I almost commented on this before, except I find it rather hard to give a damn.
Edge gave Killzone 2 a 7 out of 10. Which honestly, I have no idea if that's a valid score or not - I have not played the game nor have I tried the demo (and don't me started on gamers acting like they're an authority on a game based on a demo). The review resulted in a flame war of hilarious proportions, recommended reading if there ever was such a thing for the genre.
Whether the game is good or not, or justifies the score, can't really say. But the review itself sucked. Even if it is an honest opinion of the game, it just isn't very good writing.
Here is an example:
Right. A rare treat except GoldenEye. If you haven't played the umpteen military based shooters created since Counter-Strike went commercial, the vast majority of them utilizing increasingly more sophisticated ragdoll tech. A paragraph like this makes me think the writer (although technically here it is writers - it apparently took the entire Edge staff to produce this gem) just wants the reader to know: I played GoldenEye.
Which especially sad if that is supposed to count as old school in some way.
The "neat trick" was really "just another character", of course. And, what is exactly is supposd to be "gaming's latest obsession"? Foul-mouthed main characters? Maybe it's a "games that like to be more like Gears Of War's latest obsession," or "there was a lot of swearing in GTA IV, so we can do it too" kind of thing - but it's not like Flower features a cursing petal or anything. As obsessions go, there's nothing in that quote that really makes sense to gaming in general.
And the problem here is that Edge seems to be going out of its way to prove Killzone 2 to be banal. I'm half-surprised they didn't complain about the use of guns in a game.
Leading us to my favorite part:
Can someone tell me what exactly is wrong with sentry bots? Fallout 3 had a decent number of them, and other than their tendency to shoot large rockets in my direction - I never thought to myself, "wow, how unimaginative." I mean how about "another alien race based vaguely on insects" (Gears Of War), or "another alien race based vaguely on vampires/zombies/goth monsters" (Uh, also, Gears Of War), or how about a "men in the future will be roided out soldiers in large metal suits, using equipment with randomly placed LED lights" (You get the point).
And I'm not suggesting that Gears Of War was cliche or unimaginative, I'm just saying that the shooter genre has so many building blocks that get swapped around, it isn't very useful to point something like, "they used robots" as a part of a critique. Does Edge knock every game for using a cinematic that evokes a scene from a Valve game? No? Then shut the hell up.
Sentry bots. Edge goes on about sentry bots, but for the actual multiplayer portion of the game, we get:
Separate development of the multiplayer modes has paid dividends, the badge and perks systems adding distinctive RPG flavour to a uniquely hardcore team-based experience.
And that's it. Which tells me nothing new that I didn't already know from the dozen Killzone 2 previews out there. I know someone who writes movie reviews not by watching movies, but by reading other reviews and paraphrasing them.
I'm not suggesting that Edge did that. But if they did, it would possibly would have been a better review.
I did like this portion:
Mostly because I've played FEAR and I've played Black, and so I understand what is being said. Oddly though, it's about the only part of the review well written and really, really made me want to play the game.
(Oh, and for anyone wanting to respond with some nitpicky response pointing out a grammar or spelling error, so how is it I get to be all high and mighty about writing - the answer is simple. I don't get paid for this. They do. And also, bite me.)