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

I prefer Killzone to Halo.

My opinion > reviewers opinions.

BigBoss154

Halo 2,3, and Reach have the same feel. The only customization Halo has created was with 3 and Reach, but that was just asthetics. The media killed KZ by giving it that dumb title. You can't kill Halo, only Halo can kill Halo. KZ is it's own monster that I enjoy just as much as Halo. I haven't heard that it's the Halo killer in like 8 years though. Quit bringing up the past and enjoy whatever game you enjoy.

Halo 2,3, and Reach have the same feel. The only customization Halo has created was with 3 and Reach, but that was just asthetics. The media killed KZ by giving it that dumb title. You can't kill Halo, only Halo can kill Halo. KZ is it's own monster that I enjoy just as much as Halo. I haven't heard that it's the Halo killer in like 8 years though. Quit bringing up the past and enjoy whatever game you enjoy.

lowkey254

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

Wasdie

Exactly! And to add to the sting, COD pretty much destroyed Halo in sales and scores so now what?:lol:

From what I see the only people who still chase it down as teh halo killer are lemmings.

A couple? It's not just repetitive design though that is more than enough reason to hate missions like Cortana or The Library 2(Halo 2) or Data Hive(ODST). There is also the needless backtracking the series makes you go through its levels(Crow's Nest or Rat's Nest? one is the name of a map, the other is the mission). To the repetition that is fighting the flood(in general they make a level terrible. I can't think of one flood only mission that wasn't painfully boring compared to the ones against the Covenant. Which sadly make up a good chunk of Halo 2(Arbiter missions), and Halo 3(Flood, Cortana, Halo). Admittedly this is also due to the enemy choices Bungie made with making the Halo 2 brutes so dumb, and the Flood being depressingly boring in the entire series.

You would think Reach and ODST would be free of this, but. ...ODST is so small scaled, and the action in general is pretty repetitive. To the point of being mind numbing. With Reach admittedly it has none of the lows of Halo's past(no gloriously bad mission), but where are the highs? Where are the big time scarab battles? or the gigantic throw downs with the Covenant? The only respectable one was Saber mission, and even that pulled some punches(you would think the Covenant would be better fighters in SPace).

My beef with ARmor Lock is that it needs a major nerfing. YOu get a good team of armor lockers, and the other AAs become useless. Why Active Camo? you give your position away. Why Jet pack? all that helps you with is some traversing here and there, and a quick pick me up in a close quarters battle. Hell you don't really need a hologram(too easy to tell now) or Sprint(why is this even an AA?). AL has a quick cool down, it can be spammed more than the others, and it STOPS EVERYTHING!!. There is no counter to armor locking, but armor locking. I find that pansy way of playing to be incredibly boring.

As for Halo 3, the BR was just too much. It was too good. Admittedly it kept the game "balance". I found it made the general ebb and flow of the game far too repetitive. Reach(outside of my dislike for armor lock) and Halo 2 in my opinion were a little more versatile/varied if you will when playing a MP match.

How is the shooting strong? Outside of Reach they all have weak feedback, aim assist up the wazoo, floaty movement, and their "power" is gimped because of everyone being a bulletsponge. Reach's gunplay is a bit better though.I still wouldn't hold up against a shooter with great gunplay though to be frank(ala FEAR).

Story telling in the series is just weak all around. Halo 2 is just strictly unfocused. Trying to bring you in so much info on the Covenant, while doing the UNSC stuff as well, and it all falls flat the end. Three completely disregards Arbiter who was built up from 2 for no reason, and most of the campaign is going through the motions. Than there is some of the cheesy dialogue, the retcons in Reach and ODST, and the over done cliches and plot devices in the series. It also didn't help that the grand finale of the "trilogy" had you throw down with Guilty Spark of all things.

jg4xchamp

How was data hive repetive in design? I don't see what was wrong with the back tracking in Crow's Nest when there was clear reason why and you didn't get lost or confused. Again, while Halo has some of it's low points I'd still say it's strong over all and Halo 3: ODST and Reach pretty much lacked all of the trilogies weak points(although I'd say ODST had new ones of it's own).

I don't see how ODST being smaller in scale means it's inherently worse.

