monkeysmoke's forum posts

Avatar image for monkeysmoke
monkeysmoke

457

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 monkeysmoke
Member since 2010 • 457 Posts
[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="monkeysmoke"][QUOTE="mystervj"] 1280x720 is HD, anything less is sub-HD It doesn't matter whether you lose vertical or horizontal resolution, it's still sub-HD.

NOPE!! 540p = sub HD 640P = sub HD 720P = HD 1080P = True HD or Full HD so 1152x720 = 720p = HD there no other name for it except HD.

HD resolution refers to 1 mega pixel or higher, 1280x720 is not actually HD, it is .92 megapixels, close enough for it to be generally considered HD since it is within 1/10th of a megapixel. the res Reach runs at is .83 megapixels and is not HD

if you're trying to call 720p a sub HD then killzone 2 is equaly sub HD too.LOL
Avatar image for monkeysmoke
monkeysmoke

457

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 monkeysmoke
Member since 2010 • 457 Posts

[QUOTE="monkeysmoke"][QUOTE="soulitane"]I don't see why you're bragging about the AA in Reach when the game is really jagged.gaming25
jagged? Oh reach is jagged? Is it realy jagged? NO!!! Digital Foundary never said anything about halo reach being jaggie or any AA issue as they do point out in other games tech analysis http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-halo-reach-tech-analysis-article Am playing halo reach right now & it is smoother compared to the jaggie fested killzone 2.



You are trying to bash one of the most graphically appeasing games of all time. For what, for Halo Reach? According to everyone in the review media, they all agree and have rated Killzone 2 higher than Halo Reach in terms of graphics. Doesnt matter if you think that KZ2 is a "corridor shooter", the graphics is about how a game looks, and in terms of DETAIL, character models, lighting, smoke, and weapons, Killzone 2 is a better looking game from a technical perspective.


killzone 2 did not do anything unique from a technical perspective HALO REACH is the game that did amaizing things from a technical perspective. I would like to see how good killzone 2 will look if it attempted to push all what halo reach did. Technicaly reach did more impresive things to maintain it gorgeous vissuals as a game with large scale enviroment filled with swarms of active smart AI & vehicles.

Avatar image for monkeysmoke
monkeysmoke

457

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 monkeysmoke
Member since 2010 • 457 Posts
[QUOTE="monkeysmoke"][QUOTE="mitu123"]

Um, monkeysmoke, Halo Reach is 1152x720.

mystervj
1152x720 = 720p = HD. anything else??

1280x720 is HD, anything less is sub-HD It doesn't matter whether you lose vertical or horizontal resolution, it's still sub-HD.

NOPE!! 540p = sub HD 640P = sub HD 720P = HD 1080P = True HD or Full HD so 1152x720 = 720p = HD there no other name for it except HD.
Avatar image for monkeysmoke
monkeysmoke

457

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 monkeysmoke
Member since 2010 • 457 Posts
[QUOTE="monkeysmoke"][Halo reach custom AA destroys the killzone 2 quinx AA. Killzone 2 method of AA is an old very poor method of AA compared to halo reach custom AA which used the embended 10mb EDRAM extensively to archieve it AA. Play reach you'll know it is smoother than killzone 2 NO DOUBT!soulitane
I don't see why you're bragging about the AA in Reach when the game is really jagged.

jagged? Oh reach is jagged? Is it realy jagged? NO!!! Digital Foundary never said anything about halo reach being jaggie or any AA issue as they do point out in other games tech analysis http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-halo-reach-tech-analysis-article Am playing halo reach right now & it is smoother compared to the jaggie fested killzone 2.
Avatar image for monkeysmoke
monkeysmoke

457

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 monkeysmoke
Member since 2010 • 457 Posts

Um, monkeysmoke, Halo Reach is 1152x720.

mitu123
1152x720 = 720p = HD. anything else??
Avatar image for monkeysmoke
monkeysmoke

457

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 monkeysmoke
Member since 2010 • 457 Posts

[QUOTE="monkeysmoke"][QUOTE="Person0"] 1) Killzone 2 lighting looks as good. 2) Tesselation is overhyped, more characters on screen> 40 is not that much more then killzone. 3)Sky box does not make a game graphics king. 4) Custom AA does not mean good, go to sword base and it is easy to see the alasing on the walls. 5)Killzone two has motion blur. Co-op in reach significantly reduces draw distance and detail. I like how halo looks better, with color and art direction, but it is not as technically advanced ak K2.ferret-gamer

"2) Tesselation is overhyped, more characters on screen> 40 is not that much more then killzone."

