WTF? are you F**king kidding me? please dont give hits to this site, how are you comparing Batman to KZ2? WTF?
it probably did. they spent 50 million dollars on DLC, so they ran out of money to try to stop these ratings from getting so high.
oh dont worry, it will stay at a 93 since edge and 1up are biased and all.
EDIT: oh wait, dont forget gamespot, they'll say theres too much variety, especially in the multiplayer, they will also state that not carrying more than 2 weapons is bad, since they are like little boys who think that you can carry more than 8 weapons in a game.
last time when they reviewed the original Killzone, they gave it a 3 out of 5 i believe.
??? you support guerilla, but you dont support the PS3, the console that is powering this game. you do realize if this game was on the other console, it would explode.
COD4,COD:WAW and Halo 3 has weapon carrying limits. this is something that they shouldn't even talk about. and then they say that PS3 fanboys are just complaining, knowing that its facts that they are being biased against games that are not in the system of their choice.
yea i know no game is perfect, but its getting really ridiculous that these people are nit-picking at things that they shouldn't nit-pick at.
they had to get rid of it as demanded from QA testing and the beta community.
no its because they are biased against the Playstation and they are pissed that KZ2 is the real deal after all the hating since that 2005 trailer. so they nit-pick the hell out of it.
I want to see what happens when they get their hands on GOW3 or the next ICO game, i want to see how they're going to judge those games. Heck, I want to see what happens when they get their hands on the next COD game. if they review COD with a higher score than KZ2 and it doesnt innovate on anythin...
i like how these reviewers make it seem that carrying 2 weapons at a time is bad. seriously, this game is aiming for realism. jeez.
i like how these reviewers make it seem that carrying 2 weapons at a time is bad. seriously, this game is aiming for realism. jeez.
MGS3, being a prequel, wouldnt be a good way to understand the game, play it from MGS1, then MGS2, then MGS3: subsistance so you could surprise yourself. thats how us MGS fans played it.
"I'm pretty disappointed, the only way PS3 is gonna really improver it's position this gen is by price cuts, It's hurting right now since they haven't answered 360's last price cut yet."
r u fu**ing Stupid? were you born with cerebral Palsy or something?
"That a 9/10 is considered a failure for this game. It's averaging a solid 9.2 almost 9.3 and I'm disappointed."
seriously, you need to get banned.
yea, i cant wait.
to play metal Gear, you need to go back MGS1 to understand it. MGS1 was the masterpiece that basically started it all, even though there was MG1 and MG2 for the MSX. the way MGS4 ended was the way I wanted to see it end, and it was awesome.
thats cause GTAIV is overhpyed Piece of S**t. why dont you play GTA 3 and see why GTA 3 is better than GTA4, I'll give you a Hint, Humor.
KZ2 is an FPS. Street Fighter IV is a fighting game, they are both different games. Besides, PS3 users are getting both.
How the FUK did this get approved? seriously this failed approval 3 times, yet it actually got approved this time. Seriously you people are dumb. someone needs to ban the user who submitted this 3 times.
IGN gave MGS4 a 10, a PS3 exclusive.
They gave Uncharted a 9.
Little Big Planet a 9.5
Resistance 2 a 9.5
Rachet and Clank FTOD a 9.5
Resistance 1 a 9.1
Im not making this Bull***t up. look it up on IGN if you want. all these games got their "editors choice award".
So Im living in a fantasy?
you guys are living in a fantasy if you state IGN is biased. now if you guys said Gamedaily, 1up, or gamespot, then I would agr...
that was surprising LOL nice.
4/5 means an 8/10. a 4.5/5 means a 9/10.