Can we finally conclude that Killzone, as a series, has failed to kill Halo?

It all started in 2004 when the original Killzone was hyped to be the definitive Halo killer, by cows. They truly believed it was the beginning of something really great and special. We all know how that turned out.

-

So cows pretty much raged, naturally, but kind of swore they would have their revenge with Killzone 2... :|

Nonetheless, time passed by, Killzone 2 was announced, hyped to death--once again--and reviewed. This time, it met the hype-however, it did not outscore Halo 3. So while it was not a gigantic flop, like the original, it did not manage to kill its rival, making it a game nobody argued about too much.

-

Time passed by again, and this time, it was the Return of the King. Killzone 3 was the last chance--the last chance to destroy Halo and be crowned the king of exclusive FPS games on consoles. Reach had scored 9.5, so Killzone 3 needed a 10 to kill it--or at least an AAA score to even compare. What happened ?

:o :o Not only had it failed to kill Halo for the third time--it had flopped for the second time! This merely proved that Bungie are way out of their league when it comes to developing high-quality FPS games. It also proves cows have been incorrect all these years, claiming Killzone would one day top Halo in the "king of console FPS games" department.

And while the Killzone franchise is today seen as a great one--it could historically be seen as a failure, since it has failed its very important mission every single time since 2004.

What do you personally say, is the Killzone series a complete failure for not having killed Halo and become the best, most critically acclaimed and feared FPS game series on consoles?

Who cares, now that Bungie is gone Halo is going to kill itself.

Wasn't it labelled as the Halo killer by the media initially?

Still, who ever expected it to. Just looking at Halo's sales numbers and the number of people playing online, expecting something different would just be stupid.

Killzone is all flash and never produced a game as solid as halo sorry to say fanboys . Weak story , Great multiplayer but still idk something about the game i PERSONALLY dont like . and doesnt have the customization halo does so people cant get creative .

Killzone is all flash and never produced a game as solid as halo sorry to say fanboys . Weak story , Great multiplayer but still idk something about the game i PERSONALLY dont like . and doesnt have the customization halo does so people cant get creative .

SpArKs424

Wasn't it labelled as the Halo killer by the media initially?

Still, who ever expected it to. Just looking at Halo's sales numbers and the number of people playing online, expecting something different would just be stupid.

lundy86_4

Killzone 2 and 3 were more enjoyable than Halo 2 and 3, just sayin'. Scores don't matter anything

[QUOTE="SpArKs424"]

Killzone is all flash and never produced a game as solid as halo sorry to say fanboys . Weak story , Great multiplayer but still idk something about the game i PERSONALLY dont like . and doesnt have the customization halo does so people cant get creative .

jg4xchamp

Yeah it was i remember when Killzone 1 came out G4tv back when it was TECH tv was saying "Gurrilla has a made the so called Halo Killer " Well halo is more than alive lol

SpArKs424

So what's the point in debating something the media labelled? Furthermore TC's stating Cows hyped it to be this seems to be off. - though I could be wrong on whether or not Cows fell in line, as I wasn't around then.

Regardless, I find it hard to believe any franchise could truly "kill" another franchise.

[QUOTE="SpArKs424"]

Yeah it was i remember when Killzone 1 came out G4tv back when it was TECH tv was saying "Gurrilla has a made the so called Halo Killer " Well halo is more than alive lol

lundy86_4

So what's the point in debating something the media labelled? Furthermore TC's stating Cows hyped it to be this seems to be off. - though I could be wrong on whether or not Cows fell in line, as I wasn't around then.

Regardless, I find it hard to believe any franchise could truly "kill" another franchise.

Some fell into the hype, but it was pretty much all the media. Killzone 2 was hyped far more as the Halo Killer than the original was by fans.

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]

[QUOTE="SpArKs424"]

Killzone is all flash and never produced a game as solid as halo sorry to say fanboys . Weak story , Great multiplayer but still idk something about the game i PERSONALLY dont like . and doesnt have the customization halo does so people cant get creative .

SpArKs424

Who cares, now that Bungie is gone Halo is going to kill itself.

