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

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

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

Chutebox

which is a big deal especially split creen online which KZ2 doesnt have

[QUOTE="Chutebox"]

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

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

johnnyblazed88

which is a big deal especially split creen online which KZ2 doesnt have

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

[QUOTE="Orchid87"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

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

People just are getting tired of things, no matter how good they are.

You can't be completely objective and write a good review. Their job is to convey their opinions, no matter how stupid it may be.

Besides, objectiveness isn't what's wrong with reviews. It's hype, pressure from publishers, and the fact that alot of reviewers have a deadline to meet, so some aren't as thorough as a regular person.

[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.

worknow222

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.

I think both are great games, but I think halo reach has alot more to it.

Metacritic says Gears 1 = MGS4 so I guess it's better also right I like your logic. Oh and this is GS so Reach > KZ2 deal with it.

Metacritic says Gears 1 = MGS4 so I guess it's better also right I like your logic. Oh and this is GS so Reach > KZ2 deal with it.

Ultra_Combo

[QUOTE="Ultra_Combo"]

Metacritic says Gears 1 = MGS4 so I guess it's better also right I like your logic. Oh and this is GS so Reach > KZ2 deal with it.

KevinButlerVP

Not to mention Metacritic also attaches it's own value to scores that don't follow the 100 point scale(1UP's letter grades, 5 point scales, etc.)

Who cares? Halo is 1000000000x the FPS and series Killzone can ever beFunconsole

sorry selena gomez its not

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="metswonin69"] It is? Halo 2 and 3 were pretty good games... Vader993

halo 2 had a better campaign than reach and 3,reach's campaign felt bit boring at some parts

[QUOTE="Vader993"]

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] Reach is a MUCH better game than both of them.themyth01

halo 2 had a better campaign than reach and 3,reach's campaign felt bit boring at some parts

yes if you count 100 hours logged into halo2

yes if you count 100 hours logged into halo2

Vader993

[QUOTE="Vader993"]

yes if you count 100 hours logged into halo2

themyth01

everbody says emipre strikes back is the best sw movie

edit its not a problem now since halo 3 is now out

[QUOTE="themyth01"]

[QUOTE="Vader993"]

yes if you count 100 hours logged into halo2

Vader993

everbody says emipre strikes back is the best sw movie

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

^^ This. They are both pretty cmparable when it comes to what they are trying to accomplish. Halo =/= Killzone, but both are amazing shooters.

[QUOTE="Delsage"][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.

Cloud567kar

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.

Really? I've only played a handful of games, and I've had my fair share of dimwits who abuse their mics.

girls, girls, girls, stop it you're both pretty.

I like Reach a lot more, but when it comes to class-based FPS multiplayer on consoles, KZ2 is still king imo.

Well I played alot of Killzone 2 and I beleive Halo Reach is the better game

Metacritic says Gears 1 = MGS4 so I guess it's better also right I like your logic. Oh and this is GS so Reach > KZ2 deal with it.

Ultra_Combo

[QUOTE="Chutebox"][QUOTE="Ultra_Combo"]

Metacritic says Gears 1 = MGS4 so I guess it's better also right I like your logic. Oh and this is GS so Reach > KZ2 deal with it.

ocstew

Why cant both be good? seriously.

Well, standards do rise as good games continue to come out. And Killzone 2 had an affect on that I'm sure. I predict that Killzone 3 will receive a similar Meta score and a 9.5 from Gamespot!

Why cant both be good? seriously.

XboximusPrime

Because that would end a war and this is System Wars. We're all about arguing over the stupidest things trying to prove the platform/game we worship is superior in every detail :P

metacritic is a combination of reviews (average) right? yeah, add in biased sites that hate a game/ love a game and you don't get the best of scores. also, its obvious reach is better. if you add in everything each game has to offer. reach blows millzone out of the water with its multiplayer, forge world, theatre, and firefight options. and since it is only debatable that one game's campaign is better, lets just say reach wins. also. we are on gamespot so we play by their rules and use their scores. oh and its probably just you on the controls thing. most people hated playing KZ2 because its controls weren't enough like COD.antifanboyftw

I was hoping for Reach to finally make me interested in series (and I tried every Halo game except Wars), I thought it would be something different, more gritty, more serious. Silly me. :P

Killzone 2 on the other hand gave me just everything I wanted from a FPS game (except mouse controls). I find it superior in every way possible except the gigantic amountof features in Reach that mean nothing for me since I still can't get into the Bungie's game.