They're both good, but I think KillZone 2 has the edge for being more solid gameplay-wise. It felt like a very polished game and was more enjoyable in my opinion. Shadow Fall has some lows... like chapters where it tries to be something different, mainly when you're not holding a gun and have to do weird/boring stuff.

Cinematic moments does not mean it plays like CoD. Otherwise Uncharted is similar to CoD. SF had a range of gameplay.

More importantly, how awesome was SF's multiplayer? It was so good. I played that for months. It was so hectic and unpredictable.

Killzone 2 blew my mind with its incredible visuals. It was enough for me to overlook the laggy controls and play the campaign to completion. Definitely a great game for its time though it doesn't hold up well now.

I still have Killzone SF sitting on my shelf. Its beautiful graphics weren't enough to keep me playing. There was just something really strange and restrictive about the level designs. Like if you step off a ledge that isn't too high off the ground you end up instantly dying because the game wasn't designed to let you walk there.

My favorite Killzone game is actually the Vita game. The overall feel was fast, fun, kind of arcadey. If they're going to keep making Killzone games they should really adopt that style.

Yea but compared to the earlier Killzone games, those cinematic moments weren't like that at all. It seemed like they wanted to bring in the casual market by making it have cinematic set pieces that resembled CoD. At least that's how I saw it.

Well, that's not an uncommon opinion or anything. If they'd done a better job balancing the MP, they really could have had a classic on their hands with KZ2.

A shame that the franchise only went downhill from there.

I think what you're trying to say is too many moments feel scripted in CoD. You essentially have to do exactly what the game wants. But Killzone 2 and 3 were also games heavy on cinematics, scripted events, linear levels, etc. Killzone games are no better than CoD when it comes to that stuff.

Actually, Killzone:SF feels surprisingly open in the first 4 levels or so. There are multiple paths and large levels that allow for different play styles. But the game just gets shitty after that.

People say CoD is casual but if it is I'm surprised it doesn't sell better to the Nintendo audience. CoD appeals to FPS fans, period.

Not true, Killzone 3 is good. Some like myself argue its the best.

Killzone: Mercenary is also a fun game. Its short so I think I'm going to replay it in the near future.

The only bad games in the series is probably the first and Shadow Fall.

I loved the weapon weight in 2. A lot of people complained about the controls feeling delayed but I just loved it.

Yea that's what I meant by cinematic. 2 and 3 did have cinematic moments, but they felt more memorable to me since there was a considerable gap between them, giving it more impact.

CoD is aimed for the casual market, I know a lot of people that dont play a lot of games, but play CoD.I don't care one way or another though. If you're a fan of fps games, then CoD is definitely worth your time because it really is a well crafted series. I guess it's better to say that it's a game for both hardcore and casual.