Killzone 2 sells more than 1M copies worldwide
by Andrew Yoon 
{ Apr 16th 2009 at 6:00PM } 
It's taken Killzone 2 nearly seven weeks to reach the million milestone, and how that should be celebrated will largely depend on your loyalties. In comparison, Super Smash Bros. Brawl took a mere week to reach that magic number; Gears of War 2 managed to sell twice that much in its first week. Regardless, a million copies is nothing to scoff at -- we're certain these sales provided a nice injection of cash into the Sony war chest.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Cosmo @ Apr 16th 2009 6:05PM
Congratulations PS3! And there's at least several more high-profile exclusive games coming up to help out even more. Despite many third-party multiplatform games being superior on the Xbox 360, I feel the PS3 has plenty of exclusive games to definitely make it a worthwhile purchase.
Adam @ Apr 16th 2009 6:11PM
Why are most multiplatform games superior on the 360?
HighFiveJesus @ Apr 16th 2009 6:14PM
they..aren't.
Everything on the disc is virtually identical between the two.
Maverick Saturn @ Apr 16th 2009 6:17PM
Same thing I was wondering, bar the ones with extra DLC and the occasional few that have sloppy PS3 version, other then that, everything else has been good across the border.
Markez @ Apr 16th 2009 6:19PM
Unless Gabe Newell gets his greasy hands all over it...
Mein Bratwurst @ Apr 16th 2009 6:23PM
Adam gets down-voted for asking a good question huh? lol
Some 360 games will sport AA where as the PS3 version will not, ala RE5. The visual difference is usually very minor in multiplatform versions unless it's poorly done.
Anyway, +1 to you, to counter the butthurt.
Cosmo @ Apr 16th 2009 6:23PM
Its not like I'm happy about it. Aside from many multiplatform games having 360 exclusive DLC, many are unfortunately also technically superior on the 360, for instance GTA4 and Fallout 3 requiring mandatory 4gb installs on the PS3 but not on the Xbox 360 and the Xbox 360 version of GTA4 running at 720P whereas the PS3 version runs at about 640P.
You can read EuroGamer's comparison of Xbox 360 and PS3 multiplatform games below where most of the time, the 360 version wins out but there are notable exceptions.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/xbox-360-vs-ps3-face-off-round-18-article
If there's anything wrong with what I said, feel free to correct me, now that I have a PC and gave my Xbox 360 to my brother, I don't care much if a game is superior on the 360 or PS3, as long as the PC gets it and has the best version. XD
Maverick Saturn @ Apr 16th 2009 6:31PM
Who actually has the time to sit and compare the games on each unless the comparisons are horrendously noticable (Orange Box) ¬_¬
It just goes to show what some people do with thier spare time.
Devin @ Apr 16th 2009 6:32PM
Cosmo,
Your statement about many multiplatform titles being "superior" on the 360 is just your opinion so stop making into a proven fact when it isn't. A few textures here, some higher contrast lighting there, woopideedoo. The PS3 versions usually make up for it in load times or slight lighting enhancements, so if you want to get that granular.
I would have agreed with you if you considered these titles to be equal, but superior? Yeah right.
Cosmo @ Apr 16th 2009 6:34PM
If I get paid for it, I wouldn't mind. I guess it is a helpful resource if you own both systems and are debating which system to purchase a multiplatform game from. For instance getting fighting games for the PS3 due to its superior D-pad (in my opinion) or Call of Duty: World At War on the Xbox 360 because your friends have 360s to play online with.
HighFiveJesus @ Apr 16th 2009 6:42PM
exclusive downloadable stuff is nice, not its not something to really feel bad about. So you don't get to pay extra for more of the game you already bought. Friends lists are just your personal preference, playing online with strangers is usually just as fun as your friends and depends on the server more than anything. More friends is always a plus, but its nobodys fault but yours if you feel your online experience is inadequete on one platform compared to another.
Maverick Saturn @ Apr 16th 2009 6:42PM
I don't buy the games because the lighting looks better on one console over another, I buy based on which friends are on whichever console and have that game. I buy based on convenience and whichever happens to pop into my line of sight first, I buy based on which is cheaper or which has more content / features etc
Graphics mean nothing if you aren't enjoying the experience, gameplay and the people you play the game with is what makes it all worthwhile. The multiplats I have on PS3 may have inferior textures compared to the 360 version, but unless someone highlighted that out to me, I wouldn't care to bother looking as long as I'm having fun.
