Halo Reach vs KZ2 comparison

[QUOTE="2mrw"][QUOTE="Vaasman"]So now you're using a 2007 tech demo of leaves in a vortex, that isn't in game, in engine, or even an accurate representation, to say that it isn't as impressive as anything in killzone 2?

Maybe you should take 5, collect yourself a bit.

i LOL'ed at half of the comments in this thread. This is basically a graphics/visual thread, and all lems can do to debate, is bring up sales:lol:

Now, to some of the people who believes that the footage shown almost look as good as KZ2, is fooling themselves (it might not be alot of you, but there's some in this thread). It may be in pre-alpha development, and the actual game may look alot better, but those shots of Halo: Reach, as of now, doesn't nowhere near touches KZ2 visuals

ermacness

Of course, there's plenty of work to be done in the months ahead, so if stuff like the display on the Assault Rifle is sending you into a tizzy, take some deep breaths. It's all gonna be okay. We got this. Quoted from Bungie. And the game is already comparable to Killzone 2. When its finished im gonna be sad for Cows. Its already MUCH more technically impressive than Killzone 2 or anything on Ps3. ALSO, that leaves thing is pre rendered that was confirmed in 2008. That was theoretically what the cell could do. K? And even if that was true, what does that have to do with Halo vs Killzone. Cows saying that lems only bring up sales, when they always revert to TEH POWER OF TEH CELLLLL! When in reality, Halo 3 is still better than Killzone 2 gameplay wise. Halo will always be a quality title. Damage control is priceless.

Sorry but judging by those Reach graphics, they look no better than Halo 3s. Wow, some people really only care about graphics nowadays and less about gameplay.meconate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0_jiB2hqeQ&feature=player_embedded

halo reach doesn't look that much worse in comparison to kz2, but the scope and size of the game completly dwarfs kz2, i'd say halo is better on a technical level and i'm happy to see them not wasting all of it on the gun.

[QUOTE="Vaasman"]

[QUOTE="2mrw"] 2007 tech demo that is more impressive than the 2010 1000 colliding particles, yep i am using it.2mrw

Sorry but judging by those Reach graphics, they look no better than Halo 3s. Wow, some people really only care about graphics nowadays and less about gameplay.meconate

[QUOTE="BURSTIIIFIRE"]

quoted from another thread:

"10 things Halo: Reach needs to look as good as Killzone 2"Blue-Sky (original poster)

• Smaller environments
• Foggy view distance
• Fixed light sources
• lower color palette
• Less enemies on screen
• more processing power devoted to Gun graphics
• Less vehicles
• smaller peripheral field of view
• scripted AI
• repeated environments

SilentlyMad

So true

Don't forget to add more motion blurs to hide the embarrassing textures :lol:

I just want everyone to know that a 1 1/2 year old game just destroyed Reach, the 360's great hope. I thought Reach was supposed to have ground breaking visuals? It looks just like the other halo 3. Can we put it to rest that the 360 is maxed out. It's just sad that the PS3's 3rd best looking game beats a new game that was supposed to be the one great 360 hope to show the 360 had the power to compete with the PS3. http://gamingbolt.com/2010/02/14/halo-reach-versus-killzone-2-hd-screenshot-comparison/

gamewhat

You know what i really love about Killzone 2, the lack of color in everything and the whole were going to make everything look grey and brown. When you look at the pics theres a difference, im sure killzone has some better textures, but Reach isnt completely don yet, your comparing a game that hasnt come out yet toa game thats been out fo a year now. Interms of lighting, killzone has better lighting so far, hoever Bungie always has extremely vibrant colors ont there games. Lets talk about this when Reach actually comes out K?

[QUOTE="meconate"]Sorry but judging by those Reach graphics, they look no better than Halo 3s. Wow, some people really only care about graphics nowadays and less about gameplay.toast_burner

[QUOTE="SilentlyMad"]

[QUOTE="BURSTIIIFIRE"]

quoted from another thread:

"10 things Halo: Reach needs to look as good as Killzone 2"Blue-Sky (original poster)

• Smaller environments
• Foggy view distance
• Fixed light sources
• lower color palette
• Less enemies on screen
• more processing power devoted to Gun graphics
• Less vehicles
• smaller peripheral field of view
• scripted AI
• repeated environments

EndorphinMaster

So true

Don't forget to add more motion blurs to hide the embarrassing textures :lol:

LOLOLOLO i completely agree

[QUOTE="2mrw"][QUOTE="Vaasman"]So that tech demo was in game and using ps3 assets right?

