Next Gen reviews overly harsh due to burn on titles like Perfect Dark Zero?

[flameboy]

Now the embargoes are up on PS4 and we've all had time to comb over. Do you feel some are overly negative as a result of the next gen hype that we've seen time after time Red Steel's scores of 9? Perfect Dark Zero's awesome scores even though everyone readily says how crap it was now?

 

This console launch is so different to the last set. Think how much further we are in terms of the sheer mass of people using social media etc....podcasts by the thousands now being out there and more...think the original iphone wasn't out when Xbox 360 launched! The social shift that facebook/twitter/smartphones has caused makes access to information and even access to reviewers/journalists/critics even easier.

 

The rise of streaming with it now being the norm that a site would run a mega long stream of just everything...also these things are much more raw form. I watched a gamespot one yesterday and gone is this hyper profession presenting style, mistakes etc...miscues and the like are taken in their stride rather than embarassingly covered up, personalities are out there and indulged. We really areat the peak of a unique model of coverage for a launch product.

 

So does this feed in to the lower scores we are seeing? Or is it genuinely that these games are nothing special? If they had appeared as end of the gen ps3/xbox 360 games really pushing the graphically capablilites (not saying either console could just hypothetically) would the review scores have been different?

 

Are these games genuinely not all that good? Victims of criticism journalists have always received for buying into hype at console launches in an age where they can be bashed on twitter and neogaf? Or something else....

 

Also polygon....increasingly becoming a hater of their reviews, come across as extremely pretentious in all their coverage, their video recaps at E3 with Arthur Gieges (sp) were so cringing and not in a way that makes you compelled to watch.

[Zechs Merquise]

I think Knack always looked sub-par. The graphical style looked just like it was ripped straight from Battalion Wars on the GC and Wii and the actual gameplay looked very basic.

 

Killzone on the other hand looks beautiful, but I never saw anything new in. There's nothing we haven't seen many times before on the PS3 and 360, sure it's pretty, but ultimately it is a corridor shooter. Honestly, is Killzone doing anything new on the PS4?

 

I think we've also seen an increase in negativity toward games like COD and Battlefield which seem to offer up the same formula again and again - albeit with additions, alterations, new maps and a new campaign. However despite the changes people still feel the core experience is very similar to previous entries in the series.

 

The 'next generation' has started with what feels like a graphically improved extension of the current generation and reviews reflect that.

[Daft]

I like Polygon as a whole but their reviews suck ass. I think Killzone as a franchise suffers from a lot of assumptions, Mercinaries is the best straight FPS of the past couple years and it got wrecked in reviews. I have no doubt Shadowfall will be at least as good. Killzone was awful, 2 was okay, 3 was better, Mercinaries was the best of the lot and I'd be surprised if SF doesn't beat it...but in terms of review scores they've all received the same (In the case of Mercinaries often worse). I do think it's weird.

 

Also, these reviewers have been playing builds of these games for the last 10 months. Very little will be new for them. The rest of us are waiting to play our shiny new console and game for the first time. That's all part of our experience. Which is great.

[flameboy]

I like Polygon as a whole but their reviews suck ass. I think Killzone as a franchise suffers from a lot of assumptions, Mercinaries is the best straight FPS of the past couple years and it got wrecked in reviews. I have no doubt Shadowfall will be at least as good. Killzone was awful, 2 was okay, 3 was better, Mercinaries was the best of the lot and I'd be surprised if SF doesn't beat it...but in terms of review scores they've all received the same (In the case of Mercinaries often worse). I do think it's weird.

 

Also, these reviewers have been playing builds of these games for the last 10 months. Very little will be new for them. The rest of us are waiting to play our shiny new console and game for the first time. That's all part of our experience. Which is great.

 

I've really never understood the outright media biase against Killzone as a franchise. It is as you say as a result of a lot of assumptions. It's very strange it's never been considered a franchise in it's own right on it's own terms always compared to Halo despite no real basis for this. Halo has always been about that same 15 seconds of pure gameplay looped in diverse combat situations whereas I felt Killzone was more about the tight environments it puts you in. Also they both fundamentally control very different with Killzone's intentional controller lag making up for deadzones on the dualshock and giving a much heavier control.

[Daft]

I feel Killzone suffers majorly from a lack of memorable protagonist. It's hard to beat Master Chief. Killzone is just...Killzone.

[Cookyman]

I don't think you can be too harsh on Knack which would get shitty scores if it was released on a PS3.

 

As for other games are they really that badly received?

 

Killzone - Shadowfall metascore of 74 from 18 reviews.

 

Now lets delve a bit deeper and look at the reviews from the bigger and more respected sites.