Saying that playing against decent players with armor lock makes other armor abilities doesn't make any sense. Armor lock doesn't make invisible players not invisible, it doesn't make sprinting players no longer able to sprint, it doesn't mean hologram players can't use hologram, ect. Armor lock can only really be used in two quicks bursts at best or a be held down for a total of five seconds. It takes longer to recharge than most other armor ability but can be sustained for the shortest time. So, no it can't be spammed the most.

If someone goes into armor lock just toss a grenade out right before they snap out. If your shields are low though then don't sit out in the open like a moron waiting for them. It's really not that tough to deal with.

Halo 3's battle rifle was worse than Halo 2's battle rifle since it had a looser spread, It definitely wasn't any more useful/used there than it was in Halo 2, and it was inferior to the Halo 1 pistol. Thats how Halo has always been though, theres a gun that the combat generally centers on while all the other weapons have their other uses that beat the battrifle/DMR/pistol in their respective roles. I don't see how this is bad.

Halo 2 was really the only halo with heavy aim assist, but I don't see how it was any worse than any other console shooter. How was the feedback weak? Whats wrong with floaty movement? Whats wrong with players being bulletsponges? Why do all shooter have to have the same sort of movement and damage distribution in order to have strong gunplay? As far as I can tell you're just saying that because Halo isn't exactly the way you want it, not because it's actually bad.

How is Halo 2 unfocused? Because it's telling two different sides of a story? If so, thats a pretty poor excuse. There might be some cheesy dialouge but is that really something rare in gaming? Is it really so bad when most of that cheesy dialouge is inteded to be funny anyway? I don't see how that makes Halo's story awful, especially when you put into consideration the standards of videogame storylines.

How do any of the cliches in Halo detract from it? I mean, how many stories don't have cliches in them now a day? It's kind of hard not to have some.

Halo's not perfect, no game is. But your taking the imperfections, magnifying them and exagerating them. What Halo does wrong pales in comparison to what it does right.

I just finished playing the KZ3 multiplayer beta again and I don't know what it is but something just doesn't feel right with KZ3. This game just reminds me why graphics alone cannot save a game. It reminds me why Bungie is so great and how they handled their baby (Halo) with such care that the gameplay, mulitiplayer and controls just click together to feel oh so polished!! There is definitely some fun here to be had with KZ3 but just not enough for me to stay with it for very long.

You cows can keep touting the term "graphics king" until you're blue in the face but if the game is shaky in the fun department or doesn't feel right does the term graphics king even matter? No because the graphics will be long forgotten along with the thousands of players who will soon leave the game after discovering it just doesn't have that same "magic" as Halo to hold a player to want to keep coming back.

This is where the KZ series fails. Nevermind that it failed to keep up with Halo. It's barely trying to pass the grade with its own fans evident from the fact that its online numbers have been quite weak. Also once the Fall hits KZ3 will be dead. All you have to do is look at games like Gears 3, BF3 and UC3 to know why. Funny thing is that Reach (and even Halo 3!) will still be alive and kickin'.

What about the campaign? You want to compare it to Halo? Halo craps all over the KZ series strory-wise and in the single and co-op campaign. But in all honesty folks if you make believe that Halo never existed then what you have with the KZ series is just your average generic shooter that is all flash and no substance. The flash being the overhyped graphics which I have already stated cannot by itself make a great game.

...and lets talk about those graphics. From what I have seen in the MP beta they are looking very average. Lots of jaggies, poor textures and looking quite grainy. So now what's so special about this game? Oh yeah once the flash is gone it's average just like the series itself.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

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

Adamantium4k2

Exactly! And to add to the sting, COD pretty much destroyed Halo in sales and scores so now what?:lol:

I just finished playing the KZ3 multiplayer beta again and I don't know what it is but something just doesn't feel right with KZ3. This game just reminds me why graphics alone cannot save a game. It reminds me why Bungie is so great and how they handled their baby (Halo) with such care that the gameplay, mulitiplayer and controls just click together to feel oh so polished!! There is definitely some fun here to be had with KZ3 but just not enough for me to stay with it for very long.

You cows can keep touting the term "graphics king" until you're blue in the face but if the game is shaky in the fun department or doesn't feel right does the term graphics king even matter? No because the graphics will be long forgotten along with the thousands of players who will soon leave the game after discovering it just doesn't have that same "magic" as Halo to hold a player to want to keep coming back.

