Gamespot delays Killzone 2 review over multiplayer

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.

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?

Metal Gear Solid 4.

Wasnt it?

Yep, you’re right.

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

Better to be right, I guess.

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

Cunts.
Smug fucking cunts.

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

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.

“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.

*lets

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

@ 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.

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

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.

@ reask:

LOL!

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…

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.

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.

cheers,

Alex

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.

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 !

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