Forums - Sony Discussion - Killzone 2 > MW2

Mvp4eVa said:

Call Of Duty 4 > Killzone 2 > Modern Warfare 2.

This is so right it bring's a tear to my eye :')



Around the Network
dharh said:
coolestguyever said:
dharh said:
coolestguyever said:
What's with all the Modern Warfare 2 hate in this thread anyways?

Okay I get its kind of a noob game (noob tube, rocket launchers, etc) and campers run rampant but you can't blame IW for that; you can only blame the people playing.

IW did there best to make good maps, tons of new killstreak bonuses, some new guns, new attachments for guns, new camos, titles/emblems, prestige rewards, etc. I admit its sort of Modern Warfare 1.5 but it is a lot improved over CoD4.

I most certainly can and will blame IW for the campers. Two simple fixes would make camping useless, but i'm beginning to wonder if they are going to do it. 

Just for interests sake what are the 2 fixes? You can't just say there are 2 and then not name them. Lol

 

I'll try and think of some ideas, I have none now.

Dynamic spawn points and limited invulnerability after spawn. The dynamic spawn point is the obvious better fix as the limited invulnerability is kinda lame and old school. A third option is to create a spawn point that cannot be accessed by the enemy, but since the maps are already made this would require remaking the maps.

 

@nightsurge,

Dunno why anyone would even think of this as a possible solution. The reverse however, moving the spawnpoint (not the spawn camper), is a perfectly viable solution.

He wasn't talking about "spawn" campers.  That's an easy fix.  Even in CoD you don't see much spawn camping because the spawns are all over the place and move every time enemy players get too close.

He was talking about campers in general.  Like camping with claymores and a sniper, camping with c4 and heart beat sensors, etc.  Just plain sitting around waiting for others to come accross your traps rather than moving around finding other players.  Nothing can be done about that.



Carl2291 said:
Mvp4eVa said:

Call Of Duty 4 > Killzone 2 > Modern Warfare 2.

This is so right it bring's a tear to my eye :')

Lol I agree.  CoD4 just feels so much better and more skill based.  They made MW2 way too "run-and-gun" and all about no scoping.  All the weapons are way too easy to get kills with, too.



mario64 said:
Yeah sales = quality, Squilliam is right. Look, Wii Sports is the best game ever, that's the proof.

No but if two games target relatively the same market, similar critical reviews and hype (MW1 not 2) then sales are a good tie breaker especially if one sells far better than the other. But in this case I don't need sales as a tie breaker because from objective standards Modern Warfare 2 is a better game.

You can say that you prefer the weighted controls vs the quicker controls of Call of Duty, but its inarguable objectively that 60FPS whether for weighted or quicker controls is better than 30FPS. Its also inarguable that lower latency is objectively better than higher latency.



Tease.

I completely agree with the KZ2 part. I however, completely disagree with MW2 statements. I played Spec-Ops on MW2 (on 360) and it was SO BORING. The AI was flawed like crazy and gameplay just felt like shit. Played through most of the scenarios and I can say that 90% of them were pure shit! I also see someone here say KZ sacrifices gameplay for graphics and that MW2 sacrifices graphics for gameplay?? I then wonder why KZ2 runs 12 vs 12 (is it? or 16 vs 16?) and MW2 only run 6 vs 6. REALLY??!?!?! 6 vs 6??? That is a laughing matter for a 2009 game, which also is praised all over as the definite online FPS. I must say, I find KZ2 way more deep than MW2 could ever be. Pure run and gun noob fest is not deep. Maybe MW2's maps are a bit better, but they are still a BIG STEP DOWN from old IW standards. I also think that the dynamic flow of KZ2's gameplay modes is much better than just playing a game of TDM or Capture the Object, Headquarters or whatever.

KZ2 is a much better game. I don't care about opinions of the masses.. I see someone here say that when 2 games cater to almost the same demography, sales can help us find out which is the better game?? Well, I guess you feel the same way with music, movies and other forms of entertainment?? That's why you (or your kids) listen to Britney Spears and all those other MTV artists and recognize their incredible talent right? That's also why you (or your kids) are following Hannah Montana and High School Musical and recognize the talent behind these shows/movies right? Because sales = quality, right???

and lol ye, MW2 has much better and more stable latency than KZ2 right?!?! Don't make me laugh so hard please.....



Around the Network

I find the controls and gameplay of Killzone too slow and clunky. Also the graphics are overrated. Technically they are a great accomplishment but some of the texture work is very bland and since it's really pushing the power of the PS3 it's probe to a lot of frame rate dips. And I hate Rico.

So for me at least MW2 is better to look at, has much better frame rate and the controls are much more precise.



I have spent pretty much as much time playing MW2 since it came out, as I have since KZ2 came out. That being said, I think I am done with MW2 now and probably won't go back to it for a long long time. I will still keep playing KZ2 though.



dharh said:
coolestguyever said:
dharh said:
coolestguyever said:
What's with all the Modern Warfare 2 hate in this thread anyways?

Okay I get its kind of a noob game (noob tube, rocket launchers, etc) and campers run rampant but you can't blame IW for that; you can only blame the people playing.

IW did there best to make good maps, tons of new killstreak bonuses, some new guns, new attachments for guns, new camos, titles/emblems, prestige rewards, etc. I admit its sort of Modern Warfare 1.5 but it is a lot improved over CoD4.

I most certainly can and will blame IW for the campers. Two simple fixes would make camping useless, but i'm beginning to wonder if they are going to do it. 

Just for interests sake what are the 2 fixes? You can't just say there are 2 and then not name them. Lol

 

I'll try and think of some ideas, I have none now.

Dynamic spawn points and limited invulnerability after spawn.

What do you mean by dynamic spawn points?

I like the idea of limited invulnerability after spawn but that will just mean people camp a little further back from the spawn so it really makes minimal difference. Also spawn camping isn't the only type of camping; there's a huge problem with people hiding in random corners or going prone in tall grass so "dynamic spawn points" and limited invulnerability only help you for one type of camping.

 

My ideas would be:

1. I kinda stole this from a video I saw on youtube but if you stay within one small radius (like a 20 foot area) for too long (and you're not reloading, waiting for your health to recover or using a sniper rifle) then you slowly lose health so it makes it easier for other people to kill you if you try to camp.

2. If you get killed by a camper (which they would actually make a solid definition for - like someone who stays within a small radius for extended periods of time) you immediately spawn directly behind them for an easy revenge kill

3. Punish campers:

          3a. If during the game you spent too much time staying still or in certain small areas you get no match bonus

          3b. Kills you get while camping count towards your score/teams score; but; they don't count towards your killstreaks. i.e. You can't earn a nuke by sitting in a corner for 25 kills

 

That's all I've got.



Squilliam said:
wholikeswood said:
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.

You talk as if KZ2's multiplayer is all graphics and no gameplay, when in fact both components are excellent - indeed, subjectively speaking since it's opinion that counts to someone, not trying to distill it all in the forms of hard "facts", I rate Killzone 2's multiplayer as the superior experience. MW2 is full of glitchers and bastards (campers, spawn-rapists, etc) whereas KZ2 is fresher and has a really compelling experience/progress system.

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...



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.