S.T.A.G.E. said:
It matters not, Black uses a point reticle in the gameplay....so what? On certain weapons there is a point on a crosshaire and on some it's just a crosshaire in KZ2. Certain weapons enlarge crosshaires depending on the weapons ability to get a kill. It's harder to attack with a point a body without a crosshaire in shooters (especially on moving subjects).Scoping in KZ2 makes it easier for a kill does it not? KZ2 uses a point reticle for Sev's Assault Rifle, while scoping, doesn't it? Of course it does. Stop trying to find things that aren't individualistic factors to products which are practically kin. |
you missed my point. the point reticule never changes. this means that your accuracy is in no way affected by movement.
kz is not like that at all. the reticule changes with movement, so as to decrease accuracy. in black i could pop a headshot with any weapon regardless of how i moved. that is actually closer to halo than it is kz. also, kz built range into its weapons, so even with a line of sight i can't take down distant targets with a pistol. these are very significant differences between black and kz.
the fact that the m82 has a point sight is irrelevant, mainly because movement is so hindered by it. bottom line, the play in black is fundamentally different from kz. i would say it's closer to halo, but i don't really want to ruffle more feathers.
aw hell, i did already.
and to the new guy to jump in...halo3 has pretty much the exact same look and feel of halo 2. playing team deathmatch was an experience in de ja vu.
to illustrate what i mean, both cod3 and cod4 are technically next gen games, yet when i first played cod4 it felt like a next gen game compared to cod3. that's some serious innovation and improvement.
frankly, i think this thread would have been much more debatable if it were about choosing between halo3 and resistance 2. those are much more able to be compared.
art is the excrement of culture
