Killzone 2 (PS3)

The Helghast are back in a sequel that I've dubbed Return of the Red-Eye. Because the Helghast all have red eyes. Get it? You see what I did there? Clever, right?
2/4/2009 10:43 AM | 74 Comments | Page 1 of 3

What's Hot: Terrific production values; Protagonist is an Average Joe; A couple of truly awesome FPS set pieces

What's Not: Standard-issue FPS action; Lack of imagination and innovation; Style trumps substance (example: the Helghast's cool-looking but terribly impractical red eyes)
Fry It!
Scott Jones
Scott Jones
Status: Coffee makes me feel 4-percent sexier.
There are certain things that I can expect to do in first-person shooters these days. I can expect to set a C4 charge. I can expect to drive some variation of tank/Warthog-like jeep/armored mech-thing.

I can expect to turn a circular valve. I can expect to ride in an elevator with my "squad." I can expect to find a stray sniper rifle at the exact moment that I need a sniper rifle. And I can expect to find a rocket launcher -- coupled with a bottomless cache of rockets -- conveniently placed near a level-ending boss.

Like an accountant doing your taxes, Killzone 2, developed by Guerilla Games, dutifully meets these criteria. Valves were turned. Charges were planted. Mech-things were driven. And despite the fact that all these things are done with great enthusiasm, high production values and lots of terrific-looking explosions, yawns were still yawned.

Killzone 2 for PS3 review
The Helghast's flight of choice: the red-eye.
The game tells the story of Sergeant Tomas Sevchenko, aka "Sev." Sev is an Average Joe. He's not the best-looking guy. He has a very average-sized neck for a videogame hero. (Compare/contrast Sev's neck with Marcus Fenix's neck.) Sev is pale and gaunt. He is also extremely short. In cut scenes he appears to be as tall as everyone else, but once gameplay kicks in, he miraculously shrinks to the size of Owen Meany. Every non-playable character in the game is noticeably taller than Sev. He seems to come up to everyone's chest.

I don't mind being an Average Joe in a game. I prefer it to the cliché one-man-army type usually found in shooters. But, man, it annoyed me to always be so much shorter than everyone else. It was psychologically debilitating for me. I felt less like a battle-hardened soldier who's been in "The Shit" and more like an eighth grader looking for directions to the nearest Pinkberry.

Sev's task, of course, is to C4-plant, valve-turn, and elevator-ride his way through the Helghast army -- worst bad-guys name ever, by the way -- and eventually locate their ranting, maniacal leader, Emperor Scolar Visari (voiced by the always terrific Brian Cox) and put a stop to his reign of terror.

Killzone 2 for PS3 review
The Helghast come in three sizes: Small, Medium and Depressed.
The Helghast must have dog-eared copies of "Mein Kampf" tucked into their knapsacks. They dress like Nazis. They walk like Nazis. They spout Nazi-esque rhetoric. To drive the point home even further, Sev's squadmates, aka "the good guys," are of mixed ethnicities. There's Corporal Dante Garza and Sergeant Rico Velasquez. Indeed, the squad is a veritable rainbow of colors -- every race, color and creed is represented, except for Asians (sorry, Asians) -- while the Helghast predominantly consist of bald-headed white guys.

I know they're bald because I can shoot off their helmets. I love this moment so much, I can't even tell you. A well-placed bullet and ting, there goes the helmet. Maybe I'm imagining this, but enemies always seem to be chagrinned by the loss of their helmets. They hide for a moment. They reach up and touch their exposed heads. They seem to curse under their breaths. My only wish was that Guerrilla had carried this exchange one step further, and had the enemies actually chase after their missing helmets, and attempt to return them to their bare pates.

« Prev  1  2  3  Next »  

Share This

  • Stumbleupon Share Button
  • Delicious Share Button
  • Reddit Share Button
  • Slashdot Share Button
  • Fark Share Button
  • Yahoo Buzz Share Button

Comments

  • MSUSteve
    MSUSteve

    3/2/2009 9:03:44 AM

    I played around three or so hours of Killzone 2 this weekend and I'm ready to disgorge some impressions.

    I must say that I'm not in love with the game. Of course the graphics look good, but I feel like my field of view is so narrow and limited that I can't really appreciate the environment. If I want to look around I have to coax the camera to move, which is not responsive at all. It's not a question of sensitivity, but of acceleration. It accelerates too slowly when it first starts moving and then too quickly when it gets going. Anytime I'm forced to move the camera/gun site quickly, I end up jerking the reticle all over the place like a drunk. It's extremely irritating. I played some FEAR 2 after playing KZ2 and it's night and day in terms of control. FEAR 2 nails the right feel for aiming and shooting. KZ2 feels like I'm trying to move my gun underwater. It's unacceptable and all the pretty graphics in the world can't trump screwing up such a basic gameplay element. It's so bad that I move the camera around as little as possible. That, combined with the extremely narrow field of view make looking for intel cases and shootable Helghast symbols more of a chore than it's worth, so I don't even bother.

    The cover system works pretty darn well. When I went back to FEAR 2 I thought that grafting KZ2's cover system onto that game would be a most welcome addition. The cover system is essential to KZ2 because with the God-awful aiming you really need to set up and aim down the sites to score kills. That is, the controls work well for fine down-site adjustment. They fall apart when walking/running while trying to point your character in the correct direction and/or shoot/melee someone at close range. So for a big chunk of the game.

    The cinematics in the game are quite a treat, at least so far. In this day and age I usually don't care much for in-game movies, but the opening video for KZ2 was really well done and got me pretty pumped.

    Reply »
  • MSUSteve
    MSUSteve

    2/20/2009 1:50:24 PM

    @pyro117: Damn! Jones is one sexy...shut yo' mouf!

    Reply »
  • pyro117
    pyro117

    2/20/2009 1:20:10 PM

    Interesting interview with Mr. Jones:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/business/10flier.html?_r=1

    Would like to know your take on the article.

    Reply »
  • DavidF
    DavidF

    2/11/2009 3:15:25 AM

    I too signed up just to post a comment here, but I know who Scott is and I read Crispy Gamer fairly regularly. Preemptively I'll apologize, 'cause this will be a mini-opus of a comment. Sorry.




