Viewing Thread:
"IGN Killzone score..."

The so-called 'Halo Beater' scored 7.5

Halo Beater my a$$

The only thing likely to beat Halo is Halo 2. Never really did like the look of Killzone, and now that I've played it I know I won't be forking out any money for it. Besides, I think San Andreas could well keep me busy for the rest of the year.

Ninjax wrote:
> ÂLÂS†ÂÎR wrote:
> Halo was only harder on legendary because you took more damage, took
> less damage off the enemies and there were also more of them.
>
> How the enemies worked was exactly the same, the AI of the
> individual
> enemies was exactly the same.
>
> it made it a hell of a lot more fun though and the alt ending rocked!

Yes those few seconds was worth it

ÂLÂS†ÂÎR wrote:
> Halo was only harder on legendary because you took more damage, took
> less damage off the enemies and there were also more of them.
>
> How the enemies worked was exactly the same, the AI of the individual
> enemies was exactly the same.

it made it a hell of a lot more fun though and the alt ending rocked!

Was going to pick Killzone up for the PS2 just to see wat it is like next to Halo 2, looks like no near comparison can be made but I'll make my own mind up.

P.S. does anyone know what Killzone is about, the plot and such ?

Grab the IGN Video review of Killzone just to see exactly how inconsitent IGN are and how much fun it looks to play.

I agree.

Halo was majorly overrated.

Halo was only harder on legendary because you took more damage, took less damage off the enemies and there were also more of them.

How the enemies worked was exactly the same, the AI of the individual enemies was exactly the same.

Halo scored way too high, it was a late 8 - 9/10 but definitley not near a perfect 10.

Punch him in the eye.

Killzone has too much hype, and my friend won't shut up about it.

Halo's AI was quite amazing some of the time, I must say - though, to be fair, it could be more punishing on Legendary.

Still, Halo 2 in about 14 days... Cannot wait.