Here we are, five days before launch, and there is not one review of the game out. This, to me, is a bad sign, as good reviews are usually released pre-launch while mediocre or poor reviews are put out after launch. If no reviews have been given of this game, it's a bad sign.   
 
Does anyone know if many review copies went out prior to launch, or if Epic is holding the game until it's out?

Probably just your standard embargo. Expect the reviews to come on Monday.

5 days is quite some time and most previews have been positive.

Just wait for it. Bulletstrom doesn't seem like the type of game to get week early scores.

No. There's too much money behind this game.

I'm sure the game is probably okay, but damn the advertising for it irritates me!

Yeah anytime a game doesn't have any reviews at least 3-4 weeks before its release it usually winds up being a giant piece of shit just look at games like Dead Space 2 and LBP2 for some reason examples.

I loved the demo. That's enough for me.  
 
Reviews are there to tell potential buyers what's good and what's bad. I already made my decision.  Aside from that, I'm guessing the reviews will be generally positive. 

The demo didn't really feel right to me when I played it, and I really dislike the voice acting for most of the characters. I expect it to get good reviews.

I just want to know what the score does? Have that been announced yet? I tried the demo and it was fine, but that score seems so... pointless. Kill with Skill! Or don't, doesn't really matter...

The demo really didn't do it for me..... I'm gonna wait patiently before I decide on what to do regarding this game.

Because there's no reviews up why is it a bad sign? I cant undertsand that logic. I would rather say that reviews coming out weeks /month before the game's release is a bad sign.

people will buy it to get their Gears 3 beta invite, just the facts :O

" Here we are, five days before launch, and there is not one review of the game out. This, to me, is a bad sign, as good reviews are usually released pre-launch while mediocre or poor reviews are put out after launch. If no reviews have been given of this game, it's a bad sign.    Does anyone know if many review copies went out prior to launch, or if Epic is holding the game until it's out? "

Red Dead had a really strict embargo and that wound up with like a 96 metascore.
 
It's not really indicative of quality anymore. I'm actually willing to bet that Sony is kicking themselves for not embargoing Killzone 3 considering the average is has now.

I'm actually willing to bet that Sony is kicking themselves for not embargoing Killzone 3 considering the average is has now. "

" @septim said:

I'm actually willing to bet that Sony is kicking themselves for not embargoing Killzone 3 considering the average is has now. "

 I'm just guessing, but I bet you're right. They held a review event for Bulletstorm that we decided not to attend and Epic is in the same NO EARLY COPIES camp that the Call of Duty series is these days. Expect to see all the reviews from that event hit at once. We'll get copies on Tuesday and I'll start, like, lassoing dudes and kicking them onto things at that point. "

Did you play the demo? 
 
It will be more of that perhaps with and absurd story attached.

The "average" it has now is 86 on meta-critic which is a damn good score by any stretch. I don't think Guerilla are crying about their 86, knowing fine well how good the game is. All of the reviews that matter say it's epic and anyone that has played the open beta would agree. Killzone 3 kicks ass it has set the bar for future FPS' to aspire to in terms of visual quality (yet again), awesome gameplay and something unique and different than the slew of CoD clones out there. Killzone 2's multiplayer was awesome, Killzone 3's multiplayer is best in class. 
 
I own all of the benchmark FPS titles (Reach, CoD4, W@W, MW2, Black Ops, BFBC2, Resistance 2, Killzone 2) and I think Killzone 3 destroys all of them and I only played 1 map!
 
86 only shows me that reviewers scores are just their own opinions and shouldn't matter at all. The only opinion anyone should make about Killzone 3 is their own, after they've played the multiplayer.
 
I would give it a solid 9.5 out of 10. My only complaint being no online co op campaign.

The game looked cool in the QL, but after playing the demo for myself, I really don't care. It seems pretty shallow. I could be completely wrong, but until then I'm happy. It's another £40 I haven't spent, and Dragon Age 2 is coming out soon.

It will likely get a good score from Giant Bomb. This kind of game seems right up their alley.

I'm not expecting good scores, this place already called it the worst game ever made.

I'd be surprised if Bulletstorm lands outside of 80-90 MC.  Sony are probably disappointed about Killzone slipping below 90, but doing so doesn't seem to prevent games from selling well.  90+ seems to guarantee a certain minimum level of succes, but that's about it.

I was listening to the Rebel FM podcast last week and Arthur was talking about how much better the game is than he thought is was going to be. He wasn't reviewing the title, yet that conversation sold me on the game even more than the demo did.

It will still sell up the ass because of the Gears 3 beta

It's a shame about the Killzone 3 Meta average. It seems a lot of reviewers only touched the singleplayer, while still important, pales in comparison to the main focus of the FPS genre, shooting people in the face online.  It has however been sitting really high on Amazon for the past month any time I check the video games section so I think most people have got the message that the game is awesome.
 
