| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (307)

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 12:04PM jefwif said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
resistance 2 or killzone 2 hmmmmmm...
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 12:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Both.......
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 12:11PM Hyams said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Resistance 2 is good, but very erratic in its quality. Some parts are amazing, other parts are weak. Could have done with a few more months of polish.

Killzone 2, however, looks like it's been polished raw. There'll be a demo coming soon, so you' could always give that a go.

Also, if it makes any difference to you, Killzone is getting much better scores than Resistance: 95 (KZ2) on metacritic compared to 87 (R2).
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 12:12PM samfish said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
.......Neither
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 12:16PM Spunky Monkey 190906 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Resistance is also longer then Killzone from what I've heard, so you have the choice, none stop action but over a shorter period or start and stop action over a longer period.
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 12:23PM (Unverified) said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Halo 3

:P

Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 12:27PM Spunky Monkey 190906 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Jakka, do you like to be akward ¬_¬ Who mentioned Halo 3?
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 12:29PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
look into the multiplayer aspects. They are two VERY different games at that point
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 12:39PM Chibi Chaingun said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Killzone 2. The Resistance franchise is pretty generic.
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 12:39PM (Unverified) said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
@Hyams

you might wanna re check where you got those stats. because R2 on ign got a 9.5 and killzone 2 i think got a 9.4 or a 9.5 i dont remember off the top of my head.
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 12:41PM Hyams said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I got those figures from metacritic, as I said in my posts.

Yes, IGN gave Resistance 2 and 9.5, but they were kinder to it than most. It only got a few scores above 90, with most in the 80s, and a couple even lower.

Killzone 2, on the other hand, has yet to get a score below 90.
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 12:47PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
It was a sarcasm test.

Someone failed big-time.
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 12:49PM Spunky Monkey 190906 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Thats sarcasm? More like a dopiness test and yeah, you passed.
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 12:52PM (Unverified) said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Yay! Do I get cookies?
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 12:54PM Spunky Monkey 190906 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
No, you get a D on your forehead for Dunce
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 12:57PM ilduce620 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Resistance 2 has excellent multiplayer - don't buy it for the single-player (although, I didn't mind it all that much...but no, it wasn't anything to write home about).

At this point, though, you may as well just get Killzone 2 because I imagine that lots of Resistance 2 player will move over to it once it's released. Just wait to pick up Resistance 2 used or once it's a bit cheaper. It's well worth trying for the multiplayer, but Killzone 2 is likely where all the people will be by the end of this February.
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 1:32PM Larz said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I appreciated Resistance's story and style more than the Killzone universe. I guess it depends on what you're after: A superbly polished shooter (ala CoD), then you want KZ2. Or aliens and interesting guns, then R2.

Personally I'm not interested in either. Shooters are pretty boring to me these days. I still play some every once in a while, but it's such a tired mechanic that's been stale on innovation for 20 years. But anyone who liked CoD or Halo will like these shooters, unless maybe they're fanboys or something.
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 1:49PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Well, you see something interesting if you go to amazon and check reviews for R2: either 1-2 star from people who wanted offline coop or 4/5 star for those who dont care about it.
So, its maybe a 8.0 game for those who want offline coop, 9.5+ if you like online - the 8-person class-based coop is the most brilliant setup I have seen and bodes well for KZ2's class-based competitive.
And as for KZ2, the 9-9.5 reviews dont seem to have any significant negatives, other than the fact that its "unoriginal". So, if you want your games to be something really new, KZ2 is a dud, and so are COD, Halo, battlefield, etc - in fact you may want to drop videogames altogether.
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 2:22PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Hyams

You also have to consider the timeline of those Metacritic reviews. These games weren't just reviewed yesterday mind you:

Resistance 2 having garnered 74 reviews since it's launch opposed to KZ2's recent 26.

Resistance 2 also has 26 reviews that never go below 90. So I wouldn't use the Metacritic as proof of Killzone's greatness since it's too early to tell. It could very well get an 87 just like Resistance 2 in the long run. At one time R2 too had a Meta of 95.