Wasdie

Bungie's the only talented studio there? Good to know.

343 is a bad studio? Good to know.

You can see the future? Good to know.

Halo's not killing itself. It's still the best console shooter, a real shame it's 360 exclusive.

And I don't think anyone ever thought that Killzone would actually kill Halo.

It all started in 2004 when the original Killzone was hyped to be the definitive Halo killer, by cows. They truly believed it was the beginning of something really great and special. We all know how that turned out.

-

So cows pretty much raged, naturally, but kind of swore they would have their revenge with Killzone 2... :|

Nonetheless, time passed by, Killzone 2 was announced, hyped to death--once again--and reviewed. This time, it met the hype-however, it did not outscore Halo 3. So while it was not a gigantic flop, like the original, it did not manage to kill its rival, making it a game nobody argued about too much.

-

Time passed by again, and this time, it was the Return of the King. Killzone 3 was the last chance--the last chance to destroy Halo and be crowned the king of exclusive FPS games on consoles. Reach had scored 9.5, so Killzone 3 needed a 10 to kill it--or at least an AAA score to even compare. What happened ?

:o :o Not only had it failed to kill Halo for the third time--it had flopped for the second time! This merely proved that Bungie are way out of their league when it comes to developing high-quality FPS games. It also proves cows have been incorrect all these years, claiming Killzone would one day top Halo in the "king of console FPS games" department.

And while the Killzone franchise is today seen as a great one--it could historically be seen as a failure, since it has failed its very important mission every single time since 2004.

What do you personally say, is the Killzone series a complete failure for not having killed Halo and become the best, most critically acclaimed and feared FPS game series on consoles?

[QUOTE="SpArKs424"]

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] Halo's story isn't exactly praise worthy

inb4thebooksexcuse.

jg4xchamp

There is no winner between Killzone or Halo. Just accept that they are both great games and move on.

The concept of Killzone "killing" Halo is an invalid one. Killzone and Halo are on different consoles. Hence, they do not compete with one another.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Who cares, now that Bungie is gone Halo is going to kill itself.

iAtrocious

Bungie's the only talented studio there? Good to know.

343 is a bad studio? Good to know.

You can see the future? Good to know.

Halo's not killing itself. It's still the best console shooter, a real shame it's 360 exclusive.

And I don't think anyone ever thought that Killzone would actually kill Halo.

Well Halo Wars sucked something bad, and that wasn't by Bungie. We've never seen a game from 343, that's true. Historically once a franchies leaves the original developers, it kind of goes downhill fast. I'm happy to hear Microsoft isn't pushing Halo each year, but I'm worried that the new guys just don't fully understand what makes Halo unique and how to keep going on with the original gameplay philosophies that Bungie has created with Halo.

I'm fearing the series is just going to move more and more towards a Call of Duty level of gameplay.

Halo could very well kill itself. Sometimes series just need to die. Just look at Sonic.

Who cares, now that Bungie is gone Halo is going to kill itself.

Wasdie

Who cares, now that Bungie is gone Halo is going to kill itself.

Wasdie

Halo was ment to be a trilogy and should of been capped at 3.

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]

[QUOTE="SpArKs424"]only bad installment that wasnt even that bad was ODST and that was just a expansion . all Full halo titles have been quality and are games that last for years. If im not mistaken a year after KZ2 was released it only had around 200-300 active players still on . thats sad to have your community die within a year.

SpArKs424

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Who cares, now that Bungie is gone Halo is going to kill itself.

fusionhunter

Halo was ment to be a trilogy and should of been capped at 3.

Oh yes I completely forogot about that Kinect crap.

Microsoft is pushing that so hard. No matter what they say, their actions speak far louder than their words. I'll be money that this E3, over 70% of the Microsoft conference will be Kinect crap.

Who ever thought it would kill Halo other than some fanboys. Its a good series in its own right but no way it can kill Halo. TheColbert

[QUOTE="iAtrocious"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Who cares, now that Bungie is gone Halo is going to kill itself.

Wasdie

Bungie's the only talented studio there? Good to know.

343 is a bad studio? Good to know.

