So if those who claim Halo Reach is better than Killzone 2 then....

[QUOTE="justsayin117"][QUOTE="johnnyblazed88"]

this is so true

Vader993

And game of the year from gamereactor

http://n4g.com/news/444890/killzone-2-wins-goty-09-award-from-gamereactor

I actually do own a PS3 and have played a bit of KZ2.. This is just my opinion of course.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Yes, yes really. You're seeing the consequence of continuosly overrating a franchise. Do people really think the Halo games deserve the scores they get here? How can a game like Halo 2 receive a 9.4 and ODST a 9? The scores are mostly product of hype and the fact that there's a lot of money behind the series but not of objective analysis. But then again who could be completely objective? is just that Halo goes beyong overhype and overrateness, at least Metacritic levels things a little bit although the Halo franchise is still hugely overrated IMO.kuraimen

It doesn't make things much better than other lower scoring games. Shallow characters and story and mostly forgetable SP campaigns. The only thing it excels on is multiplayer and even that has other games matching it already.

Firstly, no. The fact that people can tell you what missions they loved from any Halo game proves that wrong. The story is good, just poorly told.

Not on consoles, it doesn't.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] How is it overrated. Please, enlighten with with something that is beyond your opinion.DarkLink77

It doesn't make things much better than other lower scoring games. Shallow characters and story and mostly forgetable SP campaigns. The only thing it excels on is multiplayer and even that has other games matching it already.

Firstly, no. The fact that people can tell you what missions they loved from any Halo game proves that wrong. The story is good, just poorly told.

Not on consoles, it doesn't.

The story is quite typical and cliche.. It baffles me that people are claiming its the bastion of story for the game series.. Inever really cared for the single player my self either.. Halo 1, also had awful SP of copy and pasted environments..

[QUOTE="justsayin117"][QUOTE="johnnyblazed88"]

halo does so much more its not even funny'

co-op, online split screen, forge etc.

and i wouldnt call a 9 a yr and a half ago the same as a 9 today

i have it

and like i saidits a a thin package compared to reach

Halo Reach is so much better than Killzone 2, its not even funnyDiviniuz

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

It doesn't make things much better than other lower scoring games. Shallow characters and story and mostly forgetable SP campaigns. The only thing it excels on is multiplayer and even that has other games matching it already.

sSubZerOo

Firstly, no. The fact that people can tell you what missions they loved from any Halo game proves that wrong. The story is good, just poorly told.

Not on consoles, it doesn't.

The story is quite typical and cliche.. It baffles me that people are claiming its the bastion of story for the game series.. Inever really cared for the single player my self either.. Halo 1, also had awful SP of copy and pasted environments..

The fact that Reach is lower than Halo 2 and 3 on Metacritic is sad, because it kicks both of them to the curb.

DarkLink77

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

Firstly, no. The fact that people can tell you what missions they loved from any Halo game proves that wrong. The story is good, just poorly told.

Not on consoles, it doesn't.

DarkLink77

The story is quite typical and cliche.. It baffles me that people are claiming its the bastion of story for the game series.. Inever really cared for the single player my self either.. Halo 1, also had awful SP of copy and pasted environments..

the maw was a remake of the first level,with different lighting of course,i still enjoy it

True but this was just a example of 99% of ALL the weapons in the game.. Halo at least has some futuristic looking weapons with certain things that don't exist today..

sSubZerOo

You know there's such thing like the artistic vision on the universe. Killzone is a perfect example of hard sci-fi (Battletech universe is another good example). Halo is traditional sci-fi, like Star Trek. If you don't see the difference then you shouldn't judge.

[QUOTE="Diviniuz"]Halo Reach is so much better than Killzone 2, its not even funnyjustsayin117

screw the reviewers man,like what you like

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

The story is quite typical and cliche.. It baffles me that people are claiming its the bastion of story for the game series.. Inever really cared for the single player my self either.. Halo 1, also had awful SP of copy and pasted environments..

Vader993

the maw was a remake of the first level,with different lighting of course,i still enjoy it

Because Halo is no better than Killzone except maybe in hype and number of rehashes.kuraimen

[QUOTE="Diviniuz"]Halo Reach is so much better than Killzone 2, its not even funnyjustsayin117

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Killzone 2's multiplayer is quite mediocre where it seems the majority of players are fighting against the controls more then the actual enemy.. Watching two people medium distance trying to shoot one another is pathtetic.. They just stand and strafe alittel bit due to how clumsy the controls feel.. johnnyblazed88

this is so true

[QUOTE="johnnyblazed88"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Killzone 2's multiplayer is quite mediocre where it seems the majority of players are fighting against the controls more then the actual enemy.. Watching two people medium distance trying to shoot one another is pathtetic.. They just stand and strafe alittel bit due to how clumsy the controls feel.. Dead-Memories

this is so true

im sure soldiers in close combat fire from the hip

[QUOTE="justsayin117"][QUOTE="Diviniuz"]Halo Reach is so much better than Killzone 2, its not even funnyDiviniuz

