Join Product Reviews on        
In Detail: PS3′s Killzone 2 vs Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare

In Detail: PS3′s Killzone 2 vs Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare

By: Alan Ng | March 10, 2009 | 12 Comments

A comparison between these two big games was always going to happen sooner or later. The article from GamesonSmash takes a look in detail at some of the aspects of the two games and explains why they think Killzone 2 is better than Call of Duty 4.

They have split their article into four main categories: Graphics, Sound, Gameplay and Multiplayer. While explaining a bit in depth about each of these subjects, we feel as if they are being slightly unfair towards Call Of Duty4. Evidence can be seen in the author’s quote: ”Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare ruined the first person shooter genre.” They also had a few words to rip into the Juggernaut perk too and it wasnt too great as you can imagine.

Of course that is just their opinion which everyone is entitled to. Take a look at their comparison between the two games and let us know what you think. Do you agree with their article that ‘Killzone 2 is better than Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare? ‘

Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Google+.

Download our free iPhone and iPad apps, or read more in Gaming, Sony Playstation 3.

You may also like...

  1. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 price war has begun already Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 price war has begun already
  2. Call of Duty Elite: Could be Modern Warfare 3 or COD Online Call of Duty Elite: Could be Modern Warfare 3 or COD Online
 
Next Story: United Technologies to cut workforce by 11,600
Previous Story: Optus HTC Dream: Looking like the G1
Tags:
  • VinTheDean

    I have KillZone and I am on the verge of beating the campaign on Veteran(I just got the game on Saturday).

    I read the comparison. I think that the writer is a little biased. It sounds like he picked on COD4 just to make KZ2 a better game. You have to realize that KZ2 had a longer developement time and COD4 is over a year old now. So it’s not really fair to compare the two games (graphics, sounds, gameplay and Multiplayers). That is because KZ2 probably took lots and I do mean lots of notes from COD4 (as many other games have) and have improved in it in their own way.

    Listen, I love KZ2. I think that the gameplay is amazing (weighted characters and all). The sound is killer and the online is just the addictive.

    I just think it’s unfair to compare KZ2 to a game that is over a year old.

  • Sam

    How can he say that it ruined the genre? I get annoyed with juggernaut yeh, but ruined it? It redefined the genre if anything and he’s completley biased.

    As point out Call of duty 4 is over a year old and still to this day holds it own agiasnt anything. I would still take Call of duty 4′s gameplay of killzone 2′s.

  • Al

    They both have great graphics, sound, gameplay and are fairly simple to negotiate for the new user. What really matters to me with these two is multiplayer (server performance, options, simplicity, speed)

    CoD made FPS simple and fun (no lag, quick start)

    KZ2 has the best of both. enough options on multiplayer w/o being laggy and so far (knock on wood) no real glitches or hacks

    What I dont like about both;

    CoD4 – no option on where to spawn. no real option on choosing a map

    Killzone 2 – no weapon options/add-ons. too dark. not a real sniper game

  • Ian

    TBH, I don’t think you should compare any game to any game, regardless of how long it was in development for. Each game has its ups and downs but everyone seems to want to conform to one game, just so they can validate their purchase or something. Just enjoy the game that came out last year (COd4) and enjoy the one that came out now (KZ2). The end.

  • http://www.mediamolecule.co.uk mobiletone

    IMHO i feel COD4 had the better storyline and was easy to play and made you feel for the characters, that ending was something else. KZ2 feels better to play, you need to use your brain a bit rather than just run and gun, some nice cut scenes and the online has me hooked. chalk and cheese really.

  • Ricky

    Juggernauts are for noobs, i remember when i first played this game online and then it got addicting, so i used juggernaut so i can get use to it as a beginner, but im not anymore, i’ve had the game for almost a year already, and i kick ass in it.

  • javier

    cod4 is way better then KZ2 i played it i know it suck AM good at it but cod4 is way better then kill zone 2 don’t get KZ2 GO AND GET CALL OF DUTY 4

  • Spidey

    both games cost the same to purchase. If someone is trying to pick one over the other now, it doesn’t matter which one took longer to create, a direct comparison is completely fare. When COD4 came out it was compared to other games and it kicked ass. Now killzone has better graphics and more refined gameplay. I loved COD4 and I hope i can get as much enjoyment out of KZ2 as well… so far so good.

  • Kav

    my 2 cents is Killzone 1 was better than killzone 2, not to mention that frame rate glitches and a retarted amout of blur in killzone 2. i just believe that killzone took all of cod gametypes and put an extra option to change between game types mid match. i personally loved the weapon ugrades in cod 4, and you didnt have to unload 2 clips into a guy to kill him, in cod it only took 3 bullets from any weapon.

  • aman

    yeah, cod 4 was one of the most innovative fps games. Actually the bullet physics are actually better in cod 4,
    also the fact is more people play cod 4 than killzone 2.
    therefore the people at gamesonsmash must be really bad at cod.

    I simply havent ever known anyone who’s thought cod is bad(except COD 3 AND COD 5).lol

  • aman

    right mate

  • nik

    never seen any frame rate problem in KZ2, blur effects are fine to me. Indeed, the sight is much more pristine and cristalline in MW1, but overall MW1 is really great but to me not that much realistic, precise… So it's easier. KZ2 on the other side, is more "realistic" to me, because while being in a sci-fi environment, the shooting mechanics are harder, sight is often blurred by moves, smokes, wind, etc., character move is heavier, more real.

    all in all these are 2 great games, but I got the feeling MW is more like a clean and crispy shooter while KZ2 is a more heavy, dark and painful one, that is more "realistic" IMHO for a war / shooter game.

    cheers