• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/
  • Weve updated the Tripwire Privacy Notice under our Policies to be clearer about our use of customer information to come in line with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rules that come into force today (25th May 2018). The following are highlights of our changes:


    We've incorporated the relevant concepts from the GDPR including joining the EU and Swiss Privacy Shield framework. We've added explanations for why and how Tripwire processes customer data and the types of data that we process, as well as information about your data protection rights.



    For more information about our privacy practices, please review the new Privacy Policy found here: https://tripwireinteractive.com/#/privacy-notice

Can we expect a review before release?

Perfectblue

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 29, 2009
177
3
0
As the title states, do you think we will see a review or two surface before the game releases? Reason being, I would like to buy a few copies for some guild mates but I dont want to be disappointed.
 

DirtyRat

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 12, 2006
1,623
59
0
Glasgow
www.outlawgamers.com
I too have pre-ordered it, since I trust TW. I know they'll have done a great job with this.

A few reviews would be good though as I'm trying to persuade a few mates to buy it.
 

Psycho_Sam

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 6, 2006
1,242
16
0
32
Birmingham, UK
www.rawgames.co.uk
Yep the game is definatley worth the money. (I had the privaledge to Beta test). I also expect that as TWI offered such great support for RO with all the free content patches that we can expect something similar for KF. *crosses fingers* :)

It will get a Metascore as it is being released on Steam, not sure if that gets put up before release day or not though.
 

Perfectblue

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 29, 2009
177
3
0
If you were to grade the beta in the last state in which you played it, what letter grade would you give it e.g. A- B+ etc.
 

Innociv

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 28, 2006
1,041
21
0
RO had a really nice metascore. 81.

It should be alot nicer, but g4 are faggots.
Out of 22 scores, 6 are over 80. 5 of those are 74-79. 1 is a 40. G4 gave a 40 because they suck at video games and reviewing.
If it wasn't for the g4 review, it'd be over 85 or something, putting RO in the top 200 instead of top 500.

Don't send a review copy to G4. :(
 

Psycho_Sam

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 6, 2006
1,242
16
0
32
Birmingham, UK
www.rawgames.co.uk
If you were to grade the beta in the last state in which you played it, what letter grade would you give it e.g. A- B+ etc.
Well if you like I will write a short review.


Whilst Killing Floor is not as good graphically as Left for Dead,* it is using Unreal 2.5 so you expect that. That said TWI have done more with the engine than I thought was possible! Every map just oozes atmosphere with the great graphics, superb lighting and map layouts along with the fantastic sounds. We all know what a great job Andreas did with the RO sounds and he hasn't disappointed with KF. We have seen several versions of sounds and they just got better each time.

With the new systems that have been incorporated its really much more intense than the first time I played it. Zombies come at you from all over the place and you need to keep your wits about you so you don't get pushed into a corner.

The buying system has been totally revamped from the mod and works much better. Weapons really have specific advantages and disadvantages in certain situations and you need to choose carefully what weapons to use when. Use all your shotgun ammo up at the start of a wave and if a Fleshpound turns up your dead meat. Of course some weapons are better at killing certain specimens so there is no pointing blasting away at the fleshpound with a pistol unless you have no other choice. :p

You also need to balance the loadout in a squad too. With the perks and variety of weapons this is a major advantage over L4D. This tactical side is what we all know and love TWI for and it is done well. A team of flamethrowers or LAW's won't do as well as a mixed team. However you also need to vary this as the rounds progress as the make up of waves change too!


Overall I would give Killing Floor a score of around the 86% mark. However it is still unfinished and so this can only improve. :)


*(most are going to compare the two no matter what :eek:)
 

Perfectblue

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 29, 2009
177
3
0
Thanks for the write up Sam, that was very helpful!

Three more questions though, would you actually consider this game unnerving and perhaps even scary like a true survival horror game? Or does the effect lose steam quickly once you learn a map and add team mates to the mix.

Secondly is ammo scarcity actually a concern in this game, unlike L4D?

Lastly, what is the music like in the current beta if its present at all.
 
Last edited:

Psycho_Sam

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 6, 2006
1,242
16
0
32
Birmingham, UK
www.rawgames.co.uk
Thanks for the write up Sam, that was very helpful!

Two more questions though, would you actually consider this game unnerving and perhaps even scary like a true survival horror game? Or does the effect lose steam quickly once you learn a map and add team mates to the mix.

Lastly, what is the music like in the current beta if its present at all.
I think the game is definatley scary in parts. Obviously you have the relief when a wave is over but then that turns into nervous trepidation whilst your trying to find somewhere to take the brunt of the next wave. That rollercoaster of emotions is not good for the faint of heart. :p

If you wander off or get cut off from your group the adrenaline really kicks in. Likewise if your team members are dying around you and there is only a couple of you left. I advise you stay close to your team unless you want to meet a grizzly end.


As for the music I don't feel at liberty to comment just yet. :)
 

Nenjin

Grizzled Veteran
Apr 30, 2009
3,879
480
83
Sub-Level 12
I know the focus is on recreating the original mod, but I hope this game grows quickly. The choice of perks, while cool, seems kind of limited but full of potential for growth and expansion. At $15, I'm not expecting a AAA title worth of updates and content. But KF is exactly what I was looking for that L4D doesn't cover, and I hope it has a lot more staying power than Survival Mode in L4D. It already seems like it has more, I'm just sort of wondering how much more.

Either way, I'm pre-ordered hehe.
 

DietOrange

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 31, 2008
730
7
0
Sam thanks for the review and other answers this is sounding even better now. I hope the music is has a scary feeling to it like the early resident evil games.

Do the gun sounds sound powerful like RO?
 

