Halo Reach vs. KZ3 (features)

[QUOTE="iDefineInfinity"]

[QUOTE="Chutebox"] Ok, and? That has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I'll give you a hint...well I'll just tell you. You said it'll sell 1m because of "history" yet KZ2 sold more than 2m. You said it was mediocre, but 9+ =/= mediocre.Chutebox

And my point is that Reach will beat Killzone 3 in every aspect. Also, Killzone 2 only managed 1 million.

1 million, actually.

I think the 33 votes killzone got speaks for the numbers of cows here.scottiescott238

We don't even know what features KZ3 is going to have. What's wrong with you?

Orchid87

[QUOTE="iDefineInfinity"]

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] ironic you use scores for my arguement, but then forget that Killzone 2 got AAA scores, and run up the scoreboard in victories here. Oh that's right I'm on system wars. Where consistency in an arguement is rare to find. Either way I don't give a damn what the critics thought. Halo 3 was a good and I agree that the multiplayer was on point(mostly), but the campaign was decent at best. Not bad, but it's hardly good when so many of missions were genuinly dull.

jg4xchamp

Bungie focused on the multiplayer. That's why the campaign wasn't as good as you'd hope. Bungie could have concentrated on creating the ultimate campaign, but then the MP wouldn't have been as successful as it became.

Now, Halo 3's suddenly a flop? They got 3 years, they did what they did.

There is not a developer, which, in 3 years, creates a game containing both a literally excellent campaign and MP. But Bungie almost did that.

[QUOTE="Kan0nF0dder"]

Walks into thread, read OP. *sniff sniff* - reeks of lemming in here. "can't hold a candle" bwahaha.

Ravensmash

[QUOTE="Chutebox"][QUOTE="iDefineInfinity"]

And my point is that Reach will beat Killzone 3 in every aspect. Also, Killzone 2 only managed 1 million.

iDefineInfinity

1 million, actually.

Did you bother to read the date of the article you posted lol.

[QUOTE="Orchid87"]

We don't even know what features KZ3 is going to have. What's wrong with you?

Zero_epyon

[QUOTE="iDefineInfinity"]

[QUOTE="Chutebox"] man...nevermind. Not going to explain your own post. And no, it has sold over 2m. Wrong again.catfishmoon23

1 million, actually.

Did you bother to read the date of the article you posted lol.

So? It's not as if it sold well enough later on to make it to 2 million.

So? It's not as if it sold well enough later on to make it to 2 million.

iDefineInfinity

April 17th, 2009, one day after the article you originally posted.

[QUOTE="iDefineInfinity"]

So? It's not as if it sold well enough later on to make it to 2 million.

catfishmoon23

April 17th, 2009, one day after the article you originally posted.

So? If it hit 2 million, GG would have been very pleased, and Sony would have informed the gaming audience.

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]

[QUOTE="iDefineInfinity"]

Bungie focused on the multiplayer. That's why the campaign wasn't as good as you'd hope. Bungie could have concentrated on creating the ultimate campaign, but then the MP wouldn't have been as successful as it became.

iDefineInfinity

Now, Halo 3's suddenly a flop? They got 3 years, they did what they did.

There is not a developer, which, in 3 years, creates a game containing both a literally excellent campaign and MP. But Bungie almost did that.

[QUOTE="Chutebox"][QUOTE="iDefineInfinity"]

And my point is that Reach will beat Killzone 3 in every aspect. Also, Killzone 2 only managed 1 million.

iDefineInfinity

1 million, actually.

[QUOTE="iDefineInfinity"]

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] Bungie had the money, resources, and man power to do both at an excellent level. They also had all the hype in the world, and a die hard fanbase.

There is no excuse to putting out something not as strong. Did they make a bad game? hell no Halo 3 is a very good game that gets too much hate on this forum(the series does as a whole) but the campaign was a major missed opporunity. They could have immortalized Chief and Halo for something more than just insane hype and awesome multiplayer.

Luckily Reach looks fun, but I'm going to take a line from Gertsmann. Halo 3 had the characters I want to play as and have around in a Halo game. Reach is just a potential kickass spinoff(that so far looks set to take a dump on the main trilogy).

jg4xchamp

Now, Halo 3's suddenly a flop? They got 3 years, they did what they did.

There is not a developer, which, in 3 years, creates a game containing both a literally excellent campaign and MP. But Bungie almost did that.

People keep prasing Bungie for dev-ing some good multiplayer in Halo 3 - which it is...but there's plenty of luck involved. Look at Cod4 and IW, then they throw loads of money at it's sequel, trying to make the perfect multiplay and it sucks, big time, far worse than it's predecessor.

[QUOTE="iDefineInfinity"]

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] Bungie had the money, resources, and man power to do both at an excellent level. They also had all the hype in the world, and a die hard fanbase.

There is no excuse to putting out something not as strong. Did they make a bad game? hell no Halo 3 is a very good game that gets too much hate on this forum(the series does as a whole) but the campaign was a major missed opporunity. They could have immortalized Chief and Halo for something more than just insane hype and awesome multiplayer.