[QUOTE="SilentlyMad"]

[QUOTE="BURSTIIIFIRE"]

quoted from another thread:

"10 things Halo: Reach needs to look as good as Killzone 2"Blue-Sky (original poster)

• Smaller environments
• Foggy view distance
• Fixed light sources
• lower color palette
• Less enemies on screen
• more processing power devoted to Gun graphics
• Less vehicles
• smaller peripheral field of view
• scripted AI
• repeated environments

EndorphinMaster

So true

Don't forget to add more motion blurs to hide the embarrassing textures :lol:

Hasnt someone already posted pics showing the textures in Killzone 2 are great? Or are you going to ignore that?

Your calling these embarrassing?

[QUOTE="meconate"]Sorry but judging by those Reach graphics, they look no better than Halo 3s. Wow, some people really only care about graphics nowadays and less about gameplay.toast_burner

quoted from another thread:

"10 things Halo: Reach needs to look as good as Killzone 2"Blue-Sky (original poster)

• Smaller environments
• Foggy view distance
• Fixed light sources
• lower color palette
• Less enemies on screen
• more processing power devoted to Gun graphics
• Less vehicles
• smaller peripheral field of view
• scripted AI
• repeated environments

BURSTIIIFIRE

[QUOTE="EndorphinMaster"]

[QUOTE="SilentlyMad"]This is so very true

So true

Don't forget to add more motion blurs to hide the embarrassing textures :lol:

Hasnt someone already posted pics showing the textures in Killzone 2 are great? Or are you going to ignore that?

Your calling these embarrassing?

[QUOTE="EndorphinMaster"]

[QUOTE="SilentlyMad"]This is so very true

So true

Don't forget to add more motion blurs to hide the embarrassing textures :lol:

LOLOLOLO i completely agree

[QUOTE="EndorphinMaster"]

So true

Don't forget to add more motion blurs to hide the embarrassing textures :lol:

Hasnt someone already posted pics showing the textures in Killzone 2 are great? Or are you going to ignore that?

Your calling these embarrassing?

[QUOTE="EndorphinMaster"]

So true

Don't forget to add more motion blurs to hide the embarrassing textures :lol:

LOLOLOLO i completely agree

[QUOTE="savagetwinkie"][QUOTE="TintedEyes"]

Hasnt someone already posted pics showing the textures in Killzone 2 are great? Or are you going to ignore that?

Your calling these embarrassing?

2mrw

[QUOTE="2mrw"][QUOTE="tehHaste"]

LOLOLOLO i completely agree

TintedEyes

yea....

[QUOTE="BURSTIIIFIRE"]

quoted from another thread:

"10 things Halo: Reach needs to look as good as Killzone 2"Blue-Sky (original poster)

• Smaller environments
• Foggy view distance
• Fixed light sources
• lower color palette
• Less enemies on screen
• more processing power devoted to Gun graphics
• Less vehicles
• smaller peripheral field of view
• scripted AI
• repeated environments

macs77

quoted from another thread:

"10 things Halo: Reach needs to look as good as Killzone 2"Blue-Sky (original poster)

• Smaller environments
• Foggy view distance
• Fixed light sources
• lower color palette
• Less enemies on screen
• more processing power devoted to Gun graphics
• Less vehicles
• smaller peripheral field of view
• scripted AI
• repeated environments

BURSTIIIFIRE

[QUOTE="EndorphinMaster"]

[QUOTE="SilentlyMad"]This is so very true

TintedEyes

So true

Don't forget to add more motion blurs to hide the embarrassing textures :lol:

Hasnt someone already posted pics showing the textures in Killzone 2 are great? Or are you going to ignore that?

Your calling these embarrassing?

So you're saying IGN reviewers are lying fanboys? :lol:

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"][QUOTE="2mrw"] all i can see is group lemmings who are agreeing on bashing a great PS3 exclusive , like drunk ppl. you were proved wrong and yet you wanna act like you didn't see the pics.MC3887

yea....

Cows will continue to pretend they didn't see these screens.

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"][QUOTE="2mrw"] all i can see is group lemmings who are agreeing on bashing a great PS3 exclusive , like drunk ppl. you were proved wrong and yet you wanna act like you didn't see the pics.MC3887

yea....

