send them. Will they possibly miss things? Yes. Will we occasionally disagree with their reviews? Yes. Will other reviews comment about different things? Probably. Will some people like Killzone? Yes. Will some people not like Killzone? Yes. But we all have our jobs to do in order to bring you, the public, these games.
All of us feel we've made a game that we can be proud to have you play. We never set out to be a "XXX-Killer", we just set out to make what we feel is a fun and imersive game - and hope that you enjoy it.
So play it, tell us what you think... what you like, don't like, etc. We'll be here to respond to you and take all your feedback and suggestions for the next game!
Ferret7
Killzone Dev Team"
"Hey everybody. As you can tell, there has been a whole bunch of negative reaction towards our review of Killzone. As Editor-in-Chief of IGNPS2, I see it as my responsibility to inform you about what's going down so that you hear it directly from us and so that none of this hearsay nonsense that's been going around on countless other threads continues to proliferate.
Anyhow. The publisher Sony Computer Entertainment of America designated the build we were given of Killzone reviewable. In our entire history as a site, when a pre-release build is given to us and told to us by the publisher that it is to be "reviewed" we base our judgments off of that code. We obviously can't review something based on "what could be fixed" just as much as we can't review something based on "what could be worse." Speculation shouldn't be a part of our review process, because if we were to assume that a negative aspect of a game could be fixed in some later build, then one could also assume that something we found to be positive could also change directions (say, for instance, we liked the challenge in a game but the developer made a last minute decision to dumb it down -- that means we might not like it so much anymore)
That said, we were provided with a bulleted list of issues to look for in our "reviewable" copy of Killzone:
1.) Occasional debug code could make the screen go blue/green/pink
2.) Cinematics were not entirely finished (logos, for instance, we missing)
3.) Online play needed a specific DNS address to play -- auto connect wasn't working
Other than that, there were no specific bugs or hitches mentioned with our build (which we received on October 1). That said, anything else we ran into was fair game if it was a negative or a positive in that build. We have confirmed that the build that we were given was the same reviewable build sent to other online publications -- (no retail builds will be sent out until tomorrow).
That said we are more than willing to play through the Killzone retail copy to see if there is any significant changes over the build we were given for review. If there is, then we'll surely mention them and make the adjustments to our review accordingly (Ivan has beaten the game twice, so it shouldn't be a problem for him to find out rather quickly).
I would just like to point out in our own defense, that if better versions of the game were available before our review was published they were not made available to us. Nor were we told that better versions even existed in the first place (which we don't know they were, I guess we'll find out when we buy a final copy this week). In a nutshell, if Sony or Guerilla wants to use the one-month age of that build as a defensive point as to why certain issues we had with the game were there, we're left to wonder how those parties could expect us to review that game fairly in the first place? As we obviously can't see the future and can't determine what might not be an issue unless we can actually play it for ourselves. Hence, reviewing the product for what it is based on what we were given.
We'll let you know ASAP if we find any changes (or if we don't). Thanks for reading.
-- Jeremy Dunham
Editor-in-Chief, IGNPS2"
Link
"Quote from the another post by Viper99:
"I can personally confirm that they did NOT get the final build, in fact we went through 24 more builds from the "review" code and final. ""
"Okay - I have to step in for a second here. I don't believe there is any blame to be handed out to anyone, including IGN.
We all try, to the best of our ability, to get code out for review that is close to final. But there are deadlines to consider, and we have to send code out as best we can. No blame should be cast on the development team for that.
As for buggy code, um guys - it happens. We are also fixing bugs and glitches up until the moment they tear the build out of our hands. For that matter, we will probably find new things in online play that people try to exploit and cheat with, so we have patching as a way to combat this.
All reviewers, including the staff at IGN, do their best to review a game based on what we send them. Will they possibly miss things? Yes. Will we occasionally disagree with their reviews? Yes. Will other reviews comment about different things? Probably. Will some people like Killzone? Yes. Will some people not like Killzone? Yes. But we all have our jobs to do in order to bring you, the public, these games.
All of us feel we've made a game that we can be proud to have you play. We never set out to be a "XXX-Killer", we just set out to make what we feel is a fun and imersive game - and hope that you enjoy it.
So play it, tell us what you think... what you like, don't like, etc. We'll be here to respond to you and take all your feedback and suggestions for the next game!
Ferret7
Killzone Dev Team"
I've played the Killzone demo a few times. There are awful LOD problems, polygon seams, framerate issues (not terrible, at least in the demo), sound glitches (grenades sometimes make no noise), and stupid AI. IGN wasn't making that up or nitpicking. It's obvious.
I also got stuck in the ground three times. Once I had hopped over a railing (as the stealth chick) and twice I was just walking around (as the heavy gunner). I had to restart the level. I hope to hell they fixed that for retail.
There are good things: decent level design, detailed animation, nice weapon models, awesome sound (especially gunshots), great style, clever scripting, etc. I had fun playing the demo. It's not a terrible game. But there are a lot of technical issues they need to work out. It's hard to talk about the good when the bad is so ugly.
I had the most fun playing as Luger (the stealth chick). She can sneak up behind enemies and slit their throats, and she comes with a silenced machine pistol thing. Templar (the generic soldier) is kind of generic. Rico (the heavy gunner) is boring. He can mow down everyone with ease.
After playing the level once, the difficulty drops near zero. You can throw grenades around corners to take out groups of enemies you shouldn't know are there, for instance. I have yet to see any enemies avoid (or try to avoid) a grenade. It seems like they yell a warning instead of running.
Killzone might be an alright game, if they fix the technical problems. They need to fix the AI and do something about static enemy positions (which pretty much ruins replay value) if they want to make a great game. Hopefully Killzone 2 will be better.
I also got stuck in the ground three times. Once I had hopped over a railing (as the stealth chick) and twice I was just walking around (as the heavy gunner). I had to restart the level. I hope to hell they fixed that for retail.
There are good things: decent level design, detailed animation, nice weapon models, awesome sound (especially gunshots), great style, clever scripting, etc. I had fun playing the demo. It's not a terrible game. But there are a lot of technical issues they need to work out. It's hard to talk about the good when the bad is so ugly.
I had the most fun playing as Luger (the stealth chick). She can sneak up behind enemies and slit their throats, and she comes with a silenced machine pistol thing. Templar (the generic soldier) is kind of generic. Rico (the heavy gunner) is boring. He can mow down everyone with ease.
After playing the level once, the difficulty drops near zero. You can throw grenades around corners to take out groups of enemies you shouldn't know are there, for instance. I have yet to see any enemies avoid (or try to avoid) a grenade. It seems like they yell a warning instead of running.
Killzone might be an alright game, if they fix the technical problems. They need to fix the AI and do something about static enemy positions (which pretty much ruins replay value) if they want to make a great game. Hopefully Killzone 2 will be better.
It's pretty much dead. Please don't beat a dead horse!
Nov. 2, 2004 gamespy review: Killzone (PS2)
score: 3 / 5
Nov. 2, 2004 gamespy review: Killzone (PS2)
score: 3 / 5
If they are actually problems in the game and they affect perception, I should hope so. Otherwise, maybe a footnote or passing reference would be more appropriate.Snappy said:I wonder if IGN will bring up Halo 2's LOD, AI and screen tearing problems in it's review?