#1 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (1001 posts) -

Ok so up until now I'v been pretty much pro PS4 but when I actually look at the games for both machines the only ones that I even want to play are Killzone and Killer Instinct with KI having the slight edge. Deciding which of these games I actually want to play more may actually be the deciding factor for which of the consoles I'm actually going to buy so I thought I'd ask the duders on here fore there opinions. Has anybody played both games? What did you think? Shooter fans, how was Killzone? Fighter fans, how was Killer Instinct? Even duders that haven't played ether what are your thoughts on each game?

#2 Posted by BIGJEFFREY (4918 posts) -

KI has the superior soundtrack

Online
#3 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (1001 posts) -
#4 Posted by Belegorm (399 posts) -

I really, really think you shouldn't decide what console to play based on either of those games. Wait till a really must-buy comes out for either one then get one of the consoles then.

#5 Edited by Juzie (168 posts) -

Killer Instinct and I say that as a Sony Fanboy. Game is a blast to play, really feels like what a next gen 2D fighter should feel like. Killzone has always been one of my most hated Sony exclusives and this one is no different. It's pretty (like every other KZ besides maybe the first) but the game feels like a clunkier version of CoD with a few cool gagdets to play around with in MP.

The main problem I have with Killer Instinct is that 6 characters is very limited in a fighting game so it is going to get boring and forgotten fairly quickly. But given the subpar launch lineup, it's still my favorite of the bunch.

#6 Edited by Jonny_Anonymous (1001 posts) -

@belegorm: Yea but other that these two games there really isn't any must buy exclusives.

@juzie said:

Killer Instinct and I say that as a Sony Fanboy. Game is a blast to play, really feels like what a next gen 2D fighter should feel like. Killzone has always been one of my most hated Sony exclusives and this one is no different. It's pretty (like every other KZ besides maybe the first) but the game feels like a clunkier version of CoD with a few cool gagdets to play around with in MP.

The main problem I have with Killer Instinct is that 6 characters is very limited in a fighting game so it is going to get boring and forgotten fairly quickly. But given the subpar launch lineup, it's still my favorite of the bunch.

Aren't they adding a bunch more fighters post-launch?

#7 Edited by benspyda (2033 posts) -

Killzone looks pretty mediocre and having played Killer Instinct, it's just ok. I can vouch for Dead Rising 3 and Forza 5 being pretty good exclusives for Xbox, but I wouldn't buy a console just for Killzone or KI.

#8 Edited by Sackmanjones (4685 posts) -

Well these games are hard to compare since they are so different. I have a ps4 so I can't speak about Killer instinct but 1 is it's free and 2 is it sounds like it's a pretty fun game.

As a Killzone fan I can pretty much say that I agree with most reviews. I'd say that I enjoyed the campaign for the most part but there are a few moments that are seriously flawed and insanely frustrating. One in particular has terrible checkpointing and can make a seemingly cool mission turn to garbage. The multiplayer is pretty great though. It feels more like a slower paced more objective centered call of duty. The abilities are cool and the maps are solid. So I guess it comes down to whether you like multiplayer shooters or fighters better. But like someone else said, don't judge your purchasing in these games alone. Decide based on other factors and future games for the console you'd like.

#9 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (1001 posts) -

Well these games are hard to compare since they are so different. I have a ps4 so I can't speak about Killer instinct but 1 is it's free and 2 is it sounds like it's a pretty fun game.

As a Killzone fan I can pretty much say that I agree with most reviews. I'd say that I enjoyed the campaign for the most part but there are a few moments that are seriously flawed and insanely frustrating. One in particular has terrible checkpointing and can make a seemingly cool mission turn to garbage. The multiplayer is pretty great though. It feels more like a slower paced more objective centered call of duty. The abilities are cool and the maps are solid. So I guess it comes down to whether you like multiplayer shooters or fighters better. But like someone else said, don't judge your purchasing in these games alone. Decide based on other factors and future games for the console you'd like.

Well I really couldn't care about the DRM and all that crap and nether machine has any "must play" exclusives I'm interested in other than these two games and it's more than likely I will get both somewhere down the line.

#10 Posted by Spoonman671 (4595 posts) -

I've only played Killzone, but I would definitely recommend the multiplayer. It doesn't feel a whole lot like a Killzone game though, if that is a problem for you. Maps are pretty cramped, too.