Besides, unless the graphics are dreadful on one console, who takes time to look at all the small textures and compare them -_-
HighFiveJesus @ Apr 16th 2009 6:44PM
Trust me, we wouldn't even know there were small visual differences if people didn't make these rediculous studies and comparisons that really are just used as tools to bitch at each other.
xgarryx @ Apr 16th 2009 7:22PM
way to go ps3! ppl we should be happy to see another great game out there dont forget were ALL gamers.
this game sits well next to my copy COD4 ,gears of war 2, left4dead, and resistance 2.
this is GOOD news for all of us!
add me, warxroutine on both psn and live.
Maverick Saturn @ Apr 16th 2009 7:09PM
Thats because small visual differences don't matter to people who don't take time to notice them, even some reviewers are ignoring the differences if they are not worth highlighting. I've noticed Gamespot changed thier tune.
jackal @ Apr 16th 2009 8:47PM
Devin,
"A few textures here, some higher contrast lighting there" can both have massive differences in a game's overall image quality and are often the determining factors of purchasing a copy for one system as opposed to the other. If they weren't you wouldn't be seeing much in the way of PC gamers such as myself, now would you? If a game has better lighting and higher resolution textures with all other things being equal, then yes it would be the superior version. You'd be an absolute dimwit to think otherwise. Since most developers lead with the Xbox 360 as opposed to the PS3, nearly every multiplatform game looks and/or runs better on Microsoft's system. They have more intense lighting, better textures, smoother framerates, and they often run at higher native resolutions. Is it a personal slight against the PS3 or an outright accusation of inferiority? Obviously not, since the PS3 is as equally or more than (by a small margin) capable as the 360. All he ACCURATELY pointed out was that devs have a much harder time maintaining a game's image quality porting from the Xbox 360 to the PS3 as opposed to the reverse (starting with the PS3 then porting to the 360).
You console kiddies greatly annoy me. If anyone says anything negative about any of your systems in any way without being a biased prick, you almost take it as a personal slight before firing off some poorly thought out reply that nearly always undermines any legitimate point you were trying to make while making the lot of you look like uneducated assholes.
Maverick Saturn @ Apr 16th 2009 9:42PM
I think the arguement here is the fact that people throw 'inferior' and 'superior' around like as if it were nothing. I take the view that if something were to be superior to something else, those superiorities would at least have to be worthy of swaying my decisions towards that direction, if it does not, then I just don't see it as superior.
If I were to use Orange Box at release as an example, it would be plainly obvious the 360 version was Superior, in which case (as I did) I would purchase it over the PS3 version, however, while the GTA4 differences were there (noones doubting it), it wasn't enough for me to say 'Oh well, the 360 version is far superior, I won't bother with the PS3 version', had it not been for the extra DLC, I would have simply stuck with the first one that landed in my hands, PS3 or 360 and it wouldn't have made a difference to me, though it is possible to say that the 360 version looks slightly better.
Either way, even if there is a very slight texture or lighting difference people will call one superior and use it as thier defence or offence on another console, its all rather pathetic to say the least.
Cosmo @ Apr 16th 2009 9:53PM
Good to see you back jackal, a fantastic and intelligent PC gaming aficionado! : )
Magetto @ Apr 16th 2009 10:28PM
Well if you want to take console numbers into account when Gears 1 released it was within the Xbox's first year. I would imagine that there are certainly quite a few more PS3s out by time Killzone 2 released than there was xboxs for Gears 1. Heck, maybe even numbers comparable to the time Halo 3 came out.
jackal @ Apr 16th 2009 10:47PM
Cosmo,
It's been a while, hasn't it? I haven't really had time to go through Joystiq like I normally do because I've been working the 10 pm - 6 am shift at a local retail store for the past few months; I wasn't able to go back to my previous employer because my forearm injury is going to take another six to eight months in order to fully heal (I apparently screwed it up a bit worse than originally thought). I quit Monday and, while I won't bore you with specifics, let's just say the rather toxic (not literally) working environment and personality conflict I had with my weekday supervisor became rather intolerable.
