oh yes, i'm the closed-minded one.  you who have given nothing but questionable assertions and no willingness to understand any of the many points brought about killzone is mr. enlightenment.

do you even check facts before you post?  you have no idea how hard you make it to take you seriously.  i'm not even sure what your thesis is, other than that you really really like halo and think killzone is bad.

let's see if i can shed some light on you.  killzone sales:  i thought i covered this thoroughly, but your response shows it still didn't sink in.   you know how many killzone commercials i saw before the game dropped?  one.  just one.  it was a prerendered scene with no gameplay footage.  and speaking of this "worldwide" campaign you spoke of, do you know what it was?  it was a few banners on gamer sites, the bullet commercial, and posters with a helghan mask on it.  the commercial did not impress at all like the cod ad did (not to mention it ran way more seldom than the cod one), and the poster had to be taken down in some parts of canada due to it scaring children.  so who is buying killzone?  people who followed the development or frequent gamer sites.  average gamers and kids would of course bought cod4 more readily.  and as far as my point about the game polarizing the shooter community, you assert that it was not because killzone was too different, but that it just must be because the game sucks.  this lack of ability to resolve distinction is the kind of thing i've been dealing with from you since this discussion started.  i actually researched this point, and people are quite willing to share their thoughts on the game.  sure enough, the overwhelming reason people gave when they didn't like it were the controls...which is the biggest difference the game represents.  they didn't like the fact that it doesn't have the snappiness that twitch shooters have.  i knew this, so i said this, and you just dismissed it like usual.

you listed a couple of things that halo 3 did to revolutionize fps, but the only one that actually was new was the forge feature.  if you read what people who like and didn't like it have to say they don't agree with you.  people who don't like it cite boredom and unoriginality as the reason.  they felt like it basically was a polished halo2.  people that do like it talk about how they love the online aspect.  once again the facts are consistent with what i've said all along, and you for some reason have resisted. 

you provide a definition of immersion that is somehow supposed to prove that it is entirely subjective.  i'm not impressed.  i know what the word means.  what you can't seem to grasp is that immersion is precipitated by actual, objective things a game can do.  i don't know of a game being totally immersive to one player and not at all to another.  everyone that i've played with has agreed to the basic premise that killzone manages to up the intensity way more than other shooters.  it's basically analogous to the distinction between simulation and arcade play.  killzone takes great pains to make the game feel more like a simulation.  i've given reasons why.  you have provided no valid counter beyond weak semantic arguments and red herring arguments.

i've given frank assessments of both games that cover their strengths and weaknesses.  you have done nothing but show that you have a grossly distorted view of both games.

i will say that the argument has not been a total loss, as many of the contributing posters seem to have weighed in as agreeing with the basic conclusion that one game is a great twitch shooter and the other is a great immersive shooter.

that's some pretty impressive calf muscles.

and i don't get what the deal with the landers was.  when i saw those things i thought, "now there is a logistical nightmare."  i get that the big ships couldn't land, but little platforms with handrails?  really?

So another page of babble without giving a direct and coherent counter argument to any one of my points. If you still don't know why immersion is subjective after I gave you the definition of the word then I must conclude that you do not have a significant grasp on the english language or you simply do not have the mental capacity to comprehend abstract notions." i don't know of a game being totally immersive to one player and not at all to another". This statement is probably the most laughably incorrect thing in your entire straw man argument. I can name you a hundred people on this site that think rpg's are completely immersive and another hundred that hate rpg's because they can never become invested in the character or the stories. Your entire argument based around immersion is an utter joke as has been shown time and time again.

I also love how you use subjective experiences to throw blanket statements around like fact. You only saw one Killzone 2 commercial while you saw three COD4 commercials so that must mean Killzone 2 had a tiny add campaign. The stupidity of that argument baffles me.

Are you honestly saying that Killzone 2 changed the fps genre more than Halo:CE? Halo changed the entire dynamic of first person shooters by adding rechargeable shields amongst many other things. All killzone 2 did was make the controls feel more weighty. By your arguments Halo:CE should have done horrible since it was so different from what previous fps games offered. So why is it that Halo did so much better than Killzone 2?

Your saying the only innovation Halo 3 had was forge. In that case please tell me what other fps game has saved films, skulls or the equivalent of, screenshots, equipment, total integration with its mother site, 4 player co-op and anything close the massive amount of options for custom games.

I have not once said Killzone 2 is a "sucky" game, that has been you putting words in my mouth. It is in fact a very good game however it is seen by the vast majority of gamers to be a weaker game in comparison to Halo 3. You have shown quite extensively that you have a minimal understanding of fps game mechanics and you continually show your lack of a central debating position by repeatedly calling my statements "red herring arguments" instead of individually countering my points as I have done for you. This either means that you are simply on a defensive rant of your favorite game or you have no valid points to make. Either way you have shown your ineptitude at understanding the simplest of concepts.

They seemed kind of out of place in the "feel" of KZ, too...  I think they were going for a "Normandy Invasion" feel with the open top landers, but it ws sort of like "that.....  does not look safe."

And yes; Master Chief is on some kind of kangroo steroids.