[QUOTE="Eltormo"]
[QUOTE="TheMaryCeleste"]
I think he's pretty much correct (without being a fanboy). Just like Killzone 2 looked prettier than Halo 3, Killzone 3's graphics will transcend Halo: Reach's. But when it came to everything else (campaign, music, characters, longevity, multiplayer, sales, gameplay, controls), Killzone 2 was cut into small bits. And that's the reason Reach is bound to poop all over Killzone 3.
TheMaryCeleste
Killzone 2 campaign is better that Halo 3,second both games have weakness and strenghts,for exmaple Halo 3 has a more robust set of features online,yet it doesn't feature bots,Killzone 2 lacks online co-op see where i am going.
Saying Halo does everything better is a total lie,Killzone 2 was just not graphics dude,in fact it had better AI that Halo 3 as well and sound as well,but if we go for longevity like you calin Killzone 2 beat Halo 3 and Reahc as well,because on 360 longevity cost $50 a year on PS3 is out of the box,and that is something people love to ignore.
Killzone 2's longevity was laughable. People stopped playing that game shortly after its release, whereas Halo 3 entertained people for years.
People still playing Killzone 2 dude,hell Warhawk has like 13,000 community and did not sold half of what Killzone 2 sold,again longevity on 360 cost money,is and add on on 360 on PS3 is free,there is no way around that,also the fact that some one is playing a game for years in nothing say is better than other dude,that is just sad.
Log in to comment