How's your rig doing? Last time I spoke to you, Crysis wasn't running so well in DX10 and I was asking whether or not you'd patched the game and updated your GTX 285's driver. Ya never answered, :P Speaking of the GTX 285, if you've got an EVGA card you'll be interested in knowing they've released a free tool that allows you to increase your card's voltage in order to obtain higher overclocks; it's obviously use at your own risk (bump up the voltage too high and you'll either outright kill the G200 core or significantly shorten its lifespan) but it's a useful tool if you're trying to squeeze a decent OC out of your card but are having stability issues doing so at a given speed. I'm thinking about selling my HD 4870 XOC and getting an HD 4890, but I'm waiting to see if Sapphire's going to be releasing any with their Vapor X cooling; it's apparently near whisper quiet even at 100% fanspeed and is vastly superior to ATI's reference cooler. I've holding off on getting a 1 GB card because no other HD 4870 variant could stably overclock to what my card ran at right out of the box with (800/1100 instead of 750/900) but the HD 4890s are overclocking monsters (as far as ATI cards go); they're a little faster clock for clock, but people are easily hitting core clocks of 940 Mhz - 1 GHz up from 850 and memory clocks of 1100-1200 MHz up from 950. It'll be an incremental, but nice upgrade.
Cosmo @ Apr 17th 2009 12:34AM
Jackal, I'm afraid my desktop went out of commission a few days ago, you can read about it in a thread I made but hasn't received any replies yet, maybe you can help me out please?
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/258758-30-motherboard-fried-asap#t1816428
dustandechoes91 @ Apr 17th 2009 1:31AM
not gonna lie, im kinda drunk right now so pardon me if i sound retarded, but its spring break for me so shut up and go away. Anyways:
Ok so due to my moderate knowledge of hardware, the 360 versions of multiplatform games look better because the 360 has a far stronger GPU than the pstripple. It also has more RAM. This(the ram part) allows better (higher res) textures, which mainly cause games to look better. It can also do shaders a little better. It is also very similar to the PC when it comes to programming, making coding easier.
Now the PS3 has a less powerful GPU(its basically a modified Nvidia 6 series; in terms of numbers we have seen a 7, 8, 9, and 10, or 200 series so far, so its a bit dated). Although it doesnt have the GPU power or as much RAM, it has a far more powerful CPU and the RAM, which although lower in capacity, has far greater speeds. The ram speeds allow it to get data in and out faster, so it only has what it needs to make up for its lower capacity. Now the pstripple's CPU is the real deal. Its the cell broadband engine. The 360 has an AMD tri-core processor. The ps3 has only one core, but it has 8 SPE's(one is deactivated for higher yield, another is dedicated to the xmb). This leaves 6 for games to use. The 360s CPU only has one SPE per core(thats 3 total) compared to the ps3's 7 total. Many GPU tasks can be diverted to the CPU, like postprocessing and dynamic lighting. This however is difficult to program, hence making the ps3 harder to program. The better CPU also allows it to handle AI related tasks better, like handle more at once.
Also, the BR-D gives an advantage. A dual layer dvd, or DVD9 can store up to 8.6GB, whereas a dual layer BR-D can store 50.somethingGB. Way more space for stuff.
Anyways i think i fixed most of the spelling errors, i should probably stop now. Sorry if this is too biased, as an owner of all 3 current gens i like the ps3 the most.
Cosmo @ Apr 17th 2009 1:54AM
Unfortunately, 99% of multiplatform games do not take advantage of the extra space offered by the Blu-Ray disc. I have heard that the CG videos in Dynasty Warriors 6 are better on the PS3 than 360 due to less compression used because of the higher capacity offered.
jackal @ Apr 17th 2009 11:31AM
Cosmo,
Well, a few things could be causing your computer woes: your PSU might be flaking out on you, your motherboard is dying, you might have a defective CPU (bloody unlikely), or the board might be throwing a shit fit if you've got an unstable overclock (knowing you, also unlikely). There are three distinct problems that might be causing your computer woes: your PSU is crapping out and, despite the advertising wattage,
is unable to meet your system's demands, your motherboard is starting to slowly die, or your memory's toast. To be completely honest, I suspect the first two rather than the last one.
Apevia's been known to have less than stellar PSUs that hum along just fine for a matter of months before biting the bullet. Conversely, nearly every quality motherboard manufacturer has had motherboards that initially passed QA testing only to wind up as expensive paperweights some time later.
I'd recommend replacing your current PSU and seeing if that fixes the problem. Now, I don't suggest you immediately go out and buy a new PSU with your fingers crossed. If you have a spare with similar wattage, plug that in; it'll give you the same result and you won't be spending extra. If you don't have a spare, only then do I recommend getting a new one. If you wouldn't mind a personal suggestion, I'd go with a PC Power & Cooling Silencer:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010320058+50009830+113142558&Configurator=&Subcategory=58&description=&Ntk=&SpeTabStoreType=&srchInDesc=
PC Power & Cooling's well known for making rock solid PSUs and they have 5 year warranties if anything goes wrong. OCZ (which now own PC Power & Cooling) and Corsair make extremely nice PSUs as well; Antec and Thermaltake are a little hit and miss. Enermax has some great ones as well.
Anyway, if the replacement PSU fails to correct the problem, it's probably going to be your motherboard. If it posts, you can try updating the BIOS to a more recent or previous version and see if that helps. If it doesn't and you've overclocked anything, set the board back to its defaults. Obviously, if your board is failing to post, it's probably dead. You could try reinstalling your OS and, while it might be worth a shot, I doubt it will improve your situation any. If you know anyone with a Core i7 rig, ask if you can swap out your CPU and memory with theirs for a few minutes; if your rig starts working again, you can then narrow it down between those two. Chances are, you don't know anyone with a similarly equipped computer, so you can't actually perform that kind of trouble shooting.
Which leaves us to the last option: RMAing your motherboard and receiving a replacement. Now, I'm not going to suggest that you buy from a different brand because, regardless of manufacturer, even high end X58 boards can have the occasional cockup. I'd stick with ASUS, but if this experience has soured you, Gigabyte makes equally impressive motherboards despite the more "colorful" palette used.
unboring @ Apr 17th 2009 11:51AM
in every single GTA4 review that I read and watched on all major sites it was noted that the PS3 version looked the best, with less pop in and significantly lower loading times. I agree with you that 360 has a slight upper hand with Fallout , but you are very wrong about GTA4, resolution was slightly higher on 360 but the AA and pop in was much better on PS3, as were the load speeds, just read about it on any major gaming website.
Other examples where PS3 was reviewed as looking better , Oblivion Elder Scrolls, Fight Night 3, Mirrors edge, and probably some others Im missing. So yes, many games are 360 ports and suffer in the transfer a little bit, no it's not usually a problem, and some games also are better on ps3.
When it comes to exclusives PS3 wins, and so does its graphics.
jackal @ Apr 17th 2009 2:16PM
unboring,
People prefer the slight difference in rendering found in the PS3 port of GTA IV when compared to the Xbox 360 port. Having said that, the Xbox 360 port runs at a higher native resolution and while it may not be noticeable to you console gamers, it's a pretty significant difference to those of us who actually can play games at high native resolutions. In nearly every comparison shot I've seen between the two ports, the textures are noticeably sharper and crisper on the Xbox 360 version; compared to the PC port, they're both a blurry mess. As far as pop in is concerned, everyone and their grandmother knew Rockstar was having problems getting the game to fit on Microsoft's mutant DVD format; people believe a developer's got 8.5 GBs to use, but in reality they only have 6 since Microsoft requires everyone to reserve 2 GBs of optical storage for system information.
The PS3 port of Oblivion was better looking initially, since it updated the game's shader code. However, they made it quite clear that they were going to patch that same enhancement into the other versions and eventually did. As it stands now, both console versions are equal in terms of overall image quality. Fight Night Round 3's an example of how delayed development can actually improve a game.
Before you call me an Xbox fanboy, let me make it clear that I'm a PC gamer primarily; in terms of visuals, we're completely untouched by any console camp. While you guys are quibbling over whether or not a port is running at or below 1280x720 by a small degree or who's got better low level AA, I'm playing the same games at 1600x1200 with high quality texture filtering, 4-8x AA, and uncompressed textures that simply make what you have access to look last gen up close. Having said that, I've also got all three current and last gen systems. I've sung praises and condemned each of them. The glaring exception's the Wii, but that has more to do with my complete disagreement with Nintendo's business plan and complete hatred of the mini-game fellating masses than anything else.
You console fanboys really seem to go out of your way to take jabs at each other maliciously and then act like any minute gain to be had is to be celebrated as a resounding victory. Both the Xbox 360 and PS3 are great consoles with great exclusives. Instead of wasting the time to say, "My system's got better games than yours does!" or "Ha Ha! If you take a look at my version of Fight Night, you can see slightly more stubble on this character model's face when I pause the game even though you won't see it in motion!" why don't you both simply agree that, despite the differences in console features, reliability, or exclusive libraries, you've got fantastic systems? Or is that simply asking too much from you all?
sc00by_y00 @ Apr 18th 2009 2:33AM
Lovely first comment a complete troll..
sc00by_y00 @ Apr 18th 2009 3:32AM
Cosmo let me take your point and relate it to several games:
Resident Evil 5 basically identical on ps3 / xbox360
Burn Out Paradise - Actually had better features on the ps3 and graphically practically identical
COD 4: modern warfare pretty much identical
COD 5: WAW pretty much identical
Soul Caliber IV : pretty much identical
Dead Space: Pretty much identical
Devil May Cry 4: pretty much identical
Street Fighter 4: pretty much identical
Army of two: pretty much identical
Assassins Creed: pretty much identical
So in this long list of games where is the supposed superiority of the 360 ?