People would probably pay attention to these pics if they were in game, these are just promotional pics for a multiplayer map.

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"]

[QUOTE="EndorphinMaster"]

So true

Don't forget to add more motion blurs to hide the embarrassing textures :lol:

EndorphinMaster

Hasnt someone already posted pics showing the textures in Killzone 2 are great? Or are you going to ignore that?

Your calling these embarrassing?

So you're saying IGN reviewers are lying fanboys? :lol:

[QUOTE="MC3887"]

Yeah I know, I posted them again, lets see if they will just ignore them for a third time.TintedEyes

yea....

Cows will ignore these again.

[QUOTE="TintedEyes"]

Hasnt someone already posted pics showing the textures in Killzone 2 are great? Or are you going to ignore that?

Your calling these embarrassing?

So you're saying IGN reviewers are lying fanboys? :lol:

i become tired of these useless arguements, Kudos for lemmings for keeping up such proofless, blind, funny, stupid ...etc arguements, you obviously dun wanna admit defeat nor wanna to speak the truth at least.

Hmm, isn't KZ3 rumored to release this year? Then we'll have a fair competition. KZ2 looks visually impresive, but I can easily imagine growing tired from the monotonous color scheme if I had to play through the whole game (I've only played the demo).

This is the stupidest thread ever.

Anyone claimig that the alpha build of a HALO game will look better than a finished KZ2 game is as high as the sky.

Halo will not touch kz2 graphically it just wont, it looks really good now yes, but only for a halo game. Alan wake and lp2 are looking much better.

I was really dissapointed that this was the OMFG graphics game Ms was talking about.

As far as I can tell both games have the same problem that stops KZ from being better and Halo from actually deserving the praise and hype it gets and thats the story. Both games have such excellent lore and universe but make thier games soo unimmersive and lame!!! If halo reach looked half asa immersive and col as halo legends I might actually rent it when it comes out.

But please TC its an unfair comparison, and please halo fanboys and I dont know wether their is medication for halophilia but you have to stop. Everytime a halo is about to be released people loose all thier senses and start making ridiculous claims. Yes Halophilia is a word.

Guys lets talk on the real here. Halo Reach is a remarkable step-up from Halo 3, but come on guys. Let's take off the googles for a bit and talk honest. Halo Reach does not look as good as Killzone 2. Bring up as many excuses/reasons as you want (i.e. AI, Scale, Colors, etc...) but the fact still remains that Killzone 2 looks superior to Halo Reach. And people need to stop using scale as an excuse. For instance, Shadow of the Colossus was massive in scale and one of the most ambitious PS2 games, yet it still had some of the best graphics on the system, and stellar textures at the time. Also, no one can claim that God of War 3 lacks in scale, as we have seen from the large titans which are actually the battlegrounds and which move through combat, and the battle with man enemies at one time. Scale, both in size and numbers, is pretty epic in GoW3, and yet it seems to have pushed the bar for console graphics (from what we've seen so far). All I'm saying is, sometimes your favorite game isn't the best looking one out there. No need to find excuses and reasons to defend it, because it doesn't need defending! As long as it looks better than an Xbox game, it has passed the minimum graphical requirements of a next gen game. All that matters is the fun factor. II_Seraphim_II

GOW 3 has crappy ground textures, but the way they set it up it is hard to see them, so it is more like SM doing things in a smart way. They concentrate on models, and background, what you actually see for the most part.

[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"]Guys lets talk on the real here. Halo Reach is a remarkable step-up from Halo 3, but come on guys. Let's take off the googles for a bit and talk honest. Halo Reach does not look as good as Killzone 2. Bring up as many excuses/reasons as you want (i.e. AI, Scale, Colors, etc...) but the fact still remains that Killzone 2 looks superior to Halo Reach. And people need to stop using scale as an excuse. For instance, Shadow of the Colossus was massive in scale and one of the most ambitious PS2 games, yet it still had some of the best graphics on the system, and stellar textures at the time. Also, no one can claim that God of War 3 lacks in scale, as we have seen from the large titans which are actually the battlegrounds and which move through combat, and the battle with man enemies at one time. Scale, both in size and numbers, is pretty epic in GoW3, and yet it seems to have pushed the bar for console graphics (from what we've seen so far). All I'm saying is, sometimes your favorite game isn't the best looking one out there. No need to find excuses and reasons to defend it, because it doesn't need defending! As long as it looks better than an Xbox game, it has passed the minimum graphical requirements of a next gen game. All that matters is the fun factor. MC3887

GOW 3 has crappy ground textures, but the way they set it up it is hard to see them, so it is more like SM doing things in a smart way. They concentrate on models, and background, what you actually see for the most part.

