So I've decided to conduct a little experiment.  I have a copy of Killzone 2 on the way and i've heard numerous good reviews of it.  The general gist is that it doesn't really innovate as a game, but does a lot of the key elements of an FPS game really well.  However, there was one review that shall go unnamed that gave the game a rather paltry score compared to what I'd been hearing elsewhere.

So I'm going to compare three games to get a sense of what makes a good FPS game and what doesn't.  Specifically I'm going to compare and contrast three games:

• Call of Duty 4 - hailed as one of the best FPS games in recent memory and rated very highly
• Killzone 2 - a new release that's raising the bar in a few respects, but does it compare favorably to COD4?
• Haze - the universally reviled PS3 exclusive

I've been playing COD4 and I'll be getting Haze from GameFly shortly to see what it's like.  Then I'll write up a comparison between the three about what they get right and wrong.