Top
1120°

Halo 3 vs Killzone 2 - Graphic Comparison

RoG write:

The original Halo was immediatly praised for its awesome graphics and more importantly because it proved that making a...
... high quality first person shooter on a gaming console wasn't just a dream. Now it's finally time to take a look at the sequel to the game which many called the 'Halo killer' when it came out five years ago. Of course we're talking about Killzone 2 and we'll go straight to the point by stating that this time not only Guerrilla Games doesn't dissapoint but the team delivered what we believe is a product which sets a new tandard in the genre. To be honest many gamers felt a bit disappointed with Halo 3, the game didn't prove to be exactly what people were expecting from a next gen entry in such a big, important series. That of course hasn't stopped the game from being a huge success but now, more than a year after Microsoft's flagship title release we have decided to make a comparison to show how much Killzone 2 has set the bar higher.

Screens have been captured at 720p for both titles.

Read Full Story >>
riseofgames.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Sangria3152d ago

ROFL that's maybe the worst comparison ever made with KZ2 vs Crysis.

Rock Bottom3152d ago (Edited 3152d ago )

Haha, this is going to be hilarious.

The sad thing however is that this will not be the last stupid comparison we see here.

KRUSSIDULL3152d ago

ROFLAMO PS3 fans does whatever it takes to outshine 360 now but I dont affing care there were even better looking games for 360 back then like lets say Gears of War? :P

3152d ago
MazzingerZ3152d ago (Edited 3152d ago )

yeah...Halo is like 2 years old, besides even when it came out graphics weren't better than in Gears...but co-op was way better than in Gears 1 (that Halo 3 CGI commercial didn't help much)...the graphics was a trade off...Halo 3 was/is great and fun to play with friends.

Killzone 2 only follows the pattern of progression in the graphical department on the PS3, PS3 outperformed the X360 already when GT5P was released, forget about comparing Killzone 2...if that's the case the X360 would need to match first MGS4 then think about Killzone 2

People can say the X360 could run that type of games but the fact that today only the PS3 does.

X360 owners cares all of the sudden about "gameplay" over graphics...a year ago it was different, PS3 HW was bashed for being useless. PS3 games line up for being poor...MEtacritic was the reference when comparing the consoles, number of exclusives over 85 average score, X360 the console for the "hardocore" gamer...X360 was the console for the shooters (R2, SOCOM, K2 and soon MAG says hi)

TODAY? well, let's say that all those arguments are not used anymore and instead exclusive DLC is the sh%t...

pixelsword3152d ago (Edited 3152d ago )

-since reporters won't keep the phrase "halo killer" out of their mouth

-since both games came out roughly around the same "year" in terms of launch dates

-since some people/bloggers site Halo 3 as the best online experience on the 360, even better than CoD4; according to bloggers, Killzone 2 trumps CoD4, making the gameplay of Halo3 game to be compared.

**** reasons why it's not valid

- off the bat, you're comparing a HD game to a sub-HD game... not exactly fair. If it was the same game across multiple consoles, I think that would be more apt

- as much as graphics aren't gameplay, a demo isn't a game; so I would at least wait until the final game is out before comparing the two

- reviews of both games already said Halo 3's graphics were lacking, and Killzone 2's graphics were some of the best, if not the best, on consoles -ever-

At any rate, keep a level head until you get the final product. It's 19 DAYS FROM NOW!

w00t!

St03152d ago (Edited 3152d ago )

Not only are the graphics better in KillZone, the resolution is also higher

Halo 3 = 1152x640 (no AA)

Killzone 2 = 1280x720 (2xAA)

edhe3152d ago

Halo's a year and a half older, after ODST it's going to be end of line, and killzone2 isn't even out yet.

Yes, it *should* pound halo into the ground, it'd be a sad day if it didn't.

Stupid comparison, sigh.

HighDefinition3152d ago

But, as much as it looks better, Killzone 2 does ALOT of small things that other games just don`t do.

Alvadr3152d ago

When i first started playing the KZ2 my jaw hit the floor, unbelievable eyepopping visuals that were so good I couldnt concentrate on the action.

That never once happened to me with Halo 3

Marquis_de_Sade3152d ago

Ughh, boring, I played the Killzone 2 demo and enjoyed it, a day one purchase but personally I still prefer the gameplay of Halo 3. Of course Killzone 2 is technically superior, although the textures were rather poor in my opinion.

