By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
makingmusic476 on 29 December 2009
Squilliam said:
wholikeswood said:
Squilliam said:

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...

Actually Call of Duty 4 was in essence in the same boat as Killzone 2 was to their previous titles. They were both had middling prequels, they were both reboots of their respective series and I was comparing strictly their PS3 performance which makes the Xbox 360 performance irrelevant. As Modern Warfare 1 is most comparable it was the basis for my belief here. MW2 built on the success of MW1, but the base reason for that success is in both games.

Killzone 2 is flawed because whilst it can make the critics wet with excitement and hardcore gamers cum in their pants over it. It doesn't translate that success to widespread appeal. Modern Warfare sales shot up because once the general public had it in their hands they realised what an incredible game it was and word of mouth sold the title. Killzone 2 is the opposite, with better initial sales but word of mouth killed the sales. How in that case can I not conclude that in comparison to the merits of Modern Warfare Killzone 2 is flawed?

It does not make it bad in its own right, it just means that one has to be seen as superior to the other and by objective standards between sales, public reception, critical reception and equally intense subjective opinions on both sides you have to draw the line somewhere. In all objective conditions Modern Warfare 2 is a better title. So Killzone 2 is a little further away from a perfect FPS than Modern Warfare 1/2.

 

Call of Duty was still selling quite well prior to the release of 4.  Both Call of Duty and Call of Duty 2 were lighting up the charts on pc, with the latter finding great success on 360 as well.  Call of Duty 3 held the series back for a bit because it was a lesser game (Treyarch), which helped prevent the franchise from moving to the next level of success on the 360 and by then released ps3.  Call of Duty 4 exploded in sales for two primary reasons compared to Call of Duty 1/2 - it enjoyed a new, modern setting that resonates quite well with gamers, and it was released right when the 360 and ps3 were hitting their stride (late 2007, when both recieved their first price cut).  This combined with the quality of the title lead to incredible sales, establishing a brand that is above even Halo and Gran Turismo.

If anything, this shows that brand name heavily effects sales, because World at War, another Treyarch game (one with a low 80s average), managed to heavily outsell Call of Duty 1/2 despite returning to the World War II setting, and it sits firmly in place as the third best selling shooter this generation, behind only Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2. 



Around the Network
DaBuddahN on 29 December 2009
Squilliam said:
wholikeswood said:
Squilliam said:

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...

Actually Call of Duty 4 was in essence in the same boat as Killzone 2 was to their previous titles. They were both had middling prequels, they were both reboots of their respective series and I was comparing strictly their PS3 performance which makes the Xbox 360 performance irrelevant. As Modern Warfare 1 is most comparable it was the basis for my belief here. MW2 built on the success of MW1, but the base reason for that success is in both games.

Killzone 2 is flawed because whilst it can make the critics wet with excitement and hardcore gamers cum in their pants over it. It doesn't translate that success to widespread appeal. Modern Warfare sales shot up because once the general public had it in their hands they realised what an incredible game it was and word of mouth sold the title. Killzone 2 is the opposite, with better initial sales but word of mouth killed the sales. How in that case can I not conclude that in comparison to the merits of Modern Warfare Killzone 2 is flawed?

It does not make it bad in its own right, it just means that one has to be seen as superior to the other and by objective standards between sales, public reception, critical reception and equally intense subjective opinions on both sides you have to draw the line somewhere. In all objective conditions Modern Warfare 2 is a better title. So Killzone 2 is a little further away from a perfect FPS than Modern Warfare 1/2.

 

Really? Again? You're using the same argument with different clothing. Because KZ2 is not as mainstream as MW2 it's flawed?

This is basically the same sales argument wrapped around in a different wrapper. Squilliam, sales =/= quality. And while the CoD franchise no doubt is a quality title, using sales to back it up is flawed.

If all FPS played the same, well, I wouldn't really see the need to buy any other FPS! I am glad KZ2 plays so differently from any CoD game. One major reason why KZ2 isn't as mainstream as CoD is because it isn't as friendly as CoD. In KZ2 you get shot a couple of times and you're dead, it's more realistic (shooting and movement wise). Everyone complained because it didn't have a more CoD-like gameplay style. If you can't adapt to a new gameplay style, it's not the games fault, it's usually the gamers skill... or inherent bias.



heruamon on 29 December 2009

Well...based on sales, I'd say most PS3 owners feel differently...



