Google+

Killzone 2 vs 2008's best shooters




Why Killzone 2 will be better: It goes without saying that Resistance 2 looks great – any A-list game that doesn’t isn’t worth the disc it’s burned to – but R2 wasn’t under three solid years of immense external pressure to look amazing. Where R2 features fantastic-looking monsters and bland humans, Killzone 2 pours every available resource into making its people and environments as detailed as possible. Assuming you can duck flying bullets long enough to appreciate it, you’ll notice that bodies in Killzone 2 move realistically, with a weight that makes them seem more like men weighed down by heavy gear than disposable super-soldiers. The faces are amazing and the visual effects are stunning. It’s a close race, but while R2 might do a better job of rendering splattered alien organs, KZ2 is definitely the more striking of the two. - Mikel



Why Resistance 2 is better: It’s true that both games look good. The difference is in what you’re looking at. Killzone 2 creates a dreary sci-fi world of corridors and corrugated iron, and it’s nothing we haven’t seen before – even if the soldiers do fall over realistically.

Resistance 2 is about spectacle. The first time you emerge from underground, you’re met with a panoramic view of the familiar city of San Francisco in ruins, with sky-filling alien craft slowly moving inland. It’s a seriously visually striking sight. Maybe R2 can’t clearly outclass Killzone in terms of graphics, but R2 isn’t about details. It’s about jaw-dropping moments and larger-than-life exploding monsters. So the death animations don’t adhere to Ph.D-level physics. Real fans of fun know that it’s better to have aliens melt into piles of goo anyway.
- Paul Ryan, Associate Editor, CheatPlanet


Why Killzone 2 will be better: It’s interesting to note that R2 and KZ2 share the same premise, only reversed; where Resistance 2 is a sci-fi story set near the World War II era, KZ2 is a World War II story set in the far future. Strangely, it’s Killzone 2 that comes away with the more believable setting; while R2 is set in familiar American trappings (marred by alien structures and huge fleshy blobs and shit), KZ2’s planet Helghan feels more like a world that could actually exist.

Then you’ve got the characters, who in KZ2 establish themselves firmly and memorably from the beginning and remain a vital part of the story until the end. What does Resistance have? A stony-faced soldier protagonist, a few interchangeable squadmates and a floating psychic gasbag? Fascinating. - Mikel



Why Resistance 2 is better: If all you want is the game that creates the most believable world, you’d be better off with a Tom Clancy game. But for those of us who are interested in a game that creates an awesome setting, perhaps one filled with juggernaut-sized aliens swarming through a placid 1930s neighborhood, Resistance 2 is the best choice. - Paul


Why Killzone 2 will be better: There really isn’t much difference between the basic gameplay in Resistance 2 and Killzone 2, except that Killzone 2 is more about cover and scavenging weapons and ammo, and Resistance 2 is preoccupied with wasting alien hordes with ornate, multi-function weaponry. If Killzone is Sony’s answer to Gears, then Resistance is its answer to Halo, and the one you like better largely depends on how methodical a gamer you are.

That said, R2 doesn’t even have a cover button. Weak. – Mikel



Why Resistance 2 is better: It’s tough to put it any better than, “Resistance 2 is preoccupied with wasting alien hordes with ornate, multi-function weaponry.” If this is a bad thing, I’ll turn in my gamercard, right now. It almost doesn’t even seem fair to mention that R2 has four types of grenades alone.

Oh, and Killzone 2 doesn’t even have an alternate fire button. Weak. - Paul


Why Killzone 2 will be better: R2’s Chimera are, for lack of a better word, brainless. Sure, they’ve got cool gimmicks like invisibility and occasional hugeness, but they’ll ignore cover or group tactics in favor of just charging at you blindly and unloading in your face. Hell, the Chameleons will actually break camouflage – their main advantage - just to charge headlong into the business end of your shotgun. And then there are the bosses, which seem to rely on the same pre-scripted attack patterns we’ve come to expect from videogame baddies over the years.

Enemies in Killzone 2 are a little more wily and unpredictable, and while the Helghast don’t have any giant monsters or invisible ninja freaks to throw in your face, their tanks, attack drones, lumbering heavy troopers and sheer numbers are almost as good at inspiring fear (or at least frustration). Also? If something with glowing red eyes is going to try to shoot me full of holes with a high-tech firearm, I’d feel better about losing to it if it wore a shirt. – Mikel



Why Resistance 2 is better: The Chimera aren’t stupid, they’re just using strategies so advanced that sometimes it’s hard to tell that they aren’t mindlessly charging at the first sign of a solitary human soldier. That, and there are so many of them, their legions transformed pod people, and their towering robotic monstrosities, that it doesn’t really matter if a couple of them forget to duck every now and then. - Paul


Why Killzone 2 will be better: Resistance 2 doesn’t even have any vehicles, so let’s just declare Killzone 2 more awesome in this category and move on. – Mikel



