Standards Issue.

I use reviews to help me to decide whether or not a game is for me, this is because I am not a millionaire and buying games is an expensive hobby. Of course I don't see reviews as the be all and end all, I know I will not like a game in which you breed and ride ponies, no matter how high the review scores may be.

Journalism isn't an exact science, I know this, I also know that the interent unleashes a stream of amatuer fan boy reviewers to befoul my screen with the ludicrous flames of the console war, but I maintain a hope that the professionals, the people who are paid to write about video games, would keep to some unwritten code of conduct.

The problem with unwritten codes of conduct is that they are hard to verify, and this brings me to the issue that I was pondering over. Should reviewers look at a game and talk about it based on it's merits, or should they look at it based on it's faults in comparison to other titles?

The reviews for Killzone 2 in particular make me wonder what standards a game must reach in order to recieve a glowing review. One point is raised in almost every review as being a negative, and that is the lack of a co-op mode. Is this a valid negative point? In my opinion yes, but the problem is that other shooters have not been held up to the same standard, CoD4 had no co-op mode, Bioshock doesn't even have multiplayer, yet the lack of these modes is rarely mentioned in their reviews, instead the reviews have concentrated on the fact that the single player modes in both are exceptional.

I have not played Killzone 2 yet, but from what has been said by 90% of those who have played it I gather that the solo campaign is excellent, and yet while this success is recognised, it is not deemed as enough to make up entirely for a lack of a co-op campaign. It seems in some ways like a case of double standards.

Maybe the issue is that Killzone 2 has built up such a massive hype train, that it becomes the duty of every journalist to dig that bit deeper, and nit pick out every small error present, but Halo 3 was massively hyped and recieved a massive number of accolades (rightfully so).

Instead I think the reasons are more complex, firstly Sony has been guilty of hubris, something that most journalists hate more than anything in the world. Now the PS3 is behind the Xbox360 in total sales (of course being released later has something to do with this), and Sony is attempting to make up lost ground.  Every big Sony release is being concentrated on, even more so than their 360 counterparts. Killzone 2 was no exception. After the infamous E3 trailer, hype began to build. This hype quickly turned to controvesy when the trailer turned out to be pre-rendered, no longer could this game just have good graphics, if it failed to look as good as was promised, PS3 owners would feel let down and 360 fanboys would rejoice.

Secondly, Killzone 2 had the misfortune to have the word Halo-killer attached to it. Whereas Halo 3 and Gears of War 2 where both released to a massive fanfare, there was no real sense that these games needed to be compared to anything else, sure Gears 2 was minorly compared to Resistance 2, but it was never called a Resistance-Killer. Both Gears 2 and Halo 3 had the chance to be considered on there own merits, whereas anyone who examined Killzone 2 would be thinking, is it really better than Halo 3? Anything that Halo did better would be another blow to Killzone 2.

Both Gears 2 and Halo 3 were continuing already successful franchises, Killzone 2 on the other hand it was a follow up to a highly hyped and anticipated game that did not live up to expectations. If a reviewer is already comfortable with the universe and the characters, you can expect him to feel more at ease with a sequel, likewise, bad memories of a game, will remain with you as you play a sequel, and a game will have to make sure to iron out the problems from before, as people will be looking for those same issues again.

Killzone 2, was no longer simply another game to be reviewed. It was by extension, a second chance for Guerilla Games, and it was a big deal for Sony as well. This review mattered for the gaming industry, and for the massive community that surrounds it. The game was being looked at differently, and there was more pressure on reviewers to get things right.

This means that if anything, the reviews we have been presented with are more thorough, and are of a better quality than other reviews for smaller games, or even for bigger games at a different time. There will always be a publication that rates an excellent game with a poor score simply to gain hits, but all in all, when the eyes of the world are on you and you mess up your chance, you will lose some of your integrity and in the long run no one will want to hear what your opinion is. We would probably be better off if all reviews were held to the Killzone 2 standard.