    Innovation.
    The other KZ2 review that bucks the general consensus is Edge's (omfg 70!), and like Scott's it notes a decided lack of innovation. Like most of you, I've only played the demo but this complaint seems well-founded.
    -aim for the head!
    -space marines!
    -thinly veiled historical parallels!
    -"fuck"!
    -exploding barrels!

    Originality is important - it's important to gaming in general, and when it works out you get stuff like Okami, Katamari Damacy and Rez.

    My issue here is that a lack of innovation does not a bad game make. Take Dead Space. Take Uncharted. Take GTA IV. Nothing really new there - but fun, robust, rock-solid games.

    I don't expect KZ2 to reinvent the wheel - just be good at what it does. Having said this, one part of Scott's review does give me pause...





    Immersion.
    He notes it's an "an unbelievable, utterly unconvincing world", which is cause for concern. A well-realized game world is one of the most crucial aspects of a first person shooter - since Doom, atmosphere has been at the top of the list for the genre's requirements, and frankly this complaint almost makes me want to rent before I buy.




    Difference of opinion.
    I've seen enough of Scott's stuff to disagree with anyone who suggests this review is flamebait to drive viewers to the site. It's just Scott's take, it's the Crispy Gamer way, and he's entitled to his opinion. He doesn't like the game, and that's okay.

    We're fortunate enough to have a generation of consoles that let you try before you buy. And like Bioshock, Valkyria Chronicles and Mirror's Edge, the KZ2 demo has convinced me I'll get a lot of pleasure from this title. So I'll drop sixty on it.

    And that's okay too.


    Reply »
  • MSUSteve
    MSUSteve

    2/9/2009 3:43:22 PM

    I was able to play the demo on Thursday and found it to be enjoyable, if underwhelming. It's hard to get any real sense of a game after playing a 10 minute demo, but it appears to be competent.

    I think the cover works much better than Mr. Jones seems to. It's not perfect, but it does the job of protecting me while I take potshots at the red eyed guys. Again, and insert this anywhere you wish: I only played the 10 minute demo. I have no idea how this, or anything else, plays out over the 10 hour game.

    The aiming is a little sluggish, even after turning up the sensitivity. It's as if there is a slight delay between pressing the stick and the onscreen reticle actually moving. Even so, the shooting works well enough, at least with the default assault rifle and the Helghast equivalent. I certainly can't imagine any good reason to lay down the assault rifle for a shotgun, or anything else, given the stupid limitation of one primary weapon. I can't even begin to understand that design decision.

    The reloading animation does take awhile, as Scott mentioned. It didn't get me killed in the demo, but I can see how it might sometime in the future.

    The dialog is atrocious. Just awful.

    Regarding the graphics, they're good looking, but I have to say, nothing about the game's looks made me situp and take notice. I appreciate how the game looks, but the dingy warehouse and the bombed out street didn't make an impression.

    Reply »
  • JoshMoore
    JoshMoore

    2/8/2009 1:54:48 AM

    I understand that you wanted a review with more of the technical and mechanical aspects, and I can appreciate that. I just find that those kind of reviews are a dime a dozen. That product - review checklist style can be found in any number of places. Most reviews seem to be from the head, not from the gut. This one was more instinctual. Like I say, there are many places to go that will be happy to give you a run down of the mechanics of Killzone 2, all I want to hear from Scott Jones is his honest opinion on the experience he had playing it.

    Also, you sure know how to piss people off don't you Jones?

    Reply »
  • jerryku
    jerryku

    2/6/2009 9:16:13 PM

    hmm i think i will cancel my KZ2 preorder. The demo gives me simulation sickness because of the severe head bobbing present in the game.

    Reply »
  • JasonMcMaster

    2/6/2009 3:52:48 PM

    u suk jonz

    Reply »
  • ScottJones
    ScottJones

    2/6/2009 9:42:36 AM

    I can't recall seeing a comment thread that has started so poorly and evolved into something so restrained and sophisticated ever before.

    Hats off to all of you.

    Who knew that the quickest, easiest way to chase off the KILZONN ROKS I FRY YOU INSTEAD crowd is to simply raise the level of discourse? I think there's an After School Special lesson in here somewhere. -The Jones

    Reply »
  • unangbangkay
    unangbangkay

    2/5/2009 8:24:24 PM

    Just to get my own two cents in, game reviews needn't (and shouldn't) be conducted as simple product-review checklists, as was mentioned below, but because they're as much a technical experience as they are a creative one, at least some space should be devoted to assessing a game's mechanics.

    And that's where I did take some issue with this review. Scott's done a great job in detailing his experience of the game's single-player portion, and after playing the demo I see exactly where he's coming from, even if I don't agree with it myself.

    It's just that the review was lacking that last mechanical nod. In retrospect, as Scott seems to have noted as well, the review would have felt far more "complete" if he had included those observations about the reload animations or the cover system.

    Reply »
  • MSUSteve
    MSUSteve

    2/5/2009 6:56:55 PM

    I certainly wasn't suggesting the Scott's review (or anyone's) should be a paint-by-numbers, fill-in-the-template affair. And I didn't mean to say that Scott's review wasn't a "real" review because it didn't discuss the main mechanics of the game in much detail. I just think the review didn't really tell me much about why the game was bad. Some discussion of mechanics that we can all try out gives everyone a common point of reference so that we can effectively compare how we feel about the game.

    I don't think it's an all or nothing proposition where we're stuck with either a witty, funny, and creative article or a boring and rote consumer report. I think game reviews, like reviews of other somewhat similar works (movies, CDs) are always at least party consumer report. That is, the reviewer is making a recommendation to the reader and justifying it with the text.

    Reply »
  • JoshMoore
    JoshMoore

    2/5/2009 6:21:51 PM

    Wow. Wow wow wow. If you are against truthful reviews I highly suggest you go somewhere else. I dont know what your fanboys problems are... I wait yes I do, you like crap. In retrospect who cares? Let them gripe. They can waste away playing hollow fps's for the rest of their lives. That you Mr.Jones for your constant refusal to drink the proverbial kool aid. Real kool aid is ok of course. That drink is mighty tasty.