Oh! Now tessellation is overhyped if it was possible on the ps3 it would've been a major weapon for cows to bash with like they do with (teh cell).Tessellation is possible on the ps3, just very costly but it is possible to offload the tessellation to the Cell.And again Halo Reach only uses Tessellation on the water

"3)Sky box does not make a game graphics king." Yeah but it makes killzone 2 2D skybox look OLDSCHOOL.Talking about graphics technicaly,reach's 3D skybox is another advancement in technical aspect against oldschool 2D skybox in killzone 2. Im not familiar with the skyboxes in killzone but a 3d skybox isnt exactly amazing, nor needed in many cases

"4) Custom AA does not mean good, go to sword base and it is easy to see the alasing on the walls." Yeah but its not as worst as the aliasing in killzone 2 espencialy with the overused motion blur Both techniques are flawed and not as good as traditonal MSAA, but neither is definitaly better than the other as both techniques work better at different aspects, also Motion blur works to cover AA incase you didnt know so im not sure what that comment was refering too.

HALO REACH is technicaly more powerful than killzone 2 in every aspect PERIOD!!!! Good luck with that :roll:

Just pointing out, i dont own a PS3 so you cant exactly use the fanboy argument against me, you however might want to learn what you are talking about.

I will like to see a prove of posible tessellation on ps3 (So funny how cows claims every thing can be done on ps3 by offloading to teh cell) stop missleading your ownself please. What makes you think the tesselation was used only on water for reach? Oh! 3D skybox is nothing amaizing right? Because it is something archieved with the 360 console right?(typical COW) 3D skybox proves more on how large & sense of dept present in halo reach.It proves that no space is confined from the sky to the whole enviroment is opened & rendered in full 3D(epic scale).If killzone 2 had done 3D skybox first cows must have labeled it UNIQUE but now it not amaizing because it is on a halo game. Halo reach custom AA destroys the killzone 2 quinx AA. Killzone 2 method of AA is an old very poor method of AA compared to halo reach custom AA which used the embended 10mb EDRAM extensively to archieve it AA. Play reach you'll know it is smoother than killzone 2 NO DOUBT!
Avatar image for monkeysmoke
monkeysmoke

457

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 monkeysmoke
Member since 2010 • 457 Posts
[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="monkeysmoke"][QUOTE="Person0"]Really? Wow, i am a big Halo fan but, Killzone 2 looks better then Reach (in technical graphics) and there is no way you can deny that.

What are you talking about? Do you realy know what is technical graphics? Reach uses #1. 40 dynamic HDR lighting effect. #2. Tesselation to archieve more characters which means more detailed polygons on screen. #3. Full 3D skybox #4. Custom AA compared to poor AA used in killzone 2 #5. Full motion blure including per object base. See: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-halo-reach-tech-analysis-article Killzone would've looked like sh!t if it attempted anything close to halo reach (4 player co-op alone is enough to cut it graphics & GG knows that). Halo reach is untouchable when it comes to technicaly graphic considering what the game is pushing.

1) Killzone 2 lighting looks as good. 2) Tesselation is overhyped, more characters on screen> 40 is not that much more then killzone. 3)Sky box does not make a game graphics king. 4) Custom AA does not mean good, go to sword base and it is easy to see the alasing on the walls. 5)Killzone two has motion blur. Co-op in reach significantly reduces draw distance and detail. I like how halo looks better, with color and art direction, but it is not as technically advanced ak K2.

"2) Tesselation is overhyped, more characters on screen> 40 is not that much more then killzone." Oh! Now tessellation is overhyped if it was possible on the ps3 it would've been a major weapon for cows to bash with like they do with (teh cell). And please reach 40 AI plus vehicle at once on screen is a leap against killzone 2 10 at maximum AI on screen. "3)Sky box does not make a game graphics king." Yeah but it makes killzone 2 2D skybox look OLDSCHOOL.Talking about graphics technicaly,reach's 3D skybox is another advancement in technical aspect against oldschool 2D skybox in killzone 2. "4) Custom AA does not mean good, go to sword base and it is easy to see the alasing on the walls." Yeah but its not as worst as the aliasing in killzone 2 espencialy with the overused motion blur. "5)Killzone two has motion blur." Yeah but reach does it in a more bigger & complex enviroment & reach didnt over use it like killzone 2 did. "Co-op in reach significantly reduces draw distance and detail." If GG were not aware of the visual costs of 4 player co-op split screen they would have implemented it to killzone 2 (i bet KZ2 would have ended up looking like MW2 if playing in split screen). HALO REACH is technicaly more powerful than killzone 2 in every aspect PERIOD!!!!