[QUOTE="Dead-Memories"][QUOTE="johnnyblazed88"]

this is so true

im sure soldiers in close combat fire from the hip

[QUOTE="johnnyblazed88"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Killzone 2's multiplayer is quite mediocre where it seems the majority of players are fighting against the controls more then the actual enemy.. Watching two people medium distance trying to shoot one another is pathtetic.. They just stand and strafe alittel bit due to how clumsy the controls feel.. justsayin117

this is so true

im thinkin you havent played KZ2 cuz that happens anytime you meet somebody real close

Why did Halo Reach score the same as Killzone 2 on Metacritic? We all know what it scored on Gamespot, but from a Metacritic point of view it's at the same level. Eh, oh well I prefer the weighty controls to the floating men, and that is what it comes down to is preference... right?

But I do hope Killzone 3 will be more precise than KZ2.

Delsage

[QUOTE="Diviniuz"][QUOTE="justsayin117"] lol, reviewers dont seem to think the same thing :lol:justsayin117

[QUOTE="Delsage"]

Why did Halo Reach score the same as Killzone 2 on Metacritic? We all know what it scored on Gamespot, but from a Metacritic point of view it's at the same level. Eh, oh well I prefer the weighty controls to the floating men, and that is what it comes down to is preference... right?

But I do hope Killzone 3 will be more precise than KZ2.

hd5870corei7

[QUOTE="metswonin69"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

The fact that Reach is lower than Halo 2 and 3 on Metacritic is sad.

DarkLink77

back in the day if we were to look at them in thier respective haydays 2 might just have the edge over reach.

Halo2 aint gonna be remembered for anything like campaign but rather it was THE game that actually kickstarted live as a service and actual viable online gaming on a console as most before that werent the greatest.Tbh when you think bout it 2 was before its time sure its campaign was lackluster but had a few fun levels but the online is what that games gonna be remembered for.

Sure you've got 3 and reach but 2 was what made halo the series it is.And trust me ipoured a fair whack of hours into 2 on live :P

[QUOTE="hd5870corei7"][QUOTE="Delsage"]

Why did Halo Reach score the same as Killzone 2 on Metacritic? We all know what it scored on Gamespot, but from a Metacritic point of view it's at the same level. Eh, oh well I prefer the weighty controls to the floating men, and that is what it comes down to is preference... right?

But I do hope Killzone 3 will be more precise than KZ2.

KevinButlerVP

[QUOTE="hd5870corei7"][QUOTE="Delsage"]

Why did Halo Reach score the same as Killzone 2 on Metacritic? We all know what it scored on Gamespot, but from a Metacritic point of view it's at the same level. Eh, oh well I prefer the weighty controls to the floating men, and that is what it comes down to is preference... right?

But I do hope Killzone 3 will be more precise than KZ2.

KevinButlerVP

i never knew that seriously

[QUOTE="hd5870corei7"][QUOTE="Delsage"]

Why did Halo Reach score the same as Killzone 2 on Metacritic? We all know what it scored on Gamespot, but from a Metacritic point of view it's at the same level. Eh, oh well I prefer the weighty controls to the floating men, and that is what it comes down to is preference... right?

But I do hope Killzone 3 will be more precise than KZ2.

KevinButlerVP

Personally I liked Halo 3(haven't played reach) better than KZ2 overall. Main reason I liked halo 3 campaign more than KZ2 is because it had splitscreen co-op which makes any game better imo. I also like halo 3 multiplayer a little bit more than KZ2 because it had more game modes and it had online splitscreen(too few games have this). Although I hope KZ3 improves on KZ2 and makes it just as good as reach:)

[QUOTE="KevinButlerVP"][QUOTE="hd5870corei7"] Metacritic is irrelevant. Halo Reach = 9.5 KZ2 = 9.0 period.Vader993

i never knew that seriously

Metacritic is pointless, for comparing different games on different consoles, because they do not use the same sites, so if 100 more people review a game on 1 console than the other and it gets a higher score, it doesnt mean that its better than the other game that had 100 less reviewers.

I don't understand cows. If Killzone 2 is so great, why is it on life support? Oh wait, you keep playing the same guys over and over, thus it isn't dead.

1. Who

2. Cares

Rhino53

1.System

2.Wars

I don't understand cows. If Killzone 2 is so great, why is it on life support? Oh wait, you keep playing the same guys over and over, thus it isn't dead.

Grawse

[QUOTE="Dead-Memories"][QUOTE="johnnyblazed88"]

this is so true

Vader993

im sure soldiers in close combat fire from the hip

Yeah instead they fire from the hip while jumping up and down like frogs.

[QUOTE="Grawse"]

I don't understand cows. If Killzone 2 is so great, why is it on life support? Oh wait, you keep playing the same guys over and over, thus it isn't dead.

Delsage

What does that matter when me and my friends are chilling in party chat?

you know.

if Halo 3 didn't have 94 on MC.