You can see the future? Good to know.

Halo's not killing itself. It's still the best console shooter, a real shame it's 360 exclusive.

And I don't think anyone ever thought that Killzone would actually kill Halo.

Well Halo Wars sucked something bad, and that wasn't by Bungie. We've never seen a game from 343, that's true. Historically once a franchies leaves the original developers, it kind of goes downhill fast. I'm happy to hear Microsoft isn't pushing Halo each year, but I'm worried that the new guys just don't fully understand what makes Halo unique and how to keep going on with the original gameplay philosophies that Bungie has created with Halo.

I'm fearing the series is just going to move more and more towards a Call of Duty level of gameplay.

Halo could very well kill itself. Sometimes series just need to die. Just look at Sonic.

Ok. I'd rather just wait to see what the 343 developers are going to do before I start saying their game is going to suck. Maybe the first will: adapting to the Halo universe and producing a Halo-like game isn't an easy task. But I'll wait for their second entry in the Halo franchise to see how that turns out. Halo Wars wasn't too bad: considering it was one of the first attempts at a large console RTS, scoring 8.4 isn't exactly bad. As long as Microsoft doesn't try to rush production, the game should be fine -- even if not a masterpiece.

I also don't expect them to take a turn towards Call of Duty: the CoD market is a hard one to take a bite of, they're better off just not trying.

That said, Sonic is a sad reality. The series I grew up with, in this state. Good thing it's taken a fresh breath of quality with Sonic Colors and Sonic & the Secret Rings (And even Sonic Unleashed on the Wii) -- here's to hoping they manage to get back on their feet.

Killzone 2 and 3 were more enjoyable than Halo 2 and 3, just sayin'. Scores don't matter anything

Sgt_Crow

This. I played every halo came, but I did have more fun plyaing Killzone 2, and Killzone 3 looks to be even better.

Killzone 3 got 8.5 on gamespot and Ign, but there's other gaming websites that it scored even higher.

Halo didn't change much with every game, well maybe until Halo Reach came out.

But every halo game felt the same.

Technically and graphically Killzone destroys Halo.

I still had a blast with Halo's multiplayer, but the single player felt repetive with every game, just wave afer wave of aliens.

[QUOTE="SpArKs424"]

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] Killzone 2 was still pretty much in the thousands(hell it still is, the hell are you getting a hundred from), and Reach's community by Halo standards has dropped off significantly already.

Second I missed the part where Killzone 2 and 3 aren't quality games.

Third I mentioned that all the Halo's tell a weak story. Which they do. The story telling in all of em(well maybe not Combat Evolved) is piss poor, and the plots they do tell are either unfocused(Halo 2) or just end on such a weak note(Halo 3, Reach, ODST). Let's not even get into the stupid retcon Bungie has done in their own games.

vashkey

I prefer Killzone to Halo.

My opinion > reviewers opinions.

i've had killzone one, its not that great, but 2....and the betta for 3, i don't see how anyone could say theyre not quality games, both storys blow.....obviously, but the thing that puts halo over the top in killzone, is not the graphics at all, but the multiplayer, and the fact you can play the story co-op. that right there puts it over the top.

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]

[QUOTE="SpArKs424"]only bad installment that wasnt even that bad was ODST and that was just a expansion . all Full halo titles have been quality and are games that last for years. If im not mistaken a year after KZ2 was released it only had around 200-300 active players still on . thats sad to have your community die within a year.

SpArKs424

[QUOTE="SHR3DD3D"]

It all started in 2004 when the original Killzone was hyped to be the definitive Halo killer, by cows. They truly believed it was the beginning of something really great and special. We all know how that turned out.

-

So cows pretty much raged, naturally, but kind of swore they would have their revenge with Killzone 2... :|

Nonetheless, time passed by, Killzone 2 was announced, hyped to death--once again--and reviewed. This time, it met the hype-however, it did not outscore Halo 3. So while it was not a gigantic flop, like the original, it did not manage to kill its rival, making it a game nobody argued about too much.