This is where the KZ series fails. Nevermind that it failed to keep up with Halo. It's barely trying to pass the grade with its own fans evident from the fact that its online numbers have been quite weak. Also once the Fall hits KZ3 will be dead. All you have to do is look at games like Gears 3, BF3 and UC3 to know why. Funny thing is that Reach (and even Halo 3!) will still be alive and kickin'.

What about the campaign? You want to compare it to Halo? Halo craps all over the KZ series strory-wise and in the single and co-op campaign. But in all honesty folks if you make believe that Halo never existed then what you have with the KZ series is just your average generic shooter that is all flash and no substance. The flash being the overhyped graphics which I have already stated cannot by itself make a great game.

...and lets talk about those graphics. From what I have seen in the MP beta they are looking very average. Lots of jaggies, poor textures and looking quite grainy. So now what's so special about this game? Oh yeah once the flash is gone it's average just like the series itself.

T-razor1

Wow.

You went very overboard.

What does generic mean anyways? What do we compare shooters to for it to be generic.

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

Wasdie

The point remains that for an entire decade every game tried to kill Halo, but couldn't. Honestly, the only thing that helped even Call of Duty surpass Halo was that it was on every freaking platform imaginable. Halo became the next Doom. Every game was meant to be a Doom-killer but could never match up to it. The same goes for Halo.

The biggest compliment a game series can receive is that people still get butthurt over its existence and pin their hopes on something else being better than it.

Bungie may be gone, but what Halo has done for gaming will remain unaffected until the next, true big thing comes around.

Halo is an excellent series...Killzone is a flop series. no one cares about KZ except cows.

Pretty obvious it has failed compared to Halo. Just look at the player bases and scores.

All I have to do is play a Killzone game and see the lack of quality and fun the games have in comparison to Halo (specifically Reach). This Killzone 3 beta just feels so boring, slow-paced and generic. Killzone 2 is more enjoyable. :? I played KZ2 the other night after playing the beta and had more fun with it, but it was still boring.

idk, but something about these games just aren't appealing, and I see KZ3 going down the same path KZ2 did. Active community for about a month, then it'll start dropping off, and 3-4 months after release there's barely 2,000 people on at all times. Everyone will be going back to something else, as there are plenty more superior multiplayer shooters out there. Bad Company 2, Reach, Black Ops (yes, BLACK OPS > KZ3), and heck, even Medal of Honor. Its multiplayer is far more intense and hectic than the boring, lifeless feeling of Killzone. I know it's not too popular these days, but hey, it's something I'll probably be playing again at some point, as I really like the multiplayer.

But yes, we can conclude that the Killzone series has failed considerably at "killing Halo". It hasn't even come close. Killzone 3 scoring 8.5 kind of solidifies that.

All I have to do is play a Killzone game and see the lack of quality and fun the games have in comparison to Halo (specifically Reach). This Killzone 3 beta just feels so boring, slow-paced and generic. Killzone 2 is more enjoyable. :? I played KZ2 the other night after playing the beta and had more fun with it, but it was still boring.

idk, but something about these games just aren't appealing, and I see KZ3 going down the same path KZ2 did. Active community for about a month, then it'll start dropping off, and 3-4 months after release there's barely 2,000 people on at all times. Everyone will be going back to something else, as there are plenty more superior multiplayer shooters out there. Bad Company 2, Reach, Black Ops (yes, BLACK OPS > KZ3), and heck, even Medal of Honor. Its multiplayer is far more intense and hectic than the boring, lifeless feeling of Killzone. I know it's not too popular these days, but hey, it's something I'll probably be playing again at some point, as I really like the multiplayer.

But yes, we can conclude that the Killzone series has failed considerably at "killing Halo". It hasn't even come close. Killzone 3 scoring 8.5 kind of solidifies that.

Doolz2024

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]

A couple? It's not just repetitive design though that is more than enough reason to hate missions like Cortana or The Library 2(Halo 2) or Data Hive(ODST). There is also the needless backtracking the series makes you go through its levels(Crow's Nest or Rat's Nest? one is the name of a map, the other is the mission). To the repetition that is fighting the flood(in general they make a level terrible. I can't think of one flood only mission that wasn't painfully boring compared to the ones against the Covenant. Which sadly make up a good chunk of Halo 2(Arbiter missions), and Halo 3(Flood, Cortana, Halo). Admittedly this is also due to the enemy choices Bungie made with making the Halo 2 brutes so dumb, and the Flood being depressingly boring in the entire series.