Hope that clears things up.
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 6:00PM jefwif said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
....

god i am never posting first on popular stories ever again. my inbox is bleeding :(
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 6:56PM WonderWeazel said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Its not a choice for me, I have to have both. 1 down, 1 to go.
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 7:01PM Scratchcard said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
All



three
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 8:42PM Erdie said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
One more vote for both.
Reply

Posted: Feb 4th 2009 3:09AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
from : http://g4tv.com/xplay/reviews/1914/Killzone-2-Review.html

"Probably the tastiest part of the Killzone Cocktail is the Multiplayer. Imagine if Call Of Duty 4 and Team Fortress 2 had a baby, which they then abandoned and as a result had to learn a few new tricks to survive. That’s what Killzone Multiplayer is like. The ability to grab cover is removed from multiplayer, leaving you with a crouch button and your own creativity. This ups the pace a bit."

Anyone here ever played rtcw ? The more I hear about the multiplayer the more it reminds me of RTCW, which is online crack. If it actually manages to achieve even 50% of the involved team play rtcw had this game will be awesome.
Reply

Posted: Feb 6th 2009 3:39PM Larz said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Sorry bout your inbox Jer Jer, but I have just one more comment to make.

I played the demo last night... I strongly disagree with "expertly refined shooting action". I mean it looks awesome, performs nice, guns feel good, etc. But man, aiming with the analog feels horrible. It's all sluggish and weird. Makes it really hard to re-orient your aim quickly.
Reply

Posted: Feb 10th 2009 2:26PM serialtoon said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Xbox
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 12:05PM magallanes said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Ouch that review must hurt!

Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 12:42PM Andrew Yoon said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
How so?
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 1:09PM KarlW said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I thought it was a pretty poor review. You need some better writers.

This review suffers from multiple personality disorder. At some points, you complain that it's too generic, then you say that it cleverly requires actual brain function instead of the usual point and shoot. If it does something outside of the norm, surely that means its not generic? Who the hell cares if the enemies all look the same if they act differently and provide an actual challenge?

And what exactly is this "refined shooting action"? What do you mean by it, how does it affect my enjoyment of the game?

This review hurts Joystiq more than it hurts the game. It's hard to tell whether they like it or hate it. It's the purgatory of reviews.
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 1:19PM magallanes said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Its say :
Graphics :YAY!.
Originality :NAY!.
Control :YAY!.

Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 1:33PM Bananarama said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Maybe it hurts Joystiq for people who don't have any reading comprehension. It says pretty plainly that it started off pretty generic for him, ("In its first few hours") but developed into something that required some thought, and became a much better game after he gave it some time. ("But, as I would discover in the following hours) See, when most people play games, their opinion of it may change as they go on, as things generally don't stay the same throughout the entire game.

Here's what he means by "refined shooter action".
"To rush into a situation without knowledge of where your enemies are or what your weapons are capable of is a guaranteed return ticket to the most recent checkpoint. The only way to survive is knowing where to find your next bit of cover from a wall of red eyes that often seems impossible large and to pick them off one by one."

and

"Once you master the game's distinct, well-balanced weapons, you feel a real sense that any situation can be conquered if only you can find the right strategy. After I got the hang of the combat and realized I would have to bring brains as well as reflexes to each scenario, I couldn't wait to see the next way in which the game would test them both."
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 1:37PM Courtney said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
KarlW, perhaps that's because the reviewer was conflicted himself on what he thought of the game, seeing both sailing highs and disappointing lows, hence conflicting sentiments on the total package. That's how I read the piece.
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 1:43PM Haggard said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Something can require thought and still be generic. Like a crossword.
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 2:38PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
I heard it is allso fairly short.
~7 hours ?

Still probably longer than COD4 ;)
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 2:53PM arrrgh said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
karl maybe the review hurt your brain...but it is not the fault of the review
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 5:40PM TuxBobble said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Don't take critics too harshly Andrew. I thought it was quite a good review.