Why Resistance 2 is better: Way to take a cheap shot at the game that didn’t include vehicles. It’s fairly apparent that if Resistance 2 were to include vehicles, they’d be just as great as the rest of the game. Resistance 2 wins based merely on the theoretical possibility of how great the vehicles would have been, if the game had included them. - Paul


Why Killzone 2 will be better: It’s hard to argue that Killzone 2’s more realistic arsenal is somehow better than R2’s ridiculously versatile sci-fi weaponry, but I’m going to anyway. Killzone 2’s guns are about simplicity – the weapons are for killing Helghast as quickly and cleanly as possible, rather than gawking at in wonder and amazement. They’re not toys, and they don’t feel like toys; every last one has a kick to it, and there’s a brutal satisfaction in zooming in on an unsuspecting trooper and drilling him full of assault-rifle rounds that isn’t really present in R2. And while we’re on the topic of satisfaction, the lightning cannon that shows up in exactly one level of KZ2 is powerful enough to briefly inspire a god complex, something I haven’t felt with any of R2’s guns. - Mikel



Why Resistance 2 is better: Killzone 2’s lightning cannon is a nice idea, but it ends up handling like an overpowered rifle – one that just happens to shoot electricity instead of bullets. R2, on the other hand, takes creative, multi-purpose weaponry much, much further. Want a magnum that shoots explosive round? No problem. How about being able to shoot around corners? Or through walls? R2 has guns that can handle that for you. And, of course, there’s the lightning issue. Killzone 2’s lightning gun is nice, but R2 has a sniper rifle that can deploy a beacon to shoot lightning at aliens for you – you only need to hit the trigger once. - Paul


Why Killzone 2 will be better: Again, Killzone 2 doesn’t (yet) have co-op, although that isn’t necessarily a disadvantage considering that R2’s co-op mode takes players through a “parallel campaign,” instead of the game’s actual story. Also, R2 might support up to 60 players, but Killzone 2’s play modes – which seamlessly cycle from one to the next in the middle of matches – are a little more versatile, and the fact that you can customize them keeps things just a little more interesting than R2’s more straightforward setup. - Mikel



Why Resistance 2 is better: If you think of the “parallel campaign” as an entirely new story, new characters and fresh strategy (which it is), it’s pretty obvious that you’re getting a better deal with R2.

And as far as trading 60 player battles for the ability to cycle through gametypes without changing the map… I laugh in the general direction of all Killzone 2 players and their tiny multiplayer matches. - Paul

73 comments

  • vexs1n - September 15, 2009 11:20 p.m.

    both games are awsome, both have lots of action plus solid graphics. can't we all get along!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • crimzontiger - May 22, 2009 6:59 p.m.

    play what you like. Both have there pros n cons, but they are totally different games with different themes. Ive have COD WAW, stinks!! would rather play COD3.Anywho, I'm just waiting for M.A.G.!!!
  • nitrocole - March 26, 2009 1:43 a.m.

    All these games have there ups and downs, there all good games. I personally think that KZ2 is better than them, but thats just my opinion.
  • superjustin - March 16, 2009 7:59 a.m.

    I played all four of those games. I rate games on the "fun factor" and CoD W@W takes it home. KZ2, Gears2, R2 all are amazing shooters but I just didn't have fun playing those as much as CoD5. World at War is the perfect shooter in my opinion.
  • sharifsta - January 23, 2009 4:47 p.m.

    lol kill zones only good with vehicles the old ones better most pwnd game of the year
  • CountFenring - January 19, 2009 6:33 a.m.

    I did like the 'Friends and Enemies' defence of R2. Best argument I've heard all day.
  • MGS4SolidSnake - January 19, 2009 4:23 a.m.

    alsso its just games people are aloud to have their own opinions on what they like and if they truly liked it then they wouldnt let other people get in their way of enjoying it...my opinion cant be stated yet becuase i havent played it yet but resis.2 was an alright game to me it kind of seems like an older game with the bosses being completely retarded and always doing the same thing(example. the kraken seems like something out of crash bandicoot)...gow2 is a great game but the weapons are terrible and the online is waayy to small...cod:waw is a recycled version of cod4 but with crappier guns and it is still a good game
  • MGS4SolidSnake - January 19, 2009 4:23 a.m.

    alsso its just games people are aloud to have their own opinions on what they like and if they truly liked it then they wouldnt let other people get in their way of enjoying it...my opinion cant be stated yet becuase i havent played it yet but resis.2 was an alright game to me it kind of seems like an older game with the bosses being completely retarded and always doing the same thing(example. the kraken seems like something out of crash bandicoot)...gow2 is a great game but the weapons are terrible and the online is waayy to small...cod:waw is a recycled version of cod4 but with crappier guns and it is still a good game
  • MGS4SolidSnake - January 19, 2009 4:08 a.m.

    not trying to be a whiny dick but when u guys compare stuff u should take turns who goes first and who goes last
  • noobeater - January 18, 2009 8:26 p.m.

    lol at nitemarish comment i personally think cod WaW is better then gears tho i do like gear's horde more then zombies resistance is pretty good too. dont get me wrong (i dont know that much about killzone) but i dont think it looks better then any of the 3 'rivals' compared here ...just please dont kill me or something fanboys!
  • Tochy - January 17, 2009 8:07 p.m.

