Comments (153)
« 1 2 »
NastyLeftHook0  +   507d ago
both look amazing. and its a win win for future ps4 owners.
JoGam  +   507d ago | Funny
HOLD UP...
Thats not a picture of Battlefield, Its a picture of Socom Confrontation.
NastyLeftHook0  +   507d ago
i will be the first to be honest and admit that i did not notice until you said it. smh-_-
#1.1.1 (Edited 507d ago ) | Agree(31) | Disagree(8) | Report
brettyd  +   507d ago
For some reason people always seem to use that image for military shooters. I don't get it.
thechosenone  +   507d ago
So the obvious and biggest difference is the lighting, also the textures are bit lower rez in certain places and the particles are a bit more muted in the PS4 version. Man Epic did a sh*t job with UE4 for consoles. But what do you expect from an engine that's meant for multiplat development. It'll never tap the true power of the PS4's hardware.

The xbox version will fair far worse if the rumors are true about the weaker specs.

:D
http://i.imgur.com/EsR0Cay....
#1.1.3 (Edited 507d ago ) | Agree(14) | Disagree(36) | Report
IcyEyes  +   507d ago
Both are amazing ...
But Killzone is simply awesome because its not only about texture quality/resolution is also about the tons of stuff on the screen.

Looks like a live-cam :D
FATAL1TY  +   507d ago | Well said
thechosenone  +   507d ago
And of course I was only talking about UE4 demo in my comment above not about BF4 vs KZ.
#1.1.6 (Edited 507d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(4) | Report
kevnb  +   507d ago
@FATAL1TY
none of those killzone shots are the actual playable bits.
actual gameplay of KZ SF
http://www.pixelenemy.com/w...

http://media.officialplayst...

http://i.imgur.com/C6vX5F5....

the quality of the images might not be the greatest, but watch the trailer they showed again. Im highlighting the parts that are playable.
https://www.youtube.com/wat...

Im not even going to pick which game I think looks better, but fair is fair. And at the end, its just a cod style barely playable section thats almost a cutscene. I already know artists can make those look good.
battlefield 4 looks really similar to battlefield 3 in my eyes, but battlefield 3 looks and plays great.
#1.1.7 (Edited 506d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(18) | Report
TheRealSpy  +   506d ago
If you desperately want Killzone to look better, it will. That's the mindset of a fanboy.

It's night and day.
Dee_91  +   506d ago
gotta love this pixel counting gaming era.
DOMination-  +   506d ago
Its hard to define "better" and we will all choose whatever looks aesthetically pleasing to us personally. Both look good and it makes me excited for the next few years.
silverbeld  +   506d ago
Battlefield looks to GREY!

Killzone looks much better.
Muerte2494  +   507d ago | Well said
Both look amazing....
but the playing fields aren't remotely level. Let's wait until we get some ps4 footage of BF4 before we start comparing. Comparing locked in hardware to something only 5% of the PC gaming market owns is a little biased if you ask me.
AngelicIceDiamond  +   507d ago
You can't compare them? Ones Syfy shooter and the others a modern real world shooter? two different engines two different goals.
Mustang300C2012  +   507d ago
Not that I don't agree with you but most games being compared have different engines.
BISHOP-BRASIL  +   507d ago
Yeah, but when you compare pics of two games running on different engines that happen to have similar scnearios, weponry, lighting and what not, you at least get a good comparison of how the different engines deal with those and, if both indeed aim for the same final look, you can say who did the best job in achieving, i.e., realistic graphics if we were comparing modern militar shooters (COD, BF, Arma, Op. Flashpoint, Rainbow Six, the very Socom - as in the image -, the list could go on and on).

Here the only thing in common really is the genre, they are both first person shooters, so meybe you could compare some gameplay elements, physics, etc... But there's nothing there to make a graphical comparison. Even if you get two similar scenarios (like the overview of the city, or just staring down at your own gun), they are not necessarily aiming for the same final look, point in case BF want to be realistic while KZ (or Halo, Gears, Resistance, Metro, Crysis, Unreal Tournament, etc) have a much more stylized graphics (as you would expect in a completelly fictional setting). It's just like comparing art styles, in the end any judgement will be highly subjetive.

