[QUOTE="rorskarch"]

:|[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] the story in both games was garbage ...so its not like its out of line :|. jg4xchamp

how can you say cood4 has a better story than kz2.............:|

[QUOTE="rorskarch"][QUOTE="cowgriller"]

and fourth time: they are still rated off the same standard. you don't create a new set of criteria per reviewed unit.

cowgriller

on the contrary it gets easier. the criteria, in the case of computer's is how well and fast it is able to perform certain tasks. the more advanced a computer is, the faster the task is completed.

as for video games, the criteria would be the story: does it have.

storytelling: if it does have a story, how does it play out. does the script flow properly when the player advances through the game?

graphics: not only is it good to look at, but technical achievement: high quality graphics with little or no slow down of frame rate. are there any bugs like screen tearing or clipping?

controls: are they too complex, too simplistic? is there input lag associated with the control?

audio: does the audio mix envelope the gamer? does it sound realistic? is the sound muffled or tinny?

do you finally understand? this is how game are rated. the less problems they have, the better the score.

[QUOTE="rorskarch"][QUOTE="cowgriller"]

i've read it, i understand it but your not getting it. the way that the computers are rated is based on a set of standards. the better the score it receives the better it is. btw, your analogy sucks because games are like computers. computers have new hardware and the hardware is rates whereas games stay on the same hardware (per generation) and are rated equally by a set of standards. standards which i wrote almost 3 pages back which you failed to read.

cowgriller

or in other words, walk away defeated because you are fully aware you lost the argument. an argument in which you have no proof and had to create a hypothetical situation. a hypothetical situation which blew up in your face because you failed to think it out completely.

:|

[QUOTE="rorskarch"][QUOTE="cowgriller"]

i don't have to play it. it's a cheap rip off of CoD4. i've played call of duty 4. it's good but not great. it had a story, unlike kz2, but unfortunately it was too short.

jg4xchamp

how can you say cood4 has a better story than kz2.............:|

[QUOTE="rorskarch"][QUOTE="cowgriller"]

and what was your point? that two computers of different speeds ahve to rated differently? no. that's not how rating is done. you obviously are avoiding my point. regardless when a game is released, or for what console it's released, it WILL be judged by a set of standards that do not change just because the times do. you don't look at a movie that was critically acclaimed in the past and say it's crap by todays standard. you look at it as an achievement and a bar that has to be raised by future releases.

cowgriller

and fourth time: they are still rated off the same standard. you don't create a new set of criteria per reviewed unit.

[QUOTE="rorskarch"][QUOTE="cowgriller"]

the standard is rating based on speed. since both are rated on the standard, the standard did not change. the technology may have changed but the way they are reviewed remains the same. hence, standard. do you finally understand?

cowgriller

i've read it, i understand it but your not getting it. the way that the computers are rated is based on a set of standards. the better the score it receives the better it is. btw, your analogy sucks because games are like computers. computers have new hardware and the hardware is rates whereas games stay on the same hardware (per generation) and are rated equally by a set of standards. standards which i wrote almost 3 pages back which you failed to read.

[QUOTE="rorskarch"][QUOTE="cowgriller"]

so you rest you case with no point. nice job. fun is not considered a major factor in game review. it is considered, but it's not the biggest. the technical aspects give the game the score it deserves.

as for the computer analogy,again, i say now what i said before. both computers are based and reviewed on the same standard: speed. yes one computer is faster and more powerful than the other, but both are judged equally using the same rating criteria.

cowgriller

and what was your point? that two computers of different speeds ahve to rated differently? no. that's not how rating is done. you obviously are avoiding my point. regardless when a game is released, or for what console it's released, it WILL be judged by a set of standards that do not change just because the times do. you don't look at a movie that was critically acclaimed in the past and say it's crap by todays standard. you look at it as an achievement and a bar that has to be raised by future releases.

[QUOTE="Animal-Mother"][QUOTE="cowgriller"] it was a showcase of ps3 hardware that failed to sell well. it's a game with poor controls and lacks a story.

cowgriller

i don't have to play it. it's a cheap rip off of CoD4. i've played call of duty 4. it's good but not great. it had a story, unlike kz2, but unfortunately it was too short.

[QUOTE="rorskarch"][QUOTE="cowgriller"]

the time may be different, the concept remains the same.

cowgriller

the standard is rating based on speed. since both are rated on the standard, the standard did not change. the technology may have changed but the way they are reviewed remains the same. hence, standard. do you finally understand?

[QUOTE="rorskarch"][QUOTE="cowgriller"]

actually the killzone franchise was originally designed to compete with the halo franchise, hence the "halo-killer" moniker it obtained. killzone 2 was designed to be a showcase of ps3 hardware and it still failed to outscore halo 3.

cowgriller