Will Halo: Reach match the graphical quality of Killzone 2?

00 - 39 days 14 hours ago

are you blind it's purple and more GREEN, gosh you people

Agree(4) | Disagree(1) | Report

DarkArcani - 39 days 14 hours ago

Then you went to the other planet, which was in the middle of a lightning storm. I have never seen bright, shiny colors when there is a storm outside. That's just me.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

The BS Police - 39 days 14 hours ago

Yep, Halo 3 has alot of purple
/sarcasm.

Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report

silvacrest - 39 days 14 hours ago

selected screen shots prove.....nothing

Agree(0) | Disagree(3) | Report

Halo3 MLG Pro - 39 days 14 hours ago

And jibberish talk from sony fanboys about a 360 game does prove something??? LOL.

Agree(3) | Disagree(5) | Report

cmrbe - 39 days 14 hours ago

Helgan is no Disney park.

Agree(1) | Disagree(3) | Report

kaveti6616 - 39 days 13 hours ago

I think the GG said Killzone 2 uses roughly 60 percent of the Playstation 3's power. The Playstation 3 is according the designers roughly 20 percent more powerful than the 360 (they also said it could be the other way around). So, if that's the case then the Xbox 360 should be able to run Killzone 2 and still have 20 percent of its juice left over.

Agree(2) | Disagree(2) | Report

PLAYSTATIONGENRATION - 39 days 14 hours ago

Recall when ODST came out...now no one even plays it that much on live

Agree(2) | Disagree(2) | Report

Elven6 - 39 days 12 hours ago

No one plays ODST anymore?

A. Most of the multiplayer is registered as Halo 3 on XBL
B. Halo 3: ODST was the fifth most played game this week on Xbox Live (gathered from ALL XBL accounts including Silver).

http://majornelson.com/arch...

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

kaveti6616 - 39 days 13 hours ago

On consoles. On PC, there are a plethora of games that beat Killzone 2's lighting. And to be honest, I really think the lighting effects in Lost Planet 2 can match up to Killzone 2.

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report

mythamp - 39 days 10 hours ago

I played the demo and did not find it mindblowing like KZ2, its good but it does not seem polished. To be very honest, it felt like the engine was stolen with a few customizations here and there just to be on par.

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report

DaTruth - 38 days 19 hours ago

Killzone 2 has real-time ray-tracing. You can't even find that on the highest end PC in a game!

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report

DaTruth - 38 days 19 hours ago

Once again 360 blogosphere is comparing unreleased games with no info to Killzone 2, when they have yet to top Uncharted 1!

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

kaveti6616 - 39 days 13 hours ago

Halo 3's campaign is comprised of narrow walkways most of the time. There are only two areas that come to mind where big battlegrounds are played through. Both involve Scarabs.

Agree(3) | Disagree(3) | Report

Halo3 MLG Pro - 39 days 14 hours ago

And that's where Killzone 2 can't touch Halo 3. The control! I don't care how many people here try to defend Killzone 2's control mechanic. It's pretty obvious that the majority of people hated the sluggish control. Halo 3's control scheme is perfection.

Agree(2) | Disagree(6) | Report

SoX FireBlade - 39 days 13 hours ago

the controls were horrible in killzone 2 , worst controls scheme i've tried in this generation. and then they say the sniper in it is the best

how can someone forget the awesomeness of the sniper in halo O.o

best sniper in a ps3 game is the fareye in resistance 2

well i have faith in bungie i'm sure they will make a good looking halo

halo 3 :odst's graphics were good it was used in the same engine as halo 3 so obviously it will look almost the same

Agree(3) | Disagree(3) | Report

cmrbe - 39 days 13 hours ago

sluggish?. Your movement in KZ2 is more realistic than Halo 3.