Innociv

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 28, 2006
1,041
21
0
I know the focus is on recreating the original mod, but I hope this game grows quickly. The choice of perks, while cool, seems kind of limited but full of potential for growth and expansion. At $15, I'm not expecting a AAA title worth of updates and content. But KF is exactly what I was looking for that L4D doesn't cover, and I hope it has a lot more staying power than Survival Mode in L4D. It already seems like it has more, I'm just sort of wondering how much more.

Either way, I'm pre-ordered hehe.
Could always re-release the game as an "Expansion" with added content later on and price it higher. xD But give it to the current buyers for free of course :p
 

Tolil

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 22, 2009
118
0
0
RO had a really nice metascore. 81.

It should be alot nicer, but g4 are faggots.
Out of 22 scores, 6 are over 80. 5 of those are 74-79. 1 is a 40. G4 gave a 40 because they suck at video games and reviewing.
If it wasn't for the g4 review, it'd be over 85 or something, putting RO in the top 200 instead of top 500.

Don't send a review copy to G4. :(
I read the review and watched it, and all I could think was "..........."
Then "...WHAT the HELL?!"
I mean come on, since when can you bash a game for doing what it's supposed to? It's SUPPOSED to be realistic, and you said REPEATEDLY that it is! HOW then could you say that it's crap? I could understand "This kind of game doesn't appeal to me" but saying that it's crap because it's a realistic shooter? This just encourages companies to only make arcadey fragfests, not that those arent good sometimes, but there needs to be variety. How could XPlay fail like that? Oh, wait, they're also the guys that said that H.A.W.X was crap, and I am having a blast. -.-
 

Nenjin

Grizzled Veteran
Apr 30, 2009
3,879
480
83
Sub-Level 12
Reviewers have two masters to serve: One, information. They need to tell the public about the game. That's where it's time to say "It's a realistic shooter and it does realism very well."

The second master is: Money. Money is served by telling gamers overall how much fun a game is. Beautiful, thoughtful games can still be unfun. That's separate from the actual game itself. It's always worth it to take reviewer claims of overall "fun" with a grain of salt, since fun is subjective. But I think fans would trust reviewers even less if they didn't try to describe how fun the overall game is.

The real issue is that G4, Gamespy, IGN....are all susceptible to "AAA Title-itis." Games from small companies, mods, indie games, ect... have to work 2x as hard to get a really high rating from 'professional' game journalists. (And I use the term professional loosely.) Meanwhile, a budget of a couple million basically guarantees you a 75+ Metascore, because you will meet the minimum bar for graphic quality, sound, bugginess, and polish. The other 25 of the metascore is actual game play. Personally, I think those stats are flipped from the way they should be. 25 of the metascore should be the absolute quality bar any game has to meet based on graphics, performance and polish. The other 75 of the metascore should really measure gameplay. Unfortunately, that's not how the real world, or million dollar games really function. You can spend $2 million to dev a game, and end up with $10 worth of game play. That happens all too often these days. Conversely, you can spend $200,000 to dev a game and get thousands of dollars worth of gameplay...and all the reviewers can pay attention to is: Where's the other $1.75 million worth of graphics. 80 METASCORE!

I'm not saying indie games or small dev houses put out better games as a fact....a million dollar budget usually buys you better ideas and better designers, and usually gets you a better game. But lots of times, fans and reviewers incorrectly equate money spent --> fun to be had.
 
Last edited:

MareNostrum

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 21, 2009
41
1
0
For the love of all zombies don't send a review version to G4!

That being said, very very few independent games get over 90% scores by IGN, G4, Gamespot, etc.. Even though the game costs less than half that of a AAA title they still are held to the same graphical standards.

I have friends that refuse to buy games that score below a 90%. Its sad but true.
 

Innociv

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 28, 2006
1,041
21
0
Yeah. I'm not sure if price should really factor into review scores though.
It's people who should see the review and go "Well, it's a 80, so it's worth $20 easy".

Btw IGN gave RO an 85. Gamespy and 1up gave it an 80. These are very fair scores.

Also, if you actually average the scores for RO on metacritic, it's an 84. However, it says 81. Why is this? Well metacritic is a weighted average, and metacritic thinks G4(which imo IS the worst of all, and not because of RO's score) is the most highly regarded of all the reviewers that reviewed RO so G4's score has more weight and brings everything down more than it already does.

Only thing I could suggest is trying to get G4 to re-review without being retards and basing on all the new content RO has (oh.. fix master server first :| Keeps showing wrong player numbers..) and dont give them a free review copy..

Braid has a 93 metascore which IIRC was made by 1 man + contracted artists. (this makes it one of the highest scoring games ever. Most games have a budget around 20mil-50mil. Braid's was very high budget for an inde game though.. in the millions apparently.)

I read the review and watched it, and all I could think was "..........."
Then "...WHAT the HELL?!"
I mean come on, since when can you bash a game for doing what it's supposed to? It's SUPPOSED to be realistic, and you said REPEATEDLY that it is! HOW then could you say that it's crap? I could understand "This kind of game doesn't appeal to me" but saying that it's crap because it's a realistic shooter? This just encourages companies to only make arcadey fragfests, not that those arent good sometimes, but there needs to be variety. How could XPlay fail like that? Oh, wait, they're also the guys that said that H.A.W.X was crap, and I am having a blast. -.-
Yeah. I read the web review and I was like "yeah.. and?" Then I see the score at the end and I'm all "uhhh..."

Also I think hawx looks lame. :p


But I can gaurantee all G4 will do is compare KF to L4D and give it a low score because the graphics aren't as pretty and it isn't as arcadey.
 
Last edited: