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

Yeah... no.

I like Reach better than Killzone 2, but KZ2 is definitely ahead in that department.

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="mystervj"] Well some aspect is improved, I'm just going by GS's comparisons. From those shots they look very similar.bizzy420

halo graphics are fine for halo,i can't imagine halo with kz graphics vice versa

[QUOTE="bizzy420"]

[QUOTE="CuteCakes"]

God Killzone 2 is ugly.

xYamatox

anyways both games look nice.kz2 is a couple of years old, but it still looks pretty nice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyIp_kF4r0g

Cool video. Never took the time to appreciate all of the damage effects in the game. Best part is, that's all multiplayer footage, too.

dont forget to watch it in 720p.

i like how the sparks bounce off the ground. i enjoy some of the larger MP maps in reach though, i hope kz3 will have a good balance of small and large maps.

[QUOTE="bizzy420"][QUOTE="delta3074"]you should read the digital foundry article the TC was on about, it's very enlightning, for starters the game is a higher resolution the Halo 3, has a way higher pixel count, better HDR lighting, custom AA solution, bungie really did rip the guts out of there engine , Reach may not be any sort of graphics king, but bungie made massive improvements to the engine and Reach really is far better than Halo 3 in the graphics department.Vader993

halo graphics are fine for halo,i can't imagine halo with kz graphics vice versa

[QUOTE="bizzy420"][QUOTE="delta3074"]you should read the digital foundry article the TC was on about, it's very enlightning, for starters the game is a higher resolution the Halo 3, has a way higher pixel count, better HDR lighting, custom AA solution, bungie really did rip the guts out of there engine , Reach may not be any sort of graphics king, but bungie made massive improvements to the engine and Reach really is far better than Halo 3 in the graphics department.Vader993

halo graphics are fine for halo,i can't imagine halo with kz graphics vice versa

I own them both and im telling you the Ai in KZ2 is idiotic you cant tell me that the enemies in KZ2 dont run in circles looking for a place to hide and then poke there heads out of two diff spots and stay there til dead and I dont remember my squad mates doing much of anything to help me out during my campaign in KZ2. To me thats stupid Ai compared to the way Halo Reach's Ai on Heroic and legenday will bum rush you, go for cover, dive, and plasma grenade you to death, also the enemy ai works together to kill you from the Grunts, Elites, and even the Brutes work together. And for you being a liar i just said that because your claiming to never have been fragged in the game I find that hard to believe even on Normal difficulty.

TroyM1

that's fine if you feel that way, but i personally think both reach and kz2 have pretty sharp ai

agree 100%. bizzy420

halo graphics are fine for halo,i can't imagine halo with kz graphics vice versa

[QUOTE="Vader993"]

[QUOTE="bizzy420"] agree 100%. CuteCakes

halo graphics are fine for halo,i can't imagine halo with kz graphics vice versa

[QUOTE="CuteCakes"]

[QUOTE="AtariKidX"]

It look that you don't have play HaloReach........

Halo Reach....:

KZ2.......:

Halo Reach Grapgics>>>>KZ2 Graphics.8)

Vader993

Man your the worst fanboy i ever met

you give lemmings a bad name

Halo Reach isn't THE best looking game. But as the OP pointed out, the large scale environment, coupled with AI & large number of enemies on screen plus the visuals put Halo Reach in the position of one of the Best Technical Achievements on Consoles.

For people saying halo isnt a corridor shooter.. i guess you havent played those maps online yet..

Rofl

I have both. Honestly, the two are barely comparable. Killzone 2 looks infinitely better.

so lems claim graphic s dont matter and cows are graphics obsessed then they make a thread like this xd

TintedEyes

For people saying halo isnt a corridor shooter.. i guess you havent played those maps online yet..

Aboogie5

Rofl

I have both. Honestly, the two are barely comparable. Killzone 2 looks infinitely better.

urdead18

So much variety in this corridor shooter... :|CuteCakes

I disagree, Killzone 2 still looks better, though Reach still looks amazing.

A 2009 2nd Game versus a 5th Game from 2010.. Lol.tommydung

Its actually a 2008 game...

I love Halor Reach gameplay but the graphics are good for a Halo game and do not compare to Killzone or even MW2 IMO.

I love Halor Reach gameplay but the graphics are good for a Halo game and do not compare to Killzone or even MW2 IMO.

