HALO REACH is the current FPS graphic king on console. Not KILLZONE 2 anymore.

PLEASE SEE LINK!!!

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-halo-reach-tech-analysis-article

Yeah halo reach is the current FPS graphic king on console:
Yes i've played killzone 2 & i did a direct comparison between reach & killzone 2 at home what i found out is that killzone 2 has some good effects (post processing effects,destructible enviroments & deffered lighting) but it has flaws like:
#1. lack of colours

#2. Tight linear corridor confined enviroments.

#3. less amount of enemies onscreen

#4. No split screen co-op campaign.

#5. low res enviromental textures.
COMPARED TO
Halo reach with
#1. 4 times lager enviromental scale than halo 3(despite how big halo 3 scale is).

#2. More than 40 dynamic smart AI on screen at once.

#3. More than 40 dynamic HDR light effect.

#4. Different colour array in background.

#4. Full 3d rendered epic skybox.

#5. 4 players split screen co-op campaign local & online.

So technicaly no game stresses a console as halo reach does.

The truth is that GG used tricks & shortcuts like limiting colours,limiting scales & AI on screen to archieve killzone 2 vissuals while bungie didnt sacrifice or use any form of trick such as limiting colours or limiting enviromental scales to archieve halo reach's visual.

Halo reach' sandbox large scale enviroment,huge amounts of smart AI on screen & finally meeting 720p hd & increased poly counts is a big K.O to killzone 2.

TRUTH is bitter.

No..just no

Please don't hype up Reach's graphics..

Okay it looks good, but not that good..

if it's not the best looking game on any system then it's not any kind of king. there's only one king. would you settle for graphics prince?

HALO REACH ALSO USES TESSELATION IN ITS IN GAME ENGINE CUT SCENES THAT ARE SECOND TO NONE.

watching reach in replay mode is unreal. but your wasting your time TC.

cows are hard to convince.

Wow give it up!! They both look great!!

I can believe it. Halo Reach is agreat looking game.

who cares?

Uh, no, Reach's graphics are mediocre at best. Plus come March 2011, Crysis 2 will blow them both away.

Uh, no, Reach's graphics are mediocre at best. Plus come March 2011, Crysis 2 will blow them both away.

Basinboy

who cares?

PcGamingRig

If true, Im sure cows will care.

Good graphics? Yes. FPS graphics king? No.

If we're going by quality then I choose BF:BC2.

KZ2 was owned 2 years before it came out...

Reach looks great and is technically impressive. Overall textures are better than Killzone 2, but thats it for me. The scale is bigger, but at the expense of other graphical limitations.

Bungie has had two times to revamp/gut their engine with ODST and Reach. I just don't think the engine is on par with other shooters as a whole. Guerrila Games on the other hand are just now getting to refine the Killzone Game Engine. KZ3 should be much better technically than Killzone 2 and Reach.

Its better to compare Reach with Killzone 3, not Killzone 2. They are both sequels in which the devs have had the time to refine their respective engines. Their release dates are also close to one another.

Bungie knows their current engine has its limitations. Thats partly why they are making a new one for their new IP. I'm looking forward to seeing it.

Ok im a Halo fan but it does not lead Graphics while they are nice they are not the Best . Bungie focuses more on Gameplay and physics .

Mine is - 360 DISMEMBERMENT76 , PS3 Troy2k9

That motion blur was excessive. I noticed pop ins in most levels I played. Cutscenes were framy. And where does it say in this article that Halo Reach beats any game other than halo 3?

Ok im a Halo fan but it does not lead Graphics while they are nice they are not the Best . Bungie focuses more on Gameplay and physics .

SpArKs424

Again, this generation is when Bungie didn't push the bar for graphics. I'm not sure why. They certainly had the money and man power. Maybe its because it would have been too expensive for a more impressive engine and felt it was fine the way it was (the features were great afterall).

That motion blur was excessive. I noticed pop ins in most levels I played. Cutscenes were framy. And where does it say in this article that Halo Reach beats any game other than halo 3?

Zero_epyon

as long as games dont come out looking like the original Half Life then im good. I dont understand this constant arguing about grahics... Yes they both look amazing. 10 years from now they will both look like trash...so whats the big deal?

as long as games dont come out looking like the original Half Life then im good. I dont understand this constant arguing about grahics... Yes they both look amazing. 10 years from now they will both look like trash...so whats the big deal?

FFVIIROCKS

Not true. There are plenty of older lokin games that still look great. It may not be on a technical aspect, but people can still appreciate them.

Just to start a war :P

[QUOTE="Zero_epyon"]

That motion blur was excessive. I noticed pop ins in most levels I played. Cutscenes were framy. And where does it say in this article that Halo Reach beats any game other than halo 3?

Animal-Mother

[QUOTE="FFVIIROCKS"]

as long as games dont come out looking like the original Half Life then im good. I dont understand this constant arguing about grahics... Yes they both look amazing. 10 years from now they will both look like trash...so whats the big deal?

xYamatox

Not true. There are plenty of older lokin games that still look great. It may not be on a technical aspect, but people can still appreciate them.

true true, I guess I meant technical, because I love half life its still really fun to me. but if a game comes out now looking like that I might be pissed haha

[QUOTE="SpArKs424"]

Ok im a Halo fan but it does not lead Graphics while they are nice they are not the Best . Bungie focuses more on Gameplay and physics .

TREAL_Since

[QUOTE="Animal-Mother"][QUOTE="Zero_epyon"]

That motion blur was excessive. I noticed pop ins in most levels I played. Cutscenes were framy. And where does it say in this article that Halo Reach beats any game other than halo 3?

Zero_epyon

What I'm happy about is the new AA they are using. TheQuincunx AA used in KZ2 made things more blurrier than we are used to in games. Looking at the gameplay videos of KZ3, it looks really clean. The edges are smooth, but not as smudged as KZ2.

We can ramble on about scale, splitscreen, AI (???) and whatnot but I simply judge graphics by looking at [spoiler] the graphics! Crazy, I know [/spoiler] And Reach in no way >>>>'s Killzone 2 graphically, by a long shot. I'll say it's far more artistically pleasing with amazing skyboxes.

No.

Lol, not a chance.

I would imagine that Killzone 2 would not look anywhere near as "good" as it does if its environments were as large as those in Halo Reach.CuteCakes

No.

tonitorsi

No.

tonitorsi

No.

tonitorsi

Erm... That's Halo 3... Not Reach.

No.

tonitorsi

There's Graphic Kings for genres now too?

*pics*

No.

tonitorsi

Hey... that's a pic of Halo 3, not Reach :/. And a terrible one at that lol. But I see what you're aiming for. KZ2 does look more impressive IMO.

Is it so hard to admit that the PS3 can produce better graphics than the 360 ? the 360 is a good console, it really is , but the PS3 can use tricks the 360 cannot, due to its architecture . The cell can do graphics, the processor of the 360 cannot . Halo Reach doesn't have better graphics than Uncharted2 . A 360 game will never have better graphics then Uncharted 2 . It's hard to face the truth ...

if it's not the best looking game on any system then it's not any kind of king. there's only one king. would you settle for graphics prince?

CaseyWegner