Only way Halo Reach will be as mind blowing graphically as Killzone 2 is ifBungie can do the polishing job GG did that last two months before KZ2 was released. Right now KZ2 is more impressive to look at. Hell, its saying alote for what GG accomplished last year.

[QUOTE="SilentlyMad"]

[QUOTE="BURSTIIIFIRE"]

quoted from another thread:

"10 things Halo: Reach needs to look as good as Killzone 2"Blue-Sky (original poster)

• Smaller environments
• Foggy view distance
• Fixed light sources
• lower color palette
• Less enemies on screen
• more processing power devoted to Gun graphics
• Less vehicles
• smaller peripheral field of view
• scripted AI
• repeated environments

EndorphinMaster

So true

Don't forget to add more motion blurs to hide the embarrassing textures :lol:

For 360 fans the debate is simple which game can come CLOSE to Killzone 2.

Despite KZ2 being a game with not the most enemies on screen, "small" environments, and a pretty bland colour palette. PS3 puts out uncharted 2, which visually is just as stunning and is a vivid game, with large environments, with a lot of of enemies in some scenes. You see the problem with his debate is that whatever he says about KZ2, doesn't matter the PS3 has already proven it can do all that with other games.

Reach is a great looking game, and is one of the best looking game on 360. Just leave it at that, comparing it to KZ2 when Reach is only in Alpha is asking for trouble.

[QUOTE="MC3887"]

[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"]Guys lets talk on the real here. Halo Reach is a remarkable step-up from Halo 3, but come on guys. Let's take off the googles for a bit and talk honest. Halo Reach does not look as good as Killzone 2. Bring up as many excuses/reasons as you want (i.e. AI, Scale, Colors, etc...) but the fact still remains that Killzone 2 looks superior to Halo Reach. And people need to stop using scale as an excuse. For instance, Shadow of the Colossus was massive in scale and one of the most ambitious PS2 games, yet it still had some of the best graphics on the system, and stellar textures at the time. Also, no one can claim that God of War 3 lacks in scale, as we have seen from the large titans which are actually the battlegrounds and which move through combat, and the battle with man enemies at one time. Scale, both in size and numbers, is pretty epic in GoW3, and yet it seems to have pushed the bar for console graphics (from what we've seen so far). All I'm saying is, sometimes your favorite game isn't the best looking one out there. No need to find excuses and reasons to defend it, because it doesn't need defending! As long as it looks better than an Xbox game, it has passed the minimum graphical requirements of a next gen game. All that matters is the fun factor. 2mrw

GOW 3 has crappy ground textures, but the way they set it up it is hard to see them, so it is more like SM doing things in a smart way. They concentrate on models, and background, what you actually see for the most part.

No, but all the recent pic, GOW 3 is impressive I am not gonna lie, but it is not like they didn't have any cut back they had to take. EG: Fixed camera, bad looking enemy models(The Fodder one, the skeleten like ones, hades looks awesome), bad ground textures, also 2D vistas(though 3D up to a point). While halo:reach needs: Slightly better environmental textures, and would look OMFG awesome to me...

[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"]Guys lets talk on the real here. Halo Reach is a remarkable step-up from Halo 3, but come on guys. Let's take off the googles for a bit and talk honest. Halo Reach does not look as good as Killzone 2. Bring up as many excuses/reasons as you want (i.e. AI, Scale, Colors, etc...) but the fact still remains that Killzone 2 looks superior to Halo Reach. And people need to stop using scale as an excuse. For instance, Shadow of the Colossus was massive in scale and one of the most ambitious PS2 games, yet it still had some of the best graphics on the system, and stellar textures at the time. Also, no one can claim that God of War 3 lacks in scale, as we have seen from the large titans which are actually the battlegrounds and which move through combat, and the battle with man enemies at one time. Scale, both in size and numbers, is pretty epic in GoW3, and yet it seems to have pushed the bar for console graphics (from what we've seen so far). All I'm saying is, sometimes your favorite game isn't the best looking one out there. No need to find excuses and reasons to defend it, because it doesn't need defending! As long as it looks better than an Xbox game, it has passed the minimum graphical requirements of a next gen game. All that matters is the fun factor. MC3887

GOW 3 has crappy ground textures, but the way they set it up it is hard to see them, so it is more like SM doing things in a smart way. They concentrate on models, and background, what you actually see for the most part.

