Not preferrence its the sacrafice of gameplay vs higher visual fidelity.

So you would prefer Gran Turismo 5 if it were 30FPS but had better looking cars/scenery? You would prefer Street Fighter 4 if it looked even more photorealistic at 30FPS? You would prefer Uncharted 2 at 20FPS with better graphics because the framerate has nothing to do with gameplay?

Looking at several comments on this thread,I see people mentioning the fact that both or either is flawed,but not explaining.

Also the mythic "superior online" of MW2.It's superior it's more widely accepted.

The fact is it depends what kind of gamer you are,if you want a fast,frantic,adrenaline laced rush of a gaming experience,then it's Killzone 2 everytime.Because that game will tear you a new one from day one in my opinion,it's online games now consist of those very experienced players who won't shift into the ModernWarfare craze that 12 million people adopted in the last two months.So if you pick up KZ2,you won't be facing an 8year old who got it for xmas,you'll be facing a team of players who know the ins and outs of that game and will kill you every respawn you get on the spot.That is a hardcore game.

Modern Warfare on the otherhand is relatively easier to get into,slower paced,a majority of people are new to the game,easy way to start your online experience with a game with mostly people on the same level as you.

My personal preference is Killzone 2 for it's much more hardcore appeal,and the fact that I am admittedly a Sony fanboy.

Both are great games,but the personally I prefer TPS,so Uncharted 2 is my online game of choice.

Many games do run it and are the best sellers in their class.

Nintendo games = 60FPS generally.

Gran Turismo = 60FPS

Call of Duty 4-6 = 60FPS

So its not pointless, it does have relevance. If it was pointless then none of the above would bother with 60hz and instead would focus on having better graphics. Obviously theres a positive tradeoff with that technology. Infact Halo 3 renders 60FPS which gives the game incredible responsiveness for a 30FPS title.

The reason is that 30FPS looks better in the marketing material than 60FPS. Its been a marketing decision for a long time that visuals from a 30FPS game look better in internet video and printed media. It has nothing to do with what is best for the actual game once its in the hands of the people. Even Halo is significantly different to Killzone in player latency, 70ms is the difference that thats usually counted by a lot of people as a good ping for online play.

most certainly but both aren''t amazing.
I still think best fps multiplayer is in cod2

The average gamer knows even less about the process of rendering 3D images so therefore we should just stick with simplified sprites.

Btw I like Killzone 2 more than Modern Warfare 2, my personal opinion is irrelevant here though.

This entire thread centers around personal opinion.  Given that your posts self-admittedly touch on something else, it is apparent that you were trying (quite valiantly) to veer this topic away from its original subject.

Your intentions in coming to this thread are now quite clear.  You truly are a master of your craft, good sir.

Huh? When its one subjective opinion vs one subjective opinion then all you net from it is a circle jerk with the people who agree with you and a shouting match with those who don't. In the end giving a subjective opinion on which game is better is irrelevant unless you're going to put it to a binding vote.

So what are my intentions?

The bottom line here is awarding MW2 honors because it sold well, is like awarding your popular supermarket romance novel literary honors because it sold well. Sure, they are both popular, and there must be something good about them to a large group of people, but that doesnt mean they stand out as towering achievements.

That being said, MW2 is a fun game. I play it. I was playing it not 15 minutes ago before coming to check for interesting posts here... but I could also spend all day pointing out major flaws. There is a lot wrong with the game, and there is plenty of room to have legitimate preference for other FPS titles.

I do not really consider MW2 a "serious" FPS. Its a casual FPS , with easymode aiming assist, lots of gimmicks, and lots of instant gratification with lvling up and unlocks and etc. This is why it is popular. That does not make it bad, and heck thats why I like it on PS3. I suck at FPS with a controller. But it is very easy to see why a more console oriented, heavy FPS player would think it was crap.

MW2 definitely provided its money worth, and will probably continue to do so for me for at least another couple of weeks. Its a good game, it was worth the $$, and I will continue playing it and having fun. But I sure would not have picked it as any GOTY or suggested it was superior to deeper, more serious FPS games like KZ2.