    Reply »
  • GusMastrapa
    GusMastrapa

    2/5/2009 5:52:52 PM

    Truth told I gave Uncharted a B+, but that's enough to call down a shitstorm with video game fans. I'll save further discussion of that game for elsewhere, because I find this conversation about Killzone 2 and the approach to games criticism much more interesting. Thanks, Adam, for being an interested reader. I don't mind antagonism so long as its coming from a sound direction. Seems yours is. One more thing, I tend to read criticism not as a consumer but as a person interested in the medium. I frequently read reviews after I've seen or experienced a work to help me digest it. To let others air their opinions and determine how the inform or butt up against mine. Because, to be honest, I know what movies, music and games I want to buy/play/watch ahead of time. Don't need anybody to tell me that. What I need help with is making sense of them -- figuring out why they work and why the don't.

    Reply »
  • Mr_Adam
    Mr_Adam

    2/5/2009 4:57:38 PM

    Gus -

    I guess the fact of the matter is that we, as consumers, can not depend on one source for our review needs (this should be obvious). I commend the entire Crispy Gamer staff on their ability to create intriguing, entertaining articles. I will be anxiously awaiting the review on the multiplayer aspect.

    As for MGS4 - I'm with you. I could never really get into the MGS games - I beat #2, but couldn't stand playing more than an hour of #3 and didn't enjoy the demo of #4.

    Uncharted - really?! I put off getting this game for quite some time (the demo was horrible), instead purchasing games like Rainbow Six and The Orange Box. Not to say these are bad games, but when I did buy Uncharted, it blew me away. This is the only game that I can think of that I actually started over the minute I beat the game. I would be playing it again, but I lent it to a coworker. I felt like the voice work/acting was phenomenal, the graphics (explosions/large set pieces) were amazing and the story was engrossing.

    I appreciate your passion, but what I don't understand is the use of footie (are you an Aussie or were you talking soccer?). I've never understood the use of such a wussy word to describe an exciting sport (be it soccer or Aussie rules football).

    Nevertheless - I'd like to thank the Crispy Gamer staff for their passion for their own craftwork. I've disagreed with reviews before and I'll disagree with reviews in the future. Please continue to be original in your articles - you are one of the few outlets that contribute well thought reviews/opinions.

    Reply »
  • evohollywood

    2/5/2009 4:51:32 PM

    @Mr_Adam - It seemed to me that, like Gus said, most Game Trust members were defending Scott's approach to the review and his right to take that approach. None of them were jumping up and down screaming "I ALSO THINK KILLZONE 2 SUCKS TEH BALLS."

    Obviously our writer's don't all share the same viewpoint, we regularly publish dissenting opinions in which one or multiple Game Trust member's disagree with the official Crispy rating. What the Game Trust member's do share is a mutual respect for game journalism and a willingness to reach outside the box when assessing the worthiness of a game.

    Evan

    Reply »
  • GusMastrapa
    GusMastrapa

    2/5/2009 4:16:29 PM

    Great minds think alike, right? But really, I may be the only other person here who played and wasn't all that wowed by the game. I'm sure other Crispy critics will come down in the game's defense eventually. I know somebody here actually liked Metal Gear Solid 4. Luckily my PS3 broke mid-game. I had to hand over my review of the game elsewhere. Personally, I'm a little relieved that I'm not on the hook to go before the firing squad like poor Jones. I've gotten heat low scores before (mine is the lowest Metacritic score for Uncharted) and its no fun being the bearer of bad news that nobody wants to hear. And really, I'm not defending Jones' opinion about Killzone 2, so much as defending his approach. I have no dogs in the fight when it comes to this game. I have zero emotion invested in the whether the game is beloved or hated. What I do care about is how game reviews are perceived. I am passionate about opening up the idea of what a video game review can be -- what they can talk about and how they talk about it. When people come to say that a piece of work isn't a review because it doesn't mention x mechanic or doesn't dwell in certain ephemera I'm like a drunk footie fan -- totally game to bloody my knuckles over something I believe in, however stupid.

    Reply »
  • Mr_Adam
    Mr_Adam

    2/5/2009 3:59:20 PM

    I have been extremely impressed with the discussion between the guests of the site - with a few exceptions. I am, however, disappointed in the Crispy Gamer staff's reaction to the criticism of Scott's review. Their defensive nature of Scott's review makes it appear as if they all have the same viewpoint of this game (I'm using this game as an example). I would find it hard to believe that all staff members feel the exact same as Scott - given the overwhelmingly positive reaction surrounding Killzone 2.

    If this is the case, and all of the staffers that are commenting in Scott's defense share the same belief, I question why I should frequent this site. What benefit is it to employ a selection of talented authors when they all share the same viewpoint?

    Given that the Killzone 2 article has sparked such a passionate debate, I would love to see a Crispy Gamer article in which each staffer projects his/her opinion of Killzone 2. I really appreciated the article in which the staff members discussed their retrospective opinions of the games of 2008.

    My two cents.

    Reply »
  • RyanKuo

    2/5/2009 3:34:21 PM

    Not only can you not enumerate the quality of a game, you can't quantify its fun or innovation by making a list of all its new features, improved features, old features, buggy features, special features, extra features, bonus features, downloadable features, patched features, etc. I can only think this (and the vehement attacking of negative reviews that threaten the validity of one's purchasing or pre-purchasing decision) has to do with some kind of hyper-consumerist mentality.

    Reply »
  • EvanNarcisse

    2/5/2009 1:07:41 PM

    @theGlavin: Gotta disagree. A review delivers a set of critical reactions to the experience that a game delivers. As far our system at Crispy goes, I think readers should be able to figure out whether out how a writer felt about the game from the text of a review. The Buy It/Try It/Fry It ratings deliver that consumer guidance that some people want, complementing the qualitative assessment delivered in the write-up.

    Reply »
  • GusMastrapa
    GusMastrapa

    2/5/2009 12:57:58 PM

    Don't get me started on rating systems. I'm not a fan. I think they put undue expectations on game criticism. I'd also like to point out that Jones does talk about game play quite a bit in his review. He talks about shooting off helmets, he talks about cliches like turning the handles and C4 and he talks about having the low perspective and how that is distracting. I say this a lot, but you've got to pick your battles when you write a review. You can't talk about every detail of a game. Some orphans get left behind. So maybe the cover system does blow. Sometimes its just not worth mentioning because you've got bigger fish to fry.

