I know this is going to seem really picky, but seeing as this is one of PS3's biggest flagship franchises, it doesn't seem right having THIS MANY mistakes in a review by official Playstation reviewers.
Anyway, I'm guessing that the script was written by a different team to the people who actually played the game?
There's numerous errors in the review, some of which are just simple inexcusable ones like getting names wrong.
To give an example, the WASP is a weapon that was very hyped up prior to release, but somehow, despite this, the review gets it mixed up with the Sta5x Arc Cannon. It wouldn't be bad if it just showed the wrong clip in the background, but then you make the mistake of literally detailing the Sta5x's features, while still calling it the WASP.
Umm, guys, the WASP is the rapid-fire missle launching thing, remember? It's hard to get it mixed up with a prototype Petrusite-based energy weapon that makes people explode into clouds of blood.
More examples:
- You call Admiral Orlock "Admiral Orlack".
- You list the release date at the start of the review as the 28th of February, eventhough no region even has a release date for anytime after the 25th.
- The review quickly mentions that you can perform brutal melees by pressing R3, eventhough the controls have it mapped to the L1 button. From the looks of the clips shown, were you using an alternate control scheme?
- You mention that just 1 round from a sniper can kill you instantly, despite surviving multiple hits myself when I played through it on the normal difficulty setting.
- You also mention how headshots are not always effective. When I played through, any well placed shot to the head was always an insta-kill, unless it only skimmed over the top of their heads, at which point their helmets were shot off.
Taking the bottom two points into account, and how you also mention how some smaller guns aren't always effective, it seems you may have been playing on a higher-than-normal difficulty setting. While this is generally alright, the points you make stand-out in the review as negative aspects, which in all fairness, are not even present in the standard normal playthrough, which is supposed to be the normal experience a player can expect.
Let me put it another way. It would be like reviewing Dead Space 2 while playing Harcore mode, and then penalising the game in the review for having a save point limit. This would be unfair to the game as that is not supposed to be the game's normal experience.
Anyway, reading this post over, I've gone and depressed myself on how worked-up I've gotten about something so small. My points still stand though, even if I don't exactly sound like I have any moral highground here.
Take this post and pat down the flames a bit, and you get my point 
General_Unknown wrote:To give an example, the WASP is a weapon that was very hyped up prior to release, but somehow, despite this, the review gets it mixed up with the Sta5x Arc Cannon. It wouldn't be bad if it just showed the wrong clip in the background, but then you make the mistake of literally detailing the Sta5x's features, while still calling it the WASP.
Umm, guys, the WASP is the rapid-fire missle launching thing, remember? It's hard to get it mixed up with a prototype Petrusite-based energy weapon that makes people explode into clouds of blood.
More examples:
- You call Admiral Orlock "Admiral Orlack".
- You list the release date at the start of the review as the 28th of February, eventhough no region even has a release date for anytime after the 25th.
- The review quickly mentions that you can perform brutal melees by pressing R3, eventhough the controls have it mapped to the L1 button. From the looks of the clips shown, were you using an alternate control scheme?
- You mention that just 1 round from a sniper can kill you instantly, despite surviving multiple hits myself when I played through it on the normal difficulty setting.
- You also mention how headshots are not always effective. When I played through, any well placed shot to the head was always an insta-kill, unless it only skimmed over the top of their heads, at which point their helmets were shot off.
Taking the bottom two points into account, and how you also mention how some smaller guns aren't always effective, it seems you may have been playing on a higher-than-normal difficulty setting. While this is generally alright, the points you make stand-out in the review as negative aspects, which in all fairness, are not even present in the standard normal playthrough, which is supposed to be the normal experience a player can expect.
Let me put it another way. It would be like reviewing Dead Space 2 while playing Harcore mode, and then penalising the game in the review for having a save point limit. This would be unfair to the game as that is not supposed to be the game's normal experience.
Anyway, reading this post over, I've gone and depressed myself on how worked-up I've gotten about something so small. My points still stand though, even if I don't exactly sound like I have any moral highground here.
Take this post and pat down the flames a bit, and you get my point
- Wasp cannon- Thats a pretty lazy edit imo
- Admiral Orlock- not too much of a bad niggle, however its still disturbing considering its from an official source
- Release Date- atm, doesnt sound like these guys were prepared
- Brutal Melee- Tbf, I dont really know you could change brutal melee, however the controller mapping should have been mentioned
- Sniper kills- over exaggertion imo
- Headshots- I think this is related to helmet popping. Head shots are only really effective when you aim more for the face if you know what I mean.
Over all, sounds like a lazy review
Website ©2012 Sony Computer Entertainment Europe
All content, game titles, trade names and/or trade dress, trademarks, artwork and associated imagery are trademarks and/or copyright material of their respective owners. All rights reserved. [more info]
