Print

[Carlo210]

Killzone was just so boring and bland. I rmeember walking up to an enemy when onlione and shooting him in the back for a good 2 seconds, then he turns around and starts firing at me before I kill him. The reticule is the size of a biologically advanced apple and occumpanies your spontaneous lack of aim and accuracy with every gun. I don't have to ramble on about my experience with it, I'm jsut glad I didn't buy it.
My experience with Rainbow 6: 3 for the PS2 was much morse, though. It was a 6 day rental but I never touched it for the rest of the 5 days and 23 hours. Total bull.
This is one of the reasons why I'm not entrusting any more money on a Sony console. I know things will run smoother on the ps3 and probably play better, but the AAA titles just aren't there for me. Metal Gear Solid, GTA, and other ps2 exclusives are not my cup of tea, and it's annoying how every game which involved a gun which was released on the PS2 was named the 'HALO KILLER!'.

[Deftech]

QUOTE

Ill take even take Serious Sam over Killzone... aleast it wasn't confusing...

Serious Sam rocks

I hope the sequel is BC with the 360 at some point, great game to Lan  

[Andy51]

QUOTE(Deftech @ Oct 15 2005, 04:05 AM)

Serious Sam rocks

[miggidy]

How many times have we heard about how great the Killzone 2 trailer looked?
Forget the Sony fanboys, hell even the media was drooling over it.
As a matter of fact, the video game media were the first to spell doom for the Xbox 360 after witnessing the trailer.
*Cough G4TV cough cough*

Now I have to ask gamers and especially the media, since when the fudge do graphics make the game!?!?!?!?
Suppose.... Ok just hypothetically speaking, suppose that Killzone 2 does turn out to be every bit as good looking as the trailer was. Hell, lets say it looks even better.... But the game still plays shitty like the first game!!!!!
What the muthafudge good are graphics if the gameplay is garbage?

My point is, who gives a flyin fudge if Killzone would've made it to the technically superior Xbox if the same lame ass developers are behind it?

With that said, I will gladly go on record and say that Killzone 2 will suck giant King Kong blue balls!

[KAGE360]

QUOTE(Alex548 @ Oct 14 2005, 10:02 PM)

KAGE360, that post was a reply to the guy who said "get your facts straight." It was not a reply to you or anyone else (why do you think I quoted him in my previous post and not anyone else). People are quick to flame anyone who even says hello nowadays.

[Foe-hammer]

QUOTE(Alex548 @ Oct 15 2005, 02:46 AM)

Direct Quote from Bungie's own website:

[xprezz]

QUOTE(Sonyac @ Oct 15 2005, 01:14 AM)

Now i know that this is the Xbox 360 forum and this is an xbox question, but the bigger picture connects to Xbox 360.  When "Killzone" came out why did they choose to go with the weaker, less powerful PS2, when they could have easily taken advantage of the Xbox's power?  Killzone would have been much better on the Xbox, making it a much better game, making the developer more money.  If it was put on the xbox, the developers would have probably put it on Xbox 360. Which would definately help Xbox 360(if it needs help) but what compelled them to go with sony?

[Carlo210]

QUOTE(OC Noob @ Oct 15 2005, 06:36 AM)

Why would anything run smoother on the PS3?  They should be damn close in performance.  Xbox has a better GPU, while the PS3 MAY (big may there) have better CPU performance.

[Carlo210]

Killzone would've selled barely any copies on the Xbox because Halo was the prominent fps. If it couldn't beat Halo, it wouldn't sell too good. Releasing it on the PS2 was a better idea because there aren't many fps on the PS2 and the install base, as someone already mentioned, is larger.
Sadly, the game still sucked, along with almost every other game which was labelled to be the real halo-killer (except Ratchet and Clank: Up Your Arsenal, that game was fun - but nowehere near the ballpark of a Halo killer).

[Carlo210]

[incognegro]

QUOTE

Killzone would've selled barely any copies on the Xbox because Halo was the prominent fps. If it couldn't beat Halo, it wouldn't sell too good. Releasing it on the PS2 was a better idea because there aren't many fps on the PS2 and the install base, as someone already mentioned, is larger.
Sadly, the game still sucked, along with almost every other game which was labelled to be the real halo-killer (except Ratchet and Clank: Up Your Arsenal, that game was fun - but nowehere near the ballpark of a Halo killer

I agree, this is similar to the point i was gonna make.I think they didnt want to compete with halo "directly". That way they can mislead people into thinking it is a halo killer. If they had to compete with halo being on the same console then they wouldnt have gotten away with that statement. This is similar to when mario 64 came out, all of a sudden every 3d platformer on the ps was the "mario killer sony needed". They ended up being shallow imitations but some of them sold well and fanboys actually believe they were better than mario. Most of these were titles that were either only available on the ps and saturn or exclusive to the ps, proving they didnt really wanna compete with mario; all That tough talk was just.............................talk.

[Carlo210]

[Carlo210]

Also, the whole 'X-Killer' label on a game proves nothing whatsoever.

I've posted this point many, many times.

Sony boys want a Halo killer, but why? They think Halo sucks. Therefore, a Halo killer to them might as well be any fps. Instead, they should compare new releases with games they actually like. Calling something a Halo killer, to them, would just mean they have a minimum of low expectaions for the title, since almost anything can be a 'crappy-game-killer'.

etc etc

[Carlo210]

QUOTE(miggidy @ Oct 16 2005, 08:41 AM)

Good point which reminds me of the petition that was going around before the release of Killzone