Killzone 3 or Halo reach?

Which game do you enjoy more, like better and have more fun on? In my opinion, Halo reach is for me, it's really fun. Killzone 3 is good too but halo reach has athe edge for me.

Halo Reach.

Killzone 3 still rocks though.

Halo: Reach. The god damn PS3 controller will not allow me to enjoy FPS games.

come on man.....

i would say both are pretty close in the fun factor tho

The only problem I have with Halo reach is you can't aim down the sights..I like the game still...I just wish I had live to play it lol...

Killzone 3 for graphics, halo for everything else.

killzone 3. killzone 2 is better than 3 though.

Well, speaking from strictly a single player perspective, reach is more a slide show than a game 50% of of the time. Haven't tried kz3 yet, but if it keeps a solid framerate, then I'll probably enjoy that more.

killzone 3. killzone 2 is better than 3 though.

theuncharted34

kz2>kz3? amen.

Well, speaking from strictly a single player perspective, reach is more a slide show than a game 50% of of the time. Haven't tried kz3 yet, but if it keeps a solid framerate, then I'll probably enjoy that more.

topgunmv

the hell?

Halo: Reach. The god damn PS3 controller will not allow me to enjoy FPS games.

Avian005

your arguement = dead

you can buy these at any gamestop.

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

killzone 3. killzone 2 is better than 3 though.

eboyishere

kz2>kz3? amen.

pretty much everything except the campaign and graphics are better in killzone 2 than 3. graphics are equal but I prefer killzone 2's visual style more.

killzone 2 multiplayer >>>> killzone 3's.

I already explained why halo reach is overrated garbage in the "which looks better" thread that is going on right now.

[QUOTE="Avian005"]

Halo: Reach. The god damn PS3 controller will not allow me to enjoy FPS games.

your arguement = dead

you can buy these at any gamestop.

[QUOTE="eboyishere"]

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

killzone 3. killzone 2 is better than 3 though.

theuncharted34

kz2>kz3? amen.

pretty much everything except the campaign and graphics are better in killzone 2 than 3. graphics are equal but I prefer killzone 2's visual style more.

killzone 2 multiplayer >>>> killzone 3's.

the spawns,lack of custom games,the new class set up....i had to stop playing it, they just took too many steps away from the kz2 formula which wasnt even that bad to start...it just needed work.

and TSP? horrible idea imo

Reach. KZ3 was so boring. Thankfully I sold it for 5 dollars less than I bought it :D

@ eboyishere

killzone 2 had amazing multiplayer. yeah, take everything you just said about killzone 3's multiplayer and add that they just ruined the class system.

but hey, at least the campaign was outstanding in killzone 3, it was just too short is all.

[QUOTE="Avian005"]

Halo: Reach. The god damn PS3 controller will not allow me to enjoy FPS games.

arbitor365

your arguement = dead

you can buy these at any gamestop.

killzone 3. killzone 2 is better than 3 though.

theuncharted34

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

killzone 3. killzone 2 is better than 3 though.

Doolz2024

no?

Halo: Reach. The god damn PS3 controller will not allow me to enjoy FPS games.

Avian005

And I actually sort of prefer the PS3 controller for CoD.

[QUOTE="Doolz2024"][QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

killzone 3. killzone 2 is better than 3 though.

theuncharted34

no?

Or did you play Reach at a friend's house one day? :roll:

Reach. KZ3 was so boring. Thankfully I sold it for 5 dollars less than I bought it :D

Grawse

how can you honestly say that KZ3 is boring? are you insane?

I have a challenge for all halo fans in this thread who agree with this guy.

take these two videos of gameplay from each game and compare them. open them in separate windows. after the ads and/or buffering watch both of these videos side by side and honesly tell me that KZ3 is boring and halo reach is intense, not the other way around

take this video from reach

and this video from killzone 3

this sums up the difference between the two games. it also pretty much sums up why killzone 3 is a more intense, more engrossing, more interesting, more entertaining, more action-packed, better presented game.

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="Doolz2024"]Do you even own a 360?Doolz2024

no?

Or did you play Reach at a friend's house one day? :roll:

are you mad or something? this is preference.

[QUOTE="Doolz2024"]

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

no?

theuncharted34

Or did you play Reach at a friend's house one day? :roll:

are you mad or something? this is preference.

[QUOTE="Grawse"]

Reach. KZ3 was so boring. Thankfully I sold it for 5 dollars less than I bought it :D

arbitor365

how can you honestly say that KZ3 is boring? are you insane?

I have a challenge for all halo fans in this thread who agree with this guy.

take these two videos of gameplay from each game and compare them. open them in separate windows. after the ads and/or buffering watch both of these videos side by side and honesly tell me that KZ3 is boring and halo 2 is intense, not the other way around

take this video from reach

and this video from killzone 3

this sums up the difference between the two games. it also pretty much sums up why killzone 3 is a more intense, more engrossing, more interesting, more entertaining, more action-packed, better presented game.

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="Doolz2024"]Then how can you say you prefer Killzone 3, if you don't even own a 360?