-

Time passed by again, and this time, it was the Return of the King. Killzone 3 was the last chance--the last chance to destroy Halo and be crowned the king of exclusive FPS games on consoles. Reach had scored 9.5, so Killzone 3 needed a 10 to kill it--or at least an AAA score to even compare. What happened ?

:o :o Not only had it failed to kill Halo for the third time--it had flopped for the second time! This merely proved that Bungie are way out of their league when it comes to developing high-quality FPS games. It also proves cows have been incorrect all these years, claiming Killzone would one day top Halo in the "king of console FPS games" department.

And while the Killzone franchise is today seen as a great one--it could historically be seen as a failure, since it has failed its very important mission every single time since 2004.

What do you personally say, is the Killzone series a complete failure for not having killed Halo and become the best, most critically acclaimed and feared FPS game series on consoles?

iwasgood2u

Nice damage control there, buddy! You could not do better? :lol: Claiming lemmings expected Reach to kill Killzone 2 in graphics is like stating sheep expected The Conduit to destroy Crysis in graphics. Obviously, people knew Killzone 2 would have better graphics, but they focused on the more important aspects of the games--in which Killzone apparently fails, compared to Halo.

only the first one was hyped as a halo killer (whatever that even means). when kz2 was announced, the lemmings brought the whole halo killer thing back more than the cows did (only the biggest cows and fakeboys hyped it as such again), and primarily used it to damage control after it got AAA (so what if it got AAA, it didnt kill halo, so cows=pwned). now it seems the lemmings are again bringing it back to rub the 8.5 in the faces of the cows. I didnt even see ANY halo killer talk from the cows for kz3, though there may have been and I just missed it.

they're both excellent franchises, but it seems some people in SW can't accept that there can be good games on different systems.

the popularity of that game doesn't make up for all the stupidity that series has gone through. From it's awful story telling, to it's piss poor level design in what 4 games?, to how both 3 and Reach arguably have the worst multiplayer maps in the entire series, to the annoyance that is Armor Lock(how has this not been nerfed yet?) or the BR fest that was Halo 3, or the rather weak shooting, etc etc. Halo's only real claim to excellence is its fanbase, and critical reception. Outside of that the series has fallen short on greatness to be quite frank.

jg4xchamp

How is the story telling awful? Granted it's not the best but it's far from awful. And the level design isn't bad either. It got a bit repetitive in some spots in Halo 1 and 3, but to say the series as a whole has bad level design based purely off of a couple repetitive missions is a bit of an exaggeration.

Honestly, whats wrong with armor lock? Whats wrong with the battle rifle being the primary weapon of use in Halo 3? It's not as if the other weapon didn't have their uses? How was the shooting weak?

[QUOTE="Sgt_Crow"]

Killzone 2 and 3 were more enjoyable than Halo 2 and 3, just sayin'. Scores don't matter anything

id_mew

This. I played every halo came, but I did have more fun plyaing Killzone 2, and Killzone 3 looks to be even better.

Killzone 3 got 8.5 on gamespot and Ign, but there's other gaming websites that it scored even higher.

Halo didn't change much with every game, well maybe until Halo Reach came out.

But every halo game felt the same.

Technically and graphically Killzone destroys Halo.

I still had a blast with Halo's multiplayer, but the single player felt repetive with every game, just wave afer wave of aliens.

Killzone 3 currently holds an 86 score on MC--well below Halo standards, simply because it is not as good, polished, interesting, exciting and evolved.

Also, if every Halo game felt the same, why did all of them attain very high scores? Obviously, they did not feel the same. Otherwise, the reviewers would have noticed that, given the games a low score and commented on it, in the reviews. Oh yeah, here comes the MS bribed all the reviewers theory. :roll:

[QUOTE="id_mew"]

[QUOTE="Sgt_Crow"]

Killzone 2 and 3 were more enjoyable than Halo 2 and 3, just sayin'. Scores don't matter anything

SHR3DD3D

This. I played every halo came, but I did have more fun plyaing Killzone 2, and Killzone 3 looks to be even better.

Killzone 3 got 8.5 on gamespot and Ign, but there's other gaming websites that it scored even higher.