You would think Reach and ODST would be free of this, but. ...ODST is so small scaled, and the action in general is pretty repetitive. To the point of being mind numbing. With Reach admittedly it has none of the lows of Halo's past(no gloriously bad mission), but where are the highs? Where are the big time scarab battles? or the gigantic throw downs with the Covenant? The only respectable one was Saber mission, and even that pulled some punches(you would think the Covenant would be better fighters in SPace).

My beef with ARmor Lock is that it needs a major nerfing. YOu get a good team of armor lockers, and the other AAs become useless. Why Active Camo? you give your position away. Why Jet pack? all that helps you with is some traversing here and there, and a quick pick me up in a close quarters battle. Hell you don't really need a hologram(too easy to tell now) or Sprint(why is this even an AA?). AL has a quick cool down, it can be spammed more than the others, and it STOPS EVERYTHING!!. There is no counter to armor locking, but armor locking. I find that pansy way of playing to be incredibly boring.

As for Halo 3, the BR was just too much. It was too good. Admittedly it kept the game "balance". I found it made the general ebb and flow of the game far too repetitive. Reach(outside of my dislike for armor lock) and Halo 2 in my opinion were a little more versatile/varied if you will when playing a MP match.

How is the shooting strong? Outside of Reach they all have weak feedback, aim assist up the wazoo, floaty movement, and their "power" is gimped because of everyone being a bulletsponge. Reach's gunplay is a bit better though.I still wouldn't hold up against a shooter with great gunplay though to be frank(ala FEAR).

Story telling in the series is just weak all around. Halo 2 is just strictly unfocused. Trying to bring you in so much info on the Covenant, while doing the UNSC stuff as well, and it all falls flat the end. Three completely disregards Arbiter who was built up from 2 for no reason, and most of the campaign is going through the motions. Than there is some of the cheesy dialogue, the retcons in Reach and ODST, and the over done cliches and plot devices in the series. It also didn't help that the grand finale of the "trilogy" had you throw down with Guilty Spark of all things.

vashkey

How was datahive repetive in design? I don't see what was wrong with the back tracking in Crow's Nest when there was clear reason why and you didn't get lost or confuesed. Again, while Halo has some of it's low points I'd still say it's strong over all and Halo 3: ODST and Reach pretty much lacked all of the trilogies weak points(although I'd say ODST had new ones of it's own).

I don't see how ODST being smaller in scale means it's inherently worse.

Saying that playing against decent players with armor lock makes other armor abilities doesn't make any sense. Armor lock doesn't make invible players not invisible, it doesn't make sprinting players no longer able to sprint, it doesn't mean hologram players can't use hologram, ect. Armor lock can only really be used in two quicks bursts at best or a be held down for a total of five seconds. It takes longer to recharge than most other armor ability but can be sustained for the shortest time. So, no it can't be spammed the most.

If someone goes into armor lock just toss a grenade out right before they snap out. If your shield are low though then don't sit out in the open like a moron waiting for them. It's really not that tough to deal with.

Halo 3's battle rifle was worse than Halo 2's battle rifle since it had a looser spread, It definitely wasn't any more useful/used there than it was in Halo 2, and it was inferior to the Halo 1 pistol. Thats how Halo has always been though, theres a gun that the combat generally centers on while all the other weapons have their other uses that beat the batt rifle in their respective roles. I don't see how this is bad.

Halo 2 was really the only halo with heavy aim assist, but I don't see how it was any worse than any other console shooter. How was the feedback weak? Whats wrong with floaty movement? Whats wrong with players being bulletsponges? Why do all shooter have to have the same sort of movement and damage distribution in order to have strong gunplay? As far as I can tell you're just saying that because Halo isn't exactly the way you want it, not because it's actually bad.

How is Halo 2 unfocused? Because it's telling two different sides of a story? If so, thats a pretty poor excuse. There might be some cheesy dialouge but is that really something rare in gaming? Is it really so bad when most of that cheesy dialouge is inteded to be funny anyway? I don't see how that makes Halo's story awful, especially when you put into consideration the standards of videogame storyline.

How do any of the cliches in Halo detract from it? I mean, how many story don't have cliches in them now a day? It's kind of hard not to hase some.

