Gamespot delays Killzone 2 review over multiplayer

Tuesday, 3rd February 2009 12:35 GMT By Patrick Garratt


Gamespot’s decided to hold off with its Killzone 2 review in an effort to better play the game’s multiplayer component.

According to the site, all US reviews published so far have been based on a mere three hours of online play.

“We’ve decided not to rush a review to publication for several reasons,” said a spokesman in this blog post.

“The most important is Killzone 2′s multiplayer component. There have been three one-hour multiplayer sessions to date for members of the American press. However, Killzone 2′s online play is complex. It uses a class-based system with seven total classes, but these classes (among weapons, upgrades, and many other perks) are only unlocked once you have reached the appropriate level.

“In just over three hours of play, the two of us joining these sessions had yet to unlock a new class. It takes many, many hours of online play to unlock them, and it would be improper for us to review class-based multiplayer without actually experiencing the classes.”

IGN was given the US exclusive on Killzone 2′s review, giving the game 9.4/10 last Friday.

The general embargo on global reviews lifted yesterday.



  1. Blerk

    I can’t help but wonder if the multiplayer components of games should get entirely separate reviews, like GamesTM do it. Quite often they’re totally different to the single-player aspect, and given the difficulty in reviewing something when you can’t actually play it with the public-at-large, surely it’s better to split them out and ultimately score them separately?

    That said, every time somebody says they’re doing this, I always surmise it’s some kind of “editorial vs company PR” hissy fit over a denied exclusive or something. :-D

    #1 6 years ago
  2. Patrick Garratt

    It’s not the first time Gamespot’s done it, iirc. I’m sure they did it with another big game last year. To be honest, I think they’re right to do it. No one would play a single-player triple A game for three hours then score it, would they?

    #2 6 years ago
  3. Johnny Cullen

    Metal Gear Solid 4.

    Wasnt it?

    #3 6 years ago
  4. Patrick Garratt

    Yep, you’re right.

    #4 6 years ago
  5. Gekidami

    They must do this quite abit because they’re often late with their reviews compaired to other sites.

    #5 6 years ago
  6. Patrick Garratt

    Better to be right, I guess.

    #6 6 years ago
  7. reask

    I suppose they want the review to be informative so need more online play.

    #7 6 years ago
  8. Tonka

    Smug fucking cunts.

    #8 6 years ago
  9. Patrick Garratt


    #9 6 years ago
  10. El_MUERkO

    it’s attention getting nonsense, like any gamer is going to say to themselves “I’m not going to buy XXXXX until Gamespot tell me to!”, especially after the Kane & Lynch bollox :D

    #10 6 years ago
  11. Mike

    I think online should be an aside. Does anyone really buy a game like Killzone 2 to just play multiplayer? Surely, everyone buys it for the campaign and the multiplayer is added extra?

    Put it another way, if it had no multiplayer, would it hurt sales? My guess is no.

    #11 6 years ago

    Does anyone really buy a game like Killzone 2 to just play multiplayer?

    You have to take into consideration that the campaign is only 8-10 hours long according to what I’ve read so far.

    So if someone was only buying for the campaign lates say they’d only be getting 25-ish hours out of it if they decided to finish it on the hardest setting.

    The way that I see it, if you buy this for the single player and only play the multiplayer for one or two hours, you’re losing a whole lot of value.

    Plus, whereas I can’t really speak for PS3 owners, on 360 I’ve come across loads of people who’d barely touched the campaign of COD4, but had put in hundreds of hours in the multiplayer for example.

    #12 6 years ago


    #13 6 years ago
  14. evilashchris

    Really good review over on gametrailers, I think I want this.

    #14 6 years ago
  15. reask

    @ gigahurtz
    Would you believe I have gold and hardly ever play online.
    Every time I do I just get whopped.
    Still I pay just to have the option.

    #15 6 years ago
  16. Blerk

    That’s a bit mental if you ask me, reask. :-D

    #16 6 years ago
  17. Hunam

    Wasn’t there a beta last year, I’m sure that lasted longer than 3 hours.

    It also tickles me that Gamespot think they still have a reputation left.

    #17 6 years ago

    @ reask:


    It’s not the winning, it’s the taking part that counts.

    Have you tried playing team based games with people who are good players? It’s always a good plan to do that if you don’t like losing, hehe…

    #18 6 years ago
  19. Random_H

    The problem is, there was a cheat code with the press kits with which you could gain points to skip a few ranks. So, if they’d read the giant IMPORTANT – READ ME FIRST!!! pdf they might have been able to test all the classes out by now. :D

    Dunno… here’s thinking they’re not sure the game is worth 9+ based on the singleplayer campain, so they see if they find the appropriate fun online.



    #19 6 years ago
  20. bytemap

    Maybe they feel the want to analyze the “whole” package of the game, including single and multiplayer. I mean a ton of people love Call of Duty because of its Multiplayer. So, Gamespot maybe thinking the same thing.

    #20 6 years ago
  21. Monk

    may this the right thing that they do it like what they say ! , I now that form the day that get release i well get it absolutely!
    but really i want to see the review, to see what they
    see exactly about the classes, the spy >> my favorite
    in team forters 2 :)!

    #21 6 years ago
  22. airdom

    Why don’t they do this with ALL games then?

    #22 6 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.