The Bulletstorm demo was pretty fun, I'm not sure how fun that would be when played for 6-8 hours but I stil have high hopes. Epic and People can Fly have a pretty good track record so I don't think there's a huge cause for alarm when there aren't any reviews up yet.

I expect the reviews to come on the 19th. They're gonna be positive because the previews have been good so far and it's being developed by People Can Fly! It HAS to be good, right?

 

"In the new video game Bulletstorm due February 22, players are rewarded for shooting enemies in the private parts (such as the buttocks). There’s an excess of profanity, of course, including frequent use of F-words. And Bulletstorm is particularly gruesome, with body parts that explode all over the screen. 

But that's not the worst part. "

" Here we are, five days before launch, and there is not one review of the game out. This, to me, is a bad sign, as good reviews are usually released pre-launch while mediocre or poor reviews are put out after launch. If no reviews have been given of this game, it's a bad sign.    Does anyone know if many review copies went out prior to launch, or if Epic is holding the game until it's out? "

" I'm not expecting good scores, this place already called it the worst game ever made. "

" @RobotHamster said:

" I'm not expecting good scores, this place already called it the worst game ever made. "

Fuck. I clicked the link because I thought it would be an actual video game site talking trash, but instead I inadvertently gave Fox News another hit. "

Nah, plenty of games that review well are embargoed anyway.

"
Looks like Famitsu's review (well, score) is out early: http://www.nintendoeverything.com/60779/  Bulletstorm got 9/8/9/8, (Killzone 3 was one point lower). "

"
Looks like Famitsu's review (well, score) is out early: http://www.nintendoeverything.com/60779/  Bulletstorm got 9/8/9/8, (Killzone 3 was one point lower). "

I thought this game was gonna suck, but then I played the demo and i love it.  It's so over the top stupid, which makes it fucking awesome.  Day 1 for me, and i dont even care about the gears 3 beta.

After all the COD serious Michael Bay-ish bullshit, we finally get out Scary Movie of video games. :)

" Red Dead had a really strict embargo and that wound up with like a 96 metascore.  It's not really indicative of quality anymore. I'm actually willing to bet that Sony is kicking themselves for not embargoing Killzone 3 considering the average is has now. "

" The "average" it has now is 86 on meta-critic which is a damn good score by any stretch. I don't think Guerilla are crying about their 86, knowing fine well how good the game is. All of the reviews that matter say it's epic and anyone that has played the open beta would agree. Killzone 3 kicks ass it has set the bar for future FPS' to aspire to in terms of visual quality (yet again), awesome gameplay and something unique and different than the slew of CoD clones out there. Killzone 2's multiplayer was awesome, Killzone 3's multiplayer is best in class.   I own all of the benchmark FPS titles (Reach, CoD4, W@W, MW2, Black Ops, BFBC2, Resistance 2, Killzone 2) and I think Killzone 3 destroys all of them and I only played 1 map!  86 only shows me that reviewers scores are just their own opinions and shouldn't matter at all. The only opinion anyone should make about Killzone 3 is their own, after they've played the multiplayer.  I would give it a solid 9.5 out of 10. My only complaint being no online co op campaign. "

" No. There's too much money behind this game. "

" @yinstarrunner said:

" No. There's too much money behind this game. "

Tha'ts not always a sign of a good reviews. "

Probably not. Lots of games have strict embargo dates these days.
 
It may not be over 95 or anything, but I'd be willing to bet it'll end up in the high 80's.

Brotherhood didn't have reviews until release.

meh- not sure if I understand the gaming business dynamics of early reviews versus review embargos and versus not sending out early review copes versus having 'review events.'  In any case, I don't let this bother me.  I'm excited for this game and will buy it.  The only thing I'll be looking for this week is if by some grand mistake the game ships broken and waiting for a patch is smart.  In which case this would not be a day 1/week 1 purchase.  Barring that, it's week 1 for me. 

" The "average" it has now is 86 on meta-critic which is a damn good score by any stretch. I don't think Guerilla are crying about their 86, knowing fine well how good the game is. All of the reviews that matter say it's epic and anyone that has played the open beta would agree. Killzone 3 kicks ass it has set the bar for future FPS' to aspire to in terms of visual quality (yet again), awesome gameplay and something unique and different than the slew of CoD clones out there. Killzone 2's multiplayer was awesome, Killzone 3's multiplayer is best in class.   I own all of the benchmark FPS titles (Reach, CoD4, W@W, MW2, Black Ops, BFBC2, Resistance 2, Killzone 2) and I think Killzone 3 destroys all of them and I only played 1 map!  86 only shows me that reviewers scores are just their own opinions and shouldn't matter at all. The only opinion anyone should make about Killzone 3 is their own, after they've played the multiplayer.  I would give it a solid 9.5 out of 10. My only complaint being no online co op campaign. "