#11 Edited by Humanity (9050 posts) -

@jonny_anonymous: I'm terrible at fighting games, despite my hardest efforts at learning, and I'm pretty good at First Person Shooters - so it's kind of a skewed choice for me.

#12 Posted by FlaminB (25 posts) -

I think Resogun is a better comparison to Killer Instinct, Killzone to Dead Rising 3, and Knack to Ryse. But still very flawed comparisons.

IMO... Resogun = Dead Rising 3 > Killer Instinct > Killzone > Knack = Ryse

Unless you love FPS's and hate fighting games, Killer Instinct is better than Killzone. Though neither are killer games (pun intended).

#13 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (1001 posts) -

@flaminb: Well I'm not trying to compare the games

#14 Posted by FlaminB (25 posts) -

Then "vs" in the title was a mistake.

#15 Posted by Fredchuckdave (5353 posts) -

This is an impossible comparison, though KI looks like a better game overall.

#16 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (1001 posts) -

@fredchuckdave: @flaminb: Again, I'm not comparing the games. It's not "Which is a better game?" it's "Which game do you prefer?"

#17 Edited by GERALTITUDE (3228 posts) -

When I feel like shooting, I prefer Killzone.

When I feel like punching, I prefer Killer Instinct.

Sorry duder! Snideness aside, what kind of answer are you possibly looking for here that isn't completely illegitimate? I mean, if someone told you "I prefer Dragon Age over Burnout Paradise" well, it tells you nothing. Just like picking KI over Killzone or the opposite also tells you nothing. The genre's are too different.

To really try and asnwer your question: I think the multiplayer in Killzone is great, especially if you are a little dried out on the standard military shooter. The campaign looks awesome but plays very average. Killer Instinct seems fun enough from the once I played it, thought the microtransaction pill is hard to swallow. It's a good deal though - 20 bucks for all the characters I think? The one thing I'll add to KI is that pretty much every videogame player who isn't a Fighting Game Player does this thing where they buy a fighting game and play it for a week and then never play it again. Unless you have buddies to play with (preferably on a couch) then it probably will never be more than a curiosity to you. ON THE OTHER HAND. If you feel the same way about shooters as the average gamer feels about fighters then reverse what I said and apply it to Killzone.

#18 Posted by Seppli (10251 posts) -

@juzie said:

Killer Instinct and I say that as a Sony Fanboy. Game is a blast to play, really feels like what a next gen 2D fighter should feel like. Killzone has always been one of my most hated Sony exclusives and this one is no different. It's pretty (like every other KZ besides maybe the first) but the game feels like a clunkier version of CoD with a few cool gagdets to play around with in MP.

The main problem I have with Killer Instinct is that 6 characters is very limited in a fighting game so it is going to get boring and forgotten fairly quickly. But given the subpar launch lineup, it's still my favorite of the bunch.

It's a free 2 play game, and it does sell fighters individually, and in various packs, as well as in Season Packs. There will be more fighters. If it's successful, you might still be getting more fighters years from now.

It just operates with a new business model for fighting games. I think it could be a great match for the genre.

#19 Edited by FlaminB (25 posts) -

@jonny_anonymous: And I answered that question. But it's still a difficult question. You're asking for a preference of taste when looking at two very different plates of food.

Neither is worth $400-$500. So you need to add more to the equation before wasting a lot of money.

The X1 vs PS4 debate goes deeper than two mediocre games. Which they are. As a fan of both genres, both are poor additions to their respective genre.

#20 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (1001 posts) -

When I feel like shooting, I prefer Killzone.

When I feel like punching, I prefer Killer Instinct.

Sorry duder! Snideness aside, what kind of answer are you possibly looking for here that isn't completely illegitimate? I mean, if someone told you "I prefer Dragon Age over Burnout Paradise" well, it tells you nothing. Just like picking KI over Killzone or the opposite also tells you nothing. The genre's are too different.

To really try and asnwer your question: I think the multiplayer in Killzone is great, especially if you are a little dried out on the standard military shooter. The campaign looks awesome but plays very average. Killer Instinct seems fun enough from the once I played it, thought the microtransaction pill is hard to swallow. It's a good deal though - 20 bucks for all the characters I think? The one thing I'll add to KI is that pretty much every videogame player who isn't a Fighting Game Player does this thing where they buy a fighting game and play it for a week and then never play it again. Unless you have buddies to play with (preferably on a couch) then it probably will never be more than a curiosity to you. ON THE OTHER HAND. If you feel the same way about shooters as the average gamer feels about fighters then reverse what I said and apply it to Killzone.