 

Destructoid 90

Gametrailers 88

Playstation Official Magazine UK 80

IGN 80

Gamesradar 80

Joystiq 70

Gamespot 70

 

I think you'll agree these are well above average scores. I wouldn't exactly say it's been badly received from these sites - would you?

 

Polygon may have given a 50 but who the fuck are Polygon - I'd never heard of them until this review.

[Cube]

All I know about Polygon is that they have a very flashy website and often have controversial views. They seemed to have popped up out of nowhere, yet are well known.

[Jimbob]

From the demo of Knack, i can understand the review score being so low. I didn't find it very good, fair enough i only played it for 10 minutes or so. I can't really judge the rest.

[gaggle64]

There are so few examples of genuinely great memorable launch games in my book. It's only natural for a new system with devs rushing out titles for launch or retrofitting existing ones on new hardware. Wait a year.

 

Also Killzone is genuinely one of the blandest game series ever conceived. It's like eating dry weetabix.

[flameboy]

I don't think you can be too harsh on Knack which would get shitty scores if it was released on a PS3.

 

As for other games are they really that badly received?

 

Killzone - Shadowfall metascore of 74 from 18 reviews.

 

Now lets delve a bit deeper and look at the reviews from the bigger and more respected sites.

 

Destructoid 90

Gametrailers 88

Playstation Official Magazine UK 80

IGN 80

Gamesradar 80

Joystiq 70

Gamespot 70

 

I think you'll agree these are well above average scores. I wouldn't exactly say it's been badly received from these sites - would you?

 

Polygon may have given a 50 but who the fuck are Polygon - I'd never heard of them until this review.

 

All I know about Polygon is that they have a very flashy website and often have controversial views. They seemed to have popped up out of nowhere, yet are well known.

 

Polygon had a ton of money chucked at them by the same company who own the verge tech site. They went around cherry picking staff from ign, 1up, joystiq, gamespot and the like. Like I said as a side note they are extremely pretentious in a lot of what they do, they seem to have this snobish attitude that they deserve to have respect. They ran a series of making of website that ran for weeks as a series you'd think they cured cancer the way they went on... I have nothing against well produced content but not like this..

[Cube]

Ah, The Verge. They were great a year or so ago but lately they've just another mainstream site with linkbaiting headlines and the like (so much that I've stopped following them).

[Shorty]

As for other games are they really that badly received?

 

70, 80, 4/5 etc are great scores, but Killzone was meant to be the system seller. Because of the amazing visuals, it will still shift consoles... but for me, if I was considering buying a PS4 right now? Well... I wouldn't, because that's the one game I thought was going to be must-have and now I'm not going to spend £400 to play a 74/100 game.

[Sheikah]

I don't really think any console has/was meant to have a system seller, more the people buying it are buying into the console itself and from the knowledge that games are coming. Sony must know that Killzone isn't a Last of Us or Uncharted.

[Jamba]

Also, these reviewers have been playing builds of these games for the last 10 months. Very little will be new for them. The rest of us are waiting to play our shiny new console and game for the first time. That's all part of our experience. Which is great.

 

I think that this is pretty important and might have been slightly hindered by both consoles getting their hype up a little too high and early.

 

My experience with it so far has been pretty positive and although I've not had any hands on with the big titles like Killzone, I've played Knack, Contrast, Octodad, Super Motherload and watched a depressingly large amount of someone playing FIFA.

 

The indie games are pretty awesome, particularly Octodad which is pick-yourself-up-off-the-floor hilarious. It's like playing a game about being drunk and getting away with it! Contrast is beautiful looking and I like the gameplay but a little early to say whether it's going to be amazing. SML though is going to be the PS4's Tetris though.... my friends literally couldn't stop playing it.

 

Knack is (as EVERYONE knew it was going to be) as grey and tepid as yesterday's gruel. It has the gameplay of an early PS2 game and absolutely no charm.

 

I'll reserve my judgement on Killzone until I get to play it but I'm honestly struggling to keep an open mind. When someone says to you "Oh look it's a FPS with cyber-Nazis and epic sized cities and pretty explosions!" it's hard not to get put off by the horrendously derivative pitch of the game. It might actually be great but if you summarised it for me then I doubt I'd be itching to give it a go.

[WackerJr]

I doubt the reviews have been particularly harsh. I expect that the majority of decent reviewers have accepted that the graphics will be improved over what is currently available and will simply punish a game if they're not, as opposed to gushing praise if they are, as this is simply the expectations. The gameplay should be what matters and this can be compared with current-gen games. I'm pleased to see that it appears this is indeed what is being done.