Killzone 2 > MW2

[makingmusic476]

Squilliam said:

wholikeswood said:

Squilliam said:

I talk as if MW2 has measureably better framerate, latency and fan engagement. I talk as if both series released on the PS3 but only one of them had legs simply due to the qualities which cannot be metered out on a low quality 24-30FPS internet video but can be conveyed if you show your friend what an awesome game MW1 is.

Again, I question how much of the two you've played. KZ2's framerate online isn't 60fps but it's never been an issue for me - and I was beta-testing it 8 months before launch. Equally, the lag in MW2 is no better than that of KZ2.

You talk about "legs" but we both know that KZ2 was effectively a new IP insofar as it was an attempt to reboot the franchise after KZ1 received mediocre critical response, and it's doing this on the HD console that sells shooters far less successfully. In contrast, MW2 is much like Halo or Mario - a software phenomenon.

I appreciate there are a variety of things that MW2 does better than KZ2. I only picked you up in this thread because of your lack of recognition of what KZ2 does well and, just so we're clear, it's more than just a pretty face of a game...

Actually Call of Duty 4 was in essence in the same boat as Killzone 2 was to their previous titles. They were both had middling prequels, they were both reboots of their respective series and I was comparing strictly their PS3 performance which makes the Xbox 360 performance irrelevant. As Modern Warfare 1 is most comparable it was the basis for my belief here. MW2 built on the success of MW1, but the base reason for that success is in both games.

Killzone 2 is flawed because whilst it can make the critics wet with excitement and hardcore gamers cum in their pants over it. It doesn't translate that success to widespread appeal. Modern Warfare sales shot up because once the general public had it in their hands they realised what an incredible game it was and word of mouth sold the title. Killzone 2 is the opposite, with better initial sales but word of mouth killed the sales. How in that case can I not conclude that in comparison to the merits of Modern Warfare Killzone 2 is flawed?

It does not make it bad in its own right, it just means that one has to be seen as superior to the other and by objective standards between sales, public reception, critical reception and equally intense subjective opinions on both sides you have to draw the line somewhere. In all objective conditions Modern Warfare 2 is a better title. So Killzone 2 is a little further away from a perfect FPS than Modern Warfare 1/2.

 

Call of Duty was still selling quite well prior to the release of 4.  Both Call of Duty and Call of Duty 2 were lighting up the charts on pc, with the latter finding great success on 360 as well.  Call of Duty 3 held the series back for a bit because it was a lesser game (Treyarch), which helped prevent the franchise from moving to the next level of success on the 360 and by then released ps3.  Call of Duty 4 exploded in sales for two primary reasons compared to Call of Duty 1/2 - it enjoyed a new, modern setting that resonates quite well with gamers, and it was released right when the 360 and ps3 were hitting their stride (late 2007, when both recieved their first price cut).  This combined with the quality of the title lead to incredible sales, establishing a brand that is above even Halo and Gran Turismo.

If anything, this shows that brand name heavily effects sales, because World at War, another Treyarch game (one with a low 80s average), managed to heavily outsell Call of Duty 1/2 despite returning to the World War II setting, and it sits firmly in place as the third best selling shooter this generation, behind only Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2.