| Reasonable said: Not really. The actual question it raises for me is why Sony 1st party FPS can't match the big 3rd party FPS? Yet, for some reason Playstation exclusive FPS can't match Halo in sales. I find it strange as the 3rd party sales show their is an install base big enough to support huge FPS sales, and in general Playstation owners seem pretty loyal, yet titles like Killzone 2 sell a lot less despite being polished, feature rich and exlusive. I'm always curious why this is. |
It's a case of quality. CoD and Halo didn't get to where they were by being generic shooters. They had things that made them fun to the masses. Of course, everyone has their own taste of what fun is though.
KZ2 was probably PS3's best chance at being their flagship shooter. It failed though - the game is unforgiving. The multiplayer was a huge mess. It had even bigger spamfest matches than CoD. The Assault Tactician classes both raped the game and reduced online matches to massive clusterf***'s. If that wasn't enough, GG thought it'd be a good idea to add a dual-nade perk to the multiplayer, even with most maps having so many small corridors.
To put it bluntly, I just don't think the online was tested and adjusted properly based on feedback. GG themselves didn't know how to balance the game. Besides that, there's the controls - I often have friends come over to play some ps3 games and when I saw them play KZ2, they just couldn't do it. They could barely manuever and aim right sometimes. The lack of co-op also didn't help very much.
KZ2 was polished visually only, and while the game had plenty of features, there was too flaws in the gameplay that pushed away both the hardcore and casuals.
There's hope for KZ3 though - seriuosly, they fixed/removed alota major stuff that was broken in KZ2...