Now if we had both games released we could indeed make a technical comparison of graphical effects and performance, analyse and pick each engines strong points or limitations, but that not just some side by side look at pictures as the final visual doesn't necessarily represent technical prowess, it would be much more technical talk and, probably, still wouldn't mean which look best or worst.
TheRealSpy  +   506d ago
Are you asking a question or making a statement.

Learn to question mark.

Of course you can compare them. You're comparing graphics, not story or setting.
OpieWinston  +   504d ago
I agree, the engine is focused on maximizing flexibility of destruction and sound.

Comparing graphics is just stupid, BF4 is leaning more towards a realistic feel rather than Arcade style shooter.
ijust2good  +   507d ago
The Character model is vastly superior in BF4, they look more realistic. However there are certain places where KZ looked better.
Aceman18  +   507d ago
they both look great, and i'll be purchasing both titles easily as i love both franchises.
okmrman  +   507d ago
you guys must have balls pain due to amount of jizzing

bf 3 and kz 3 have completely different art style
of course everything wont be all shiny in a fucking war zone

people are so dumb
pixelsword  +   506d ago
Killzone 2's realistic concrete backgrounds, and people say:
"They should call it GREYzone"

ShadowFall adds some color and people say:
"of course everything wont be all shiny in a fucking war zone"

It just goes to show that people whine for the sake of whining.
jcnba28  +   506d ago
They're both boring generic fps's.......NEXT
Ritsujun  +   506d ago
Cryingtek's shooters were horrible.
pixelsword  +   506d ago
"They're both boring generic fps's.......NEXT"

...says the Wii fanboy.

Don't worry, dude: I'm almost certain that the next Wii or two will have graphics like that. Until then, don't be bitter, it just makes people giggle.

Just enjoy your generic Mario game and relax, man. Do you think Mario will have to rescue the princess? Ooh, I can't wait for the unpredictable plot twists in that one!
#1.7.2 (Edited 506d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(2) | Report
thedon8982z  +   506d ago
This is the dumbest comparison I have ever seen first of all BF4 IS PRE ALPHA (AKA NOT REAL GAMEPLAY)and killzone is running off of early dev kits (no where near using PS4 real power). To top it all off I really believe killzon was originally a ps3 tital,the set peices look like it all day.I am waiting to see what games my PS4 WILL ENTERTAIN me with in 2014/15 now thats when they begin emulating the spu from the cell chip on the gpgpu and with all that gddr5 ram- all I CAN SAY DEVELOPERS DONT LET XBOX 7SHITTY HOLD YOU BACK- THE SKY IS THE LIMIT!!!LLLLLOOOOLLLLL!!!!!
#1.8 (Edited 506d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
pixelsword  +   506d ago
If they do, it won't be the 720's fault, The developer's greed is hampering their games and their vision of what their games should be, not any one console or PC.
Joe Bomb  +   507d ago
Killzone for the win.
Sandmano  +   507d ago
I was literally just going to come and post that! What a coincidence! crazy! Anyway! Yes! Kill zone shadow fall FTW!!!!
#2.1 (Edited 507d ago ) | Agree(29) | Disagree(17) | Report | Reply
user7693958  +   507d ago
Is not coincidence.. KZSF looks way better but BF4 looks good and their fans should be happy!
abzdine  +   507d ago
i just played a multiplayer game of KZ3 with Move! great sensations
songoku  +   507d ago
BF4 looks like BF3 i couldnt tell the difference, but with KZSF i saw a big difference and love the new art work they have and the colors OMG!!! orgasim. its not KZ4 but its still good. BF4 will still be good cuz i like battle field but trying to compare it to the sony's halo is stupid cuz KZ always wins as best looking FPS. when KZ2 and 3 came out they got best graphics of the year.
Dead_Cell   507d ago | Bad language | show
wishingW3L  +   507d ago
Killzone looks last gen compared to Battlefield 4. And not to mention that the maps are not only bigger but the destruction is incredible and that requires an insane amount of calculations. But Battlefield was running on a $900 dual GPU after all... They can't be compared.
#3 (Edited 507d ago ) | Agree(28) | Disagree(108) | Report | Reply
zebramocha  +   507d ago
You can't be serious? The biggest difference between the two is,image quality,likely to change and lighting.
Sandmano  +   507d ago
Bubbles for making me laugh wishingW3I
Ame_No_Shiryuu  +   507d ago
Yeah.., WishingW3L is totally right, there no way console will be comparable to thousand dollars rig, to the people who say shadowfall is better, shame on you!!, just give it up PS fans, it's a natural order, where the rich stand above the poor.., well.., sucks to be you poor console gamer.., :D LMAO!!!