Reach would be getting attacked a lot more, wouldn't it? guess some people don't want to take a shot to the 'ol ego:)

First of all Metacritic isn't the end all be all for judging a game. I generally consider their scores to reflect a game pretty accurately but there are notable exceptions (GTAIV was certainly not deserving of a 98, SMG2 was not deserving of a 97, Rock Band 2 wasn't deserving of a 92,) plus if you want the honest answer a new Halo is going to face more critical judgement than nearly all other games, ALWAYS. Killzone 2 was the sequel to a dud of a game, while it may have been hyped it still didn't have any lasting legacy to live up to.Halo: Reach is an addition to one of the most storied and successful gaming franchises ever.

It will face harsh criticisms from people who:

A) just like to hate Halo

B) are stuck playing Halo: CE or another earlier Halo and refuse to accept that a new Halo might be better

C) are blind fanboys

D) feel like simply going against the hype

and finally

E) who genuinely dislike the game

Killzone 2 may have had to face one or two of those obstacles when it came to the reviewing process.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="KevinButlerVP"] Metacritic is more relevant than GS because it combines lots of peoples reviews, rather than just going by oneKevinButlerVP

Well not always. I personally consider Metacritic to be fairly accurate, although honestly they have some real fanboy sites on there...from both sides.

[QUOTE="Grawse"]

I don't understand cows. If Killzone 2 is so great, why is it on life support? Oh wait, you keep playing the same guys over and over, thus it isn't dead.

Delsage

I havn't come across a single person who has been screaming into their mic and i've played over 200 games. Also if someone is annoying its easy to mute them so that isn't really a valid arguement.

First of all Metacritic isn't the end all be all for judging a game. I generally consider their scores to reflect a game pretty accurately but there are notable exceptions (GTAIV was certainly not deserving of a 98, SMG2 was not deserving of a 97, Rock Band 2 wasn't deserving of a 92,) plus if you want the honest answer a new Halo is going to face more critical judgement than nearly all other games, ALWAYS. Killzone 2 was the sequel to a dud of a game, while it may have been hyped it still didn't have any lasting legacy to live up to.Halo: Reach is an addition to one of the most storied and successful gaming franchises ever.

It will face harsh criticisms from people who:

A) just like to hate Halo

B) are stuck playing Halo: CE or another earlier Halo and refuse to accept that a new Halo might be better

C) are blind fanboys

D) feel like simply going against the hype

and finally

E) who genuinely dislike the game

Killzone 2 may have had to face one or two of those obstacles when it came to the reviewing process.

TacticalDesire

Strongly disagree. Not a 97 on my scale but considering the ass scale reviewers like to use I would say the game was way deserving of the acclaim. Its a way better game than SMG1.

Metacritic=same

so then we go to sales, online users...hell we go to online users in 2 years compared to killzone 2 after a month.

[QUOTE="TacticalDesire"]

First of all Metacritic isn't the end all be all for judging a game. I generally consider their scores to reflect a game pretty accurately but there are notable exceptions (GTAIV was certainly not deserving of a 98, SMG2 was not deserving of a 97, Rock Band 2 wasn't deserving of a 92,) plus if you want the honest answer a new Halo is going to face more critical judgement than nearly all other games, ALWAYS. Killzone 2 was the sequel to a dud of a game, while it may have been hyped it still didn't have any lasting legacy to live up to.Halo: Reach is an addition to one of the most storied and successful gaming franchises ever.

It will face harsh criticisms from people who:

A) just like to hate Halo

B) are stuck playing Halo: CE or another earlier Halo and refuse to accept that a new Halo might be better

C) are blind fanboys

D) feel like simply going against the hype

and finally

E) who genuinely dislike the game

Killzone 2 may have had to face one or two of those obstacles when it came to the reviewing process.

ActicEdge

Strongly disagree. Not a 97 on my scale but considering the ass scale reviewers like to use I would say the game was way deserving of the acclaim. Its a way better game than SMG1.

Maybe so, irrelevant really I just haven't had that much fun with SMG2. Its solid and certainly not a bad game, its definitely a good game, but I just get bored of it after 30 mins or so...although since I play it at my friends house with lots of distractions etc I may not be giving it a fair chance.

Anyway, yes I'd love to see game reviewers switch to a more critical scale as in a game receiving an 8.0+=critical acclaim and solid good games receive 6s and 7s bad games get 3s and 4s and reserve 9+ for truly incredible games.

Honestly, I think the only thing Reach has over KZ2 is MP features.

Can't even be bothered to finish the SP in Reach.

Gamespot counts, right? This issue fluctuates so much! Although, I think the general consensus is pretty clear the Halo has not only better gameplay than KillZone, but is also more fully featured and fleshed out story-wise and gameplay-wise. rolo107

Metacritic=same

so then we go to sales, online users...hell we go to online users in 2 years compared to killzone 2 after a month.

WilliamRLBaker