Halo's not perfect, no game is. But your takign the imperfections, magnifying them and exxagerating them. What Halo does wrong pales in comparison to what it does right.

But we'll be going around in circles here. So I'm cool with an agree to disagree.jg4xchamp

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]But we'll be going around in circles here. So I'm cool with an agree to disagree.UCF_Knight

[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

There's no way you played Killzone 2 two weeks ago with only 200 players. I've been playing pretty much every day and can easily and positively say that Killzone 2 has over 30,000 players per day. When I look at the daily stats after playing one game, it says my score is on page 3,000 something, and there are 10 people per page. By the end of the week, there may be 9-10 thousand pages, meaning 90,000-100,000 people played that week. I have no idea where people get there numbers, but it seems like a joke.

The fact that KZ failed to deliver one of the most important aspects of Halo, 4 player split screen online and off line multiplayer makes KZ just an average FPS. Console FPS's like Golden eye, COD and Halo delivered on local multiplayer and IMO that is why they are or were so popular. Sony instead decided to leave out 4 player split screen and instead focus on graphics.

[QUOTE="Doolz2024"]

All I have to do is play a Killzone game and see the lack of quality and fun the games have in comparison to Halo (specifically Reach). This Killzone 3 beta just feels so boring, slow-paced and generic. Killzone 2 is more enjoyable. :? I played KZ2 the other night after playing the beta and had more fun with it, but it was still boring.

idk, but something about these games just aren't appealing, and I see KZ3 going down the same path KZ2 did. Active community for about a month, then it'll start dropping off, and 3-4 months after release there's barely 2,000 people on at all times. Everyone will be going back to something else, as there are plenty more superior multiplayer shooters out there. Bad Company 2, Reach, Black Ops (yes, BLACK OPS > KZ3), and heck, even Medal of Honor. Its multiplayer is far more intense and hectic than the boring, lifeless feeling of Killzone. I know it's not too popular these days, but hey, it's something I'll probably be playing again at some point, as I really like the multiplayer.

But yes, we can conclude that the Killzone series has failed considerably at "killing Halo". It hasn't even come close. Killzone 3 scoring 8.5 kind of solidifies that.

UpJTBoogie

And heck, even when the shooting would start, it felt worse than KZ2. idk, something about it doesn't feel right, and I don't like it. I know some people on this forum find it so hard to believe that anyone could not like Killzone, but hey, that's how it is. I like Medal of Honor, most people don't. Ah, opinions.

[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

Context.

Compared to Killzone's story, Halo's story is Shakespeare

Halo killed itself. The nails in the coffin will be the remake of halo 1

Killzone failed to kill Halo, however, it succeeded in bringing in 3 quality titles (Liberation, 2, 3). Which I am sure was Guerilla Games primary goal anyway, judging by 2's gameplay it didnt seem to try to be a halo killer anyway.

Just as Wasdie said, Halo will probably end up killing itself now that Bungie is gone.

I wonder when people will finally stop this this Halo Killer crapkillerfist

They wont, unfortunately.

1. Media the main culprit will hype up games as Halo killers in an attempt to get more hits, more hits=more revenue.
2. Fans will become blinded by hype and hype it up as a halo killer.

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]Bad/cheesy dialogue is bad no matter how you spin it.

Luxen90

[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 .

VoodooHak

Context.

Compared to Killzone's story, Halo's story is Shakespeare

I can't think of any game that Halo killed.

[QUOTE="UpJTBoogie"]

[QUOTE="Doolz2024"]

All I have to do is play a Killzone game and see the lack of quality and fun the games have in comparison to Halo (specifically Reach). This Killzone 3 beta just feels so boring, slow-paced and generic. Killzone 2 is more enjoyable. :? I played KZ2 the other night after playing the beta and had more fun with it, but it was still boring.

idk, but something about these games just aren't appealing, and I see KZ3 going down the same path KZ2 did. Active community for about a month, then it'll start dropping off, and 3-4 months after release there's barely 2,000 people on at all times. Everyone will be going back to something else, as there are plenty more superior multiplayer shooters out there. Bad Company 2, Reach, Black Ops (yes, BLACK OPS > KZ3), and heck, even Medal of Honor. Its multiplayer is far more intense and hectic than the boring, lifeless feeling of Killzone. I know it's not too popular these days, but hey, it's something I'll probably be playing again at some point, as I really like the multiplayer.