Halo:R will be a better game in the end I think. Killzone is a decent game, but the Halo universe, and MP is better.

[QUOTE="MC3887"]

[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"]Guys lets talk on the real here. Halo Reach is a remarkable step-up from Halo 3, but come on guys. Let's take off the googles for a bit and talk honest. Halo Reach does not look as good as Killzone 2. Bring up as many excuses/reasons as you want (i.e. AI, Scale, Colors, etc...) but the fact still remains that Killzone 2 looks superior to Halo Reach. And people need to stop using scale as an excuse. For instance, Shadow of the Colossus was massive in scale and one of the most ambitious PS2 games, yet it still had some of the best graphics on the system, and stellar textures at the time. Also, no one can claim that God of War 3 lacks in scale, as we have seen from the large titans which are actually the battlegrounds and which move through combat, and the battle with man enemies at one time. Scale, both in size and numbers, is pretty epic in GoW3, and yet it seems to have pushed the bar for console graphics (from what we've seen so far). All I'm saying is, sometimes your favorite game isn't the best looking one out there. No need to find excuses and reasons to defend it, because it doesn't need defending! As long as it looks better than an Xbox game, it has passed the minimum graphical requirements of a next gen game. All that matters is the fun factor. 2mrw

GOW 3 has crappy ground textures, but the way they set it up it is hard to see them, so it is more like SM doing things in a smart way. They concentrate on models, and background, what you actually see for the most part.

The kid is dilerious if he can spot and crappy textures in GOW 3. I saw a screen cap of when Kratos was punching downward.. the blur and the statue on the right made it look CGI.

All that matters is that Halo Reach is shaping up to look like the best Bungie Halo game, gameplay and graphics. In the end Killzone will never be a Halo killer, but you got to give the developers credit for trying so hard. At least their game looks really good.

[QUOTE="MC3887"]

[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"]Guys lets talk on the real here. Halo Reach is a remarkable step-up from Halo 3, but come on guys. Let's take off the googles for a bit and talk honest. Halo Reach does not look as good as Killzone 2. Bring up as many excuses/reasons as you want (i.e. AI, Scale, Colors, etc...) but the fact still remains that Killzone 2 looks superior to Halo Reach. And people need to stop using scale as an excuse. For instance, Shadow of the Colossus was massive in scale and one of the most ambitious PS2 games, yet it still had some of the best graphics on the system, and stellar textures at the time. Also, no one can claim that God of War 3 lacks in scale, as we have seen from the large titans which are actually the battlegrounds and which move through combat, and the battle with man enemies at one time. Scale, both in size and numbers, is pretty epic in GoW3, and yet it seems to have pushed the bar for console graphics (from what we've seen so far). All I'm saying is, sometimes your favorite game isn't the best looking one out there. No need to find excuses and reasons to defend it, because it doesn't need defending! As long as it looks better than an Xbox game, it has passed the minimum graphical requirements of a next gen game. All that matters is the fun factor. II_Seraphim_II

GOW 3 has crappy ground textures, but the way they set it up it is hard to see them, so it is more like SM doing things in a smart way. They concentrate on models, and background, what you actually see for the most part.

[QUOTE="EndorphinMaster"]

[QUOTE="SilentlyMad"]This is so very true

Adrian_Cloud

So true

Don't forget to add more motion blurs to hide the embarrassing textures :lol:

Really isn't even the BFBC;2 sp footage looks as good. People have to remember than reach is only is Alpha, can only get better from here.

[QUOTE="2mrw"][QUOTE="MC3887"]

GOW 3 has crappy ground textures, but the way they set it up it is hard to see them, so it is more like SM doing things in a smart way. They concentrate on models, and background, what you actually see for the most part.

xOMGITSJASONx

The kid is dilerious if he can spot and crappy textures in GOW 3. I saw a screen cap of when Kratos was punching downward.. the blur and the statue on the right made it look CGI.