Killzone 2 > MW2

[wholikeswood]

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.

 

Treyarch's mediocre COD3 is irrelevant in the greater scheme of things, because you're overlooking the enormous critical success Infinity Ward enjoyed with the franchise before the first Modern Warfare. Call of Duty on PC has 91 Meta and earned a GOTY release shortly afterwards, whilst Call of Duty 2 was one of the 360's first AAA titles, sitting at 89 Meta, and was the first 360 game to sell over a million in the US. From the latter example here, it was always clear that the Call of Duty franchise was going to be a big one for the HD consoles this generation.

"whilst it can make the critics wet with excitement... It doesn't translate that success to widespread appeal"

Are you even reading back what you're writing? I'm surprised that someone who's been on this site for quite some considerable time is struggling to discern quality from sales. You can't apply the correlation between the two everywhere. Why you continue to put forward this flawed "quality = sales" analysis is genuinely beyond me. Yes, Modern Warfare's gameplay quality contributes heavily to its sustained high levels of sales, but that doesn't mean you can flip the coin and say that Killzone 2's weaker sales must indicate weaker gameplay.