- last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT
"Halo, Halo, Halo. Everyone talks about Halo. The original was cool -- flawed, but cool. This one, sporting a slicker graphics engine and an impressive array of multiplayer options looks even cooler. It's so pretty! Halo, Halo, Halo.
The long and short of it is that most first-person shooters rely on sheer technological wonder to sell themselves into the hearts of fans (DOOM III, for instance). How then can any PS2 title compete with Xbox's newer, shinier flagship when working with some comparatively antiquated hardware? Looks aren't everything.
What Killzone lacks in outright technical achievement, it makes up for with style. It's a gritty, believable world of peril. Everything just feels rights. The pacing is on and the action is on. Unfortunately, the gorgeous Halo 2 also boasts the same correct feel, good AI, solid storyline, and even some awesome multiplayer. It's an unfortunate situation brought about by the currently underwhelming power of PS2. I guess looks are everything...If the uber-powerful PS3 were in the mix and we were playing Killzone on it, my vote would have predictably swayed away from Halo. Don't worry, Killzone rocks...for a PS2 FPS. It's just not Halo."
link
Has this guy even played halo? what flaws is he talking about? with the awesom gameplay, stunning graphics, amazing vehicle usage, how can there be a flaw? and halo 2 is WAY more than graphics. halo 2 IS a better game so this guy should just get over it.
(PS im not dissing killzone, it will rock, but there are better games around)
Mod Note: Don't become a fanboy; everyone has their own opinions
[Edited on 6/29/2004 12:15:29 PM by MakaVeli4LIfe1]