    Reply »
  • GlavinChris
    GlavinChris

    2/5/2009 12:44:38 PM

    @my last statement

    I realized that that could be misunderstood...

    Writing about video games should not be about whether to buy it or not, neither should a game review (a game review is supposed to sway an opinion) however when a rating system is buy it, try it or fry it then it is about whether to buy the game.


    -The Glavin

    Reply »
  • GlavinChris
    GlavinChris

    2/5/2009 12:38:59 PM

    @gus No, writing a video game review is meant to sway others opinions on the game (and when you rate it buy it, try it, or fry it, then it is about buying the game or not)


    -The Glavin

    Reply »
  • GusMastrapa
    GusMastrapa

    2/5/2009 12:34:08 PM

    I'm going to ask the question again: Is deciding if a game is worth $60 dollars the primary concern of writing about video games? If so I'm out.

    Reply »
  • GlavinChris
    GlavinChris

    2/5/2009 12:32:43 PM

    Thanks for the apology there Jonesy. It is quite common to want to defend your piece so badly that you say stuff that could be miscontrued.

    As for me personally, I disagree with what you have written for things that I have said previously (Red Eyes, open-toped ship, etc... )but can understand that you full-heartedly didn't enjoy the game.

    I would suggest, as some other posters had, to add some more information about the fundamental gameplay that you didn't like (that way we can make a real judgement on whether we should "buy it" or "fry it"). As a piece of work however, you are an excellent writer and can come up with some entertaining stuff.

    If you added some of the technical aspects of the game I would say this review would be close to perfect (just need the multiplayer aspect :)) even if I did disagree with you.


    -The Glavin

    Reply »
  • MSUSteve
    MSUSteve

    2/5/2009 9:18:01 AM

    @TheJones I appreciate the kind words Scott. I guess if I had to bottom line what I thought was missing from the review, I would say that it didn't contain much discussion about how the game actually worked. I really liked the review as a piece of writing. It's fresh and funny and really well done. But as entertaining as it is, it doesn't do a particularly good job explaining just what's wrong with the game. It certainly comes across that you think the game is derivative and that's a fair criticism. I just wanted a little more about how the moment to moment gameplay felt; along the lines of your latest comments about the cover mechanic and the slow-as-molasses reloading. Those kinds of things go a long way in helping one decide if a game is going to be worth $60 to him.

    I guess what I'm getting at is that I enjoy and would encourage the creative approach you took to relating your subjective opinions about the game overall, but it'd be helpful to readers to mix in some discussion of the actual gameplay. I have every confidence that you could do so and still keep the review entertaining and funny.

    Reply »
  • ScottJones
    ScottJones

    2/5/2009 8:54:34 AM

    I really wish I hadn't said thing about people who think this is a good game probably shouldn't be reviewing games. That was dumb. I'm very passionate about gaming, and I take the job of reviewing games extremely seriously. So I do get worked up when critics trip over themselves to dole out hyperbole and inflated scores for a game that, as I said, is competent. Forgive me for my overzealous statement. I get excited sometimes.

    MSUSteve: I really enjoy reading your comments, and I'm glad you're part of our community. But I'm curious about what you feel is missing from the review. (Besides a proper assessment of multiplayer.) KZ 2's gameplay is identical to every other FPS you've played. You go there, shoot some enemies; then you go over there and shoot a few more.

    Two other observations that I meant to include in the review: It feels like it takes around 10 minutes to reload most of the weapons. I can't tell you the number of times I died while backpedaling during a reload animation. But it was a lot.

    And the peekaboo cover system in the game stinks. In the 10-12 hours I spent with the game, I never once managed to use it effectively.

    -TheJones

    Reply »
  • CG-Prophet

    2/4/2009 9:31:02 PM

    @InjuredNinja

    I would assume that "those emotional moments" were the highlight for him, but not enough to change his mind.

    I have read three writers that I respect say the opposite of everyone else so now I’m going to be forced to at least rent the game.

    Reply »
  • InjuredNinja
    InjuredNinja

    2/4/2009 8:44:16 PM

    This review was confusing to me. Most of the review nitpicks design choices (Helghast eyes, the entry ship w/no roof). The only two things I took seriously in the review? 1) The FPS camera is lower than in other games (this sounds annoying); 2) You were actually fighting your emotions at one point. IN A FPS. But yeah. Fry it.

    I was amazed that you failed to mention the one thing pretty much all other reviews have pointed out as suck-tastic: Load times at check points. Your way too original too point that out though. Instead you complain because it uses gameplay mechanics from all the best FPS's of the last few years. I'll bet that 95% of the FPS/Shooter games that come out this year will feature these same mechanics. Will you 'Fry' all of them for not reinventing the wheel?

    Not once did you mention the cover system, something NEW to the console FPS genre. I have read quite a few reviews for this game, and this is honestly the worst one. Nitpick if you want, fry the game if you want, but don't accuse if of having nothing new to offer while ignoring the one innovation it does have.

    1UP's review of Killzone 2 is better written (admittedly not as funny though), more focused on the game play, and actually useful to consumers. Your "review" is a more of a blog post pissed at a game for not changing the face of gaming as we all know it.

    I have not played the game myself, so I don't know for sure just how far off the mark you are. I am looking forward to Killzone 2, almost every review I've read from popular websites are singing the games praises, and if all you have to bitch about is the bad guys' red eyes and it employing every game play mechanic from previous FPS's, this game is going to be bad ass. Epic Fail on this review.

    (I majored in English. Huge accomplishment, right? I will come back and review the game myself after its been out for a while, if I can remember the name of this site.)