Halo didn't change much with every game, well maybe until Halo Reach came out.

But every halo game felt the same.

Technically and graphically Killzone destroys Halo.

I still had a blast with Halo's multiplayer, but the single player felt repetive with every game, just wave afer wave of aliens.

Killzone 3 currently holds an 86 score on MC--well below Halo standards, simply because it is not as good, polished, interesting, exciting and evolved.

Also, if every Halo game felt the same, why did all of them attain very high scores? Obviously, they did not feel the same. Otherwise, the reviewers would have noticed that, given the games a low score and commented on it, in the reviews. Oh yeah, here comes the MS bribed all the reviewers theory. :roll:

Well below Halo standards? ODST has an 83 on MC.

I mean if you saying every Halo attained very high scores with ODST's 83 isn't KZ3's 86 considered very high too?

[QUOTE="id_mew"]

[QUOTE="Sgt_Crow"]

Killzone 2 and 3 were more enjoyable than Halo 2 and 3, just sayin'. Scores don't matter anything

SHR3DD3D

This. I played every halo came, but I did have more fun plyaing Killzone 2, and Killzone 3 looks to be even better.

Killzone 3 got 8.5 on gamespot and Ign, but there's other gaming websites that it scored even higher.

Halo didn't change much with every game, well maybe until Halo Reach came out.

But every halo game felt the same.

Technically and graphically Killzone destroys Halo.

I still had a blast with Halo's multiplayer, but the single player felt repetive with every game, just wave afer wave of aliens.

Killzone 3 currently holds an 86 score on MC--well below Halo standards, simply because it is not as good, polished, interesting, exciting and evolved.

Also, if every Halo game felt the same, why did all of them attain very high scores? Obviously, they did not feel the same. Otherwise, the reviewers would have noticed that, given the games a low score and commented on it, in the reviews. Oh yeah, here comes the MS bribed all the reviewers theory. :roll:

Killzone could barely kill Haze, let alone Halo.

[QUOTE="SpArKs424"]

Killzone is all flash and never produced a game as solid as halo sorry to say fanboys . Weak story , Great multiplayer but still idk something about the game i PERSONALLY dont like . and doesnt have the customization halo does so people cant get creative .

jg4xchamp

They just stole it from the Bible. Most notably Noah's Ark.

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]

[QUOTE="SpArKs424"]

Killzone is all flash and never produced a game as solid as halo sorry to say fanboys . Weak story , Great multiplayer but still idk something about the game i PERSONALLY dont like . and doesnt have the customization halo does so people cant get creative .

Hatiko

They just stole it from the Bible. Most notably Noah's Ark.

And the Arbiter died for all their sins, which the Gravemind was a monument of....

Killzone = Halo

Killzone 2 < halo 2 (even tho it wasnt all that great)

From the looks and the demo....

Killzone 3 < Halo series

Killzone = Halo

Killzone 2 < halo 2 (even tho it wasnt all that great)

From the looks and the demo....

Killzone 3 < Halo series

mejiseike

Killzone was worse than Halo in all shapes in forms. For one, Halo actually had a story that was good. And WTF was up will Killzone's sniping?

Halo series 50 million copies sold.

Killzone 2 million?

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] the popularity of that game doesn't make up for all the stupidity that series has gone through. From it's awful story telling, to it's piss poor level design in what 4 games?, to how both 3 and Reach arguably have the worst multiplayer maps in the entire series, to the annoyance that is Armor Lock(how has this not been nerfed yet?) or the BR fest that was Halo 3, or the rather weak shooting, etc etc. Halo's only real claim to excellence is its fanbase, and critical reception. Outside of that the series has fallen short on greatness to be quite frank.

vashkey

How is the story telling awful? Granted it's not the best but it's far from awful. And the level design isn't bad either. It got a bit repetitive in some spots in Halo 1 and 3, but to say the series as a whole has bad level design based purely off of a couple repetitive missions is a bit of an exaggeration.

Honestly, whats wrong with armor lock? Whats wrong with the battle rifle being the primary weapon of use in Halo 3? It's not as if the other weapon didn't have their uses? How was the shooting weak?