In my opinion there are MANY issues with video game reviews. (not limited to video games but for the scope of argument let's stick with what we know most here) HOWEVER, this review does overcome most of them.

The goal of the review was to highlight their experience playing the game, stating pros/cons of the game. Clearly noted were the issues with uninteresting story, lack of a defining gameplay mechanic, and brevity of the game. Also clearly noted were the superb and seemingly unforgettable visuals, the very well refined gameplay, (someone asked what this meant: use a dictionary to find that "refined" means "free from impurities", meaning that it is superb quality with few flaws) and the overall experience of the game.

So, being an avid gamer myself, I appreciate this review, and I love the way the reviews here don't have numeric scores, because people need more than a number to understand a review, and when people react JUST to the number without ever reading the text of the review, they're not taking into account the reviewer's bias. (which ALWAYS exists, but through textual reviews they are minimized)

Sorry for the mouthful, I just have to vent about these things sometimes...
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 12:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
lol@"lacks Guns that shoot portals"
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 2:58PM MrHashbrown said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Plus this is just a single-player review. The multiplayer is where the replay value (should) be, and I've heard stellar things about it from the beta.
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 12:06PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Pretty short review.
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 12:38PM NutMan said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
What does word count have to do with it? He seemed to express his own thoughts and feelings about Killzone 2 in the review. IGN may have you thinking that everyone needs to do long and drawn out 4 page reviews, but it isn't true.
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 1:10PM Nomgoos3 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
How does word count matter? This is just another fantastic review from the fingertips of Justin McElroy. He expressed everything that is necessary for the review, and did it without dragging on or rambling for another two to three pages. Short and concise is just as effective as a 2,500 word review. I for one don't have the patience for the latter.

@Justin McElroy - I'm glad to see you're putting your new-found title to work, and I'm looking forward to future reviews.
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 4:57PM Ridgecity said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm glad they managed that kind of gfx in the game, that trailer almost made me buy the PS3, now after a price drop I might get one.
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 12:07PM Da Largest said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Sounds good. Hardly the 'omg hyped up review' half of the folks here were undeniably expecting - doesn't appear to be a hint of bias here.

ITT: FFXIIIAngelVanille not reading the review (or any reviews for that matter) but claiming the game must suck anyway
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 12:07PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I'm getting it.
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 12:07PM Marius said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Fun? Im sold
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 11:40PM Fweak said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
me too! they basically made a good looking version of Halo that is more modern! (thats according to the review at least saying its generic etc.)

I'm sold.
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 12:08PM Hyams said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
The Killzone franchise has a really good, really well thought out backstory. I just wish they'd put the same effort into the actual game's story too. Resistance 2 has the same problem.

Still, apart from that, this is looking very good. =) Can't wait to give it a go myself.
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 1:54PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think both devs are trying to avoid MGS4 syndrome, where you spend as much time learning about the story via cutscenes as you do playing it.

Not that I'm complaining, I'm one of the few people I know that actually reads books, so stuff like this is icing on the cake for me. But by and large, FPS gamers do not give a rat's ass about story. Give them a gun and something to shoot at for 6 hours and they'll love your game.
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 2:47PM Comet 20 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I love the way the MGS franchise tells a story, and I actually wish more games would go that deep into their storylines.
Reply

Posted: Feb 2nd 2009 3:50PM sk8monroe81 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
prop-
MGS4 syndrome?
u might as well add the entire MGS series...

MGS is not the 8 hour run and gun, little backstory type of shooter game you must be used to.

its different. why hate the game and franchise??
its cool you get the normal amount of gameplay with many more hours of story included, that can be skipped, should you choose.
whats wrong with that?

and when did 4 million copies sold = a syndrome?
im sure more ps3 games would love to be in that syndrome...
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Rhythm Heaven Fever review: Crazy into you

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 12:00PM

Remedy not done with Alan Wake

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 10:30AM

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW