Sign on Options
Theme:
To Dark

Killzone 2: Review Status

  • By Kevin-V, GameSpot
  • Posted Feb 2, 2009 7:06 pm PT

You may have heard about a little game called Killzone 2. It is possibly the most anticipated game on the PlayStation 3, and I've been fortunate enough to have finished the single player campaign and played several hours of multiplayer. Today, February 2nd, is the review embargo date; in other...

You may have heard about a little game called Killzone 2. It is possibly the most anticipated game on the PlayStation 3, and I've been fortunate enough to have finished the single player campaign and played several hours of multiplayer. Today, February 2nd, is the review embargo date; in other words, Sony will allow American online reviews of Killzone 2 to be posted as early as today. European reviews and exclusive reviews had already popped up, as you may have noticed, although the game isn't released until February 27th--more than three weeks from now.

However, we've decided not to rush a review to publication for several reasons. 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. The other multiplayer factor is that these sessions did not take place on retail servers, and used an earlier build of the game than the one that will be on the disc you buy. It is our policy never to knowingly review a game using software that does not represent the same game you will purchase on store shelves.

I know with so many reviews already being posted that it's disappointing that you don't see one from GameSpot yet--but we'd rather get it right than rush it. After all, Killzone 2 won't be out for over three weeks from now; racing to publish a review that isn't informed by incredibly important aspects of the online game would be doing you a disservice. The good news is that because the review embargo is up, we can post videos, screens, and more about the game--and we decided to start off with an impressions feature. Chris Watters, Andre Segers and I sat down to talk about our impressions of Killzone 2, so if you want some initial thoughts, here are plenty of them to tide you over!



We will also be publishing loads of gameplay video and screens for you to gaze at with longing. In addition, over the next couple of weeks, I will be updating this blog with looks at various features of Killzone 2, from multiplayer classes, to weapons, to single-player levels. Trust me: I know you're hungry for anything you can get. But never fear, shooter fans, for I will be here to overwhelm you with as much information as I can!

385 Comments

  • dragonfly110

    Posted Jul 14, 2009 11:28 am GMT

    I wont admit that the graphics are average I just dont think they are too much better then Gears...

  • Moroes

    Posted Jul 12, 2009 3:23 pm GMT

    The graphics are average? Yeah your right Andre, Crysis was trash too.

  • dmish82

    Posted Mar 2, 2009 2:20 pm GMT

    Well, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong about Gamespot. They wrote a very good review and actually gave it a 9/10. I honestly expected a 7.5 or 8.0.

  • Da_Skull_King

    Posted Feb 26, 2009 6:25 pm GMT

    i actually agree with andre on the human character models look kinda...wierd

    but other than that, andre is an idiot

  • winner-ps3

    Posted Feb 26, 2009 4:55 pm GMT

    u guys plz dont even bother with the review, no one cares anymore, the game is amazing period, we have 30+reviews saying 9+ so just dont waste ur time, u guys r guna give it a 8.5 anyway....

  • mrsmiley227

    Posted Feb 26, 2009 4:36 pm GMT

    WTF? wheres the WRITTEN review????????
    U guys need to hurry up...........

  • baiums_inferno

    Posted Feb 26, 2009 4:20 pm GMT

    i like how andre got muted after his lame comment on the graphics. im in europe, and i've had the game since yesterday the 25th, and it's absolutely amazing. -both multiplayer and campaign. this game is epic.

  • bg_fernandez

    Posted Feb 26, 2009 4:19 pm GMT

    i played just the demo and i play it just like cod...i can pull off headshots no problem...the "latency" grew on me.. and it will grow on others if people gave it a chance because it is a really good game

  • bg_fernandez

    Posted Feb 26, 2009 4:17 pm GMT

    andre needs glasses! above average....more like wayyyyy over average! plus he probably sucks at this game and can't adjust...go back to halo

  • sdkingsht

    Posted Feb 26, 2009 4:06 pm GMT

    @the game critic...did you ever think maybe Halo Wars really was THAT mediocre of a game? did you even play both games? if not your opinion is completely and utterly useless. but thanks for sharing anyway.

  • jyrexx

    Posted Feb 26, 2009 4:00 pm GMT

    Andre... above average graphics? you need glasses dude.

  • frazzle00

    Posted Feb 26, 2009 3:17 pm GMT

    Just got the game yesterday and have played through the first two levels on veteran. The game is a lot of fun, but from what I've seen thus far it's nothing groundbreaking. If you do have a PS3, it's definitely worth checking out. I don't however think it's good enough to justify buying a PS3 for. The only game I would say that fits this criteria is Uncharted atm.

  • Quandry

    Posted Feb 26, 2009 3:10 pm GMT

    There is nothing wrong with negative comments. But play the game and decide for yourself then comeback and write a review for all of us to read. I am highly anticipating peoples reviews.

  • edubrules

    Posted Feb 26, 2009 2:51 pm GMT

    god i hate andre

    they should fire him

    and no i dont care if he doesnt like the game, he's just clearly very biased and unprofessional in the way he preseants himself.

  • scott_e_42

    Posted Feb 26, 2009 2:29 pm GMT

    Andre Segers is dumb. He has nothing good to say about the game. He sounds like a nerd.

  • rex8000

    Posted Feb 26, 2009 2:15 pm GMT

    If you have a PS3: Buy this game.
    If you don't have a PS3: Repent, buy the PS3, and buy this game.

  • sydneyviles

    Posted Feb 26, 2009 2:10 pm GMT

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgzCeGlOKw0

    eye candy

  • The_Game_Critic

    Posted Feb 26, 2009 11:10 am GMT

    I'm not disappointed that Gamespot haven't released their Review yet. The reason being that Gamespot recently, appears to have lost any ability to review a game with any level of intelligence whatsoever. 50 Cent achieveing a higher score than a game such as Halo Wars? Quite frankly Gamespot need to sort their sh*t out otherwise everyone will probably just go to IGN.

  • Itsdewdewbabiee

    Posted Feb 26, 2009 4:27 am GMT

    @Kruegmeister I most agree, ROFL I had two X360 RROD... Its funny how people stick up for a company has a track record of making buggy garbage... ummm like windows... lol..

  • Itsdewdewbabiee

    Posted Feb 26, 2009 4:21 am GMT

    @beardrewz Dude, the game is awsome... I bought it last week off of craigslist I beat it once... The story is awsome... The game play is great... The game physics are out of this world... And graphics are beautiful... I beat the came on troop, and trying to run through it again on vetern and eventually elite... ITs an awsome game... Multiplayer is fantastic, servers went up yesterday... There so many words to discribe the multiplay but I can't fit it in this comment box... 32 players via online at once, with not even a hick up of lag that I ve played so far... Graphics are excatly the same as the campagin... Dude its freaking awsome its 420 AM I only had 5 hours a sleep... Thats how addicting and great the game is...

  • frazzle00

    Posted Feb 25, 2009 10:38 pm GMT

    @beardrewz

    Depends on how much you like online competitive action. The single player campaign is quite short apparently and unfortunately there is no campaign coop. The online multiplayer however is supposed to be excellent, but you've said in your post that you prefer story over multiplayer action. Perhaps this game would better suit you as a rental. Try out the demo and see what you think.

  • beardrewz

    Posted Feb 25, 2009 6:52 pm GMT

    in basic....i have a xbox 360 and a ps3...i have had so much bad luck with games on the ps3...quality is an issue..for ps3 and i dont want to spend all that money and find out the bad news of a short and non playable game. i prefer story (single player) over multiplayer.. i know xbox titles are very good in average but ps3 ones... lets not forget MGS4...well i never replayed that so good game of the century..GOW 1 and 2..yes lots of replay value...im a fan of both consoles...i would love to just say to myself...Kilzone 2 is going to be gears 1 or 2 quality in story and game play...i hope killzone 2 is as good as gears..that would make my day..

  • FEARTHEGOAT92

    Posted Feb 25, 2009 1:23 pm GMT

    that was a very smart choice of them. that way they can see just how good the multi. is for this game and give aa much more reasonable review for it. probably the reason they are not reviewing it is because they are too busy playing Killzone2 lol. nah, they'll probably have it out by thursday.

  • ConstiPlopz

    Posted Feb 24, 2009 2:02 pm GMT

    Aargh! We don't need an explanation! If GS hadn't posted this, they would have had more time for the review and probably it ld have been out like a week back! Just finish the review plz!!!! At least before the release of the Actual game!

  • r4v08

    Posted Feb 24, 2009 10:36 am GMT

    fuzzyfelt, how could you say this is a fail. This game will probably be the second best game in the world. call of duty 4 is no.1 =D

  • frazzle00

    Posted Feb 24, 2009 4:35 am GMT

    @division_9

    Dude why are you so fired up? You may think Halo 3's campaign is horrible, good for you. So why do you have such an issue with smsmith's comments? Are you the only one entitled to an opinion?

    @kruegmeister

    You've only provided anecdotal evidence about YOUR RROD experience. Please don't generalize that to the gaming public at large. And I guess you haven't been gaming long or you'd remember the serious hardware issues Sony machines have suffered from the PS1 onwards. In fact the PS3 is the first Sony system to break this trend. It's a damn shame that unlike its predecessors it's overpriced and has an underwhelming software library (in my opinion ).

    @ ecko1o1

    ROFLOL. So I guess any site that doesn't post reviews that meet YOUR expectations are guilty of accepting payola. Yeah right. You are in for a rude shock when you finally grow up and realize that the world doesn't rotate around you. And as for GOTY awards who cares? Don't tell me you buy games solely on review recommendations. Do you have a brain of your own or are you just a sheep? I am guessing the latter

  • Moppyp

    Posted Feb 23, 2009 2:30 pm GMT

    Kruegmeister I agree with ur 2nd post but what they meant was they dunt review games which aren't the same we are gonna receive. They received an earlier version of KZ2 n it isn't da exact same one we are gunna receive HOWEVER they received a copy of Halo Wars which is EXACT same as we are gunna get. hope dat clarifies

  • JackHoleFace00

    Posted Feb 23, 2009 2:28 pm GMT

    @smsmith1978
    2 things: 1) Don't know about everyone else but I'm primarily picking this up for the multiplayer. So even if the SP sucks (which it doesn't look like it does), many like me could care less. 2) The multiplayer will be awesome. Does that mean better than Halo 3? Not necessarily. But one thing it will definitely be: FRESH. Halo 3's been out for year's now. And even when it came out it played very similar to Halo 2. Great game, but get over it. Why come in here just to hate? Afraid it might actually be better or something I'm guessing

  • FuzzyFelt posted Feb 23, 2009 5:03 am GMT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    FuzzyFelt

    Posted Feb 23, 2009 5:03 am GMT (hide)

    FAIL

  • Kruegmeister

    Posted Feb 22, 2009 6:25 pm GMT

    smsmith1978 has to come check out Killzone 2... Which is not for His System because he is what they call an XBot... It's what they do to Legitimize the Hardware Choice. Makes em Feel Better.
    They Troll for any evidence that can make them feel better about choosing a system which has the Lowest Quality Hardware Probably in the History of Electronics.

    Don't even try to Call me a PS3Fanboy either... as I own a PS3, Wii and a 360. I got the Lovely Red Ring of Death. I get Disc Read Errors. I actually have 10 people total that I know personally with 360s, and Just last week We Hit 9 out of 10 who have sent theirs in for the Red Ring of Death. Even More Sad than that is that the 10th Person Just got his... So we will see... Luckily that 10th Person I know has a 360 that Scratches the Discs... Man I thought they would have fixed that with the Jasper based versions???

    Also, Consider how many XBox only sites Reviews are present for both Gears and Halo up on the Metacritic. If your System is > than everyone else then you really do not need to come on Bulletin Boards and Try to Knock down people looking forward to Killzone 2. Which BTW I have played both Online and Offline. BTW2 It's AWESOME. I personally am a HUGE Halo Fan. I can tell you if you Like Halo or Call of Duty 4/5 you will certainly have a blast with Killzone2 MultiPlayer. It is Extremely Addicting and Fun.

    Oh yeah... Since the 360 Fanboys are XBots. I came up with a New Name for the Wii Fanboys. From here on out I dub them "WiiNerds"

  • Kruegmeister

    Posted Feb 22, 2009 5:45 pm GMT

    "It is our policy never to knowingly review a game using software that does not represent the same game you will purchase on store shelves."

    Yet they Reviewed Halo Wars which has the Same MultiPlayer Limitation...
    GameSpot has become more and more Full of It !!!

  • Seahawks1567

    Posted Feb 22, 2009 9:38 am GMT

    They should have separate reviews for online and single player.

  • Moppyp

    Posted Feb 22, 2009 9:27 am GMT

    So will the review come before the games release or after? Because i'm thinking of buying it the first day and i'd appreciate GS rating.

  • ecko1o1

    Posted Feb 22, 2009 9:07 am GMT

    @ smsmith1978 haha he's just another xbot fanboy
    hey man, instead of bugging us with your worthless and boring arguments (wow Gears 2 got 93 and KZ2 got 92 so obviously KZ2 sucks), why don't you go play Gears 2's rather broken multiplayer, something which hardly any of the Gears 2 before release date reviews anticipated.
    I'm sure that now most of the review sites have decided that their scores (most of which were bought by M$) for Gears 2 were a little bloated, thats why Gears 2 hasn't won a single GOTY award or often even been nominated anywhere.

  • AussieDCO

    Posted Feb 22, 2009 4:49 am GMT

    I still maintain that GS will not give this game AAA and this is why they have not posted the review.

    Usually companies allow reviews to be released early provided that they meet certain criteria. I would be blown away if this scored over a 9 considering the IMO unexplainable delay in the review (which I dont expect to surface until the game releases).

  • smsmith1978

    Posted Feb 22, 2009 12:48 am GMT

    I don't need to state my source, as I am not answerable to the likes of you.

    "You then so willfully imply metacritic scores mean alot and that Halo 3 and Gears of war 2 is better then Killzone 2, again when Killzone 2 isnt even released." - The Killzone metacritic score is based on 57 different reviews at the time of writing this. This may be a shock to you, but the majority of review sites receive a copy of a game weeks before they are officially released so they can review them properly.


    You can argue about Gears 2 and Halo 3 being below this game as much as you like, fact of the matter is that they're both higher scoring games than Killzone 2, thus are better games. And if you're going to start talking about the storyline in regards to these campaigns, Edge magazine said that the Killzone 2 storyline is so disjointed that you could play it in any random order and the story wouldn't make any less sense.

    Sorry boys, but your great white hope of a Halo/Gears killer has fallen short of the mark.

  • sigfredod

    Posted Feb 21, 2009 6:13 pm GMT

    ok Kevin on feb 3 you post there was not rush for the review even you had the final code of the game and play it because you wanted to fully play the multiplayer mode, now 1 week away from the big day jejeje i can't wait , you still are not ready to post the review ??? i mean most of us enter this sites to get opinions about the games to decide in wich ones spent our money. So Kevin for when?

  • King_Faisal_94

    Posted Feb 21, 2009 3:27 pm GMT

    i just beat the game (shipping error) wish i could review it but id get lost in the fanboy craze all giving it 10s while truly its an 8 btw haven't played multiplayer yet servers aren't up

  • niema20

    Posted Feb 21, 2009 9:36 am GMT

    I cant honestly tell you if this game will be better than Gears, but heck im still definitely gonna get. I love the look of the helghast! division 9 made some brillant points and im just gonna finish this comment with this:
    yeh, what he said..

  • division_9

    Posted Feb 21, 2009 7:14 am GMT

    Killzone 2 is promising so far, I doubt it'll be better then Halo 3 multiplayer though.

    @smsmith Saying a game(Killzone 2 in this case) is overrated and that it has a 6 hour campaign, which is plenty in comparison to games these days that focus on multiplayer and singleplayer, before its even out(Killzone 2) is in truth climbing a set of stairs you've never climbed before in the dark. Basically its a stupid decision which will cost you and your credibility a great deal. If it is truly 6 hours state your source.

    You then so willfully imply metacritic scores mean alot and that Halo 3 and Gears of war 2 is better then Killzone 2, again when Killzone 2 isnt even released.

    Your right, the collective opinion of 300 million other gamers means alot, but it wont mean as much to you as your own opinion and thats what ultimately will be spread whenever you talk about Killzone 2. But then you have to doubt how many people have a Killzone 2 opinion since it is even released.

    Mastertony had some very strong arguments. Halo 3 is in truth its predecessors graphically updated to some 2006 worthy graphics. Its campaign was fairly horrible, the story was unfullfiling, its multipayer was good but exactly the same as its predecessors. I agree about one thing though, pretty graphics do not make a great game, but then your argument and my belief collapsed when you brought Gears of war into it, which at best was underwhelming in every aspect except graphics. Millions of people play Gears of war 1 and 2 regularly and enjoy it which says alot for Graphics making a great game - another good example is Crysis. The campaign was also quite bad in both games. It lacked story for the most part and Gears campaign was full of space fillers. 10 hour space fillers is nothing in comparison to a real 3 hour campaign. Better yet a 6 hour campaign as you describe even though I disagree with that.

    What I find most distrubing is when you say " Listen junior, if you're going to try to dissect what I say, you had better make your posts watertight or I WILL make a fool of you even further." Its ironic that you say that when Mastertony has made a fool of you and every immediate Xbox 360 fanboy to come after you to post in this discussion since your meaningless arguments, which is completely your fault, has allowed him to incur embarassment on you and any immediate Xbox360 fanboy to come after you since the arguments are already here posted by him and the game isn't even out.

  • KrAzY_Croat

    Posted Feb 20, 2009 6:54 pm GMT

    At Smsmith:
    Judging a game based on pure hearsay is pointless. And why are these comments so explosive and defensive. Are you trying to voice your opinion, stir up chaos, or even trying change peoples minds? From screen shots, videos and playing past Killzone games I naturally gained an interest, From what I have played in the demo, my impression is that it will be one of the brightest shooters for this year. But that's only my opinion, there's no reason for me to try to change anyone's mind about it.
    All I can say is I would recommend any PlayStation owner to give it a try.

    Oh, and Mastertony88's comment about Halo 3 is correct; it's easily beaten in under four hours

  • mastertony88

    Posted Feb 20, 2009 6:06 pm GMT

    Hey smsmith1978,
    Why so defensive man? All i am trying to say is to not judge a game until you play it. I am a fanboy because of that. How can I be a fanboy when I clearly say I prefered Gears of War 1 and Halo 1 over the sequels. I love all 3 systems, each unique that are full of fun and good times. How can I be also be a fanboy when I mention Call of Duty 4 being a better game than Halo 3. I have CoD 4 for xbox 360!

    I am a supergamer? Yea I wish... just play Halo 3 on easy and run threw the levels...and you can beat it well under 4 hours.

    "So you're saying that the collective average of people in the industry don't mean anything? Again, that statement reeks of fanboyism."
    Not people in the industry...journalists in the industry are very bias and depends on what gamesite and game magazine you read. Not fanboyism, just facts and only the truth man. Yea the collective average of journalists in the industry don't mean anything because they are opinions, sadly these opinions make or break game sales. Like what frazzle00 said, gaming reviews are irrelevant, so play the game instead of repeating some journalist's comment on Killzone 2.

    "You are accusing me of stirring trouble on the boards by merely voicing an opinion echoing these reviewers which you are accusing of being baseless in their reviews. Did freedom of speech die when I was not watching or something?"
    lmao...no, freedom of speech didn't die but why voice an reviewers' opinion when we can find that out ourselves? No point at all man. But there is a difference between the reviewers' opinion and you...they played the game, you didn't.

    "Listen junior, if you're going to try to dissect what I say, you had better make your posts watertight or I WILL make a fool of you even further."
    Honestly no point of making that statement.

  • frazzle00

    Posted Feb 20, 2009 4:46 pm GMT

    @mdv_au

    Finally someone with some common sense. Reviews in this day and age are largely irrelevant. Get the demo, and form your own opinion. It's as simple as that.

  • rockutd

    Posted Feb 20, 2009 2:22 am GMT

    The online wont matter much.But how the game is gonna play out, u can pretty tell by the first few sessions.

  • mastertony88

    Posted Feb 19, 2009 7:21 pm GMT

    smsmith1978: Halo 3 and Gears of War 2 are overrated too...your point. Call of Duty 4 is a way better game than Halo 3. Halo 3 had a horrible campaign (stupid story and beat the game in 4 hours), online play was full of glitches, graphics were like Halo 2.5, gameplay is the same. Call of Duty 4 made Halo 3 a joke PERIOD. And for Gears of War 2, what saved that game was the online play. In my opinion, Gears of War 1 is a better game than Gears of War 2 (in campaign and multiplayer). I will also mention that Halo 1 is better game than Halo 2 and 3. Also, having the best Metacritic score doesn't mean it is a great game. The game industry is political, Halo 3 and Gears of War 2 got a good score because of the name, not the game. I agree Killzone 2 is getting plenty of attention (Sony is trying to commercially push this game toward success), but don't judge a game that hasn't come out yet. Just mentioning Gears of War 2 and Halo 3 being better than Killzone 2 just mark you as a fanboy and made your points even more ridiculous. Don't judge until the game comes out. You are just going to stir trouble in the comment boards.

  • smsmith1978 posted Feb 19, 2009 4:35 pm GMT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    smsmith1978

    Posted Feb 19, 2009 4:35 pm GMT (hide)

    This game is overrated. A 6 hour campaign, no co-op split screen, acting is downright terrible, and all the enemies look the same. Pretty graphics do not mean a great game, unfortunately a lot of review sites can't seem to look beyond this.

    Anyway, Gears of War 2 is better. Don't believe me? Check out the Metacritic scores between the two. Actually Halo 3 is better than this game also.

Subscribe to GameSpot's YouTube Channel

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!