I like KZ2 campaign more than the multiplayer. And KZ2 and MW2 both bored me despite me liking Cod4.

The maps in MW2 are shit, so much damn cover everywhere, the weapons are so strong, the killstreaks are a mess. The copper gunner for example is a bad killstreak. Once someone gets it, it's game over for the other team. The campaign in MW2, while having fun spots in it was just all over the place, the story was stupid unlike Cod4's great campaign. 

Not to mention the maps in Cod4 are vary varied and very balanced. There cover here and there but there's open space to pick out enemies. Cod4 was a very balanced game.

Another thing is that the submachine guns in MW2 are useless compared to the Assualt rifles, again in Cod4 it was balanced.

So: Cod4 > KZ2 > MW2.

There has to be something in the game to turn a 1-2M selling series into a 7M LTD monster on the Xbox 360 and to turn around a nothing release on the PS3 into a 4M+ seller. To release after the best selling single platform shooter and still perform admirably is a pretty mean feat. My point that the game only took off once it was in players hands speaks for itself really. It wasn't about hype or advertising it was purely something in the game itself which let the series shoot into the stratosphere of sales. I don't think its a coincidence that the best selling first shooter titles have all got local play, have all got steady framerates and have all got low latency game engines, so am I wrong to say that Killzone 2 is flawed for lacking these features? Even the Treyarch World at War shares a lot of the same technical merit of the Infinity Ward Call of Duty 4. Theres something in Call of Duty 4 which is repeated in Call of Duty 5 and especially 6 which resonates with gamers.

You can easily argue about the name for titles after Call of Duty 4 but it like Halo 1 and Half-Life and Gears of War and Mario had to make their name from somewhere and they had to maintain their name as many other series have faltered after multiple iterations. Because the sales have maintained then it has still got it, and its not about being in the right place at the right time as many of these titles released very early into the generation for their respective systems.

Call of Duty on PC and Call of Duty on 360 have little to do with how Call of Duty 4 then 5 then 6 performed on PS3. Was it always clear that Call of Duty would clear 5M 3 times on the 360 and at least once on the PS3? Call of Duty 4 was in a similar position to Killzone 2 at one point in its life.

Gameplay means the quality of the experience really. Killzone 2 cannot compete with the call of duty series on local play or cooperative play because it has none. Its also proved fact that games which target 60FPS get better sales once they get into peoples hands. The only 60FPS major Xbox Arcade title is Trials HD and it has a best in class translation of demo sales to purchases. Sega Arcade cabinet games are all 60FPS because they found that it earns them more money than 30FPS and better graphics. Again Call of Duty sold best once it got into peoples hands and proved its worth so they told their friends about it and 60FPS is a key reason for this. Killzone 2 sacrafices the quality of gameplay and a not so steady 30FPS with higher latency for better visuals.

Do you think its a coincidence that the best two selling FPS series on HD consoles have the lowest latency, amongst the smoothest of controls and get basic gameplay mechanics right? That they both include local and online multiplayer? The reason why I use review scores and sales to indicate the qualities of a game is because there are many things which an expert reviewer will overlook because of their extensive gameplay experience that a casual player will not! Even if the difference between Killzone 2 and MW 1 + 2 is simply that the latter are easier to play than the former then the latter has better gameplay. 

I like how everyone is ignoring the fact that preference actually decides it.

Funny thing is I started playing KZ2 online over Xmas.

Yes it was OK but I found the maps a bit predictable.

If you went to the same place on a map it seemed like the enemies would always come from the same place.

So I went back to MW2 online and have to say it appears to be much better imo.

Much more random I feel.

Having said that I do like the authentic feel of the guns in KZ2 so might try campaign eventually.

MW2 is just so addictive atm and loads games much quicker.

*Shrugs* Modern Warfare 2 has local multiplayer, KillZone 2 does not.

So you've got my answer.

*Still waits for Wii shooter with local multiplayer*

Smeags said: *Shrugs* Modern Warfare 2 has local multiplayer, KillZone 2 does not. So you've got my answer. *Still waits for Wii shooter with local multiplayer*

Didn't Metroid Prime have local multiplayer?

COD2 on 360 managed 2.5mil sales, despite releasing to a tiny userbase. Argue that it came out not long after the 360's launch and as such had little competition all you like, but if you look at its sales curve you'll see that it sold steadily rather than launching high and tailing off fast, so it's irrefutable that word of mouth began passing around and that the series had thus forged a fanbase on the HD console.

As for your 60fps argument, I'm just going to giggle and shake my head. Picture someone telling their friend at college that they should play such and such a game because its framerate is locked in at a solid 60fps. Actually don't bother, because it doesn't ever happen in real life. Call of Duty is simply mainstream in appeal and accessible in difficulty to even the most casual gamer. End of.

"Even if the difference between Killzone 2 and MW 1 + 2 is simply that the latter are easier to play than the former then the latter has better gameplay."

An incredibly ignorant statement, yet again. You've wasted breath in this thread by toeing the "sales = quality" line, and now you're going to peddle this "accessibility = quality" theory? Beyond risible.

What framerate did Call of Duty have? 60FPS NTSC or HDTV or 50 FPS on PAL SDTVs. What experience did PS3 FPS players have before playing Killzone 2? Most of them played Call of Duty 4. What does frame-rate effect? Controls, accurace and responsiveness. What framerate did Killzone 2 players enjoy? 25FPS-30FPS SDTV or 25-30 HDTV. What does a lower frame rate effect? Game control. What feature do all games have where the responsiveness of input is paramount? 60FPS. People won't say 'oh god that game has terrible frame-rate' they will say that 'the controls are jerky'. What did people complain about the most with Killzone 2? Controls. Theres the connection.

60FPS plays better than 30FPS, always. 60FPS gives a better experience than 30FPS when game control matters like with online shooters or racing games or fighting games, always.

Lastly the people on the PS3 had no reason to believe that Call of Duty IV would be any good because the previous version kinda sucked. They already had a bad taste in their mouth if they had the previous version. Games are meant to be enjoyed by people, so having a more accessible game for people who aren't as familiar with using dual analogue sticks widens your potential market. Just as reviewers mark a game down for having a difficult U.I. then its appropriate to mark a game down or up for being better or worse for accessibility. Since reviewers don't tend to mark games for accessibility then there has to be some metric to judge and that has to be sales because thats the only reasonably objective metric once you discount some of the reviewers score.

Sales != quality as a broad spectrum metric. Sales do distinguish between games which target the same demographics with similar gameplay and review scores.

blabla

all depends on preference