    First!
  • Nitemarish - January 17, 2009 1:54 a.m.

    @KREATIVEassassin Welcome to the internet
  • Gonri 13 - January 16, 2009 7:21 p.m.

    Yes the lightning gun is better than any experimental weapon made in WW2. I mean even the atomic bomb wasn't as good as the lightning gun!
  • GamesRadarMikelReparaz - January 16, 2009 1:57 a.m.

    Oh, and one other thing: @Tikicobra: Call us biased all you want, but the fact remains that we've played Killzone 2 to the end and you (most likely) haven't. Our opinions are based on hours spent playing the finished game. If we see something we think is a legitimate problem or flaw (or just unique or interesting), it's our job to point it out. It's NOT our job to love games blindly, or to withhold criticism because we're afraid it might somehow hurt them. THAT would be bias.
  • Synster - January 16, 2009 12:38 a.m.

    Again, I support the Playstation a helluva lot more than I do Microsoft, but isn't software, a bigger library(though not meaning that every game is essentially 'better'.) and better online what the majority of people look for? Of course, you get more bang for your buck with a Playstation, but don't forget not everyone, even with jobs don't have the money to cut it and still not be broke after the purchase. Now then, back to the article, It just feels like every time a negative comment is made towards Killzone, they're swarmed by thousands of Killzone fanboys calling them a Fanboy and/or Biased. I really don't see how through all the hypocritical nonsense. Personally, I accept this hype-killing-website, over others(though not a bad thing) tend to build on it. Haze, anyone? Lair, anyone?(Yes, Haze and Lair would be a typical answer to things like this, but it is a logical one at that.)
  • manloveschaos - January 15, 2009 10:35 p.m.

    Roic13: YOU HAVEN'T PLAYED THE FUCKING GAME!
  • philuk19 - January 15, 2009 9:16 p.m.

    Why is everyone hating on Games Radar? They are aways doing Killzone articles because its the latest "big thing" and they need to get hits, to say open. Now as for the article, KZ had a supporter to unless no-one noticed? It was a fun article and both sides raised valid and silly points. Just take it for what it is, a bit of fun.
  • Roic13 - January 15, 2009 9:08 p.m.

    Killzone vs Gears of war Visuals: Gears of war. Killzone looks to fuzzy. Setting/Story/Characters: Setting, Gears. Story, Gears. Characters/Gears. Short and simple Combat: Well both games are just shoot the enemie. But Gears of War you can hide from cover and have a lot more options like if you want to switch to the other side of the door in a seacond. Friends/Enemies: The friends in killzone just seem a bit more true. Enemies...c,mon gears of war I mean seriously. Vehicles: The vehicles in Gears of War get seriosuly way too annoying! Weapons: The weapons in Gears of War get frustrating and confusing, like the mortar for example. Multiplayer: Team deathmatch, control points blah blah blah like we never player something like that before. Gears of War horde and it doesnt have a concept of just shooting the crap out of the other team. Killzone vs Call of Duty World at War. Visuals: WaW it's just more real like Setting/Story/Characters: Only WaW delivers what war really looks like. Story WaW since well It's World War II! Characters, well SGT. Reznov is the most coolest and badass character I ever see, so WaW. Combat: Well they are basically the same but I'm going with WaW because you face dozens of soilders and tanks. Friends/Enemies: Friends, again SGT.Reznov. Enemies, "Damn those japanese are brutal!!!" Vehicles: Who doesn't want a tank with a flamethrower built in! Weapons: The only thing special of WaW is a flamethrower and Ray gun. So killzone wins that one. Multiplayer: With zombie mode a dozen of match choices, and dozens of perks and customize your own classes each with unique special abilities depeneding on what you put. Who doesn't think WaW wins that. (People who never played WaW probably would think Killzone is better) NOTE* I did'nt include Resistance because I never player Resistance.
  • thor0997 - January 15, 2009 9:03 p.m.

    Yea why are you compareing two shooters in the same console generation who are competeing against each other. GR should be compareing Crysis and the origional pong. Dur. (Sarcasm)
  • LameGamertagGod - January 15, 2009 8:45 p.m.

    I like R2 and I preodered Kz2 but it looks a bit too realistic like with recoil

Showing 1-20 of 73 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000

OR…

Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.