regard. PC gamer representative

Edit, please don't bubble me down, i'm just trying to be as asshole as possible as a PC "guy" cause every body else does the same, if you know what I mean..
#3.3 (Edited 507d ago ) | Agree(10) | Disagree(70) | Report | Reply
MysticStrummer  +   507d ago
Pathetic.
GraySnake  +   507d ago
You don't Represent me.

Edit:
Well then, next time add a /s or something lol
#3.3.2 (Edited 507d ago ) | Agree(28) | Disagree(1) | Report
songoku  +   507d ago
have fun with a game that has the same guns and gameplay like call of duty, nothing new with modern shooters cuz they all have the same stuff.
scott182  +   507d ago
I own a $2,000 gaming pc and play my ps3 while my PC catches dust. Alot of the best game designers and developers work for sony, seriously! I will admit there are games I wish were on consoles, like shogun 2, but i'm not sure the ps3 or xbox 360 have enough ram to handle it, I love it on PC though. But I haven't played a game that looked that much better, if any, than Uncharted 3. Just imagine what sony's developers will be able to do with the PS4! I am far more excited for PS4 games and graphics then for PC's.
#3.3.4 (Edited 507d ago ) | Agree(11) | Disagree(3) | Report
tee_bag242  +   507d ago
@Scott182 - I got a $2000 gaming PC too. I bought it in 1991, It's called an AMIGA 500..maybe you heard of it. It doesn't look as good as a PS3 either.
Get my drift?! Saying you have a $2000 is meaning less if it's junk old hardware. Its whats inside that matters, not the purchase price!!!
#3.3.5 (Edited 507d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(4) | Report
scott182  +   507d ago
I hear ya tee bag, I bought it a couple years ago.... Still plays games full power. That's really not the point i'm going for anyways. Of course good PC's have better hardware and more power than consoles. It's the developers and the games they make that matter to me, look at uncharted 3 for instance. I know the raw power isn't there for the ps3 like it is for good PC's, but look what naughty dog made with that game. I'm not trying to be biased for playstation, I just get more excited for playstation games...
#3.3.6 (Edited 507d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(0) | Report
mcnablejr  +   507d ago
Full power lol.
MuhammadJA  +   506d ago
This is the only site where they can't admit the obvious and start posting their fanboyism.

BTW, it's hard to convince people who haven't gamed on PC. -_-
JackVagina  +   506d ago
Running on a 900$ GPU doesn't mean the game is optimized for it
Ezz2013  +   507d ago
KZ4 look last gen ?!
are we looking at the same pics ?!
both look really close and almost the same (the art style is different though )
and both are still alpha stage
#3.4 (Edited 507d ago ) | Agree(31) | Disagree(7) | Report | Reply
Reverent  +   507d ago
He's just trolling. Mark him as such, and he'll have less bubbles to do it again. And people wonder what's wrong with N4G.
songoku  +   507d ago
this game isnt KZ4 its KZSF, if it was KZ4 the graphics would shit on everything like all the other KZ2 and 3 did at that time. cant compare BF4 to a game not shown.
dangerousjo34   506d ago | Spam
ABizzel1  +   507d ago
@wishingW3L & Zebramocha

The true answer / response is a happy medium between the both of your comments.

There's no way Killzone can look better than that Battlefield 4 trailer, from a RAW graphical standpoint. It's running on vastly superior that's at least 4x as powerful as the PS4 (my guess is at least i5-3750k CPU, HD 7990 GPU confirmed, and 32GB of RAM). The PS4 is a great console spec. wise (mid range PC, likely to be sold at a low-end price which is what PC gamers were upset about), but it can't compete with PC specs. like that (aka maxed PC specs.).

The lighting in BF4 is better, The character models faces were better in BF4, the environments are much bigger (based on the sections shown from both games), effects (smoke, fire, particles) look significantly better in Battlefield (and also proven in the UE4 comparison), and the destruction in Battlefield is in a whole other league.