    Reply »
  • CaptainHomeless

    2/4/2009 6:07:10 PM

    This thread needs more use of the bold tag

    Reply »
  • GusMastrapa
    GusMastrapa

    2/4/2009 5:48:29 PM

    I think the allusion to movies is a poor one, because films are meant to be experienced in their entirety. Games, though they aim to tell stories and contain narratives, are a different animal. They're consumed piecemeal. Rarely "finished" except by enthusiasts. Reviewing a game is like reviewing a Frisbee (bad comparison as well, maybe a Frisbee that tells you stories while you throw it). And in Jones' case, as someone who doesn't play online games all that much, the single player is where its at. And Jones would be much happier with one that behaved like a boomerang, because he doesn't have a friend or a dog to play catch with. Everybody has different things they want out of a game. And Jones did a great job of articulating what Killzone gave him and what it didn't. Note that there was no mention of frame rate, AI, graphics or whatever, because that's not what (I assume) makes a game interesting to him. He just didn't want to turn knobs and set C4 and, unfortunately, that's a good part of what Killzone 2 tasks you with.

    Reply »
  • MSUSteve
    MSUSteve

    2/4/2009 5:42:50 PM

    "I agreed with you a few posts down -- and there's a disclaimer at the end of this review that states it applies to the single-player game only;"

    @Ryan Yeah, I saw your post and the disclaimer. Sorry if it seemed like I was needlessly reiterating. I guess I started ruminating on reviews in general and lost sight of the fact that Scott's review doesn't even purport to cover the entire game (if by the entire game one is referring the SP and MP). I still think Crispy shouldn't apply a final verdict/score to a game without playing the whole thing, but upon reflection I have no fundamental problem with a review split between SP and MP.

    Reply »
  • MSUSteve
    MSUSteve

    2/4/2009 5:31:11 PM

    Glavin: I have to agree with the sentiment, if not the way you decide to express it. Scott stating that "anyone who thinks this is a good game probably should not be reviewing videogames for a living," is a pretty arrogant and harsh statement. It leaves no room for the possibility that two equally qualified and intelligent people could simply disagree about the merits of Killzone 2.

    Examining my own thoughts on games, I'd have to say that I would find anyone that gave MGS4 or GTAIV the equivalent of a 100% score wise to be suspect. I think both of those games have huge flaws and were massively overrated by a large chunk of the games press. What I wouldn't say, and what Scott probably shouldn't say, is that anyone who does so isn't qualified to review games.

    Reply »
  • RyanKuo

    2/4/2009 5:28:20 PM

    @ MSUSteve "For some, MP is the chief component of a game and thus, a review that fails to mention that isn't useful at all."

    I agreed with you a few posts down -- and there's a disclaimer at the end of this review that states it applies to the single-player game only; and that a multiplayer evaluation is forthcoming.

    o_o <-- red eyes

    Reply »
  • DaveLong
    DaveLong

    2/4/2009 5:27:14 PM

    "I call bullshit to the fact that Scott is the only one who deserves to have a reviewing job (he did say those who gave it a good review should lose their jobs)


    -The Glavin"

    Tom Chick's got a job yet, too. ;)

    Reply »
  • MSUSteve
    MSUSteve

    2/4/2009 5:24:17 PM

    @Ryan I don't necessarily think that a game review should be a product review akin to that for a blender or a telephone. But I think game reviews always have some component of that to them. Perhaps it's because games tend to be fairly expensive or maybe it's an outmoded style that hangs on despite outliving its usefulness. That's another discussion I suppose.

    Regardless, I do think a review should discuss all of the salient features of a game. I love the analogy of multiplayer features to DVD extras and completely see what you mean, but I think you and I both realize that's not a completely perfect comparison. For some, MP is the chief component of a game and thus, a review that fails to mention that isn't useful at all. That's fine really, except that CrispyGamer's review options all impart some advice on whether to buy the game being reviewed. In order to legitimately make a statement that a game should be purchased or skipped, the entire thing should have come under consideration, not just a portion.

    Reply »
  • GlavinChris
    GlavinChris

    2/4/2009 5:23:36 PM

    I call bullshit to the fact that Scott is the only one who deserves to have a reviewing job (he did say those who gave it a good review should lose their jobs)


    -The Glavin

    Reply »
  • RyanKuo

    2/4/2009 5:12:04 PM

    @ MSUSteve I guess we were both getting at the same point unknowingly, but from different angles. I think that treating a game review as if it should be a product review does a disservice to games. It's like having the extras on a DVD influence your review of the film. Not that multiplayer only ever plays a supplementary role -- MMOs and games like L4D being a counter-example -- but here, I think we can safely assume that Killzone 2 multiplayer is not going to make Scott think the game isn't kind of generic-looking, sounding, and feeling.

    Reply »
  • TurboZerbo
    TurboZerbo

    2/4/2009 5:10:12 PM

    @MSU - Well said. That comment took me a while to write, and in that time much more intelligent, well-formed discussions have taken place here. It's gone from bashing the writer for his opinion to discussing the game itself fairly quickly, and I'm looking forward to reading more.

    Reply »
  • w1ndst0rm

    2/4/2009 5:05:14 PM

    michaeljacksoneatingmoviepopcorn.gif

    Reply »
  • RyanKuo

    2/4/2009 5:03:16 PM

    @pyro117 I guess I don't experience games that holistically. Most games may be 50% single-player and 50% multiplayer, but I think of the games I play as either being good for playing alone or for playing with others. As far as I'm concerned each is a different experience, so it would be committing a weird fallacy to devote token space to both components in a single piece of writing about a gameplay experience. I could see that making sense on Consumer Reports, but not much else. An exception would be if the multiplayer component significantly shaped the single-player aspect and vice versa.

    In other words, if I'm buying a blender (http://www.consumersearch.com/blenders/comparison), I would appreciate a highly regimented review. If I'm buying a game, I care more about the feeling it leaves me with afterwards.

    Reply »
  • MSUSteve
    MSUSteve

    2/4/2009 5:01:02 PM

    Turbo: While a backlash against the backlash is no-doubt appropriate on other sites and message boards right now, I don't think many commenting here (except for the obvious couple of jackasses) are "offended" by Scott's review or screwing themselves up in fanboy rage. I myself just find it interesting to discuss the relative merits of the review with other thinking adults.

    Reply »
  • GusMastrapa
    GusMastrapa

    2/4/2009 4:54:37 PM

    I'm going to suggest that Scott's statement was a "modest proposal" an exaggeration meant to prove a point. Essentially, that being forgiving of genre stuff isn't really being all that critical -- you're just going down a checklist making sure that every bullet point of fun has been satisfied by the fun machine. But I'm sure Jones will elaborate if he sees fit.