Agree(3) | Disagree(1) | Report

kaveti6616 - 39 days 13 hours ago

What makes you so sure it's "realistic"? Did you go outside and purchase heavy armor and weapons and try it out? And if it is realistic, does that change the fact that it's sluggish? There are so many other aspects about Killzone 2's gameplay that are not realistic at all. Did you know that if you should a person in the head with one bullet in real life, they die? But not in Killzone 2. Maybe there is a reason why the gameplay mechanic of most games are not true to life. You make fun of Halo and Cod for having kiddie controls, but fail to admit that their ease of movement makes them more fun to pick up and play.

EDIT: Clearly you didn't read through my whole post. I said, who cares if it is more realistic? Even it is more realistic, it DOES NOT change the fact that it is more SLUGGISH. While sluggish is a negative term, it still describes KZ2's controls, however realistic they may be. And yes, it is not realistic for someone to do a complete turn in a split second, but we are talking about GAMES. The 360 hardware is capable of running games with sluggish controls, but the developers for Halo decided that they wanted their game to be tweaked a certain way to provide for more accessible gameplay.

If you like Killzone 2's controls, then good for you, but there's no reason for you to bash COD's and Halo's controls. How about I bash Warhawk for being so unrealistic. That's right, I played that game. It's fun isn't it? But it's not realistic at all, either. Nevertheless more people enjoy the fast, slick controls for FPS than they do the KZ2 way, as evidenced by the number of players who play COD and Halo and Warhawk compared to the number of people who play Killzone 2 every day.

Agree(3) | Disagree(5) | Report

cmrbe - 39 days 13 hours ago

Did i say lifelike controls?. I said more realistic. Your counter is lame. Everyone knows that you can't do a 360 in spl-sec with heavy armour and gun. Basic common sense. KZ2 prefects this movement to be more true to life. The way the camera moves when you run and sidestep doenst look like you are floating on air. When you are near explosions your body moves accordingly and makes for a more intense war experience.

With KZ2 you do need more effort and skills to do well. COD4 and Halo even a 7 year old can play and do well on it.

Agree(4) | Disagree(3) | Report

Halo3 MLG Pro - 39 days 13 hours ago

"Everyone knows that you can't do a 360 in spl-sec with heavy armour and gun"

Maybe not the sissies in Killzone 2 but a super soldier from the Spartan program sure can. :)

Don't give me this realistic jazz. It's just plain sluggish. Maybe a great idea on paper, but the final result wasn't great.

Agree(0) | Disagree(5) | Report

Elven6 - 39 days 11 hours ago

You guys are comparing realistic movement in two games set in FAKE SCIENCE FICTION universes....

Agree(0) | Disagree(2) | Report

Arnon - 39 days 9 hours ago

Sorry, when I walk, my eyes aren't locked in position causing me to notice my bobbing movements as I move. Sorry, but Killzone 2 is not realistic in any way. Sluggish =/= realistic.

Agree(0) | Disagree(3) | Report

SoX FireBlade - 39 days ago

Killzone's controls: Very hard to aim and easy to kill, even if you trained hard in the game you will still not aim well

Cod's controls: easy to aim and easy to kill, perfect for casual gamers

Halo's controls: Easy to aim hard to kill, it's good for both casual and hardcore gamers. causal gamers will play their own games and the hardcore gamers will play their own games (MLG gametypes). Halo needs alot of skill, a newbie can't kill a pro easily

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

DaTruth - 38 days 19 hours ago

Wow, fanboy goggles can also make your eyes move in a way that counteracts your bobbing motion when you're running. That's incredible!!! For me, I just stopped noticing it when I was three having gotten use to it, but am not lame enough to believe it doesn't exist. Kind of like after an hour of playing the game I stopped noticing it, but it still added to my immersion!

@Soxfireblade: Good explanation!

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Halo3 MLG Pro - 39 days 14 hours ago

Never understood why you guys say MW2 is a rehash of MW. Isn't Killzone 2 a rehash of every war shooter before it???

*EDIT @ Below...

Fair enough. Bubbles for a friendly reply. Rare on this site. But I think that MW has vicious AI in veteran mode.

Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report

Blas - 39 days 14 hours ago

I mean, at least not to me.
To be honest, I'm just very burnt out on the whole CoD thing, so perhaps my comment was too much, and I apologize.
That being said, Killzone 2 has elements from lots of games, sure, but they're done in a most excellent mater, IMO.
The AI alone is better than most FPS's out there.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Blas - 39 days 13 hours ago

And I guess I really shouldn't blame IW for Activision's boneheaded tactics.
I actually really enjoyed CoD2 and CoD4.
But it's hard for me to separate my hate for Activision and my enjoyment of a game published by them, which is entirely my fault, I guess.
To be honest, I really want that Special Ops mode, but I just can'r bring myself to buy a new copy. Maybe I'll buy it used.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

zerocrossing - 39 days 13 hours ago

well as much as i would LOVE to critasize this screen everything other than the mountains looks ok, just realy realy blury! if you remember back on Halo 2/3 the mountains outside of your main root always looked terrible so just exspect them to be obstructed by buildings and plenty of grass and bushes,

other than that i agree with you 100%, the 360 can not compete with the graphics potential of the PS3, unfortunatly many devs cant get there head around the complexitys of the PS3's 7 dual core power processors but im hoping the new Edge Engine fixes this problem.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Some_One_Plays - 39 days 10 hours ago

lol, I didn't know that about Halo.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

GiantEnemyCrab - 39 days 10 hours ago

First off, can you read?

"Using words such as Xbots and Sony droids, or other words from the console war vocabulary, is strictly prohibited in this Zone."

Second Killzone 2 isn't even in native 720p and it looks gorgeous. You are looking at a blurry LEAKED picture which you have no way of knowing where in the dev cycle it's at or if it's even real.

Unless you have a degree in game design and have a few critically acclaimed games under your belt I would guess you have no idea what you're talking about and are pulling assumptions out of thin air.

As far as the 360 not being an HD console that is just another poor assumption. The 360 has been HD since the day it launched and not only did they prepare it for HD but to include a HANA upscaling chip in the console to make non-HD upscale and upscale correctly. Unlike the PS3 which didn't include or at least at the time wasn't using a proper upscaling chip at launch. I remember the problems with TV compatibility and other upscaling issues until Sony got it fixed in a FW update.

In 05 when the 360 launched HDMI wasn't in use like it is now and really the only thing HDMI gives you over Component(which is perfectly capable of doing HD resolutions) is audio, copy protection and better communication with televisions(ie More plug-n-play like). You would find more HD sets with DVI than HDMI in 05.

Agree(0) | Disagree(2) | Report

Arnon - 39 days 9 hours ago

...and there we have it. One of the first N4G users to claim that the leaked screenshots of Halo: Reach (which could be fake) are what the game will look like, even though it releases a good year from now. Congratulations, you grabbed a blurry, off-screen screenshot of alpha footage. "Hurr- The mountains aren't even textured!" Seriously? Lets hope for your personal standing, that these are images from the future. September 2010 to be exact.

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report

kaveti6616 - 39 days 13 hours ago

No, texture quality is not based on size. Learn something before you post.

Agree(2) | Disagree(2) | Report

moparful99 - 39 days 12 hours ago

He's alluding to the fact that with more storage you can have more uncompressed data which does affect the graphical fidelity. Squeezing all of that data onto a small disc hurts the fps which is where the fps vs graphical fidelity comes into play. With more storage and the ability to pre install data on the hard drive you free up alot of processing power allowing rock solid fps while maintaining a very high level of detail and texture..

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

Figboy - 39 days 12 hours ago

but i was trying to keep my post trim.

tell me, if storage capacity wasn't important to texture quality, then why don't we store the entirety of Uncharted 2's graphics library on a floppy disc?

there's more to visuals than just texture data, but you still have to put that data somewhere.

