Your comparing 2 different studios, both with their own way of using the engine. Now doing a game from start like halo, Final Fantasy, Splinter Cell, Metal Gear Solid, I think would be worth the comparison.
@raptures330 BTW the grass is more photorealistic . . . Also have you ever held a plasma pistol, seen an elite, or rode on a UNSC frigate. If so please let me know where you did this . . . The point is this stuff does not exist in our world so the only things you can work on are things like you pointed out like the DMR. By adding 5 times the polygon count and a better effect for the lense if gives the weapon a much more believable feel. Games like modern warfare the weapons and locations are referenced bc they are on EARTH and can be held and replicated in the game.
Does anyone who bashes reach or halo understand what it takes to create a game. Art Director, Creative Directors, etc. what do you guys think our job is supposed to be? A game is created as it's own world, lighting, characters, etc. We could take reference photos of stairs, rust, metal, etc. and match that all day long. But then you are basing your game on what people see everyday and not staying true to the style of the universe you created. Details on Reach go as far as the planet having longer days and years then earth. The buildings and styles of just the first level alone could have a book written about how they came to be. If every game were "photo realistic" it would take away from the other world feel of games in general. You's be stuck playing games that looked like everyday and we all know we wouldn't want that.
If anyone here who doesn't like the way Reach looks would actually play Reach and open theater mode you'd instantly change your mind. Fly around one enviroment and see how fast you'll change your mind. Or fly around firefight on Legendary and be shocked by the shear volume of enemies that can be on screen at once while rendering the many, many plasma and exploding effects that have to be produced. The other day I was able to zoom in on a needle from a needle rifle and never saw any pixelation. It had it's own geometry, bloom, and lighting to it. When you can zoom in on the projectile of a weapon that's a damn good engine in my book.
@dwithrow What if the new graphics card requires a higher power supply and the game has Ram specs and Processor speed specs that your system doesn't match. I used to be a big PC gamer, but sitting down on a 24" monitor is pretty, but doesn't beat being able to sit on a couch in a comfortable position in the middle of my surround sound while playing on a 50" 1080p tv. Besides the actual ATI graphics chipset in the 360 isn't far off from the top of the line ATI PC card. I do think Crysis 2 will be out for consoles soon running on the Cry Engine 3 then we'll have a big comparison discussion on this site over which looks better...
@TommyT456 I never said killzone was a bad looking game just tired of people saying it's technically superior which it isn't. The enviroments and skybox in REACH are breathtaking. I was making people aware of the differences and really why Killzone looks the way it does. It is a compliment to the Killzone team, but also not, in that they got away with a steady frame rate by lowering the polygon count and applying visual effects over to make it more photo realistic. I think a great compromise would be to apply some visual effects to Reach, but as with Killzone you can't have High Res textures, and a higher polygon count if the engine is having to apply 7 or 8 different visual effects.
Killzones poly count is much less then reach. Killzone is able to achieve it's look through techniques used for film special effects. This helps killzone have a more believable feel to lighting and motion. Halo games are a stylized realism as opposed to Photo realistic. Ask any of Bungie's developers and they'll tell you it's stylized real and not supposed to look Photo realistic. If Reach would apply the same "effects" as Killzone it would look just as good. Zoom in on textures from Killzone then compare that to Reach and you'll see.
@jedison3 i agree they look so much better on my 50" tv. These shots do not reflect the graphics of both games well at all. The best way to appreciate Halo 3 and Halo Reach's graphics is to play and film and fly around. Just the shear detail to texturing and lighting will blow your mind.
BalefulSpartan's comments