Court Records
https://forums.court-records.net/

Favorite modern/futuristic shooters
https://forums.court-records.net/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=17176		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  carbon monoxide [ Thu Oct 08, 2009 9:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Favorite modern/futuristic shooters
Yeah, not sure if something like this belongs here...but it was the best I could find.

Anyways, (inb4lockormove) (yeah, I have got to ditch my pessimism), this thread is dedicated to the fans of Killzone 2 and Halo 3. I want to know which game you guys think is better.

Now, to start...
Killzone 2: 1 vote

Better Graphics
Better Multiplayer (32 person, 4 squad chats, class based, smooth flow, and bots available)
More engaging environment.
Grittier and more powerful feeling guns. Funner to fire. >=D

Halo 3: 4 votes

More engaging story
Incredible community and huge amount of variety. (Guns, story, vehicles)
Ability to replay gameplay as cinema.
Regular patches, updates, and even an expansion.

Pretty sure that Justis76 is gonna show up here.
Author:  neoswordmaster [ Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Killzone 2 Vs. Halo3
Killzone 2 < Halo3< Metroid Prime Trilogy.

Topic over.
Author:  carbon monoxide [ Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Killzone 2 Vs. Halo3
neoswordmaster wrote:
Killzone 2 < Halo3< Metroid Prime Trilogy.

Topic over.


OMG, so off topic. Please don't do that!~
Author:  neoswordmaster [ Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Killzone 2 Vs. Halo3
Haha, i always wanted to do that.

Anyway, I'd say Halo 3. Single player can only last so long, but multiplayer is usually where a game shines. It adds huge amounts of longevity, as well as keep things fresh and challenging (as opposed to AI that may end up doing the same thing over and over on replays).

And Metriod Prime Trilogy is three awesome games for the price of one.
Author:  carbon monoxide [ Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Killzone 2 Vs. Halo3
neoswordmaster wrote:
Haha, i always wanted to do that.

Anyway, I'd say Halo 3. Single player can only last so long, but multiplayer is usually where a game shines. It adds huge amounts of longevity, as well as keep things fresh and challenging (as opposed to AI that may end up doing the same thing over and over on replays).

And Metriod Prime Trilogy is three awesome games for the price of one.


Then Killzone 2 would definitely beat Halo 3. Although it's got about a third as many players, (still in the tens of thousands every given moment), Killzone 2's got it wrapped. Matchmaking is 32 at a time. Better than the standard 8 and max 16 of Halo3. Plus, when a game ends, you keep playing, but meanwhile the vote for new mode or new map passes. It flows smoothly. If somebody quits, is booted, or if the room simply doesn't have enough people, bots can be used to supplant players.

Killzone 2 is pretty freakin' awesome. Plus, like I said, there's class-based gameplay. It's like SW battlefront. And each of those classes has wicked abilities.
Author:  justis76 [ Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Killzone 2 Vs. Halo3
Class-based gameplay=/= Battle front.

Battlefront>>>>Killzone2

Killzone 2 can't touch Halo 3. It's a standard shooter which doesn't have anytthing even close to the variety of Halo 3.
Author:  carbon monoxide [ Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Killzone 2 Vs. Halo3
But the thing is, you don't even cite evidence to back up your claims. See, Killzone 2 is anything BUT a standard shooters. Standard shooters would throw waves of ever respawning enemies at you whilst you try to make your way from checkpoint C to checkpoint D. Halo and Killzone 2 both digress from that by giving you tons of options. For example, blowing up the bridge, you can shoot it with a dead ISA guy's rocket, or you can shoot the barrels. It's optional to take out the enemies along the way too. I mean, seriously.

And battles never get boring. It's not run away from the enemy as they blindly chase you while picking them off, like Halo does so often. It's so much more! Cover and suppression are Integral to success!

Again, citing multiplayer. It's just like a war. It's not like Halo, where you wonder why master chiefs would fight each other while wearing humorously commical outfits. You can actually tie in the multiplayer with the game's albeit rather weak story!
Author:  justis76 [ Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Killzone 2 Vs. Halo3
Halo's more diverse and more fun than killzone. That is all.
Author:  Turnabout Clerk [ Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Killzone 2 Vs. Halo3
I pick Half Life 2.
Okay... I really don't like either but I guess Halo 3 because the multiplayer is just awesome. (Killzone's bores me. Never know why.)
Author:  carbon monoxide [ Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Killzone 2 Vs. Halo3
I'm really wondering why KZ2 isn't more popular. I mean...it was freaking '05 hyped.
Author:  neoswordmaster [ Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:44 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Killzone 2 Vs. Halo3
VeryHappyTaffy wrote:
I'm really wondering why KZ2 isn't more popular. I mean...it was freaking '05 hyped.


That was in 05. Plus is was due to a tech demo for the PS3.
Author:  carbon monoxide [ Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Killzone 2 Vs. Halo3
It was a tech demo meant to demonstrate the sheer processing capabilities of the PS3. I was impressed, especially for '05 (Well, that was before wind of PS3 really got out.)
Author:  neoswordmaster [ Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Killzone 2 Vs. Halo3
Yes but most of the talk was about weither it was in-game footage of prerendered.
Author:  carbon monoxide [ Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:50 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Killzone 2 Vs. Halo3
neoswordmaster wrote:
Yes but most of the talk was about weither it was in-game footage of prerendered.


Well it was a actually meant to be a cutscene. They did take the first half of video and turn it into a cutscene.
But the gameplay was actually awesome. The PS3, with its immense RAM compared to everything else, should have been able to handle all those sprites on screen.
You don't really fight with that many ISA marines. It's usually alongside team alpha or by yourself. The auxiliaries are usually killed early off to prevent technical issues (not that they should have any)
Author:  neoswordmaster [ Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Killzone 2 Vs. Halo3
Really? I recall a lot of debate at the time.

Anyway, I'm not saying KZ2 is bad, it just can't compare with the Halos, Metroid Primes, Half Lifes, and Team Fortress 2s out there. If you want a shooter on the PS3 it is the best.
Author:  carbon monoxide [ Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Killzone 2 Vs. Halo3
neoswordmaster wrote:
Really? I recall a lot of debate at the time.

Anyway, I'm not saying KZ2 is bad, it just can't compare with the Halos, Metroid Primes, Half Lifes, and Team Fortress 2s out there. If you want a shooter on the PS3 it is the best.


Are you saying something about PS3 shooters? Lol...I mean...best HD...
Author:  neoswordmaster [ Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Killzone 2 Vs. Halo3
Can you name any good ones like KZ2? Because I can't.
Author:  Darkdamacus [ Fri Oct 09, 2009 4:15 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Killzone 2 Vs. Halo3
I say Halo 3.. I previously owned Killzone 2.. I dunno, To me, It felt a bit clunky. The aiming was a bit harder than some games I've played, And the story line was the same as all the rest.. The opposing team is trying to take over the world, gotta stop 'em. :lana:

I'll probably give it a try again when I get my new PS3.. Soon hopefully :yuusaku:
Author:  Catgrenade [ Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Killzone 2 Vs. Halo3
neoswordmaster wrote:
If you want a shooter on the PS3 it is the best.


Huh, I haven't played Killzone yet, but I always thought Resistance and Warhawk were fantastic shooters.
Author:  carbon monoxide [ Fri Oct 09, 2009 12:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Killzone 2 Vs. Halo3
I'm guessing that since there aren't that many console exclusive FPS's, that in the end it comes down to a matter of console preference. Of course, more people have the 360 because it was more practical. (And it came out before the PS3).

To be truthful, I don't know a single PS3 FPS beyond killzone 2 and resistance. I know the latter is incredibly good, so Neo, rest assured, the PS3 can perform up to par. And I don't think that FPS's aren't good without multiplayer. Take the metroid series, for example. Prime and Corruption had no multiplayer of any sort, yet they recieved overwhelmingly positive reception and enjoyed massive sales.

And you yourself say that Metroid Prime Trilogy beats both games on this list.
Author:  neoswordmaster [ Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Killzone 2 Vs. Halo3
1. Crap, I compleatly forgot about Resistance.

2. MPT is not a Shooter, but an Adventure game. And I said that it beats both for it's value, longevity, level design, and sheer presentation. But it was a bit of a joke. The Wii has no good FPS.

3. KZ2 and Resistance (and I assume Warhawk, I forget how well it was recieved.), are great shooters, but once again, they just cannot compare to the fun of Halo's multiplayer.
Author:  carbon monoxide [ Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Killzone 2 Vs. Halo3
neoswordmaster wrote:
1. Crap, I compleatly forgot about Resistance.

2. MPT is not a Shooter, but an Adventure game. And I said that it beats both for it's value, longevity, level design, and sheer presentation. But it was a bit of a joke. The Wii has no good FPS.

3. KZ2 and Resistance (and I assume Warhawk, I forget how well it was recieved.), are great shooters, but once again, they just cannot compare to the fun of Halo's multiplayer.


1. It's forgivable. :edgy:

2. It was a joke? Well nevertheless, it's enjoyed tremendous success as one of the most well known series to date. You can't deny that. Hunters had multiplayer, and so did Echoes, but they scored about the same as Prime and Corruption in ordinary books. That just proves that FPS's don't need multiplayer to be great.

In any case, the point about adventure thing, again, is subject to personal preference. I happen to see metroid as more of a first person shooter than a problem solving adventure. Others may disagree. It's up to opinion. Then again, this thread is only comprised of pure opinions.

3. Now, wait, what? I don't see how Halo 3's multiplayer is so alluring...is it something indescribable?
Author:  Turnabout Clerk [ Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Killzone 2 Vs. Halo3
Catgrenade wrote:
neoswordmaster wrote:
If you want a shooter on the PS3 it is the best.


Huh, I haven't played Killzone yet, but I always thought Resistance and Warhawk were fantastic shooters.

Resistance blows. The best shooter on PS3 is the orange box.... I think it's for PS3..
Author:  The Sandwich [ Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Killzone 2 Vs. Halo3
Played both. Halo stopped being good after say...the first one.

