Hows about we compare franchise metacritics instead of individual games? This would include Halo CE which has a 97 meta.
No. Look at my original reply to your post. I specifically said "last gen" titles excluding Halo 3 and Gears 1 because those games have better campaigns. I'm not here to compare the series, I'm simply stating your original post sucks and I disagree with it based upon what I have played. KZ2 and 3 have great campaigns. Have you played them?
Why are you comparing KZ 2 to Halo 4? Let's compare metacritics from just last gen then. Halo had 94, 91 and 87. KZ has 91 and 84.
"MS doesn't. Halo and Gears would have to have worse campaigns and have awful throwaway mp to be a KZ equivalent."
Sounds like you were talking about the whole series and not just specific titles. Not sure why you are trying to cherry pick examples of which games in the series you can use and which games I can't.
Whether you compare the entire series or just specific gens, Halo has higher scores
Your whole argument has more holes in it after every post. You don't even seem to know what you are arguing for at this point. I've relented (in my first post, mind you) that there are several games in the Halo/Gears series that are better. You contend that the games must be worse because of the meta scores. That would be sensible if every game in the series was ahead of Killzone. They're not.
You chose the games. You chose the way in which we will judge them (metacritic). And now you seem to be backtracking at every post. Again, I'll ask, have you ever played the games? I noticed that you dodged the question the first time, so feel free to answer it this time around.