GameSpot Tries to Show Some Killzone 2 Integrity

kz2Some of you know me to complain about modern video game reviews. To me, you shouldn’t review a video game until you’ve had some extensive time with it, enough to really sit down and tell people what’s what, and if this thing is worth their money. For instance, many Grand Theft Auto IV reviews are based on only 8 hours of total play, which is almost criminal.

Well, it seems the same is happening to Killzone 2, as GameSpot revealed today that any reviews of the game so far are based on just 3 hours of multiplayer play (they have gotten to play all of single player, however). And not just 3 hours back-to-back of multiplayer, but rather, 3 single hour sessions held for the press over the last month. As a result, GameSpot is actually holding off their reviews until they can spend more time with this aspect of the game.

This trend is incredibly disturbing to me, especially considering that all the major publications have already released reviews of the game. Hell, IGN even gave it a 9.4. Kind of odd considering these people only played the multiplayer aspect of the game online at 3 press events. Seems to me that there should be separate reviews for multiplayer and single player these days. What do you guys think? Fair/foul for video game reviewers?

Source- GameSpot

Written by

I write about samurai girls and space marines. Writer for Smooth Few Films. Rooster Teeth Freelancer. Author of Red vs. Blue, The Ultimate Fan Guide, out NOW!

5 thoughts on “GameSpot Tries to Show Some Killzone 2 Integrity”

  1. I think it’s continuing the trend lately of video game reviewers handing out meaningless scores. For example, did you see the video where IGN gave out GotY to Fallout 3? In the video they say, “we know we gave two games 10s, but…”
    But what?!! You haven’t handed out a 10 to a (non-handheld) game since Soulcalibur in 1999, and then you give out TWO in the same year only to shrug off both 10s and give GotY to a title you gave a 9.6.

    Seriously, WTF…

  2. The article does say that they have played the single player almost to completion.

    So any comments in the review on multiplayer are incomplete, but what they say about the single player seems to be accurate.

    And major kudos to gamespot! The spirit of EGM lives on!

  3. Well, I’m glad that they’re holding off. Still, a lot of review scores, including those of gamespot, don’t ask the question, “will you be playing this a month from now?” MGS4 (10/10) is a great game, sure, but once you’re done, you’re done. On the other hand, L4D (8.5/10) is a game that I’ll still be playing years from now. Some people insinuate that review sites are bribed, but I think that there’s just a lot of fanboy-ism, even in the reviewers. In that regard, cross-console games kinda get shafted, while exclusives are lauded with unnecessary praise. I could be way off base here, but I think that the main problem is impartiality, not time spent with the games. Still, it’s a step in the right direction.

  4. Seriously? 3 hours of gameplay from the press demos? Pathetic. Official reviews should either wait until they have a substantial amount of time before reviewing or to get an early version of the game and review it by the time it comes out, but still have it for a good amount of time.

    Oh, and enough of this bribing reviewers for 10’s. That’s bullshit.

  5. IGNs reliablity in reviews is slowly dieing and Hillary Goldsteen (fanboy nerd) needs to chill out. (MGS4 perfect 10 WTF!)

Comments are closed.