Well not everybody that likes shooters is automatically going to pick KZ. For example I love fighting games, I like them more than shooters however I think Halo Reach is a better game than Injustice.

#21 Posted by iAmJohn (6117 posts) -

Comparing Apples and Shotguns: The Thread.

#22 Posted by CrazyBagMan (841 posts) -

I'm completely unsure of the point of this topic.

#23 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (1001 posts) -

@flaminb: Yea but the only things that really matter to me is price and what games the thing allows me to play.

#24 Edited by Jonny_Anonymous (1001 posts) -

@crazybagman: Then you need to pay more attention. @iamjohn: For the third time in this thread I will explain this again: I am not comparing these games, this is not "What one is better" it's "What one do you prefer"

#25 Posted by FlaminB (25 posts) -

@jonny_anonymous: You like fighting games more? Do you like Tekken? PS4 is more likely to have Tekken. Even if you don't, PS3 had more exclusive fighting games, while most 360 fighting games were on both platforms. So PS4 might be a better fighting game console. But if you like Halo and cross-platform fighters like Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat, Xbox One might be the better choice, because it will have all of those.

I feel those are the aspects you should be looking at.

#26 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (1001 posts) -

@flaminb: I lost interest in Tekken a long time ago. What others are PS exclusives?

#27 Posted by marc (499 posts) -

I do not understand how people can let a couple of launch titles dictate whether to buy one console over another

#28 Posted by FearMyFlop (100 posts) -

There's a lot I like about Killzone. It has great music and it has a great style to it. Just playing it breaks the immersion for me because like others have said, it is really clunky and slow. Having said that, there isn't much in Killer Instinct to justify a console purchase alone. The Xbox One does have the better lineup so far when it comes to exclusives at least.

#29 Edited by mrfluke (5130 posts) -

taking the consoles out of the picture, i prefer killer instinct, that game plays extremely well (played it at a event) feels like the child of street fighter and marvel vs capcom, and with the entry level being free, there will be players to come.

but taking the consoles into the picture, thats about the only real thing thats making me want to get an xbox one, other than that im flying the ps4 flag.

the multiplatform fighters will make up for killer instinct being exclusive.

#30 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (1001 posts) -

@marc said:

I do not understand how people can let a couple of launch titles dictate whether to buy one console over another

I don't see why not? All that really matters is what games the things let you play.

#31 Edited by MonetaryDread (2015 posts) -

@marc: Because, like all tech, you should buy when you want what is currently available. Buying any tech because of their potential will almost certainly lead to dissapointment.

I have been purchasing tech since the early eighties and you would be amazed at the amount of shit the gets released then, for whatever reason, the platform turns to shit. Betamax (a sony product), was far and away the better platform in comparison to VHS, but it failed after a year or so. Remember HD DVD vs. Blu Ray? How about all those N64 games, I mean, look at how awesome the SNES was, how could the N64 lose all that developer support? What about the PSVita, that launch inspired confidence, right? How about all those video cards that people have been putting into their PC's lately? Those are going to be mostly obsolete when the requirements jump next Christmas. Or how about the Kinect, that sensor has all the potential in the world, how could that not turn out to be awesome.

You have to realize that Sony is on the verge of bankruptcy and one small mistake could turn the new system into an expensive paperweight (especially with the low margins on the PS4 and the fact that PSPlus has got to net the company less money than Xbox Live). The Xbox could be a failure as well, the frontrunner for the new Microsoft CEO position has been vocal about how he wants to axe the Xbox division.

#32 Posted by FlaminB (25 posts) -

@jonny_anonymous: AquaPazza; Playstation All-Stars (meh, I know); Divekick; some BlazBlue games... Sony has also been better about making the old, classic fighting games available on the PS3. Their streaming service could do the same on PS4. Microsoft only did some of that on the 360, and doesn't seem interested in bringing old stuff back again.

The usual suspects like SF, MK, DOA, SC, even recent Tekken games come out on both. Most new IPs come to both. Killer Instinct is the only Microsoft exclusive fighting game I know of. Which is fine, just not amazing. I'll admit, I only like fighting games, I don't love them. Honestly, I don't need much beyond SF and MK. So I have little interest in Killer Instinct, even though I played a lot of the original.

You said price is a factor. Is Killer Instinct worth $100 more?

#33 Posted by marc (499 posts) -

@marc: Because, like all tech, you should buy when you want what is currently available. Buying any tech because of their potential will almost certainly lead to dissapointment.

