By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
makingmusic476 on 29 December 2009
Edit Thread
Squilliam said:

Killzone 2 is flawed. It sacrifices gameplay for graphics and thats a nono for me. MW2 is the opposite in that they sacrafice graphics for gameplay and they crush Killzone 2 where it counts this generation and thats with multiplayer on account of the smooth controls alone.

If you want a game which looks good buy Killzone 2.

If you want a game which plays amongst the best buy Modern Warfare 2.

preferences aside the multiplayer in MW2 is objectively better.

Objectively better?  Please don't state an opinion as fact, and least of all an opinion with which many disagree.  For example, GameSpot, who gave Killzone 2 their competitive multiplayer game of the year award:

When you first dive into Killzone 2's competitive warzone, you don't have much in the way of options. Limited weapons, ammo, and grenades make you feel like a new recruit, and the battlefield can be a deadly place. Gloomy lighting, thick smoke, and harsh industrial environments create an oppressive atmosphere, and the sound of battle often grows to a cacophony that few other shooters can match. This intensity is further heightened by Killzone 2's innovative match structure. You don't choose Team Deathmatch, Capture the Flag, or Assault and Defend before going to war (though you can, if you want). Instead, each match seamlessly transitions between game types, creating an ever-shifting battlefield that demands awareness, adaptability, and aggressiveness.

Embrace these virtues, and you are rewarded. As you kill enemies and complete objectives, you advance in rank and unlock new weapons and new badges. These badges function like classes, giving you strategically powerful skills, such as the ability to revive teammates, to place turrets, or to disguise yourself as an enemy. You can also earn ribbons and medals for commendable battlefield actions. This feat-based stream of rewards bestows valuable bonuses, the most powerful of which actually improve the potency of your badges by granting you another ability. You can then earn the power to mix and match these abilities and create custom classes that will make you more unpredictable and more deadly. The two reward systems make you feel like you are constantly achieving something on the battlefield, and together, they offer a uniquely engaging array of powerful combinations.

With these strategic abilities constantly in play, there is a lot more happening on the battlefield than just soldiers shooting each other. Skirmishes can play out in virtually any part of Killzone's superbly designed multiplayer maps, each of which can accommodate up to 32 players at a time. The sheer scope of these conflicts, the strategic clash of different abilities, the dynamic shifting of battlefield objectives, and the flat-out satisfying movement and shooting mechanics make Killzone 2 the best competitive multiplayer game of 2009.

Also, please don't use sales as a barometer for quality.  Brand name plays a heavy hand in all of this, which is why titles like Okami and Forza never come close to franchises like Zelda and Gran Turismo in sales, despite the quality of the former.  I'd much rather look at the opinions of relatively informed gamers, including my own, to judge which game is better than another. And even then, as is the case with those titles I just mentioned, it is highly debatable which games ARE the better games.

In the case of Killzone 2, it is hardly out of the ordinary to believe it is a better game than Modern Warfare 2.  It actually seems that that is the more common opinion amongst enthusiast, hardcore gamers like us. Numerous sites like Gamesreactor, GameSpot, and IGN (both US and AU) have been giving Killzone the nod over Modern Warfare 2.  The collective body of neogaf seems to prefer Killzone as well, since the game has a lead of over 100 points over Modern Warfare 2 in gaf's 2009 Game of the Year voting thread.