Sherjas24

I love Halor Reach gameplay but the graphics are good for a Halo game and do not compare to Killzone or even MW2 IMO.

Sherjas24

for a 2008 game thats still being compared to newer games, kz2 still looks good.

bizzy420

definitely. i didn't even like KZ2, and i certainly agree. i think a lot of people here seem to be equating their taste in shooters with graphics. that being said, i don't think the gap is as large graphically as some people here seem to be making it out to be.

killzone 2 realy look bad now compared to reach. A shame that asandbox openworld game (reach) looks & play better than a tight corridor shooter (killzone 2).
I know it'll be hard for cows to understand but the truth is that halo reach proves the 360 can outperform the ps3 in term of performance because there is no way the ps3 would have run a game like halo reach without tessellator,512mb shared ram & a 10mb embended DRAM.monkeysmoke

Haha Killzone 2 is still technical graphics king man

[QUOTE="CuteCakes"]So much variety in this corridor shooter... :|monkeysmoke

I never understood why people call Reach a sandbox game. Yes, you have big (mostly empty) environments to fight in, but it's still corridor in the sense that SW desrribes. Farcry 2 is open world, Halo is not, and never has been.

Killzone: Smaller, slightly more liner maps that have tons of detail oozing from every angel

Halo: Larger maps that still lead you in a straight path, with some wiggle room inbetween, with mostly boring/generic rocks/grass to look at from point A to point B.

[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"]

[QUOTE="SpiritOfFire117"]That's from the beta. :roll:

EDIT: Which is why you deleted your post.

SpiritOfFire117

The picture he posted of the Reach Beta is a good representation of the game in its current state. The Killzone 2 shots he posted were from its Preview Code (Beta) and the Reach shots were from its Beta. The best way to do a comparison is to post shots of each retail version, which he didn't do.

[QUOTE="CuteCakes"] YUCKmystervj

[QUOTE="SpiritOfFire117"]

[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"]Is there a noticeable graphical difference from the Beta? I didn't notice from when I played it (other than some ruble and burn marks on the wall in Swordbase).

TREAL_Since

The picture he posted of the Reach Beta is a good representation of the game in its current state. The Killzone 2 shots he posted were from its Preview Code (Beta) and the Reach shots were from its Beta. The best way to do a comparison is to post shots of each retail version, which he didn't do.

for a 2008 game thats still being compared to newer games, kz2 still looks good.

bizzy420

Otherwise it would had beaten MGS4 for Best Technical Graphics.

Nah, thats not true. Reach looks good, but Killzone 2 looks better.

For people saying halo isnt a corridor shooter.. i guess you havent played those maps online yet..

Aboogie5

[QUOTE="monkeysmoke"][QUOTE="CuteCakes"]So much variety in this corridor shooter... :|xYamatox

I never understood why people call Reach a sandbox game. Yes, you have big (mostly empty) environments to fight in, but it's still corridor in the sense that SW desrribes. Farcry 2 is open world, Halo is not, and never has been.

Killzone: Smaller, slightly more liner maps that have tons of detail oozing from every angel

Halo: Larger maps that still lead you in a straight path, with some wiggle room inbetween, with mostly boring/generic rocks/grass to look at from point A to point B.

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

Basinboy

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="xYamatox"]

My first run through Reach was on Heroic, and it played exactly like the video I presented. The AI is nothing to gloat about. Even on Legendary, where the game get's it's difficulty off numbers (Health vs Damage) and not smart AI, Plasma Pistol + DMR headshot = dead Elite. AFter that, the grunts spend the rest of the fight running away...

xYamatox

No more different than any other FPS I've played. Bigger maps =/= different play experiences.

- Enemies will usually make VERY similar actions

- All enemies basically spawn in the same area

- The same weapons are laid out on the same spots

- Vehicles are place in the same spots.

It's not like Halo Reach re-codes itself each time you play it, the game always ends up more or less the same. Just because you chose to use the Needle Rifle > DMR your second run through does NOT make it a new experience.

It doesn't change itself in the way, say L4D does, but I beat the game both solo and co-op. And some sections have completely different enemy layouts.

The one that makes me rage is the final assault on "Tip of the spear". Go it alone and it's one elite Ultra and a bunch of grunts in the control room. Add just one other person, and there will be a room full of Elite Zealots and Ultras with concussion rifles and swords.

Someone at Bungie apparently struggles with the concept of scaling :P