Buttons3152d ago

I'm making a Killzone 2 vs. Commodore 64 Graphics Comparison

Downtown boogey3152d ago

conduct a comparision between Killzone 2 and CoD4 since CoD4 received even more praise for it's graphics even though it's clearly inferior to Killzone 2... A lot of ppl even said that CoD4 looked better than Crysis! WTF???

robep33152d ago

PICTURES dont show what Kz2 is about you need to see VIDEO to see the real difference between it and other games!

Its the amount of things on screen at once even in the demo look at the sky you see a lot going on above your head ships, rockets being fired etc.

Rob.

Aquanox3152d ago (Edited 3152d ago )

It's awesome how a game that is suppossed to look this bad has gotten much better review scores than Killzone 2 - And that considering that Halo 3 has 86 reviews, whereas Killzone 2 has 40, most of them exclusive, which mean mandatorily higher than usual.

This is probably because it plays much better, it's much more fun and it doesn't look as bad as those screens pretend.

Downtown boogey -

I can bet you money right now that COD6 (The one developed by Infinity) released THIS year (2 year of development btw) will score higher than Killzone - Just like COD4 did) and will actually bring innovative stuff to the genre instead of just compilate them from the others.

gametheory3151d ago (Edited 3151d ago )

"It's awesome how a game that is suppossed to look this bad has gotten much better review scores than Killzone 2 "

Awesome? Yeah, money can do wonders my friend.

Anyway, Killzone 2 has about 125 reviews down here at N4G and has a 9.3 average. On the other hand, Halo has about 40 reviews and a 8.9 average. Why don't you Halo fanboys gather as many reviews as you can to crank up that score? Hell, go to metacritic and put only the best scores here, it might as well reach Killzone 2 quality, because everyone knows that reviews matter more than the actual game. Oh wait.

N4360G3151d ago

LOL Killzone 2 easily wins,Halo 3 has bad graphics.

The Dude3151d ago

I am so glad my gamestop preorder included access to the killzone 2 demo. I played the KZ2 demo and am now canceling my preorder. In the end its an average shooter with great graphics thats it.

Arnon3151d ago (Edited 3151d ago )

"Anyway, Killzone 2 has about 125 reviews down here at N4G and has a 9.3 average. On the other hand, Halo has about 40 reviews and a 8.9 average. Why don't you Halo fanboys gather as many reviews as you can to crank up that score? Hell, go to metacritic and put only the best scores here, it might as well reach Killzone 2 quality, because everyone knows that reviews matter more than the actual game. Oh wait."

Lol. Yeah, lets take all the backwoods scores from sites that people have never heard of from the backwoods blogging site, N4G. No. I would take Metacritics word over scores from places in the world that probably can not even get this game.

And yes, The Dude. You are exactly right. Killzone 2 looks phenomenal with the basic of basic shooting mechanics. And honestly there's no one here that could actually say that you and I are wrong on this part.

gametheory3151d ago

"Lol. Yeah, lets take all the backwoods scores from sites that people have never heard of from the backwoods blogging site, N4G. No. I would take Metacritics word over scores from places in the world that probably can not even get this game."

So you rather take Metacritic, which puts mostly scores from sites whose revenue depends on the businesses (i.e. paid lobbyists) than actually honest sites whose traffic depends on the quality of their work rather than the strength of their corporation? Good job numbnuts, you missed the whole point anyway, because I clearly implied that review scores ultimately mean jack sh1t. I guess some people are just too dense.

"And yes, The Dude. You are exactly right. Killzone 2 looks phenomenal with the basic of basic shooting mechanics. And honestly there's no one here that could actually say that you and I are wrong on this part. "

Tell me where did I write about Killzone 2's "looks"? Oh, and please... Halo is popular because it's "basic of basic", it requires no strategy on the player's part and it has no cover system, it is basically run and gun. This is not opinion, it's a fact.

ps921173151d ago

there is a flaw with your comment that a ps3 owner would notice, so either you don't own a ps3 or you are a retard, both cases your comment is null.

thats_just_prime3151d ago

Whats the point Halo 3 looked like crapped when it was released. Shouldnt they be trying to compare it to GoW2 ?

Why dis3151d ago

I think the comparison is a valid one, KZ2's textures are average.

Matpan3151d ago

Pointless comparison... While one game is clearly there (above all other things) to showcase a console´s power. The other is mainly a fun game to play, and a sequel to a top selling franchise whose graphics where never top notch. Oh.. an d there is the developing time, and the time difference between both releases...

I would like to see how much is KZ2 played on-line well after a year of it´s release date...

I´m not saying it will play worse than halo 3 or be less fun (it´s not even out yet) but halo franchise and Halo 3 has proven much value that KZ2 still hasn´t. In fact, KZ2 has only proven to be an impressive graphic powerhouse so far, which as I said before, was probably it´s main goal.