Luckily Reach looks fun, but I'm going to take a line from Gertsmann. Halo 3 had the characters I want to play as and have around in a Halo game. Reach is just a potential kickass spinoff(that so far looks set to take a dump on the main trilogy).

jg4xchamp

Now, Halo 3's suddenly a flop? They got 3 years, they did what they did.

There is not a developer, which, in 3 years, creates a game containing both a literally excellent campaign and MP. But Bungie almost did that.

Oh, I quoted two guys and looked at the other dude.

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]

[QUOTE="iDefineInfinity"]

Now, Halo 3's suddenly a flop? They got 3 years, they did what they did.

There is not a developer, which, in 3 years, creates a game containing both a literally excellent campaign and MP. But Bungie almost did that.

Kan0nF0dder

People keep prasing Bungie for dev-ing some good multiplayer in Halo 3 - which it is...but there's plenty of luck involved. Look at Cod4 and IW, then they throw loads of money at it's sequel, trying to make the perfect multiplay and it sucks, big time, far worse than it's predecessor.

[QUOTE="iDefineInfinity"]

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] Bungie had the money, resources, and man power to do both at an excellent level. They also had all the hype in the world, and a die hard fanbase.

There is no excuse to putting out something not as strong. Did they make a bad game? hell no Halo 3 is a very good game that gets too much hate on this forum(the series does as a whole) but the campaign was a major missed opporunity. They could have immortalized Chief and Halo for something more than just insane hype and awesome multiplayer.

Luckily Reach looks fun, but I'm going to take a line from Gertsmann. Halo 3 had the characters I want to play as and have around in a Halo game. Reach is just a potential kickass spinoff(that so far looks set to take a dump on the main trilogy).

jg4xchamp

Now, Halo 3's suddenly a flop? They got 3 years, they did what they did.

There is not a developer, which, in 3 years, creates a game containing both a literally excellent campaign and MP. But Bungie almost did that.

[QUOTE="Kan0nF0dder"]

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] Did you fail reading comprehension or something? Where the hell did I say Halo 3 flopped? I said that the campaign was far from excellent. The multiplayer is worthy of the triple-A praise, but the campaign isn't. If you are going to do both a Campaign and a Multiplayer I don't expect anything short of excellence(especially when the first game in the trilogy is excellent in the single player department) on both sides. Halo 3 is and has never been a bad game to me. I just thought they screwed up with the campaign. Reach looks like it can be the best of both worlds. A kickass campaign, and an awesome multiplayer. After all those features don't mean anything if they aren't good, and the campaign of a game should be one of those things that should be good.

SpiritOfFire117

People keep prasing Bungie for dev-ing some good multiplayer in Halo 3 - which it is...but there's plenty of luck involved. Look at Cod4 and IW, then they throw loads of money at it's sequel, trying to make the perfect multiplay and it sucks, big time, far worse than it's predecessor.

Different, yes. IW only cares about $$$, while Bungie's intention is to make gamers happy.

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]

[QUOTE="iDefineInfinity"]

Now, Halo 3's suddenly a flop? They got 3 years, they did what they did.

There is not a developer, which, in 3 years, creates a game containing both a literally excellent campaign and MP. But Bungie almost did that.

-RocBoys9489-

[QUOTE="Zero_epyon"][QUOTE="Orchid87"]

We don't even know what features KZ3 is going to have. What's wrong with you?

Ravensmash

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]

[QUOTE="iDefineInfinity"]

Now, Halo 3's suddenly a flop? They got 3 years, they did what they did.

There is not a developer, which, in 3 years, creates a game containing both a literally excellent campaign and MP. But Bungie almost did that.

-RocBoys9489-

Nice of you to criticise Halo 3 as a whole, by not finding the campaign as good as you'd hope. :roll:

And the majority of Halo fans are looking forward to the multiplayer aspect of Halo: Reach, not the campaign. :)

but KZ3 has been just announced month ago ..... and it's a 2011 game .... how the hell can you compare both games features wise when we know nothing about KZ3 ??!!

[QUOTE="Ravensmash"][QUOTE="Zero_epyon"] This. All we got from KZ3 is jetpacks and new melee kills from a 10 minute gameplay video. They're not even coming out in the same year.Zero_epyon

[QUOTE="-RocBoys9489-"]

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] Did you fail reading comprehension or something? Where the hell did I say Halo 3 flopped? I said that the campaign was far from excellent. The multiplayer is worthy of the triple-A praise, but the campaign isn't. If you are going to do both a Campaign and a Multiplayer I don't expect anything short of excellence(especially when the first game in the trilogy is excellent in the single player department) on both sides. Halo 3 is and has never been a bad game to me. I just thought they screwed up with the campaign. Reach looks like it can be the best of both worlds. A kickass campaign, and an awesome multiplayer. After all those features don't mean anything if they aren't good, and the campaign of a game should be one of those things that should be good.

