what game should i get killzone 2 or halo 3?

[Mendicate Bias]

uber said:

S.T.A.G.E. said:

uber said:
also, black had a point reticle which means you can have perfect accuracy with a pistol regardless of distance. that is the polar opposite of kz's gameplay mechanic.

 

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.

I'm sorry but your above description of how the guns in Halo 3 work show's your inexperience. The only weapon in Halo 3 that is a hit scan weapon is the sniper. In fact in Halo:CE there was not a single gun that was hit scan. Also the multiplayer gameplay between Halo:CE and Halo 2 is very different, an experienced player would know this. Although you could argue there was not a huge difference in gameplay between Halo 2 and 3, there was no reason for a drastic change. Like the person above me said Halo 2 was a massive success with a huge online population, any large change from the core mechanics of the game would have been foolish to say the least. Killzone on the other hand came out to mediocre reviews and had some major flaws in its multiplayer component. Killzone 2 had to be redifined in order for it to be successful.

Also you keep talking about going from the sequel of one game to another and saying it was technically a next gen game. Could you please tell me besides graphics, what gameplay innovation constitutes a "next gen" game?

@STAGE

I don't remember all the posts but in one of them you mentioned that Bungies great integration of vehicles into the game was the reason there were many pro Halo players. While Bungie did implement vehicles very intuitively into the gameplay the reason Halo has such a large community of proffesional players as well as being the flagship title for MLG is because the core mechanics of Halo allow for a very high competitive level of play. It is the deep interplay of individual skill, team work, weapon control and map control that make Halo a very suitable game for a proffesional gaming circuit. Of course that explanation barely skims the surface but you get the gist of what I'm saying.