Now it's time to praise Killzone. The fact is many people think of Killzone as a corridor shooter, and it was on PS3 for the most part, but the KZ4 demo all took place in a large open area. It wasn't a room that loaded the work as you progressed, but a HUGE Foyer that leads to a set piece moment. The tessellation was great, and arguably better than what was shown in BF4, the weapon models look much more detailed than BF4 (especially compared to the shotgun), the character models "In Action" are on par with BF4 if not better, and Killzone has a better artstyle IMO.

That being said KZ4 is using smoke and mirrors to achieve what BF4 is doing off RAW Power. A better comparison would be Killzone's E3 demo when the company has had time to polish up the loose ends and graphics since the game is technically finished. It will also allow Guerilla to use more of the systems 8GB of RAM compared to the 1.5GB - 4GB they maximum that had for the first reveal which would improve some aspect of the game. Killzone is also a launch title for new hardware vs. PC gaming which has been established for decades.

So while BF4 looks better, there are a lot of things that Killzone has going against that can easily be addressed before it's launch (2x more RAM, dedicated graphics development time, and improved understanding of PS4 architecture). Also a fair comparison would be BF4 running on PC hardware comparable to the PS4 (HD 7850 / 7870) or on the PS4 itself in which case Killzone is likely to give it a serious run for it money via PC hardware, and stomp it on the PS4.

I will say this; however, Killzone looks like a PS4 game, but it doesn't look like a huge evolution over Killzone 3 gameplay-wise based on that small demo.

BF4 looks like another BF as well, but the sheer amount of horsepower the game is pushing out through Frostbite Engine 3 from huge maps, multiple vehicles to freely drive, insane amounts of destructible environments, all while looking as great as it does is the first step to evolving the FPS. Now if only they could nail the story and single player, like Killzone is likely to achieve.
#3.5 (Edited 507d ago ) | Agree(11) | Disagree(25) | Report | Reply
Muerte2494  +   507d ago
That was a long read...
but all in all, I agree with what you said. There are however a few things people should take into account. Mark Cerny said that only people who have an enormous amount of knowledge coding for ps3 would understand ps4's "low-level hardware" support. DICE is actually one of the few 3rd party developers who truly know how to manipulate the CELL. I believe that they can give us a PS4 experience similar to that of PCs, lacking only minor bells and whistles.
#3.5.1 (Edited 507d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(4) | Report
AnteCash  +   507d ago
It was running on i7 , 32gb ram and TWO 7990.
The_Infected  +   507d ago
Just because a game like BF4 is running on better hardware don't mean anything. It's down to how good the developer is and how far they push things. Also every PS4 gamer will enjoy KZ: Shadow Fall exactly how it looks while not many will enjoy BF4 as it was shown because not everyone will have a super high end PC.

That's the reason I enjoy being a console gamer we all enjoy the games exactly the same so we all have the same experience even if its not the best it's still the same for us all.
#3.5.3 (Edited 507d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(3) | Report
tee_bag242  +   507d ago
Well said ABizzel1 - Shame the obvious and logic never prevail on N4G - The site where emotional and immature gamers take their first steps.

@Kratos_Kills - I agree with you, it doesnt mean bf4 is better at all. Likes and Dislikes aside, what is does show as Abizzel1 detailed, BF4 is more of a technical marvel.
#3.5.4 (Edited 507d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
Ravenor  +   506d ago
Both looked great, and things are looking up if you enjoy FPS games. I certainly wish gaming communities focused a bit less on the Game A) vs. Game B) or Platform A) vs Platform B) it's boring to read and the comments are just grating.

Both Killzone SF and BF4 looked great and they will both be enjoyable romps shooting dudes. Just like games in the past from both series they will both offer competent and enjoyable multiplayer. Why is this simple idea so hard for some of you?
Twinzclipz  +   507d ago
Are you Blind?????
thechosenone  +   507d ago
KZ's level was massive with loads of on-screen assets, dynamic lighting, reflections, volumetric smoke, dozens of NPCs, etc. BF4 demo on the other hand felt mostly empty it didn't really feel like a living breathing world like KZ:SF did.

http://i.minus.com/ibvZ53RX...

http://youtu.be/lUjQ4DJXLzw
#3.7 (Edited 507d ago ) | Agree(16) | Disagree(6) | Report | Reply
scott182  +   507d ago
SHHHHH the BF4 demo had better everything because PC's have 500 Gigawopflops....
RegorL  +   501d ago
Take another look...