Or did you play Reach at a friend's house one day? :roll:

Doolz2024

are you mad or something? this is preference.

ass/u/me.

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

Well, speaking from strictly a single player perspective, reach is more a slide show than a game 50% of of the time. Haven't tried kz3 yet, but if it keeps a solid framerate, then I'll probably enjoy that more.

theuncharted34

the hell?

What?

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

Well, speaking from strictly a single player perspective, reach is more a slide show than a game 50% of of the time. Haven't tried kz3 yet, but if it keeps a solid framerate, then I'll probably enjoy that more.

topgunmv

the hell?

What?

you said it was a slideshow 50% of the time. which is far from the truth.

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

the hell?

theuncharted34

What?

you said it was a slideshow 50% of the time. which is far from the truth.

I would consider 10 fps a slideshow. Even the cutscenes are choppy. The firefight I'm trying to get through is about 3-5 fps. As in an extended encounter running at, no exaggeration, single digit fps.

It reminds me of multiplayer goldeneye on the n64, except worse.

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

What?

topgunmv

you said it was a slideshow 50% of the time. which is far from the truth.

I would consider 10 fps a slideshow. Even the cutscenes are choppy. The firefight I'm trying to get through is about 3-5 fps. As in an extended encounter running at, no exaggeration, single digit fps.

It reminds me of multiplayer goldeneye on the n64, except worse.

what are you smoking. the framerate avg. is 29.-- frames per second.

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

What?

topgunmv

you said it was a slideshow 50% of the time. which is far from the truth.

I would consider 10 fps a slideshow. Even the cutscenes are choppy. The firefight I'm trying to get through is about 3-5 fps. As in an extended encounter running at, no exaggeration, single digit fps.

It reminds me of multiplayer goldeneye on the n64, except worse.

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

you said it was a slideshow 50% of the time. which is far from the truth.

Sandvichman

I would consider 10 fps a slideshow. Even the cutscenes are choppy. The firefight I'm trying to get through is about 3-5 fps. As in an extended encounter running at, no exaggeration, single digit fps.

It reminds me of multiplayer goldeneye on the n64, except worse.

Bull. I've been trying to play through the same section for half an hour and I can count the frames.

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"][QUOTE="topgunmv"]

I would consider 10 fps a slideshow. Even the cutscenes are choppy. The firefight I'm trying to get through is about 3-5 fps. As in an extended encounter running at, no exaggeration, single digit fps.

It reminds me of multiplayer goldeneye on the n64, except worse.

topgunmv

Bull. I've been trying to play through the same section for half an hour and I can count the frames.

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"][QUOTE="topgunmv"]

I would consider 10 fps a slideshow. Even the cutscenes are choppy. The firefight I'm trying to get through is about 3-5 fps. As in an extended encounter running at, no exaggeration, single digit fps.

It reminds me of multiplayer goldeneye on the n64, except worse.

topgunmv

Bull. I've been trying to play through the same section for half an hour and I can count the frames.

you're some sort of framerate counting cyborg then?

I know the game has *some* framerate drops but you're exaggerating this to the highest level.

has anyone other than grawse taken the challenge I posed above?

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"] I never dipped into less then 10 fps, let alone 20, in that game, only in the opening cutscene. We are doing a firefight challange where everything that moves has a fuel rod, still the same 30 fps. Sandvichman

Bull. I've been trying to play through the same section for half an hour and I can count the frames.

It's mission 9, where you go back to the base.

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"] I never dipped into less then 10 fps, let alone 20, in that game, only in the opening cutscene. We are doing a firefight challange where everything that moves has a fuel rod, still the same 30 fps. theuncharted34

Bull. I've been trying to play through the same section for half an hour and I can count the frames.

you're some sort of framerate counting cyborg then?

I know the game has *some* framerate drops but you're exaggerating this to the highest level.

:roll:You tell me, whats harder to count, a fan on low or high?

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

you said it was a slideshow 50% of the time. which is far from the truth.

theuncharted34

I would consider 10 fps a slideshow. Even the cutscenes are choppy. The firefight I'm trying to get through is about 3-5 fps. As in an extended encounter running at, no exaggeration, single digit fps.

It reminds me of multiplayer goldeneye on the n64, except worse.

what are you smoking. the framerate avg. is 29.-- frames per second.

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

I would consider 10 fps a slideshow. Even the cutscenes are choppy. The firefight I'm trying to get through is about 3-5 fps. As in an extended encounter running at, no exaggeration, single digit fps.

It reminds me of multiplayer goldeneye on the n64, except worse.

Doolz2024

what are you smoking. the framerate avg. is 29.-- frames per second.

I know it does. but nowhere near as much as he's claiming.

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="Doolz2024"]Do you even own a 360?Doolz2024

no?

Or did you play Reach at a friend's house one day? :roll:

"halo reach" as been out for a long time. there is a good chance he played it at some point. its not like when people (who didnt even own PS3s) were panning KZ3 two days after it came out. that is some real incredulity.

Reach

I still love Killzone 3

Neither :D

Reach for me