I have been purchasing tech since the early eighties and you would be amazed at the amount of shit the gets released then, for whatever reason, the platform turns to shit. Betamax (a sony product), was far and away the better platform in comparison to VHS, but it failed after a year or so. Remember HD DVD vs. Blu Ray? How about all those N64 games, I mean, look at how awesome the SNES was, how could the N64 lose all that developer support? What about the PSVita, that launch inspired confidence, right? How about all those video cards that people have been putting into their PC's lately? Those are going to be mostly obsolete when the requirements jump next Christmas. Or how about the Kinect, that sensor has all the potential in the world, how could that not turn out to be awesome.

You have to realize that Sony is on the verge of bankruptcy and one small mistake could turn the new system into an expensive paperweight (especially with the low margins on the PS4 and the fact that PSPlus has got to net the company less money than Xbox Live). The Xbox could be a failure as well, the frontrunner for the new Microsoft CEO position has been vocal about how he wants to axe the Xbox division.

None of this has anything to do with what I said.

#34 Posted by StingingVelvet (569 posts) -

These comparisons and summaries of launch lineups are often silly because these are two entirely different genres. I don't play fighting games or racers, so KI and Forza are officially completely irrelevant to me, no matter what they get reviewed or how many people say they're awesome.

#35 Posted by FlaminB (25 posts) -

@marc: To sum it up: You want to play that exclusive game, you're going to have to buy that console. Period.

I disagree that you shouldn't look ahead and evaluate what will be better in the long run. Yes, Sony or Microsoft could shut down. But I'm not going to pick my console based on the advice of a palm-reader.

The future of the PS4 looks good for me, so I went for it. Eventually, I will likely own an Xbox One. But for right now, PS4 is my Resogun/BF4/AC4 system, and I'm happy with it.

#36 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (1001 posts) -

@flaminb: Any of the older stuff I'v likely got/get on the on the 360/PS3 and out of the games you mentioned only BlazBlue intrests me and since most has been on Xbox that will likely continue.

But as you say KI isn't worth an extra 100 but there is really no PS exclusives that I can think of that interest me at all except KZ. It's like Killer Instinct interests me more (hell some of the big pro fighters think it could blow up on the tournaments) but PS4 is cheaper and I'd like to check KV.

#37 Edited by MonetaryDread (2015 posts) -

@marc said:

@monetarydread said:

@marc: Because, like all tech, you should buy when you want what is currently available. Buying any tech because of their potential will almost certainly lead to dissapointment.

I have been purchasing tech since the early eighties and you would be amazed at the amount of shit the gets released then, for whatever reason, the platform turns to shit. Betamax (a sony product), was far and away the better platform in comparison to VHS, but it failed after a year or so. Remember HD DVD vs. Blu Ray? How about all those N64 games, I mean, look at how awesome the SNES was, how could the N64 lose all that developer support? What about the PSVita, that launch inspired confidence, right? How about all those video cards that people have been putting into their PC's lately? Those are going to be mostly obsolete when the requirements jump next Christmas. Or how about the Kinect, that sensor has all the potential in the world, how could that not turn out to be awesome.

You have to realize that Sony is on the verge of bankruptcy and one small mistake could turn the new system into an expensive paperweight (especially with the low margins on the PS4 and the fact that PSPlus has got to net the company less money than Xbox Live). The Xbox could be a failure as well, the frontrunner for the new Microsoft CEO position has been vocal about how he wants to axe the Xbox division.

None of this has anything to do with what I said.

@marc said:

I do not understand how people can let a couple of launch titles dictate whether to buy one console over another

Look at what you said and explain how that has nothing to do with what I wrote. You said that you do not understand how someone can let a launch title dictate whether to buy one console over another. I replied by saying that people should buy for what is available at the time, not for the potential it offers. If the OP is deciding what to purchase right now, then launch titles are what you have to judge the system by.

#38 Edited by marc (499 posts) -

@monetarydread said:

@marc said:

@monetarydread said:

@marc: Because, like all tech, you should buy when you want what is currently available. Buying any tech because of their potential will almost certainly lead to dissapointment.