KZ3 world is rather futuristic sterile.

I think you take real world environments for granted...

Take a look at the environment in this part of BF3.
- people
- animals
- wires
- vehicles/traffic (including as light sources)
- trees (that moves in the wind)
- litter, chairs, ... (non gameplay related stuff)
- and later other forms of vegetation
http://youtu.be/U8HVQXkeU8U...

BF4 looks like BF3 as they have a common artistic target - realism in near future.
Sub-Zero85  +   507d ago
Spoken like a typical PC elitist #WellDone , Killzone : Shadow Fall looks GREAT how ever I'm a huge fan of both franchises so I want both and both look stunning !
#3.8 (Edited 507d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply
DeadlyFire  +   506d ago
PS4 - nearly 2 Tflop with a co-processor.
AMD 7990 - between 4-6+ Tflops

Not to much of a difference graphically between the two. Yes there are some bits here and there with the PC version that are better. I wouldn't judge map size based on one demo of KZ Shadow Fall. To run side by side its not bad at all. Many improvements will be made by time E3 erupts in June. Anything shown to the public is one month behind on what development has pushed forward too.

Sony's goal is to push their PS4 to run like it has nearly 3 Tflops of power in it. Which is why Epic's Infiltrator Demo was running on a 680 with 3 Tflops of power behind it instead of something with more juice running it. PS4 will be able to do that if all goes according to plan within 5 years.

PC games require raw power. Unless multiplatform. Then they are just ported in many cases.

Console games get specialized code lined up directly to the CPU/GPU from every game which is improved upon with every generation.

Its not hard to see why its comparable. As consoles do push forward further than their specs, but only so far. They will not breach anything above 3 Tflops side by side to a console.

My system only has a 2.2 Tflop GPU and 5 year old 4 thread quad core CPU. A PS4 launch game should match up to its PC counter part pretty well without any effort in my home.
#3.9 (Edited 506d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
DEATHSTROKE-cro-  +   507d ago
Both look amazing but I like something new like that Killzone futuristic city and futuristic weapons.
I'm buying both.
LOGICWINS  +   507d ago
It's scary that these games aren't even final code yet. If launch games look THIS good, then the PS4 has a VERY bright future.
GraySnake  +   507d ago
and can you imagine the optimization later down the road? it's gonna be crazy!
Reverent  +   507d ago
I take back my comment towards you from a couple weeks ago... I see how you have all of your bubbles. I admit, I do agree with you most of the time, but you're comments can be pretty hit & miss sometimes.

Anyways, yeah, I personally cannot wait. Both of these games will definitely be played on the PS4 for me.
Lelldorianx  +   507d ago
I don't understand the premise of this blogspam. This is a non-linear comparison, no conclusion can be drawn.
Reverent  +   507d ago
That's what I thought. If I absolutely had to compare them though, I honestly think Killzone looks graphically better, while Battlefield looks technically better. Both are going to be amazing though. Can't wait!
Metfanant  +   507d ago
i think what you MEANT to say was that to you, Killzone has a more appealing art direction...

because when youre talking "graphically" and "technically" youre really talking about the same thing...
Relientk77  +   507d ago
Definitely wanna see them both, bet that they look extremely impressive
RudeSole Devil  +   507d ago
Any one find The Easter egg?
WUTCHUGUNNADO  +   507d ago
I'm guessing it was in the video... I don't do video comparisons especially from streaming sources but I did at least attempt to watch it until I noticed it wanted me to wait 30 secs to watch a commercial.
sjaakiejj  +   507d ago
http://www.lensoftruth.com/...

Though I don't think I found it the way I was meant to.. It was listed in their "Latest" sidebar lol.
BattleAxe  +   507d ago
Gentlemen, we are looking at the two best shooters of this holiday season.
Sandmano  +   507d ago
Don't forget COD! You don't need to see it to know It will be the best!