Dude your chatting shit. This was true in 2007 not today.
EA stated that it was using the PS3 as the lead development platform for most of its games.
And in terms of First Party development PS3 wins.
Also regarding arguments about GPU of XBOX360 being superior its been argued to death.. KillZone 2 buried that argument, Drakes Fortune even buried that argument..
I wont get into the crap regarding PC games being oh so superior, considering you have to spend +1000 on a decent pc games rig.. Nvidia GTX 285 ~ the price of a ps3 and thats just 1 graphics card.. Plus your locked to pretty much sitting at your computer verbally masturbating about your awesome screenshots and graphics locked to a likely 24" monitor- where the higher resolution for games play is pretty much pointless unless you happen to have super vision.. While most console owners really dont give a rats ass about the typical 720p resolution when they are playing it on projectors and huge tv screens :) . chilling back on a couch with friends using controllers.. Games console - don't need to be a rocket scientist to work out what a games console is designed for.
In fact Resolution plays an important factor on massive screens. I have a 24" monitor (1920x1200 resolution) Its for screen real estate and for graphics and design based work. Games just play better on lower res and I have a gtx280 - My eye is not able to distinguish any real difference between a game on this 24" screen running at 1920 x 1200 to it running at 1280 x 720. I am sure a screenshot may look gorgeous but in real world terms it means sweet FA when your playing a game.. Of course if I hook up the PC to my projector then thats a different story, but thats a pain in the ass when my PS3 plays most games better in the first place any way --- racing game on a PC ? **** that for a laugh.. Gimme GT5P or burnout paradise on a ps3 any day of the week. Also Gran Turismo 5 Prologue runs at 1920 x 1080 (1080p ) anyway ..
jackal @ Apr 19th 2009 12:50AM
sc00by y00,
What insufferable fanboy bug crawled up your ass and burrowed into your lower colon? All Cosmo pointed out was that most multiplatform games perform and/or look on the Xbox 360. What he said isn't trollish lies or something completely removed from reality when most 360 ports do indeed have some margin of visual superiority, even if minor, over their PS3 counterparts. If you want a recent example, take a look at Fallout 3. The Xbox 360 version has noticeably better transparency AA and sharper terrain textures than the PS3 version. It has nothing to with the technical superiority of one platform over another and everything to do with ease of porting between them (not to mention overall developer competency).
If a developer chooses the Xbox 360 as the lead platform it's essentially guaranteed the PS3 port will suffer in some way; textures are often blurrier, there's usually more aliasing, framerates are choppier, and transparencies often take a hit. Why? Xbox 360 development, even for the same game, does not lend itself well to the PS3 given the architectural differences between the two. This is stark contrast with lead PS3 development, where porting from the PS3 to the 360 allows for a final product that is equal on both systems. Ideally, both systems would each have a team working on them to avoid those problems entirely. If developers have said as much, what nugget of truth have you provided to contradict them or, for that matter, Cosmos?
"Plus your locked to pretty much sitting at your computer verbally masturbating about your awesome screenshots and graphics locked to a likely 24" monitor." Just how fucking stupid are you? This isn't 2001, where a videocard's only two output options were S-video out or VGA. Every videocard made after 2005, even those that are low end, comes with the following adapters: S-video out, component video out, DVI - VGA out, and DVI - HDMI out. There is absolutely nothing preventing a PC gamer from hooking his rig up to an HDTV or projector, planting his ass on the couch, and enjoying something like Dead Space (yes, we have that game too) in the same way you can with a PS3 as long as he has the appropriate cables (*shocker* you've got to buy an HDMI or component cable separately for your PS3 as well).
For someone who claims to own a GTX 280, you seem to know shit all about your own card's connectivity options (which is remarkably strange since you'd have to be completely blind in order to not see the adapters tucked away in the box they came in).