I have been purchasing tech since the early eighties and you would be amazed at the amount of shit the gets released then, for whatever reason, the platform turns to shit. Betamax (a sony product), was far and away the better platform in comparison to VHS, but it failed after a year or so. Remember HD DVD vs. Blu Ray? How about all those N64 games, I mean, look at how awesome the SNES was, how could the N64 lose all that developer support? What about the PSVita, that launch inspired confidence, right? How about all those video cards that people have been putting into their PC's lately? Those are going to be mostly obsolete when the requirements jump next Christmas. Or how about the Kinect, that sensor has all the potential in the world, how could that not turn out to be awesome.

You have to realize that Sony is on the verge of bankruptcy and one small mistake could turn the new system into an expensive paperweight (especially with the low margins on the PS4 and the fact that PSPlus has got to net the company less money than Xbox Live). The Xbox could be a failure as well, the frontrunner for the new Microsoft CEO position has been vocal about how he wants to axe the Xbox division.

None of this has anything to do with what I said.

@marc said:

I do not understand how people can let a couple of launch titles dictate whether to buy one console over another

Look at what you said and explain how that has nothing to do with what I wrote. You said that you do not understand how someone can let a launch title dictate whether to buy one console over another. I replied by saying that people should buy for what is available at the time, not for the potential it offers. If the OP is deciding what to purchase right now, then launch titles are what you have to judge the system by.

everything you said relates to buying tech based off of potential, which I said nothing about. That's the only point I was trying to make.

All I'm really getting at, is that if a console decision comes down to either Killzone or KI, maybe waiting a little bit to see what the consoles have to offer down the road is a better idea. VGX is right around the corner. There will no doubt be many announcements. Killzone and KI are most likely 2 games that a year from now will be all but forgotten about, and waiting for official announcements may be the best course of action, if such a decision had to be made by me.

Wanna avoid being stuck with Betamax once it fails? Than wait it out. Don't buy a betamax because it has a couple movies you like available up front.

#39 Posted by SkullPanda1 (100 posts) -

I'd personally go with KZ. The game and system will be cheaper than the Xbox One.

#40 Posted by hermes (1410 posts) -

@belegorm said:

I really, really think you shouldn't decide what console to play based on either of those games. Wait till a really must-buy comes out for either one then get one of the consoles then.

I agree. You are better served trying to decide if you want to play the inevitable Halo 5 or the inevitable inFamous 3 that two mediocre games at launch.

#41 Posted by FonkyMucker (149 posts) -

Shouldn't this discussion be Resogun vs. Killer Instinct? Both are DLC game that are "free".

#42 Posted by hermes (1410 posts) -

@monetarydread said:

@marc said:

@monetarydread said:

@marc: Because, like all tech, you should buy when you want what is currently available. Buying any tech because of their potential will almost certainly lead to dissapointment.

I have been purchasing tech since the early eighties and you would be amazed at the amount of shit the gets released then, for whatever reason, the platform turns to shit. Betamax (a sony product), was far and away the better platform in comparison to VHS, but it failed after a year or so. Remember HD DVD vs. Blu Ray? How about all those N64 games, I mean, look at how awesome the SNES was, how could the N64 lose all that developer support? What about the PSVita, that launch inspired confidence, right? How about all those video cards that people have been putting into their PC's lately? Those are going to be mostly obsolete when the requirements jump next Christmas. Or how about the Kinect, that sensor has all the potential in the world, how could that not turn out to be awesome.

You have to realize that Sony is on the verge of bankruptcy and one small mistake could turn the new system into an expensive paperweight (especially with the low margins on the PS4 and the fact that PSPlus has got to net the company less money than Xbox Live). The Xbox could be a failure as well, the frontrunner for the new Microsoft CEO position has been vocal about how he wants to axe the Xbox division.

None of this has anything to do with what I said.

@marc said:

I do not understand how people can let a couple of launch titles dictate whether to buy one console over another

Look at what you said and explain how that has nothing to do with what I wrote. You said that you do not understand how someone can let a launch title dictate whether to buy one console over another. I replied by saying that people should buy for what is available at the time, not for the potential it offers. If the OP is deciding what to purchase right now, then launch titles are what you have to judge the system by.

You have a third option, which is not buy a new console until there is something you want to play in it. If the only selling points XB1 and PS4 have at the moment are Killer Instinct and Killzone, respectively, maybe its best to wait until each one has at least a couple better selling points before making an expensive purchase decision.

I know that situation. Last generation, I was there as well... I had a time limit within which buying a new console was feasible and, while my decision payed up eventually, I spent years wondering if I made the right decision. That is why my advise is: as long as you are not within some time constraint, its best to wait until there is something you want to play in it, instead of buying on potential alone.