/S
#8.1 (Edited 507d ago ) | Agree(9) | Disagree(5) | Report | Reply
LOGICWINS  +   507d ago
Battlefield and Killzone are my two favorite shooters without a doubt. If Sony announces Move support for the PS4 version of BF4, I will LITERALLY crap my pants.
Reverent  +   507d ago
Same here. I spent over 600 hours with Battlefield 3, and I'm definitely ready to spend more with Battlefield 4. As for Killzone, I probably won't spend as much time with it as Battlefiled, but it will definitely give me plenty of entertainment for a long time to come. Next generation is looking to be a juggernaut.
#8.2.1 (Edited 507d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report
LOGICWINS  +   507d ago
"Same here. I spent over 600 hours with Battlefield 3"

Daaayum!

Yeah, I agree. I think multiplayerwise, BF4 will be the better game. Singleplayerwise, I think Killzone might be the better one. We'll have to wait and see!
MariaHelFutura  +   506d ago
Yeah I got 500 hrs on the Battlefield. I've been playing it consistantly since its release in October of 2011.
Kennytaur  +   507d ago
Halo 5 will probably be decent too.
saint_seya  +   507d ago
I just vote disagree not because i dont think Halo 5 isnt going to be a good game #actually i believe it will#, just because its out of topic, and prolly will activate some trolls...
user7693958  +   507d ago
a fact..
Hufandpuf  +   507d ago
Both are really good I can't wait to see more
HeavenlySnipes  +   507d ago
A better comparison would be BF4 and Crysis 3. Both aim for hyper realism and Killzone SF isn't based in reality so they have leeway to make things look however they please. KZ looks more like a CG video from Pixar
ColeMacGrath  +   507d ago
Crysis 3 looks pretty si-fi to me imo..
killzone looks amazing, and saying this doesn't make it anything less, but it looks to me that this is running on a very refined killzone 3 engine, anyone else see the same thing?
ZodTheRipper  +   507d ago
I guess it's safe to say that they took their existing engine instead of starting from scratch.
#11.1 (Edited 507d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Lolrus  +   507d ago
I believe they confirmed its the same engine as it has the same optimisations and techniques used in KZ3 but with all the extras that werent feasible on the PS3 and at a much larger scale at 1080p.
Metfanant  +   507d ago
can you point me to a source?...find it hard to believe considering the KZ engine would have been built from scratch and optimized for PS3 hardware...it would have had to be re-tooled significantly to translate to the new hardware...
Hard to compare really. Different lighting scenarious and what not. I know alot of people will say Bf4 looks more realistic but it's actually pretty artistic as well with it's hollywood style shaders.
GABRIEL1030  +   507d ago
Killzone looks much better, but Battlefield looks great.
profgerbik  +   507d ago
Why are people comparing two completely different games that run under two completely different engines? That don't even have the same design or art style.

How can you compare something but have so many random variables like that, random shots that aren't even remotely the same..
Twinzclipz  +   507d ago
KZSF>BF4"high end Pc"
are u mad bro?
B-radical  +   507d ago
Run at me bro
profgerbik  +   506d ago
Ok? They both look fine to me so..

No "brah" I am not mad, I just think it is a little retarded. That is like me buying a Nikon L105 and comparing it to a Canon EOS 5D Mark III.

Two completely different things. That you know just aren't comparable. Just like you can't compare two completely different games from two different engines. On top of that they are in no way near the same to be able to compare.

It isn't like they are comparing Killzone on Frostbite 3 versus GG's in house engine. It isn't like they are doing the same with BF4 comparing what it would be like on GG's in house engine versus Frostbite 3.

They are completely subjective, no one can actually say one looks technically better than the other when they have completely different art styles, direction and design. They will appeal to people just as art would. Now if you have the same pictures, that is little different now isn't it.

Now if they wanted to compare their engines and what they are capable of doing that is fine but within a two different games it is pointless. As both engines could be used on a PC anyway.

God forbid I like comparisons to have a little more depth and some actual relation between each other. That is just a basic rule in science that I had assumed everyone learned at one point in their life, you just don't waste your time comparing things like that especially when you are trying to nit pick like like this. It is just too random to be compared at all..

It isn't a real comparison if it is so subjective. With a properly made comparison, you know for a fact what you are comparing and which is better.