Uncharted has an incredible amount of detail put into it's objects and environments. there are a variety of locales/unique objects in the game, each given incredible attention to detail.

those texture assets aren't reused over and over again, like in other games.

for example, there are unique texture sets for Nepal, Borneo Jungle, Tibet, etc, and that texture data has to go somewhere.

who knows if it would fill up a 7.5gig disc, but i've yet to see an Xbox 360 game, in 4+ years on the market look as good as Uncharted 1, Uncharted 2, Killzone 2, and even Ratchet and Clank Future.

obviously, there is some benefit to having Blu Ray disc size available, as well as the standard HDD (for the record, Killzone 2, Uncharted 1 and 2, and Ratchet Future 1 don't install to the HDD; data is streamed from the Blu Ray disc).

as for Uncharted 2, watching the behind the scenes features, Naughty Dog explains a lot of their tricks/techniques.

first, the SPUs are handling the majority of the post processing effects and physics calculations. the PS3's graphics chip, the RSX, is pretty much just rendering polygons. they said that because the SPUs were handing all the fancy, grunt work (motion blur, depth of field, etc), they were able to have the RSX handle larger amounts of polygons (which is why the character models are able to be so much more detailed).

then they developed a system that lets them blend a large amount of animations on top of each other; a mixture of motion capture, and hand "drawn." which is why Nathan can be running forward, tripping and stumbling, reloading his gun, and then shielding himself from hot flames at pretty much the same time, and with no loss of player control/response. Nathan's animation set is HUGE. animation is obviously part of the visual package, and no other gaming character in gaming is as integrated with his environment as Nathan Drake.

animation data is not small. that will also take up a lot of space on a disc, on top of texture/audio assets. the audio alone would more than likely take up a significant portion of the Blu Ray disc, especially when you take into account HOW MUCH audio there is in the game (93 minutes of cutscene dialogue, a full soundtrack recorded at Skywalker Ranch in the highest quality possible, and TONS of extra dialogue spoken during game play, while traversing the environments and sound effects like guns, explosions, vehicles, etc).

Naughty Dog also really worked with streaming technology (a specialty of theirs: Jak and Daxter was one of the first Playstation 2 games to allow you to traverse the game without a single loading screen, traveling from location to location seamlessly; if you saw a place off in the distance, you could get to it with no break in the gameplay). since the Cell processor is so good at streaming data, you can have it stream large amounts of data (ie, texture data), without the need to cache it to the PS3's RAM constantly. the constant read speed of the Blu Ray disc drive helps this immensely.

from what i've read, seek times are also relatively fast on the disc drive too. there may be repeated data on the Blu Ray disc to help the seek times, but the result is still the same: amazing looking games yet to be matched on the competing consoles.

the Xbox 360 is certainly capable of great visuals, but in four years it hasn't grown beyond Unreal Engine 3 and Gears of War (the original; Gears 2 was barely an improvement over the first beyond the lighting).

you're right, it's not just one element that makes the PS3 games look great (ie, it's not JUST the Blu Ray disc), but it's the COMBINATION of all of those elements that contribute to it: Blu Ray disc size, HDD standard, Cell Processor, RSX.

the reason why you can have so many PS3 developers saying that there is still potential to be had is because they are very rarely taxing all of those elements at the same time (ie, Uncharted 1 wasn't using all 6 SPUs constantly; Uncharted 2 is using all SPUs, but isn't taxing the RSX, or utilizing the HDD).

i can't imagine the PS3 game that manages to use 100% of the Cell Processor, the full capacity of the RSX, a full 50gig Blu Ray disc, and caches/installs to the HDD for optimal performance.

that game may never come, but the POTENTIAL for that is there. unless the 360 can drop UE3, it's going to always be limited.

it's why i'm willing to give Bungie the benefit of the doubt with Halo: Reach, since they are building an entirely new engine for it, instead of a barely updated version of the Halo engine.

i'm genuinely interested in the results of their efforts, despite not being a Halo fan, because i want to see the 360 PUSHED HARD, instead of coasting on Unreal Engine 3.

ALL of the major PS3 exclusives are using their own custom engines, tailor made for that specific game's needs, and it SHOWS. i think the 360 deserves the same courtesy. i want to see what it can REALLY do.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report