But yes, we can conclude that the Killzone series has failed considerably at "killing Halo". It hasn't even come close. Killzone 3 scoring 8.5 kind of solidifies that.

Doolz2024

And heck, even when the shooting would start, it felt worse than KZ2. idk, something about it doesn't feel right, and I don't like it. I know some people on this forum find it so hard to believe that anyone could not like Killzone, but hey, that's how it is. I like Medal of Honor, most people don't. Ah, opinions.

And Halo cant kill killzone so who cares.

[QUOTE="iwasgood2u"][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?

SHR3DD3D

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.

the next halo will be called "Halo : In search for the Graphic King". GS will give it a 10!!!

why are you worried about that crap when haze 2 will be out!!!!

omg! haze 2 baby! AAAAE!!! 8)

[QUOTE="Doolz2024"]

[QUOTE="UpJTBoogie"] Wait how is it generic? What game is like Killzone?

UpJTBoogie

And heck, even when the shooting would start, it felt worse than KZ2. idk, something about it doesn't feel right, and I don't like it. I know some people on this forum find it so hard to believe that anyone could not like Killzone, but hey, that's how it is. I like Medal of Honor, most people don't. Ah, opinions.

[QUOTE="SHR3DD3D"]

[QUOTE="iwasgood2u"] also lemmings were claiming halo reach to be the next graphic king to dethrone killzone 2. too bad that never happened so lemmings went back to the scoring board and gameplay for coverup just like this thread. 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.

the next halo will be called "Halo : In search for the Graphic King". GS will give it a 10!!!

Wow, it is quite hilarious. :lol:

When cowss realize that Killzone has got nothing on Halo in terms of gameplay, character development, story and multiplayer, they go for the graphics!

[QUOTE="SHR3DD3D"]

[QUOTE="iwasgood2u"] also lemmings were claiming halo reach to be the next graphic king to dethrone killzone 2. too bad that never happened so lemmings went back to the scoring board and gameplay for coverup just like this thread. 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.

the next halo will be called "Halo : In search for the Graphic King". GS will give it a 10!!!

OMFG! DAMAGE CONTROL IN TEH HAUS!!!!!!!! :lol:

How anyone can try and bash a game by saying it has better gameplay and a higher score is beyond me.

Enjoy your shiny "Graphics King" I will be playing Crysis on the highest settings. It's like candy for the eyes. 8)

[QUOTE="UpJTBoogie"]

[QUOTE="Doolz2024"]

All I have to do is play a Killzone game and see the lack of quality and fun the games have in comparison to Halo (specifically Reach). This Killzone 3 beta just feels so boring, slow-paced and generic. Killzone 2 is more enjoyable. :? I played KZ2 the other night after playing the beta and had more fun with it, but it was still boring.

idk, but something about these games just aren't appealing, and I see KZ3 going down the same path KZ2 did. Active community for about a month, then it'll start dropping off, and 3-4 months after release there's barely 2,000 people on at all times. Everyone will be going back to something else, as there are plenty more superior multiplayer shooters out there. Bad Company 2, Reach, Black Ops (yes, BLACK OPS > KZ3), and heck, even Medal of Honor. Its multiplayer is far more intense and hectic than the boring, lifeless feeling of Killzone. I know it's not too popular these days, but hey, it's something I'll probably be playing again at some point, as I really like the multiplayer.

But yes, we can conclude that the Killzone series has failed considerably at "killing Halo". It hasn't even come close. Killzone 3 scoring 8.5 kind of solidifies that.

Doolz2024

And heck, even when the shooting would start, it felt worse than KZ2. idk, something about it doesn't feel right, and I don't like it. I know some people on this forum find it so hard to believe that anyone could not like Killzone, but hey, that's how it is. I like Medal of Honor, most people don't. Ah, opinions.

[QUOTE="iwasgood2u"]

[QUOTE="SHR3DD3D"]

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.

the next halo will be called "Halo : In search for the Graphic King". GS will give it a 10!!!

Wow, it is quite hilarious. :lol:

When cowss realize that Killzone has got nothing on Halo in terms of gameplay, character development, story and multiplayer, they go for the graphics!

2 completely different games. And I'd say killzone 2 is the best console shooter this generation.

EDIT: and I highly doubt killzone 3 will dissapoint me.

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

Wasdie