    Reply »
  • TurboZerbo
    TurboZerbo

    2/4/2009 4:54:11 PM

    Am I the only one who read this review and walked away thinking "Generic, garden-variety, nothing to write home about, Vanilla FPS. It doesn't live up to the hype, therefore Fry It"

    I think that's all Scott was trying to get across with his review. It's just not the PS3's answer to Halo that everyone was hoping for. It's just an Everyday Shooter (no pun intended).

    I'm amazed at how offended you all are. The dude didn't like the game. If you think you might feel differently, rent it when it comes out, PLAY IT (this part is key)and come back to let everyone know your opinion.

    Reply »
  • MSUSteve
    MSUSteve

    2/4/2009 4:52:47 PM

    First, let me just say that I really appreciate the civil discussion so far here. The comments over at Figit regarding Tom Chick's impressions are brutal.

    Ryan: Disregarding Scott's review's lack of comment on the multiplayer aspects of the game, I still think his review doesn't really provide much in the way of support for his "Fry It" assessment. It's not that I disagree with his assessment. How could I without having played the game? But for the reasons I already stated, the review doesn't articulate the flaws of KZ2 particularly well.

    And while it's always dicey to do so, I'd analogize the lack of comment on the MP aspects to a movie reviewer discussing only the first half of a film, or perhaps more accurately, the reviewer of some consumer product discussing only half of the product's features. It's ultimately irresponsible, especially if one views a game review first as a consumer guide. Now if Scott's review is meant chiefly as an artistic critique, then I suppose a feature-by-feature rundown might not be necessary. I still think that such an important portion of the game (to many) deserves at least some consideration under either view. I'd also point out that all of Scott's available review "score" options involve a recommendation to the reader on whether he/she should buy the game.

    Gus: I don't think anyone is saying that Scott's review is flawed because he didn't spend enough time playing MP. A few people have simply pointed out that not even mentioning the MP aspects is to ignore a large portion of the product that Guerilla is offering. I have no problem with a review being a summation of snapshot in time as opposed to a retrospective, but I think the snapshot should encompass the whole scene, not just the house or just the garage, so to speak.

    Reply »
  • pyro117
    pyro117

    2/4/2009 4:47:23 PM

    @RyanKuo

    Good point, I am interested in both the SP and MP and I would imagine most folks are interested in both, but when a game has both modes then both modes need to be reviewed and evaluated before a buy, try or fry can be tagged on the game. In the article, each of the gaming modes can be broken out into the buy, try, fry portion. In my opinion a review of any game should include all portions of the game.

    There are plenty of games that one mode dominates the other a couple of examples that comes to my mind is MGS4 (SP was a buy, MP was a try or fry). Halo 3, SP was a try and MP was a buy). These are just my opinions on the game, not CrispyGamers.

    These are just my opinions you may or may not agree with me...

    Reply »
  • pyro117
    pyro117

    2/4/2009 4:41:15 PM

    @CG-Prophet

    I will look up more about what the game reviewers have been able to actually review for MP. I have not done my full homework it seems. I did look at Kotaku and found an "Impressions of the game" and not a "Review of the game". Kotaku is not reviewing the game because they cannot delve into the MP as they would like. I applaud them for their honesty. They do however make some of my points for me. They are not calling it a review - which I have stated. They are not saying buy, fry or try - because it is not a review. They do seem to also disagree with ScottJones comments - as per reading that impressions document, they liked the SP. Wouldn't that make them unfit to review a game in ScottJones eyes?

    Reply »
  • RyanKuo

    2/4/2009 4:39:39 PM

    If the multiplayer mode is important to some - but not all - people, why is a review *of the single-player game* inherently flawed? If you're primarily interested in one aspect of the game, this review either does or does not apply to you.

    Reply »
  • GusMastrapa
    GusMastrapa

    2/4/2009 4:38:51 PM

    This is the problem with the positioning of reviews as the end-all be-all authoritative position on a game. Start down the slippery slope of "I can't review multiplayer because I only spent x hours with it" and you basically invalidate the opinion of every person who hasn't spent the last year and a half with the game. Reviews are a snapshot in time. They're based on impressions. That's all we can possibly ever hope for. I think it's a mistake to start couching reviews with this kind of language when we should be moving in the other direction -- allowing reviews to be exactly what they are, early impressions based on a fraction of the time that most people will spend with the game. Because otherwise, the only way to TRULY review a game will be in retrospect. And I don't think anybody wants to wait that long.

    Reply »
  • Mr_Adam
    Mr_Adam

    2/4/2009 4:35:13 PM

    Well stated MSUSteve.

    When I finished the article I came across with the impression that Scott had his mind made up prior to actually reviewing the game and decided to point out perceived flaws in the game that back up his viewpoint.

    I completely agree with Scott that it is hard for us to state an opinion given that many of us have never touched the game, let alone played the whole thing.

    I also agree with others in saying that this is not a proper review in that it does not touch upon the multiplayer aspect of the game. The conclusion of the review states it is based on the single player aspect, but why give a "grade" (fry it) to the complete package when, in many player's eyes, less than half of the game has been played.

    In the end I will buy the game and either realize my video game pallet is nothing like Scott's or I will realize Scott was correct with his analysis and wish I hadn't spent the $60 (something all of us has done at one point).

    In the end I have high expectations for Killzone 2, specifically the online portion of it.

    Reply »
  • CG-Prophet

    2/4/2009 4:34:49 PM

    @pyro117

    From what I have heard multiplayer has not been played to any great length by anyone because the game has not been released. This is what plenty of journalists are saying. Hit google and check it out. That would be like playing two hours of the single player and then saying it's awesome.

    Reply »
  • pyro117
    pyro117

    2/4/2009 4:28:53 PM

    @CG-Prophet, the reviews that I have read do say they have played the MP and enjoyed it. I have not read them all and don't plan on reading every one. I have not read the Kotaku review of the game and I would not classify that as a full review if they did not include the MP portion.