"...You can't kill ideas with a sword, and you can't sink belief structures with a broadside. You defeat them by making them change..."

- From By Schism Rent Asunder

XxXProphecyXxX on 29 December 2009

LOL @ sales = better game.....Wii fit is GOTC( game of the century? 22m sold must be the best shit ever made)



wholikeswood on 29 December 2009
Squilliam said:
wholikeswood said:
Squilliam said:

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...

Actually Call of Duty 4 was in essence in the same boat as Killzone 2 was to their previous titles. They were both had middling prequels, they were both reboots of their respective series and I was comparing strictly their PS3 performance which makes the Xbox 360 performance irrelevant. As Modern Warfare 1 is most comparable it was the basis for my belief here. MW2 built on the success of MW1, but the base reason for that success is in both games.

Killzone 2 is flawed because whilst it can make the critics wet with excitement and hardcore gamers cum in their pants over it. It doesn't translate that success to widespread appeal. Modern Warfare sales shot up because once the general public had it in their hands they realised what an incredible game it was and word of mouth sold the title. Killzone 2 is the opposite, with better initial sales but word of mouth killed the sales. How in that case can I not conclude that in comparison to the merits of Modern Warfare Killzone 2 is flawed?

It does not make it bad in its own right, it just means that one has to be seen as superior to the other and by objective standards between sales, public reception, critical reception and equally intense subjective opinions on both sides you have to draw the line somewhere. In all objective conditions Modern Warfare 2 is a better title. So Killzone 2 is a little further away from a perfect FPS than Modern Warfare 1/2.

 

Treyarch's mediocre COD3 is irrelevant in the greater scheme of things, because you're overlooking the enormous critical success Infinity Ward enjoyed with the franchise before the first Modern Warfare. Call of Duty on PC has 91 Meta and earned a GOTY release shortly afterwards, whilst Call of Duty 2 was one of the 360's first AAA titles, sitting at 89 Meta, and was the first 360 game to sell over a million in the US. From the latter example here, it was always clear that the Call of Duty franchise was going to be a big one for the HD consoles this generation.

"whilst it can make the critics wet with excitement... It doesn't translate that success to widespread appeal"

Are you even reading back what you're writing? I'm surprised that someone who's been on this site for quite some considerable time is struggling to discern quality from sales. You can't apply the correlation between the two everywhere. Why you continue to put forward this flawed "quality = sales" analysis is genuinely beyond me. Yes, Modern Warfare's gameplay quality contributes heavily to its sustained high levels of sales, but that doesn't mean you can flip the coin and say that Killzone 2's weaker sales must indicate weaker gameplay.



Around the Network
DevDas on 29 December 2009

KZ2....they both were my first FPS games and frankly KZ2 is more engaging imho!



outlawauron on 29 December 2009

I disagree.

I really loved MW2 and think it's actually underrated due to the immense hatred it receives from the internet.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

dharh on 29 December 2009
nightsurge said:
dharh said:
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.

Ah well I don't care about those "campers", since they have always existed and you need to change your tactics if that is what's causing you to lose.



A warrior keeps death on the mind from the moment of their first breath to the moment of their last.
Playingwithfirex on 29 December 2009

MAG will be amazing
128v128>16v16



2010 Hardware Sales Predictions

Wii: 20m- Sales will drop, but not by much.

PS3: 13.5m- It sold 12m in 2009, its only common sense it will sell more this year.

Xbox 360: 11m- It sold 11m in 2008 and 2009, I think it will sell the same.

My Fanboy Speech...

Why do you have to make excuses to defend a product that you purchased, but that's the only connection you have to it, you don't make it, you don't lose or gain money on it. I don't see where all of the defensiveness comes in, there is no reason for you or anybody else to feel obligated to defend it. Now I would understand if one of you were a developer for the product and you slaved over said product only to hear somebody call it stupid or a piece of junk. But none of you developed it, none of you are mature enough to realize that. Choosing a product all comes down to preference, you chose said product because it is best for you. Simple as that!

arcane_chaos on 29 December 2009

I can't say which one is better since I don't own MW2, though I picked up Killzone 2 the other day and it's much different feel than any other shooter I've played. the controls did take some time to get used to but nothing from the extent people were complaining about. graphics are a plus, haven't played MP yet but looking foward to it!