i guess to each his own b/c you will never admit that i could have a valid point

moving a stick and seeing it track on screen and watching it track on screen does not change the fact that it tracks on the screen

and since that is a fact i guess we will just have t o leave it at that b/c you cant argue aganist it and since you wont admit its walid i can argue for it

however i can prove its superior simply b/c Cond 2 offer so much more to due in terms of gameplay then KZ2 and as a fan of the series you cant deny that

@CGI , Its so funny people saying they Can Judge Games off videos. Its the exact same people who say graphics don't matter xD

^not as much as game play ;)

and proud of it

my brother in law was meh on killzone till he played the demo... became a first day purchase for him, play it once and said that it was very immersive, loved the gunplay, cover system and graffics, this from a guy who has a PS3 for blurays

^you have yet to say how it is not

(edit--its like saying just holding the bible means you just know there is a god)

(2x edit--i am willing to admit i am wrong if you can provid me an elemnt that is difernt and would have to have a control to feel that i have not had something similar to in another game)

now if we were talking about...say street fighter then i would agree-there is a big difference b/t playing in watching in that game

I dont mean to interfere with you and CGI's back and forth, but you seem a bit off base IMHO.

One of the things Killzone excels at is its ability to immerse you in the experience due to its excellent graphics, physics, animation, sound, and presentation. You cant FEEL how good it is to play by watching. Bioshock is one of the most engaging experiences of this gen to me, but I would have never known based on the videos or by watching someone play it. So I have to disagree on your point that watching and playing are equally valid ways of judging a video game.

define weight--you mean lag from moving the stick to what happens on the tv....b/c yes i have had that in other games

its all a matter of sensitivity

and that is nothing new

@mesoteto (regarding your first msg in the thread):
Don't worry, I was alluding to much more blatant KZ2 preventive bashing, and I find too it's more and more difficult to see something new in a genre already overexploited in PC gaming platform, like FPS is, nevertheless I found trailers quite good for graphics and action, and although we can see better FPS on PC's, if we see it in PS3's perspective it's a bit different, if it succeeds is good for Sony, as PS3 would become a little bit stronger in a field where is weak.

hmmm---perhaps that might be


but that sounds more like a whim thing and something that falls more into faith then fact, and if that is its strongest point its a dud game to me b/c shooter s have never been able to draw me in (save Cond 2, but that had less to do with graphics as more to due with game play)

what tends to grab me is the story and the emotions conveyed in the

Having not played either game, I really have no idea which of the two is better but surely we can't say that one game is superior to another simply through a comparison of gameplay features? To me, it's much more how each of those features are executed.

Kind of reminds me of the Fable/Zelda comparisons. Sure there is lots more to do in Fable and both are well fleshed out, but Zelda's feel and control is much, MUCH better executed in my opinion. Also, one must also consider the games universe, story, characters, etc, no? In order to know this, I think it's necessary to have played both.

Not trying to knock your opinion, as I said I haven't played either of the two, but don't you think in order to judge fairly you'd have to given both a fair shake? Playing through and finishing the games of one series will often lead to attachments to its characters, a likeness of its atmosphere and so on. Something you wouldn't get from just watching some videos.