Stupid people even disagree with that but that is nothing new on this site.
#14.1.2 (Edited 506d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
Autodidactdystopia  +   507d ago
the same way you compare two different vaccums for suction. :)
Rask  +   507d ago
Battlefield 4 graphics looks slightly better, but Killzone is a much better shooter than Battlefield.
Ame_No_Shiryuu  +   507d ago
I'm already tired of this graphic comparison, it's not even fair from the start, in term of specs and price for the obvious, shadowfall is great, BF is great, why people just don't and can't leave it to that..??

what's next?, PS4 versus latest NASA's supercomputer..??
OmniSlashPT  +   507d ago
PS4 vs reality, PS4 has more GPU memory than reality, can handle more teraflops and polys, PS4 wins /s
lol
Clarence  +   507d ago
I can't wait for both of them.
ironmonkey  +   507d ago
getting them both for ps4 now thats a win! both are beautiful games. but exclusives always have the better hand because of the developers time on it and not having to work on a port but just the game.
NateCole  +   507d ago
Well i am getting BF for PC and KZ on PS4 so i guess i win.

BF looked better but KZ is very close. On my current rig though they would most likely look similar.
francknara6  +   507d ago
Killzone looks way better. At least, it has an art direction.
DarthJay  +   507d ago
Terrible comparison across the board.
xX_Altair_Xx  +   507d ago
There's no point comparing the two - BF4 is running on a £900 graphics card; KZ on a console costing probably a third of that. I suppose it's a testament to the PS4 (and GG) that it is being compared to such powerful GPU performance.
pandehz  +   507d ago
These comparisons need to stop.

Both look good, I want to play both.

Im looking forward to playing them and not comparing.
OWWO  +   507d ago
yuck..blurry KZ4 textures..i cant see shit...while on the other hand BF4 looks jaw droping..fu.k that if ps4 is anything above 300$ i am not buying
#24 (Edited 507d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(19) | Report | Reply
Aceman18  +   507d ago
oh please your hating a$$ wasn't going to buy the system. also get your eyes checked with the blurry texture crap.
Metfanant  +   507d ago
Trollolol
josephayal  +   507d ago
I Want Both
Thatmattkid  +   507d ago
Personally I think the Battlefield visuals look better. IMO the movements of the characters in Killzone look a bit stiff and rigid. However it really doesn't matter, both games will excel but probably in different fields.
mania9   507d ago | Spam
Thirty3Three  +   507d ago
Killzone's only using a small fraction of the PS4's power...
OWWO  +   506d ago
my as$
dafegamer  +   506d ago
u sound mad
telekeneticmantis  +   507d ago
Battlefield
Just much more detail. KZSF has better lighting, and a more interesting setting, and colors, but BF4 captures reality well.
venom06  +   507d ago
and meanwhile, back on the CoD ranch, the're STILL using a 8yr old engine, and STILL don't have dedicated servers and STILL have terrible lag compensation.... HAHAHAHA!!!
#30 (Edited 507d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply
Majin-vegeta  +   507d ago
Oh god my sides xD.
AnteCash  +   507d ago
Its not 8y old, its 14 year old Quake 3 engine in its core.
Metfanant  +   507d ago
in fairness it makes COMPLETE sense for them to have stuck with the same engine the whole generation...and i expect them to do the same next generation (and they should)

CoD has a gameplay forumla that includes a no compromise stance on a solid 60fps...because of that, sacrifices need to be made in other areas...the CoD games for the PS3/360 were never going to look as pretty as BF or KZ or Halo...because the frame rate goals set by the developers...

there is a reason BF and KZ ran at 30fps this generation...because no matter how much "better" their engines are than the IW engine (thats debatable on what you consider "better") there was no way they could achieve the visual fidelity they did and have each frame render twice as fast...

its just factual...the IW engine (for what it is) is impressive in its own right...its not the prettiest engine...but it performs VERY well...
#30.3 (Edited 507d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Ravenor  +   506d ago
But I want to be one of the cool kids who rags on it constantly even though for a 60FPS game CoD looks fantastic on the consoles.

The CoD hate is so played out, play it or don't, buy it or don't. At the end of the day, the market doesn't give a shit.
« 1 2 »

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
Remember