It’s inevitable, I suppose. The internet is bound to be churlish and self-defeating when it comes to childish matters. This current issue appears to revolve around the reviews for Killzone 2. So far, it’s been getting some pretty good scores. Based on what? Who knows? They’re good scores on a scale of 1 to 10 anyway. Even though they’re good scores, it didn’t take long for idiots to come out and say these scores were incredibly shitty or they were so fantastic you would shit yourself or these irrelevant scores are better than these other irrelevant scores and so on and so forth.

Let me reiterate: It doesn’t matter. Play the game to see how it scores on your own personal pointless scale; that’s the only way to really know.

One gamer, of the “BadAss” variety, claims that he has played it(although he doesn’t really indicate any proof, but there’s so much review code out there, it’s hard not to just assume), and, apparently, he thinks it’s bigger than Jesus. Unfortunately, his opinion doesn’t gel with IGN’s, so he’s seen fit to refute theirs.

. . . it seems like some reviewers believe it is their job to review a product based on what it doesn’t have, now I have never quite understood this logic, killzone 2 is getting scored down for lacking a co-op mode, sure that would have been a great addition, but the fact is it isn’t part of the game, therefore reviewers should not take points away for the lack of the feature, to further my point take a look at the reviews of Call of Duty 4, a great shooter in many ways, with an addicting multiplayer mode, the game did not have co-op, I repeat it did not have a co-op feature, yet it was barely mentioned in reviews, and even in reviews were it was brought up, points were usually not deducted.  This is not the same with Killzone 2. If this applies to Killzone 2 then every shooter hence forth had better include a co-op mode, or we should expect the same to happen.

I suppose I can understand his distaste for knocking a game for not having a feature I personally don’t care for, but almost every major first person shooter that came out (even Haze) had a co-op to accompany the the single-player. The fact that the game uses AI partners during a majority of the sequences only emphasizes this point and this is what reviewers have been getting at. I should also mention that IGN did mention the lack of co-op in COD4.

The single-player isn’t perfect. For starters, it’s single-player. Co-op gameplay in shooters is quickly becoming the standard. Considering you spend almost the entire campaign with the same squadmates, the hope (and even expectation) for online co-op is not unwarranted.

It’s also worth noting that the game received the exact same score. Let’s get back to the crybaby, though.

. . . it seems like Reviewers are missing the point of Killzone 2’s gameplay, some are expecting the game to completely change the genre, this is however not the case, Killzone 2 is a shooter that does what shooters are supposed to do, and does them to a very high standard, neither Halo nor Call of duty 4, revolutionised the genre, yet they were never docked points for it. Reviewers say Killzone 2 is ’samey’ with a weak story and cliche FPS techniques, I am sorry to once again disagree but I have never seen a more cliche War story than that of Call of Duty 4, and again nobody felt the need to mention it.

Opinions! I’m pretty sure the short story mode of Call of Duty 4 was one of the greater narratives of this past generation in addition to be presented perfectly, but, hey, that’s me. Call of Duty 4 also did a lot of interesting, different scenarios and dramatically shifted directions just when you were getting used to one thing. I haven’t played Killzone 2, but if it lacks a little bit of variety, that’s reason to knock it. Even so, I’ve only seen reviewers praise its intense variety, so I don’t know where this guy is coming from.

Moving on to graphics, this one is causing quite a stir, we all know just how good Killzone 2 looks, screenshots and videos of the game can testify to the claim that this is probably one of the best looking games of all time.  The funny thing is some reviewers (again I wont call any names) seem to think that due to small niggles with the graphics here and there, that points should be dropped, is it me or are people being mightily harsh to what is the best looking console title in a while?

I hate this jackass for making me defend IGN. This guy only talks about textures and still images, but I really haven’t seen anyone mark it down for that. IGN clearly mentions and then shows the reader in video exactly what they have a problem with, and I have to agree. The flamethrower looks like rancid ass. Amid all these wonderful effects and lighting details, that effect just looks so jarring and horrid. It really removes the player from the experience.

That’s all I can stand to take from this guy, but he seriously needs to chill, along with anyone else who thinks like this. He, like others, claims to not care about reviews, but this has really grabbed his gourd. It’s just a game, and they’ve arbitrarily reviewed it well, just like you arbitrarily capitalize nouns.

It doesn’t matter what anybody else thinks, as long as you think for yourself.