KittenWishes

[QUOTE="KittenWishes"][QUOTE="-RocBoys9489-"] Halo 3's campaign was very hit and miss for me, some levels were great (the huge ones on The Ark), others were bad (The first and last 2 levels), floodgate also look beautiful on my TV with the amazing lighting. I have a lot of faith in the campaign for Reach, it should easily be better than Halo 2 and 3, hopefully bringing us back to Halo 1 glory days where every level was great (cept the library :P ) My dream is that after the game ends and the credits are done rolling, Bungie will show us Master Chief escaping on the Pillar of Autumn with Keyes and then a remake of the very first cutscene of the first game will roll. The best finish I could ever ask for Bungie :cry:

-RocBoys9489-

Don't let nostalgia take over your soul, dude. You played CE, and it was great, yes. But it's time to move on and experience new locations & different environment.

[QUOTE="-RocBoys9489-"][QUOTE="KittenWishes"] I'm fully expecting a remake of the first Halo:CE level.iDefineInfinity

Don't let nostalgia take over your soul, dude. You played CE, and it was great, yes. But it's time to move on and experience new locations & different environment.

Killzone 3 i reckon.n00bkid

Well, Killzone 3 will be hyped to death but will only manage to sell about 1 million units. The campaign will be mediocre and the multiplayer will suck & get trounced by the PS3 version of Black Ops.

Halo: Reach will be moderately hyped, sell millions in days and the campaign will be entertaining. The multiplayer will entertain players for years to come.

iDefineInfinity

[QUOTE="iDefineInfinity"]

Well, Killzone 3 will be hyped to death but will only manage to sell about 1 million units. The campaign will be mediocre and the multiplayer will suck & get trounced by the PS3 version of Black Ops.

Halo: Reach will be moderately hyped, sell millions in days and the campaign will be entertaining. The multiplayer will entertain players for years to come.

GodofEmpires

Actually, the Killzone 2 sales were lackluster.

How are we supposed to vote if we don't know anything about Killzone 3?

How are we supposed to vote if we don't know anything about Killzone 3?

Silverbond

Have features become the new foilage or what? this is like th third thread about halo reach feature vs. rest today.

And yes it will, there was already a thread about it being the most feature packed shooter on consoles.

Halo is the best known for having the largest bang for your buck, and Reach is even furthering these expectations. I have no clue about Killzone 3 though, because I have never owned a ps3 or played Killzone 2 so I won't state my opinion on which I think will have more featuresTrav57

i agree with this

[QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]

Halo will likely have more features, but KZ will likely be the better game, so KZ I guess.

Karnage108

I didn't say that, nor did I say Halo is the suck.

But I don't like Halo, and KZ is a fantastic online game. I would love if KZ has co-op in it when it comes out, but I don't know if it is. Halo is good for co-op, but has very shallow gunplay imo.

The only fun I had with Halo 3 was sticky grenades and gravity hammer. Those were a lot of fun, but the guns and gunplay were just lousy.

Also, Reach is destined to outsell and outscore Killzone 3.

iDefineInfinity

And Killzone 2 and Killzone...combined.

Killzone 3 for graphics and wow factor. Halo Reach for EVERYTHING else.

We know a great deal more about Reach than we do KZ3, so it's not really a fair comparison. All we can say for now, is that KZ3 has one hell of an act to follow, with Reach confirmed to have;

open and dynamic battles in SP
4 player campaign co-op
for the first time in a Halo game - space battles
comprehensive match making system with a plethora of match types and configurable settings
customizable spartan creation for your own unique online avatar
Forge 2.0 map customizer
loads of community features like photo and film sharing
Fire fight, highly improved from ODST

Yeah like I said it's early still, but from all that, how many similar features can we expect from KZ3?

[QUOTE="iDefineInfinity"]

Also, Reach is destined to outsell and outscore Killzone 3.

rp108

And Killzone 2 and Killzone...combined.

OUTSCORE Killzone 1-3 combined? Killzone 1 got a 6.9 and 2 got a 9.0, so assuming that Killzone 3 gets a 0.0, Halo Reach would have to get a 16.0.

:P

Funny thing is i think Socom 4 is going to spank both of them........but reach is going to have more features never bet against bungie......too bad i be playin with my MOVE at this time so BLAH.

Halo Reach = Halo 3 in HD

KZ2 = KZ2 in 3D (which requires 3D TV)

rest is pretty much same as their predecessors

It's not like that'd be the whole campaign! I said after the game is finished and the credits roll, an epic finish to an epic prequel.

on legendary with no co-op. and with all the skulls(excluding the blind skull) on.

Halo Reach = Halo 3 in HD

KZ2 = KZ2 in 3D (which requires 3D TV)

rest is pretty much same as their predecessors

oajlu

Maybe if KZ3 didn't focus so much on pretty graphics over gameplay, it'd actually stand a chance here.