"My eye is not able to distinguish any real difference between a game on this 24" screen running at 1920 x 1200 to it running at 1280 x 720." How can you not see the difference when 1920x1200 is literally more than twice the resolution of 1280x720? It's akin to saying a Blu-ray movie's visual quality is no different than that offered by an upscaled DVD when, clearly, the disparity is quite noticeable. So, either you really don't have the best eyesight or you're outright lying in order to give your snide quips some kick. "I am sure a screenshot may look gorgeous but in real world terms it means sweet FA when your playing a game." Really? It's the difference between having a sharp, detailed picture and a blurry mess.
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6169711/index.html
Roll your mouse over the second picture, take a long look, and try repeating what you said with a straight face. The only difference between Halo 2 Vista with low quality settings and the Xbox port is the native resolution; texture resolution, lighting, AA, and AF are the same. By your standards, they're more or less identical (after all, if you can't tell 1920x1200 from 1280x720, you surely couldn't tell 1280x720 apart from 640x480). To the rest of us, one presents a visually appealing experience while the other makes us want to tear our eyes from their sockets.
You don't seem to frequent this site much, so here's a series of tips for you. If you're going to call out someone, either A) provide information to invalidate them, B) know what the hell you're talking about, or C) keep your mouth shut completely. Don't try insulting our intelligence by lying to us in order to support your poorly thought out arguments; we're not stupid, we see what you're trying to do, and we'll tear you apart for it. If you're going to take personal jabs at a friend of mine, make sure you're in a position to do so. Because, if you're not, I'll make just as much of an ass out of you as I have Gundam and I'm sure you'd rather not have most of us treat you like a pompous dimwit every time you make a comment.
sc00by_y00 @ Apr 19th 2009 3:52AM
Read the last page.. The reply to your comment is there..
cut down version hopefully here again:
Did you see the list of games I posted ? Thats just stuff out of my games collection I was looking over.. Each practically identical between the two platforms All you have of recent lineage is fallout 3 to back up the statement of "many".
www.threespeech.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/gt22.jpg
www.threespeech.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/gt21.jpg
uk.ps3.ign.com/dor/objects/949777/gran-turismo-5-prologue/images/gran-turismo-5-prologue-20080328045650641.html?page=mediaFull
Do those screen shots above look gorgeous to you ? the IGN ones are at 1280x720 and the other at 1920 x 1080 there is no reduction in quality only in size.. This difference will manifest on a massive screen not on a small screen. The larger the screen the more scaling that will be involved if the screen is huge the less scaling that is necessary the better. If the screen is small it really has no noticeable difference. Does this make sense ? Do I need to give you more examples ?
Your screen shots prove nothing because you dont understand the sort of resolutions our eyes can pick up .. When you go outside of the range of our visual field then it really doesn't make much difference, do you understand this ? Here is a nice article for you to be able to understand why small screens and huge resolutions make no real difference for films and games:
www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/
Also what he posted had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that KZ2 sold a million copies.. Thats why I said what I said, does that also make sense ?
So instead of threatening me. Think over what some one else has posted. Logically evaluate it, its not all a massive pissing contest. I hope you are able to take emotion out and can try and technically and logically prove me wrong, because I doubt you can..
jackal @ Apr 19th 2009 4:47PM
sc00by y00,
Really? I could point out that GTA IV runs at a higher resolution and has better transparencies on the 360 compared to the PS3 port, allowing it to have much crisper text and slightly less blurry textures (not to mention trees that are completely ugly); people often say the PS3 port is the winner because they prefer the slightly different look in rendering (as do I). I could point out that, because the 360 version of SCIV runs at a slightly higher resolution than the PS3 port, aliasing isn't quite as noticeable. Resident Evil 5 has better water quality, higher overall framerates, and better particle effects on Microsoft's system compared to Sony's. How's that for recent?
"Do those screen shots above look gorgeous to you ?" They look good, but the validity of your comparison is nonexistent because they all feature a different model in a different setting. It's like saying, "HA! This scene of Iron Man is so much crisper on this Mitsubishi laser TV than it is on the Pioneer Kuro!" when you've given me two completely different shots in order to draw a conclusion from. At least in the the roll over comparison shot I sent you, it's the same vehicle, in the same position, at the same location, with the same lighting. That was a fair comparison and, not only was it a fair comparison, it gave credence to what I was saying. All you've effectively done is give me oranges when your demanding that I judge apples. See the problem there? Or, in your own words, "Do I need to give you more examples?"
