Killzone2 is not better than Halo
- what a rediculous comment, you haven't even dived onto MAG's bandwagon yet - 256 players in a game at once!
Games with 96 or 128 players are good, games with 256 player are laggy as hell, and I'm not talking about a network issue.
Anyway, Halo is the first ever epic FPS. It was huge, in terms of game size as well as popularity. The thing with Halo was those wide expansive battles - when I played through on co-op I loved it so much I had to keep going back and playing through again, with different people. FPS games tend not to do that these days - it's all compartmentalized, take GoW for instance. Halo and Gears are opposite poles to eachother, I didn't think Halo had to change much except be a little less repetitive. I thought that Halo2 was a let down, the gameplay became all about close quarters and melee - the sniper parts were almost a post-consideration. Halo3 was too short, too Halo2ish, although it is an awesome game.
So if Reach is much more like the original Halo, I'm much more happy - looking forward to huge battles, lots of exploring, sniping, freedom. It's the way I'd rather play these games, it's probably why I shy away from things like Bioshock. Killzone2 is quite close quarters, really more like Halo2 I'd say. So if you prefer, we could say that Killzone2 is better than Halo2 and I'd agree - but Halo1 is an epic game that forged a whole console market for MS, I'm sure the games industry would be far less interesting without it.