    @ScottJones, this has nothing to do with fanboyism for me. I have not played any Killzone games to date, so I have no preconceived notions about the game nor any loyalties to the game or the PS3. I do plan on playing the game and to come up with my own opinion.

    I do not understand why you said "anyone who thinks this is a good game probably should not be reviewing videogames for a living". That is a pretty broad statement and without properly backing it up, you lose credibility to review any game in my opinion.

    Reply »
  • MSUSteve
    MSUSteve

    2/4/2009 4:28:48 PM

    Scott, I appreciate your position that people can't legitimately disagree with your take on Killzone 2 without actually playing it themselves. That's not what I'm seeing here in the comments though. I have no axe to grind either way and don't consider myself a fanboy of anything (ok, I am a Superman fanboy). I just think your review is missing a lot of detail. That you said Killzone 2 should be fried is fine with me. I just wish I had a better idea about what specifically is wrong with the game. As I said, your review is very entertaining, but it doesn't help me make a decision on buying the game either way.

    Finally, as others have pointed out, reviewing the game without examining the multiplayer aspects seems irresponsible. I'll fully admit that the MP aspects don't matter to me, but they do matter to others and, moreover, the dev team (I'd assume anyway) put a lot of thought and work into creating it. To recommend that people not buy the game while ignoring a large part of its feature set doesn't seem fair.

    Reply »
  • ScottJones
    ScottJones

    2/4/2009 4:19:53 PM

    I'm glad you guys are here, and I'm grateful that you've read the review and care enough to comment.

    Yet I don't understand why so many people are so anxious to jump to the defense of a game that they haven't played yet.

    And I thought fanboyism was dead.

    Before defending KZ 2 based solely on 1. very nice looking screenshots, and 2. other reviews, you should try actually playing the game first.

    -jones

    Reply »
  • CG-Prophet

    2/4/2009 4:17:51 PM

    That should have been "game" instead of "fame."

    Reply »
  • CG-Prophet

    2/4/2009 4:15:34 PM

    @pyro117
    By that logic (this isn't a review because it didn't tackle MP) I guess all those 90's and 100's the game is getting are also invalid.
    Because no one has had a chance to give multiplayer the thorough test it deserves at this point in time from what i'm hearing and reading. Even Kotaku has said they are holding off on reviewing the fame because of this.

    Reply »
  • MSUSteve
    MSUSteve

    2/4/2009 4:10:09 PM

    I'm surprised at how little this review actually discusses the game, despite being three pages long. While the review is genuinely amusing and a good read, I feel like I have no idea why Scott didn't like the game. I get that it uses all the familiar FPS tropes, but to not comment in any way on the nuts and bolts gameplay doesn't make sense to me. I'm not looking for a laundry list of technical details, but it seems to me that a game review should actually discuss the game some.

    Reply »
  • Ace
    Ace

    2/4/2009 3:50:58 PM

    It sounds to me that in the end, the game was just boring for you. If that's the situation, I can see it deserving to be fried. No amount of production can save a game from poor game play.

    This is where I'm left asking after your review. Is the game play so fps typical that it doesn't warrant much description? It seems that it is, and at that point it's important to go over the other details of the game, such as the story and how well it pulls you in. In this case it seems it fails at that.

    The end of your article in which you praise the game for a battle sequence is what made me much less interested in the game. It's something that many FPS games do. At the end of the game they either introduce some sort of extra difficult enemy AI, or a massive wave of enemies. Either way, it often comes off as an artificial difficulty hike, and often feels gimmicky. Perhaps this wasn't the case here, but I was reminded of many other games I've played. Particularly in any WW2 shooters when I'm expecting after the next wave of heavily armored super soldiers, I'll have to go box Hitler to win the war.

    After reading your review, I suspect the controls to be nothing unique here and the game play to be fairly typical. As long as its a smooth ride, I think I can get over the mass of clichés. While more of the same is nothing award worthy, I suspect I'll give it a try myself.

    On a side note, not talking specifically of KZ2, I think it's fair to fry any game on either poor single player or multi-player. A game with an amazing multi-player and an ill conceived campaign is still a terrible game.

    Reply »
  • GusMastrapa
    GusMastrapa

    2/4/2009 3:36:47 PM

    The Killzone 2 defense force has arrived.

    Reply »
  • Mr_Adam
    Mr_Adam

    2/4/2009 3:36:12 PM

    Given the overwhelmingly positive feedback concerning Killzone 2, I can only guess that Scott is being facetious in his review of the single player.

    It is my understanding that a game does not have to be innovative in order to be entertaining and it seems that Scott is downgrading Killzone 2 for a lack of innovation.

    This review is either an effort to stir up traffic to the site or Scott's honest opinion. If the review is an effort to stir up traffic, shame on Crispy Gamer for using such a cheap tactic in increasing readership. If, on the other hand, the review is based on Scott's opinion then only time will tell if Scott's opinion veers so far from the public norm that we, as consumers, question his ability to professionally review a video game in the future.

    From my research, it appears that Killzone 2 will be a monumental game for the PS3, and I personally can not wait to get my hands on it.

    I apologize for the rambling post - not the most coherent idea on the internet.

    I would like to congratulate Crispy Gamer on the recent articles about Shadow of the Colossus. That was an engrossing article and I look forward to more like it.

    Reply »
  • JasonMcMaster

    2/4/2009 3:35:01 PM

    This is going to be good.

    Reply »
  • pyro117
    pyro117

    2/4/2009 3:27:33 PM

    RyanKuo, while I cannot fully understand your position with no asains in the game (not asian), I don't think that can be solved here.

    I would like to talk about the review and points that both Scott and GlavinChris have made.

    Scott, I have read your review twice and I do not agree with it. I also don't see your point about "not seeing the forest for the trees". What forest? The other reviews? Are you actually saying that all those other reviewers are wrong that gave this game a good review?

    I also like to ask about how you can call this a full review? In my opinion a FPS game has 2 parts, single player and multi-player. In most FPS games (Halo 3, COD:W@W, Gears of War 3, Resistance 2) their is a heavier emphasis on the multi-player aspect to the game, but this review is totally void of any multi-player information. I do acknowledge that at the end of the review, it does say the game was reviewed on a "review" build and the multi-player was not reviewed.

