I agree, what's up with Killzone 2 getting a five? Everyone says it looks really good and it's pretty promising. heck a few months ago GamesRadar was like bowing down to it and saying it made the PS3 the most important gaming console ever...and then this?
Also why does everyone say Killzone sucked? It really wasn't bad aside from minor bug issues
I absolutely love these articles. I, too, was a little surprised by Mirror's Edge. It looks awesome (the gameplay video blew me away), but I felt like it would be similar to Assassin's Creed...awesome mechanic used to make a mediocre game. Either way, I'm looking forward to running around like a damn fool.
Also, Fallout 3 living up to expectations in a play test: why, that just made my week. Nice work, gentlemen.
flare149: The reason people take a more hostile stance is because that's Sony's "big gun" on their system. A sub-par game for the PS2 shouldn't generate this much hype for a sequel. Yet, it does. So while it may not deserve all the flaming it gets, Sony's marketing push for this game is absurdly misplaced. Time will tell, though.
I find it funny that people rag on Killzone 2, yet the first one was /not/ a terrible game. It was a solid, well thought out FPS. Besides. Since when does a different planet, in a completely different solar system, with little to no oxygen, not to mention it's constantly storming. When do you expect /that/ to look like earth?
@Fluxnard I'm confused because alot of other gaming news/features sites say the game is shaping up to be fantastic, even a preview posted recently on GamesRadar says something to that effect. I don't know why you want Killzone 2 to be bad it's looking pretty fun and exciting, especially the multiplayer.
As many people have already said, Killzone 1 wasn't a horrible game, it was just overly hyped by people at sony and gamers as well. GG wanted to deliver a great game but they made a good one and Killzone 2 looks to be the game they intended to make but were hampered by both time constrainsts and the PS2 hardware.