[Maflynn]

I'm looking for a new PS3 game and I'm debating between these two. The things that are important to me are good and fairly long single player missions.

I'm not what you would consider a hard core gamer and the single player game is more then sufficient for my needs. I've heard that the older Call of Duty 4 had a very short single player set of missions. How does COD5 stack up.

I'm leaning towards Killzone 2 because I played COD1, COD2 (skipped 3 and 4) and I'm tired of bouncing between allied and russian missions. I was surprised to see that COD5 had this same setup, seems more of retread. Regardless of that, it still may have good playability.

Thoughts, opinions.

[Mac User #001]

I have played neither, but I would say for single player, go for Killzone 2.

[ort888]

Call of Duty 4 is a hell of a game and can probably be picked up for half of what you would pay for World at War or Killzone 2.

I have not played either Killzone or CoD:WaW, but word on the street is that Killzone should be a much better game.

[Maflynn]

I toyed around with COD4, and it didn't do much for me, I agree the price will be half of the newer games but I didn't care for it
:shrugs:

[exca1ibur]

Killzone 2. Fun single player and the multiplayer is pretty in depth. Call of Duty 4 is great as well. Short single player but very well done. Killzone 2 I am just really starting but so far its pretty good.

[andreas_g4]

I cannot offer an opinion of CoD 5, but I started playing CoD4 (but quit after an hour or so) and just recently Killzone 2, and man, Killzone is the way to go.

I don't think the Killzone campaign to be much longer than any other games, maybe 10 hours on a strict playthrough, BUT: You'll die often if you don't play on the easy modes, and the environments are so vast that you have to play it again to be able to appreciate it in full.