Killzone on the other hand, the first one was shit, the second was great.

@TC: Orange Box has HL2 on it so it's an automatic 'no'. TF2 and Portal can't save it.
Author:  justis76 [ Fri Oct 09, 2009 11:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Killzone 2 Vs. Halo3
Lol, that last post was full of so much fail I don't know where to begin. First of all, Half Life 2 is amazing, Portal is amazing, and TF2 is amazing. Orange Box is the best deal available, and I second what Turnabout Clerk said.
Author:  Turnabout Clerk [ Sat Oct 10, 2009 1:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Killzone 2 Vs. Halo3
The Sandwich wrote:
Played both. Halo stopped being good after say...the first one.

Killzone on the other hand, the first one was shit, the second was great.

@TC: Orange Box has HL2 on it so it's an automatic 'no'. TF2 and Portal can't save it.

Waiiiit.... Wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait. Did you just call Half-Life 2 bad? I just might have to kill you :zenitora:
Author:  carbon monoxide [ Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Killzone 2 Vs. Halo3
Turnabout Clerk wrote:
The Sandwich wrote:
Played both. Halo stopped being good after say...the first one.

Killzone on the other hand, the first one was shit, the second was great.

@TC: Orange Box has HL2 on it so it's an automatic 'no'. TF2 and Portal can't save it.

Waiiiit.... Wait wait wait wait wait wait wait wait. Did you just call Half-Life 2 bad? I just might have to kill you :zenitora:


Graphics are outdated, so is the genre, and there's really no appeal as there's no multiplayer beyond Counterstrike, whose one life per game policy is also obsolete. Yes, Half-Life 2 was great when it came out, but now it's crap.

I haven't played it, but it looks horrible by today's standards.

Halo may not be the best, but it is certainly one that deserves accolades. I just happen to think KZ2 is better. Halo 2 and 3 were actually better than Halo 1, but not better than combat evolved (because of the computer adaptation. I don't care what you say, it's easier to aim with a mouse than with an analog stick.)
Author:  Turnabout Clerk [ Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:18 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Killzone 2 Vs. Halo3
2 Words. Gravity Gun. Nothing better then it.
Author:  carbon monoxide [ Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:22 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Killzone 2 Vs. Halo3
Please elaborate.

Also, please read the thread topic. I don't want this thread de-railed and locked prematurely. Thanks for your compliance. :redd:
Author:  Turnabout Clerk [ Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Killzone 2 Vs. Halo3
Um... You ask me to elaborate... then tell me I can't.... make up your mind Image Don't get me confused :larry:
Author:  carbon monoxide [ Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:27 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Killzone 2 Vs. Halo3
Sorry, didn't see the contradiction
Spoiler:
:objection:
there.
Lol, let's drop half-life, OK? It was good when it came out, but not so much anymore. Just like how in five years, everyone's going to forget Halo 3.
Author:  justis76 [ Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Killzone 2 Vs. Halo3
And just like how everybody's already forgot Killzone 2, save for taffy. Honestly, until you brought it up a while back, I'd completely forgotten about it. Halo Wars outsold it for crying out loud, they came out at about the same time, and HW is a console-RTS, a genre which doesn't usually sell well. Look, can we just end this? The average rating for Halo 3 is a 94%. The average rating for Killzone 2 is a 91%. The average rating for Half-Life 2 is a 96%. Halo 3 is better than Killzone 2.
Author:  Holy Hell [ Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Killzone 2 Vs. Halo3
VeryHappyTaffy wrote:
But the thing is, you don't even cite evidence to back up your claims.


Eat a dick, it's a fucking THIS GAME VERSUS THIS GAME topic

Jesus.
Author:  carbon monoxide [ Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Killzone 2 Vs. Halo3
OK, Justis, let's change the topic of this thread.
Author:  justis76 [ Sat Oct 10, 2009 2:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Favorite modern/futuristic shooters
Well, that'd be:
CoD Modern Warfare
Halo 1-3
Half-Life series
Portal is awesome
Author:  neoswordmaster [ Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Favorite modern/futuristic shooters
Oh, Metal Arms: Glitch in the System.

Great weapons, characters, and a long challenging campaign.
Author:  L_J [ Sat Oct 10, 2009 4:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Killzone 2 Vs. Halo3
i don't see why people love superior graphics. it doesn't really help gameplay, the company's just flaunting how much money they can throw around to get however much eye candy.


oh, and portal>all
Author:  Holy Hell [ Sat Oct 10, 2009 5:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Favorite modern/futuristic shooters
Portal isn't a shooter you muckfucks, it's a puzzle game.
Author:  L_J [ Sat Oct 10, 2009 5:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Favorite modern/futuristic shooters
Holy Hell wrote:
Portal isn't a shooter you muckfucks, it's a puzzle game.

exactly
Author:  carbon monoxide [ Sun Oct 11, 2009 12:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Favorite modern/futuristic shooters
Metroid (prime) is too, but metroid's good. I exaggerate NOT.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/