194
rate

UGO: Killzone 2 Review

February 02, 2009 in News comments 19

After enraging fanboys with his two pieces "Why Killzone 2 Campaign Rocks" and "Why the Killzone 2 Campaign Sucks" Russ Frushtick finally gives his final verdict on the last press review build of Killzone 2.

Killzone 2 is unquestionably the biggest first-party game of the PS3’s lifecycle so far. After a disappointing holiday season for Sony, they’re looking to get back on the horse with a big-budget PS3-exclusive action game that will, hopefully, give them the Halo-killer they’ve been looking for. The end result is a big of a mixed bag, with a forgettable single-player campaign and excellent multiplayer features.
Daigoji_Gai via gamesblog.ugo.com »
Favourite this article Add source
| More
Report!
News story attached to:

Comments

Register as a member to subscribe comments.
  • 0
    Taker4ever Feb 2, 09
    It seems to contradict everything that has been said in the other reviews so far - they all said it had a great cover system, intelligent enemy AI and some fantastic single-player setpieces.

    Don't think UGO gaming blog are going to be swaying opinions either way. The two big reviews were always going to be IGN and Gamespot.
    • 0
      Daigoji_Gai Feb 3, 09
      Wasn't made to sway opinion, rather Rusty is very particular. Having diversity in reviews I would argue is a good thing, and he felt the game was overhyped and was offering a more sedated opinion.
    • 0
      GrEyCrEsT Mar 18, 09
      quote Taker4ever
      It seems to contradict everything that has been said in the other reviews so far - they all said it had a great cover system, intelligent enemy AI and some fantastic single-player setpieces.

      Don't think UGO gaming blog are going to be swaying opinions either way. The two big reviews were always going to be IGN and Gamespot.


      • nah this is contradicting
  • 0
    brett108 Feb 2, 09
    I would give the review more credence if so many sources didn't have polar opposite views. I would also recommend he take some english courses to clean up the grammar, and be careful when he uses spellcheck.
    • 0
      GrEyCrEsT Mar 18, 09
      quote brett108
      opposite views.


      • there would be no doubt an opposite view since not all has one mind
  • 0
    Red 9 Feb 2, 09
    Some foreign website gave it a 5/10. I didn't know the language so I dunno what their beef is. This is only the 2nd so-so review; the rest all praise it.
    • 0
      Zero and X Feb 3, 09
      Are you joking? How is a "so-so" review? They gave it a B+, last I checked, a B+ means "buy this game".
  • 1
    Killosity Feb 2, 09
    A fair review. And so what if it contradicts everything that has been said so far. A person/reviewer is not going to change their opinion because everyone else has. Good to see another side of the coin.
    • 0
      Red 9 Feb 2, 09
      quote Killosity
      A fair review. And so what if it contradicts everything that has been said so far. A person/reviewer is not going to change their opinion because everyone else has. Good to see another side of the coin.
      I never said he was wrong, I just meant that he's a bit of a minority at the moment.
  • 2
    Taker4ever Feb 2, 09
    As I posted on the Killzone II forum, there is NOTHING wrong with giving low-scores, but only if you can back it up.

    UGO appear to disagree with not only other reviewers opinions (which is fine), but with FACTS that other reviewers have been throwing out there. The enemy AI is either fantastic, as praised by IGN - or it is shoddy and single-minded, as UGO seem to claim. How can two publications come to such radically different conclusions about an aspect of the game that is measured by fact, not opinion?
    • 0
      Slumpy monkey Feb 2, 09
      quote Taker4ever
      As I posted on the Killzone II forum, there is NOTHING wrong with giving low-scores, but only if you can back it up.

      UGO appear to disagree with not only other reviewers opinions (which is fine), but with FACTS that other reviewers have been throwing out there. The enemy AI is either fantastic, as praised by IGN - or it is shoddy and single-minded, as UGO seem to claim. How can two publications come to such radically different conclusions about an aspect of the game that is measured by fact, not opinion?
      Because Ai can be stupid at times and at other times it can be brilliant.
      Just like with RTS's sometimes the AI will out wit you and crush you.
      Other times you can just walk into their base and your thinking "wtf, why hasn't it done anything?"

      Of course, PS3 fanboys will deny this and from hear on out UGO will be unreliable.( as example by comments on the site)

      I mean Halo 3 got amazing reviews with 10s everywhere, yet when people say that it is crap they get praise for "not going with the hype". But in cases like this its "odd that their going against the grain".
    • 1
      Zero and X Feb 3, 09
      ..... but they DIDN'T give it a low score, it got a B+!!
  • 1
    Taker4ever Feb 2, 09
    If the AI is sometimes good and sometimes bad, then why didn't IGN point this out in their review? Conversely, why didn't UGO point out that the AI was sometimes good, rather than always bad, as in their review?

    UGO drew their own battlelines with that comment, as far as I'm concerned. If they don't like the single-player, then fair enough, that's their opinion; same deal for their criticisms of the guns. But you can't call the AI bad when it blatantly isn't, given that every other review has singled it out as one of the best aspects of the game.

    I also fail to see how UGO can call this one of the best multiplayer games ever, yet still only give it a B+. They gave CoD: WaW an A-, yet made the similar criticisms about the 'familiar' single-player campaign.
    • 0
      Red 9 Feb 2, 09
      Just remember, this is a review coming from the guy who said he really didn't like Kilzone 2 to begin with. Going into a review with that kind of mindset does not fare accurate results.

      Not to say this review is inaccurate, just pointing out the guy's attitude towards the game.
  • 0
    joshthegreat Feb 2, 09
    Yeah I agree with the Taker. This seems to contradict a whole lot of reviews that praise a great Campaign mode.
    • 1
      Daigoji_Gai Feb 3, 09
      Not really, he is simply saying he felt that it didn't do anything new. What it did it does well, but it wasn't a groundbreaking campaign/didn't reinvent the wheel was what he was getting at. I think that is what people are missing with his comparisons to COD3. He believes that there was nothing new in Killzone 2 that hasn't been in countless other FPS shooters. His opinion...
      • 1
        Red 9 Feb 3, 09
        quote Daigoji_Gai
        Not really, he is simply saying he felt that it didn't do anything new. What it did it does well, but it wasn't a groundbreaking campaign/didn't reinvent the wheel was what he was getting at. I think that is what people are missing with his comparisons to COD3. He believes that there was nothing new in Killzone 2 that hasn't been in countless other FPS shooters. His opinion...
        COD4 didn't exactly do anything new with its gameplay designs, so why it was touted some places as "groundbreaking" was never realized for me; it just felt like COD3 but in the modern setting.
        • 0
          Daigoji_Gai Feb 4, 09
          I actually agree with you. Russ though defends COD4 for having amazing setpiece stages... like the sinking ship. He was expecting big "memorable" moments like that in Killzone 2.

          I am itching to get my hands on it personally. Russ is the yin to my yang. Everything I love he loathes, so I have a feeling I will think Killzone 2 is the greatest thing since buttered sliced and toasted bread.
  • 1
    drpunk Feb 2, 09
    The review doesn't even mention enemy AI.

    Interesting.

This news story is archived and is closed to comments now.