Killzone 2 > MW2

[non-gravity]

Squilliam said:

wholikeswood said:

COD2 on 360 managed 2.5mil sales, despite releasing to a tiny userbase. Argue that it came out not long after the 360's launch and as such had little competition all you like, but if you look at its sales curve you'll see that it sold steadily rather than launching high and tailing off fast, so it's irrefutable that word of mouth began passing around and that the series had thus forged a fanbase on the HD console.

As for your 60fps argument, I'm just going to giggle and shake my head. Picture someone telling their friend at college that they should play such and such a game because its framerate is locked in at a solid 60fps. Actually don't bother, because it doesn't ever happen in real life. Call of Duty is simply mainstream in appeal and accessible in difficulty to even the most casual gamer. End of.

"Even if the difference between Killzone 2 and MW 1 + 2 is simply that the latter are easier to play than the former then the latter has better gameplay."

An incredibly ignorant statement, yet again. You've wasted breath in this thread by toeing the "sales = quality" line, and now you're going to peddle this "accessibility = quality" theory? Beyond risible.

What framerate did Call of Duty have? 60FPS NTSC or HDTV or 50 FPS on PAL SDTVs. What experience did PS3 FPS players have before playing Killzone 2? Most of them played Call of Duty 4. What does frame-rate effect? Controls, accurace and responsiveness. What framerate did Killzone 2 players enjoy? 25FPS-30FPS SDTV or 25-30 HDTV. What does a lower frame rate effect? Game control. What feature do all games have where the responsiveness of input is paramount? 60FPS. People won't say 'oh god that game has terrible frame-rate' they will say that 'the controls are jerky'. What did people complain about the most with Killzone 2? Controls. Theres the connection.

60FPS plays better than 30FPS, always. 60FPS gives a better experience than 30FPS when game control matters like with online shooters or racing games or fighting games, always.

Lastly the people on the PS3 had no reason to believe that Call of Duty IV would be any good because the previous version kinda sucked. They already had a bad taste in their mouth if they had the previous version. Games are meant to be enjoyed by people, so having a more accessible game for people who aren't as familiar with using dual analogue sticks widens your potential market. Just as reviewers mark a game down for having a difficult U.I. then its appropriate to mark a game down or up for being better or worse for accessibility. Since reviewers don't tend to mark games for accessibility then there has to be some metric to judge and that has to be sales because thats the only reasonably objective metric once you discount some of the reviewers score.

Sales != quality as a broad spectrum metric. Sales do distinguish between games which target the same demographics with similar gameplay and review scores.

blabla

 

all depends on preference