"the IGN ones are at 1280x720 and the other at 1920 x 1080 there is no reduction in quality only in size.. " Let's just say that, for the sake of argument, they were the same screenshot captured at a different resolution or, most likely, downscaled. Of course there wouldn't be an extremely noticeable difference between the two other than size because you're getting a pixel to pixel representation of the same thing on each panel. What I'm trying to get through to you, and what you're not getting, is that upscaling an image from a lower resolution to fill the real estate allowed by a higher resolution panel does not mean you're getting improved picture quality. All you've succeeded in doing is making a small picture bigger. That's it. You've not magically added the additional information needed for the two to be truly equal and, if you did, you'd see the same performance decrease because they would be the same. Again, it's as if you're saying there would be no difference in my viewing pleasure watching the Dark Knight on Blu-ray at 720p and then watching the same film on an upscaled DVD when we both know that there would definitely be a disparity between the two.
Is there a massive difference between 720p and 1080p on a 32" HDTV? No, because, at a viewing distance of 8 feet away, the screen is just too small for you to see the subtle differences between the two. At 40" - 42", the disparity begins to present itself and, at 46" up, it's obvious. I didn't need you trying to be cute and posting a link telling me the same damn thing I already know.
Of course, most PC gamers are sitting 1-2 feet away from their monitors. At that distance, there's absolutely no way you can tell me with a straight face that you simply can't tell one from the other.There's literally a night and day difference with in game text. Small, fine details like the fur of a creature in Black & White 2 or the architectural ribbing on a conduit in Dead Space are noticeable and crisp instead of being either outright unnoticeable or blurry. In Crysis, a far off bush actually looks like a bush instead of a green cluster of sprites. In Crysis Wars, its the difference between sniping someone off a bridge at a great distance and missing their head. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean you can tell me I can't when It's pretty fucking clear that I, and many others, do. If we didn't, there'd be absolute no demand for something like a GTX 295 or a HD 4870 X2 in our industry.
As far as Cosmos's first comment, no, what you said didn't make sense. He wasn't trolling or intentionally trying to start a flame war. If he'd said, "Fuck the PS3! This was it's most touted exclusive and it didn't even sell 6 million in a week!" then you'd be absolutely correct in flaming him. He didn't do that, now did he? Rather than say, "What does this have to Killzone 2?" or "I downranked you because you're off topic", you went on for a quarter page showing your ass and trying to tear him down over a harmless post. Then, to throw more sand in his face, you were more or less trying to tell us all that PC gamers really don't have better image quality than what you console kiddies do (even though there is an unfathomable amount of GOOD COMPARISON SHOTS to show otherwise). "I hope you are able to take emotion out and can try and technically and logically prove me wrong, because I doubt you can." I suggest you follow your own advice, since it wasn't all that hard knocking your pompous ass down a peg.
jarhead906 @ Apr 16th 2009 6:05PM
It probably helped both SSBB and GeoW 2 when they each established a humongous fan base with the preceding titles.
Killzone 2 kind of had to make a name for itself.
Was this a fair comparison by Joystiq? Sorta. Kind'a. Not really.
Markez @ Apr 16th 2009 6:08PM
I know you likely wouldn't have an easy answer, but what would you suggest as fair comparisons?
MariusElijah (Only on PlayStation 3) @ Apr 16th 2009 6:11PM
where is the Halo comparison, you can only compare this game to Halo
JuanDHexen @ Apr 16th 2009 6:15PM
Actually KZ2 had more of a battle than gears.the first killzone was bad so people didn't think it could get better so didn't bother while Gears 1 was a huge success so obviously Gears2 was going to have bigger sales and be huge as well.
Doug @ Apr 16th 2009 6:33PM
The first Gears had to make a name for itself and it sold over 3 million copies in 10 weeks.
David @ Apr 16th 2009 6:31PM
Gears of War 1 sold nearly three times as much in the same time span, and Assassin's Creed sold more on either console. Killzone sold well, but it looks bad for Sony's first parties if these are the best numbers they can put up after 2 and a half years. Looking through this I found out Insomniac isn't owned by Sony. Why don't they try making multiplatform games? Do they have some other arrangement that keeps them from sharing games with the rest of gamers?
Knight Marquise @ Apr 16th 2009 6:32PM
Marius,
I think Halo 3 sold over 3 million copies in the first 2 weeks, and as of January 2008, had sold over 8 million copies.
