heruamon said:
Kantor said:
heruamon said:
Comparing KZ2 to Halo is like comparing the heritage of the Steelers to the Cardinals, or the Celtics/Lakers to the Hawks...or any other riddiculous comparisons between a legendary icon to something that hasn't done a darn thing yet...750K in week 1 prelims...WHAT? I haven't played the game (or the first one), but what the heck has it done...being born isn't some birthright to greatness...it's proven in ur play...come talk to me in 6 months about how great KZ2 is...and also update me on R2... |
May I ask what the hell Halo 3 added to the FPS mould? Powerups? Um... I'm out. Halo is another matter, but nobody's saying it's better than Combat Evolved...at least, I'm not.
750k is damned good for a PS3 game. It's higher than World at War. Higher than a Call of Duty game. Higher than the sequel to CoD4. The third highest PS3 debut. Besides, do sales really say anything about quality? Is Wii Play better than Okami? Is Nintendogs better than everything released on an HD console? Is Wii Sports the best game ever made?
Resistance 2? Very well. It's a great game. Innovative, tries to be different, and the co-op is great, but overall a little lacking in polish. Online multiplayer isn't brilliantly implemented, but it's functional. Single player is a joke, like most FPS games (but not Killzone 2 or Halo 3). Solid 8.8/10 for me. That's the way I've felt since I first got the game...
Pre-release hype is no indication of quality, obviously. Post-release hype is another thing. Look at the Sony forum. How many KZ2 threads do you see? It doesn't matter that several of them are negative. All that means is that people care. Think back to November. How many "Resistance 2 has X non-existent problem" threads did you see? Perhaps a tenth of all the KZ2 threads we are seeing?
After perhaps an hour of play, I knew that Resistance 2 wasn't a 9/10 game. After seven hours of play, I know that Killzone 2 is. You'd be hard pressed to find one person on this forum who believes that Resistance 2 is better than Killzone 2. The latter is just so polished, so well designed, so incredible, that occasional frame rate hiccups and "control issues" can be forgiven.
I'll admit, Killzone 2 added very little to the FPS. A first person cover system. Some great new weapons. But for the most part, it refined and improved. It took concepts that already exist, and made them better. Halo 3 did the same thing, just not (in my opinion) as well.
That is why I believe Killzone 2 is better than Halo 3, better than Resistance 2, better than CoD4, the best FPS so far this gen.
|
And this ALL your OPINIONS...this is like the school yard baller who could have been Mike...but wasn't...until you prove it...let Killzone show me something in the performance category first, before trying to be compared to the greatest FPS in the last 2-3 years...ONE FREAKING BILLION...vs what....are u kidding me...are we in Bizarro land here? |
Yes, it is all my opinion. And I have actually played all of the games I named.
One billion what? Halo 3 sold nowhere near that much. Very well. Why do I think is Killzone 2 better than Halo 3? (the article is a joke, in case you didn't notice)
-The graphics are better
-First person cover system
-Iron sights
-The AI is WAY better.
-The weapons are more interesting.
-The enemies are iconic, not random generic aliens. Yes, I know, they aren't original. But Helghast are more fun to kill than Grunts.
What Halo 3 has over Killzone 2:
-Forge
-Co-op
-Better protagonist
-etc.
See, I have an opinion, I prefer one of them, I don't say the other one sucks. Halo 3 did nothing whatsoever to advance the genre. There, I said it. It's a shame, because Combat Evolved is one of the most important games of all time, and one of the best shooters. It created the dual analog control scheme which every FPS and its dog uses nowadays.
So would you care to say what you dislike about Killzone 2?
(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective 
