Before I get stuck into the main meat of this post I just wanted to clarify this piece ONLY relates to the multiplayer parts of the games - I haven't played either single player campaign so can't comment on those.
Right, that being said I wanted to share a few thoughts on the question of which game is better? Killzone 2 or Killzone 3?
I played a couple of rounds of Killzone 3 last night. It shocked me that I was in a match that was 12 v 12 - something I haven't seen on Killzone 3 for months. But it also brought up some of the issues I have with both games.
Graphics
This one belongs to Killzone 3. Without doubt. It's a step ahead of Killzone 2. It looks that bit sharper in my opinion. And brighter. Which for me makes it that little bit easier to see what the hell is going on. One complaint I had against Killzone 2 (and World @ War on the Wii while we're at it) was that in places it was so dark it was very hard to differentiate between backgrounds and enemies.
Guerrilla made a big deal about the snow effect in Killzone 3. Quite rightly, in as much as it looks very convincing and does obscure your view. But that's why I don't like it - on Akmir Snowdrift in particular it just gets on my nerves rather than enhancing my experience in any way.
One small point I would make about Killzone 3 is the screens you get when you load up and try to get in to an online match etc... are far too red. They're awful. But it wouldn't stop me recommending you buying the game.
Sound
I'll cover this one quickly. Which is easy as they're both aurally excellent. Good effects from what's going on around you and meaty sounds to all the guns. Good. Next.
Gameplay
The two games are pretty close on this one. That's because not much was added to Killzone 3. You get the new Operations mode in KZ3 which is in essence Rush mode from Battlefield: Bad Company 2. And that's the only difference.
A quick note on Operations - I rarely enjoy a match on it. That's because in my humble opinion the maps are rubbish. It only works on 3 maps - Akmir Snowdrift, Frozen Dam and Mawlr Graveyard. And none of them are any good.
But Warzone is present on both games and I love these matches. Guerilla Warfare is straight TDM which doesn't really light my fire all that much but each to their own.
The one thing (which I've mentioned more than once) that makes for better matches in Killzone 2 is the inclusion of a server browser. This means you can gurantee a full server when you join a match. Which is something you can't do in Killzone 3. I would love to hear from the devs as to why they took it out in KZ3 but despite numerous attempts to find out on twitter and the like I'm none the wiser.
One of the few downsides to both games is the lack of kill-cam or even the kill screen you get in Battlefield which does at least give some clue where your opponent is. But in these games you get nothing which means the cloaking snipers can basically hide/snipe with impunity for as long as they want.
So overall Killzone 3 wins because it has the game modes from KZ2 and adds Operations mode. It adds jetpacks and exo skeletons. Which are f***ing awesome.
Right, that being said I wanted to share a few thoughts on the question of which game is better? Killzone 2 or Killzone 3?
I played a couple of rounds of Killzone 3 last night. It shocked me that I was in a match that was 12 v 12 - something I haven't seen on Killzone 3 for months. But it also brought up some of the issues I have with both games.
Graphics
This one belongs to Killzone 3. Without doubt. It's a step ahead of Killzone 2. It looks that bit sharper in my opinion. And brighter. Which for me makes it that little bit easier to see what the hell is going on. One complaint I had against Killzone 2 (and World @ War on the Wii while we're at it) was that in places it was so dark it was very hard to differentiate between backgrounds and enemies.
Guerrilla made a big deal about the snow effect in Killzone 3. Quite rightly, in as much as it looks very convincing and does obscure your view. But that's why I don't like it - on Akmir Snowdrift in particular it just gets on my nerves rather than enhancing my experience in any way.
One small point I would make about Killzone 3 is the screens you get when you load up and try to get in to an online match etc... are far too red. They're awful. But it wouldn't stop me recommending you buying the game.
Sound
I'll cover this one quickly. Which is easy as they're both aurally excellent. Good effects from what's going on around you and meaty sounds to all the guns. Good. Next.
Gameplay
The two games are pretty close on this one. That's because not much was added to Killzone 3. You get the new Operations mode in KZ3 which is in essence Rush mode from Battlefield: Bad Company 2. And that's the only difference.
A quick note on Operations - I rarely enjoy a match on it. That's because in my humble opinion the maps are rubbish. It only works on 3 maps - Akmir Snowdrift, Frozen Dam and Mawlr Graveyard. And none of them are any good.
But Warzone is present on both games and I love these matches. Guerilla Warfare is straight TDM which doesn't really light my fire all that much but each to their own.
The one thing (which I've mentioned more than once) that makes for better matches in Killzone 2 is the inclusion of a server browser. This means you can gurantee a full server when you join a match. Which is something you can't do in Killzone 3. I would love to hear from the devs as to why they took it out in KZ3 but despite numerous attempts to find out on twitter and the like I'm none the wiser.
One of the few downsides to both games is the lack of kill-cam or even the kill screen you get in Battlefield which does at least give some clue where your opponent is. But in these games you get nothing which means the cloaking snipers can basically hide/snipe with impunity for as long as they want.
So overall Killzone 3 wins because it has the game modes from KZ2 and adds Operations mode. It adds jetpacks and exo skeletons. Which are f***ing awesome.
No comments:
Post a Comment