Markez @ Apr 16th 2009 6:33PM
The 1st Gears did have that incredible commercial campaign going for it - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccWrbGEFgI8
God that was good.
Maverick Saturn @ Apr 16th 2009 6:50PM
For Gears' success, I think you can thank that memorable ad campaign, the people over here that knew nothing of Gears before definatly knew about it after that, it was talk of the town. Killzone hasn't had that, plus the fact Killzone already has a bad rep from the first game.
Meh Marketing + Bad Previous Rep + Serious Skepticalism = Not great sales performance
Halo 3: Godlike Marketing + Excellent Rep + No Skepticism + Higher number of 360s owned = Superb sales, if Halo 3 hadn't performed the way it did, it would be a laughing stock. So if you look at it that way, Killzone hasn't done half bad.
SoCoolCurt (PSN: KillaKornbread - XBL: SoCoolCurt) @ Apr 16th 2009 7:33PM
doesn't install base have a lot to do with it to? there are a lot more 360's out there than PS3's so that obviously means more people are available to buy the games.
we could go on forever with excuses as to why it didn't sell all that great compared to the big name 360 titles, fact is Sony has to find a way to sell more games. i personally had just as much fun with Killzone 2 as i had with any of those 360 titles they mentioned. all of them are awesome but the 360 ones just sell more for that laundry list of reasons.
JoeTheBlow @ Apr 17th 2009 5:38AM
I call shenanigans on this story.
I think this is another case where Joystiq assume America=World.
Just on pre-orders alone it got 1.1 million copies reserved in Europe, and its been in the top ten consistently since:
http://playstation.joystiq.com/2009/02/05/europe-goes-preorder-mad-for-killzone-2/
I can understand 1 million sales in the US, but Europe has always been far more Killzone mad and i'm sure we passed those sales long ago.
Someone prove me wrong, i haven't the time to go looking up the EU sales.
LouDogg @ Apr 17th 2009 10:28AM
Also making the comparison with Gears of War 2 and Halo 3 is the fact that those games were released during the holiday season, which is bound to help sales massively. Considering this as well as the smaller PS3 console base, 1m seems like a very good number.
If you compare it to Resistance 2, which has sold 1.6 million so far, K2's performance also looks pretty good, and makes me wonder whether K2 should have been the feature PS3 title released in November.
Troy Powers (PSN: TroyPowers) @ Apr 17th 2009 1:24PM
Hey, it is what it is. Killzone 2's sales have been disappointing. They have not lived up to the hype. They don't reflect the quality of the game. They simply aren't what the world expected. According to NPD it was about 300k in Feb, and about 300k in March. Sure, the numbers are respectable. 1M sold worldwide is good. But, much less than expected.
Killzone 2 is an EXCEPTIONAL game. No set of numbers and statistics is going to take that away. It's fucking fantastic! As far as game quality, it has lived up to...correction...it has SURPASSED the hype. But it simply isn't moving units the way you would expect a game of it's calibur to. And no amount of excuse making and rationalizing is going to change that. "Oh, Game X already had an established fan base. Console Y has a much larger install base. Game Z had much better advertising." So what. Who gives a rat's ass? The fact still remains, this game was hyped up to high heaven, but the number of people actually "buying" into the hype with cold, hard cash is lower than expected.
All that said...I could give a shit. I wouldn't care if the game only sold 1 copy, as long as it's the copy that's sitting in my PS3 right now, cuz the game kicks ass!
JuanDHexen @ Apr 16th 2009 6:07PM
Oh god here it comes:(
Carlos @ Apr 16th 2009 6:09PM
This has success written all over it =]
Congrats Guerrilla Games! Excellent game
Inect @ Apr 16th 2009 6:09PM
I still haven't bought my copy. Just haven't found the time.
agq0105 @ Apr 16th 2009 6:11PM
This is actually pretty depressing 1 million in 7 weeks... that's pretty bad. Like the article said..... first party games from both the 360 and Wii have definitely done much better.
Adam @ Apr 16th 2009 6:18PM
I think it has done pretty well considering the reputation Guerilla Games had to overcome from Killzone 1 (Which makes it unfair to compare to most Wii games - Mario probably being the most established videogame series ever, and a lot of the first party titles on the 360 being sequels to already good and successful games).
Maverick Saturn @ Apr 16th 2009 6:19PM
Well, many of my mates have yet to get hold of the game, marketing is pretty bad here :( I've seen no ads, so it doesn't suprise me they've heard of COD4-2 and not Killzone 2