XXXXXX

107 results
1
2
3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

32731

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#101 DarkLink77

Member since 2004 • 32731 Posts

It's impossible to tell, at this point. Reach isn't even out yet, and the game still has months left in development. KZ2 has been out for a while, and people have actually been able to play it.

I'll go ahead and guess KZ2, but I was very impressed with the stuff Bungie has shown in their new engine so far. It's a huge leap from Halo 3.

That said, does it matter? I play games to play games, not compare the engines powering them, and the graphics they provide...

15 years ago

14870

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

Member since 2004 • 14870 Posts

Can't say that I have seen enough of Reach to say it looks better than Killzone. However, Halo games often have wonderful colors and great art direction so there's almost no way I will think Killzone looks better. To be honest, I think Halo 3 looks better than most shooters I play nowadays anyway.

15 years ago

1344

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#103 ThePRAssassin

Member since 2009 • 1344 Posts

[QUOTE="Doctor-McNinja"][QUOTE="Adrian_Cloud"] Halo 3 is mediocre. Adrian_Cloud

One of the most redundant comments on the internet at this point, surely? Not saying YOUR comment in particular, just that one in general.

Its the truth, people play it cause its 'just' fun. But its nothing extraordinary there are several better fps experiences and games in general, reviewers and journalists need to get off MS's jock.

Those several better FPS are on PC.

There is no console FPS even close to the quality of Halo. Maybe one day you guys will stop blindly hating Halo jut because of it's name. People ran to COD4 and said "omg it's teh better!..IW > Bungie!" then you get this mess called MW2, which people will still defend because it's the only FPS that apparently can compete with Halo, so if these Halo Haters openly admit that it's a disappointing piece of garbage, they have nothing else to hide behind.

Maybe the "KZ2 takes more skill!"

Which would explain why Killzone 2 is played at MLG and WCG while Halo only has 10,000 people playing online..oh wait

15 years ago

5237

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

Member since 2005 • 5237 Posts

[QUOTE="inertk"] Wait, wait.. Wait. You think they put the game on Helghan, not for the environmental effects or the dense atmosphere the game is complimented for, but rather to "hide" graphical shortcomings (The colour stuff is getting ridiculous)... Despite the fact there are bright levels+areas in the game? Anyway, I see what you're saying -- but I don't see why you're saying it. You're basically undermining the graphical style of the game by saying it's to offset problems it had primarily dealing with AA even though the logical conclusion would be to remove these aspects and up the AA/ VSync, yet I assume that motion blur/depth of field etc, isn't used that way in games like RE5, Lost Planet, Crysis, Gears 2, Uncharted 2 even. It's true what you say about the majority of the Single Player, yet the multiplayer is larger and has more going on in comparison to Halo 3*. I'm obviously expecting Halo Reach to be much, much bigger because of the way the games of designed. *I'm comparing it to Halo 3 because it's the last Bungie game I've played, and I also played extensively. Also, you said these things were obviously done so that the game could handle the graphics only within smaller environments even though the mutliplayer environments are gargantuan, hold more characters and yet nothing changes -- except the framerate buckles in 32 player games. Buckles hard.

When did I say anything of the sort about the game being on Helghan? Let me again say for the THIRD time, I LIKE KZ2. My entire point of posting is that KZ2 and Halo, while being FPS, ARE SO DIFFERENT that to try and compare graphics is crazy. They both try to achieve entirely different things. From a sheer pixel per character standpoint, maybe KZ2 beats Halo Reach (though they're close from what we've seen. . .which isn't much) but when you take into account the environments, level design, and gameplay mechanics I think it's a far different story. KZ2 uses closed quarters, small field of view, slower aiming and turning, high blur on weapons when moving and when in cover, colors, and a majority of other things to be able to attach the graphical fidelity that it achieves. While Halo has always been about open spaces, fast pace, and bright lighting / colors. Factors that I think are HARDER to render at a high graphic fidelity. SP vs. MP doesn't really matter since like you've stated KZ2's MP the framerate buckles in it, even with reduced graphics. Halo doesn't suffer from this because of their focus on MP running as smooth as possible (maybe why there's reduced players per map). We know it's not a PS3 vs. 360 issue since games like Bad Company support large numbers of players and run on the 360. NOR have I ever mentioned the horrible FREEZES that are in KZ2 while playing the SP. Anytime you happen to move faster than the BluRay disc can stream data, you're greeted with the game freezing while it loads in more data. Same with saving. Halo 3 never suffered from any of these issues, which I'm sure are graphics related (you could say they're Blu-Ray drive speed related and could be accurate but since you're streaming textures in which = higher graphics. . .I'd say that the graphics fidelity plays at least some part in the freezes during gameplay). KZ2 looks GREAT! I'd be the first to admit it. I thoroughly enjoy playing it. However to act as if KZ2 gave up nothing to achieve that level of graphics is silly. Like I've stated multiple times, it's quite clear when playing the game some of the sacrifices that were made to reach those graphics. IF Halo Reach ends up looking like the trailer and I had to choose between large wide open areas and Halo Reach level graphics, or closed quarters and KZ2 level graphics it's no contest, I'd choose Reach. Which is why I find graphic comparisons silly sometimes because it's clear KZ2 and Halo Reach are trying to do two different things, and so to compare them 1 + 1 = 2 doesn't work.

15 years ago

11413

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 11413 Posts

man this place is one huge WTF...and that's exactly what makes it so fun..

15 years ago

10850

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

Member since 2009 • 10850 Posts

If REACH doesn't surpass KZ2 then when is MS going to have a game that looks better?
Anyone remember when Killzone came out MS saying this?
http://www.gameguru.in/microsoft-xbox-360/2009/02/future-xbox-360-exclusives-will-surpass-killzone-2-microsoft/
EmperorSupreme

Well its taking them long enough.

15 years ago

6033

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#107 DarkGamer007

Member since 2008 • 6033 Posts

got some screens...
windsquid9000

Going by those screens, they look really close, what is going to be hard about comparing them equally though is the amount of color, Halo is known for bring colours while Killzone 2 uses more of a gray-scale, now some may be woundering why this is important but color can play tricks, loads of color can make something look less detailed than it is, while the gray-scale has the opossite effect, it makes something look more-detailed than it really is.

15 years ago

107 results
1
2
3

Jump to Top

Please Log In to post.

Use your keyboard!

ESC

Log in to comment