    I will ask again - how can this be a "Fry It" when the whole game was not reviewed. This should really be a first impressions article - not a review.

    I would also like to add that to the reader (whether it was your attention or not), it seems you are bashing the game because of the red eyes, being too naziest/white supremist on the enemy and too rainbow coalition on the friendly side. Also as you get further into the review there are too many spots were you attack the game because they don't have a top on a elevator, etc...

    In my opinion, I do not consider this a full review of a game or even a good review.

    Last question, what are good FPS shooters in your eyes?

    Reply »
  • Mr_Adam
    Mr_Adam

    2/4/2009 3:27:15 PM

    Given the overwhelmingly

    Reply »
  • CG-Prophet

    2/4/2009 3:24:58 PM

    @RyanKuo: It's a valid point. It's a rainbow without a color in my opinion.

    Reply »
  • RyanKuo

    2/4/2009 3:07:16 PM

    Can we please redirect this conversation to the lack of Asians in the game? Do the people that make FPSs think that Asians are only good for kung-fu magicks?

    Reply »
  • alv
    alv

    2/4/2009 3:04:12 PM

    Lol i just sign up to leave a comment because of this terrible review. I have never heard of this site b4. This site sucks anyway

    Reply »
  • alv
    alv

    2/4/2009 3:00:12 PM

    Good review Scott "Ugh ugh", a game of this caliber is more worth then 60 dollars. If the game is 200 dollars i still buy it.
    You are nothing and your opinion has no credibility. i prefer to fry you instead of the masterpiece KILZONE 2

    Reply »
  • alv
    alv

    2/4/2009 2:58:50 PM

    Good review Scott", a game of this caliber is more worth then 60 dollars. If the game is 200 dollars i still buy it.
    You are nothing and your opinion has no credibility

    Reply »
  • GlavinChris
    GlavinChris

    2/4/2009 2:43:16 PM

    I guess it is just you as a writer, however you only focused on design issues. You mentioned several things that are FPS "normalities" but left those only for a paragraph of your review.

    When you update the review, please add the friendly and enemy AI, the multiplayer (which btw is the cornerstone of FPS) as I am curious to hear what you say about them.

    I did not want to bring other reviews in, but it seems like you started it... I think it is quite arrogant to call out 75% of the reviewers on and off paper (which some I bet are much higer paid then you are). And yea.. I know you have your opinion and all, thats why I didn't want to bring this into it.

    It's crazy that I came across this article from the playstation forums saying how stupid it was...

    Here's some more reading to put your mind at ease: http://www.lazygamer.co.za/xbox-360/killzone-2-the-best-thing-to-happen-to-the-xbox-360


    Oh by the way, my last name isn't Glavin.

    -The Glavin

    Reply »
  • ScottJones
    ScottJones

    2/4/2009 2:27:42 PM

    You're not seeing the forest for the trees here, Chris Glavin. Reread the review, and you'll see that I say a lot more than you're giving me credit for.

    As I said to Kyle Orland via IM this morning, anyone who thinks this is a good game probably should not be reviewing videogames for a living. High production values and nice-looking graphics do not make a game worth playing.

    KZ 2 is, at best, competent.

    But it's ultimately not very interesting. You'll realize this, unfortunately, only after you've spent $60. That's a shame.

    -jones

    Reply »
  • GlavinChris
    GlavinChris

    2/4/2009 2:19:10 PM

    This review was one of the worst reviews that I have read... You honestly spend a full page complaining that the enemies have "red eyes" and the elevator vehicle doesn't have a top... Why don't you actually comment about things that might actually help gamers choose whether to buy this game or not?
    From what I've read you're "fry it" review actually made me want to buy the game! If the only complaints you can talk about are the red eyes and the non-roofed AI then this game must be pretty damned good...

    Reply »
  • GusMastrapa
    GusMastrapa

    2/4/2009 1:59:06 PM

    Jones, I'm glad you noticed the height thing. I was like, why am I looking at all these guys' belt buckles. It was really distracting.

    Reply »
  • RyanKuo

    2/4/2009 12:38:33 PM

    Jin-Roh is awesome! But in Jin-Roh, you RUN from the red eyes...

    Reply »
  • unangbangkay
    unangbangkay

    2/4/2009 12:00:49 PM

    I'm thinking the Helghast have DVDs of Jin-Roh tucked into their BDUs as opposed to Mein Kampf.

    Would you like to know more? (heh, I've always wanted to say that):

    http://www.weaponsblog.org/images/professional-grade-jin-roh_58.jpg

    Reply »
  • DoomRulz
    DoomRulz

    2/4/2009 11:59:37 AM

    This review kinda had me going :S It seems like your biggest gripe with it is that it's too linear and derivative, yet you say Fry It? That's a bit much.

    Reply »

Want a new look on the discussion?
» Take It to the Forums

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post.
0 / 2000 used

Log In and Post

Log In and Post

The Chatter Box

  • Recent
  • Active
  • Status
ChknKitty

ChknKitty Says

Wow, people win every day in the Chicken Out contest! Sign up and win.

Xbox 360 | PS3 | Wii | PSP | DS | PC
The Games That Time Forgot

The Games That Time Forgot


The games we're pulling together in this feature won't appear on any of those best-of lists and get confused looks when you mention them in conversation. Just because time has forgotten these titles, though, doesn't mean you should forget them, too.

» Read On

Expand Box

© Crispy Gamer, Inc. All rights reserved.

By continuing past this page, and by your continued use of this site,
you agree to be bound by and abide by the User Agreement.

Log In or Register with Crispy Gamer

  • Register
  • Log In
  • Facebook
Register
Log In

Use your Facebook account to log in to Crispy Gamer

You'll also be able to add your Facebook friends to Crispy Gamer and post your Crispy Gamer activity in your Facebook feed.

Reasons to Join Crispy Gamer

  • It's Free
  • Leave Comments on Crispy Articles and Blogs
  • Enter Contests and Win Great Prizes
  • Converse With Other Gamers in Our Forums
  • Share What’s Up With Custom Status Text
  • Track Your Activity on Your Personal User Page
  • Chat with Friends in Real-Time