ngg12345
Posts: 1260
Joined: Apr.-10th-2007
Status: online
|
JHKGAFKFHHFF or whatever his name is (didn't want to copy and paste it), is essentially making the same excuse I've seen since e3 2007 gameplay video, "killzone 2 while having amazing graphics, and gameplay won't be a good game because killzone 1 wasn't". How do they co-related? If Guerrilla changed the games name would it then be fine to hype what appears to be the best looking ps3 title made? LBP some trailers looked great others pretty bad. Killzone 2 has shown nothing that you could say looks "average", or "bad", or even possibly could say it is worst than the likes of "R6V", or the newest fps "Battlefield Bad company". I would even say the gameplay here topped the fps crowns, "half life 2", 'halo 3", and "cod4". Every piece, every aspect, everything they showed was more impressive than any fps to date. So it is kind of debatable argument, does Killzone 2 mp from the trailer looks and play better than Team Fortress 2? It obviously looks alot better, and probably plays better.. That game has a 92 metacritic. Does the single plyaer look and play better than COD4, and halo 3 SP. Halo 3 SP was a dud (unless anyone wants to argue this, than fine), cod4 was short and fun, but wasn't that great either. Both games had incredibly high metacritic scores aswell. Would that than make sense why ps3 owners are hyping this game, and the fact that killzone 2 will probably win many game of the shows this e3. Yes. http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/teamfortress2?q=team%20fortress Ps3 owners have another big ps3 exclusive fps that no one is talking about RFOM 2. That game looked like utter garbage compared to killzone 2. gameplay, and graphics killzone 2 looks to top rfom 2.
< Message edited by ngg12345 -- Jul.-17th-2008 10:45:35 >
|