MUNKYPOO3151d ago

because of idiots like you my preorder didn't come with a demo. they were all out

The Dude3151d ago

@MUNKYPOO

Because of your narrow minded comment, I'm glad you didn't.

joevfx3151d ago

wait why is this a stupid comparison? xbots werent complainign when they compaired KZ2 to gears 2, but they complain when the compair halo3 to kz2? just prooves u are all babies.

ProperFunked3151d ago (Edited 3151d ago )

i hope everyone not forgetting that Halo 3 screenshots are re-rendered, which is why those comparison shots look as good as they do. my friend used one of his screenshots for his desktop background, and i said "holy sh*t, i didnt realize it looked that good" addresing the armor textures and detail in the SS. then he told me it the gameplay doesnt, but the screenshots are actually re-rendered for higher resolution images.

Obama3151d ago

You have the guts to talk about exclusive reviews when MS sent a 800 dollars worth of halo 3 swagbag to every reviewer, which is clearly BRIBE.

thegood333151d ago

That doesn't even make sense.

Granted I own all three systems, and they all have thier good points, but halo IS a great game, and Killzone, at this point in time aint S$%#T.

That's like saying Ratchet and clank is better then Mario because it has higher resolution.

What a joke.

Arnon3151d ago

"So you rather take Metacritic, which puts mostly scores from sites whose revenue depends on the businesses (i.e. paid lobbyists) than actually honest sites whose traffic depends on the quality of their work rather than the strength of their corporation? Good job numbnuts, you missed the whole point anyway, because I clearly implied that review scores ultimately mean jack sh1t. I guess some people are just too dense."

LOL. You're calling me a dense numbnuts because I would go by sites that have more credit? Not to mention you're calling me a dense numbnuts when you think that these sites are PAID?.. Is the Microsoft conspiracy going through your skull as well? Good lord. And BY that logic, BOTH types of reviewers would have to be paid by the same people due to the fact that if they weren't... THEY WOULDN'T BE MAKING A DAMN THING. These reviewers are not paid, in the least bit, by ANYONE, except by the people that advertise all over their site. THAT is how they get money to continue. It's like common sense just slipped your mind.

And to top it all off, if reading was a basic part of YOUR life, you would realize that the second part of my comment was not directed towards you in any way.

So before you start calling people names, maybe you should make sure that your comment isn't complete fud.

Kaneda3151d ago

If KZ2 didn't look as good as Halo 3, xbots probably post some kind of comparison.. in this case, KZ2 does look better.. so stop saying it unfairs comparison! Halo 3 released when 360 2 yrs old.. same as KZ2.. 2 years and 3 months...

+ Show (30) more repliesLast reply 3151d ago
TrevorPhillips3152d ago

why are they comparing Halo 3 with Killzone 2 LOL isnt halo an older game then killzone 2

Algullaf3152d ago (Edited 3152d ago )

because halo 3 get 10/10 in most reviews so its fair to compare them.

edit: just i was trying to say halo 3 over rated please just tell me why it get 10 in graphics. compare them running real time side by side why in hell halo get high score.

marichuu3152d ago

I highly doubt that's their reason for a comparison.
Did Halo 3 get a 10 in graphics where Killzone 2 didn't?

SuperM3152d ago

its older true. but it looks like a last gen game in comparison to kz2

Gaara_7243152d ago

i think its because they both came out 3 years into the consols life span so there actually even in that sense

marichuu3152d ago

2 years.

And no, that would be retarded. It's like comparing a bluray movie with a VHS tape that came out 2 years after the thing went public.

Time_Is_On_My_Side3152d ago (Edited 3152d ago )

Simple

Halo 3 - 3 years after console release

Killzone 2 - 3 (+ 2 months) years after console release (the early release date in 2009 doesn't really count as a whole year)

Microsoft launched their console a year a head so if they were released at the same time the games would have came out around the same time.

The same can be done with Perfect Dark Zero and Resistance: Fall of Man yes Perfect Dark Zero is older but equal in the sense of time frames. This would be comparing launch titles with launch titles, it's valid if you see the logic. To me it wouldn't make sense to compare Gears of War with Resistance: Fall of Man if you wanted to be fair in time frames.

Silellak3152d ago (Edited 3152d ago )

Your timeframe is incredibly off. The PS3 won't have been three years old until November of this year. Halo 3 was released a little under two years after the 360's release. Not three years.

Math is HARD:

360 Release Date: 11/22/2005
Halo 3 Release Date: 9/25/2007
Time difference: 22 months

PS3 Release Date: 11/11/2006
KZ2 Release Date: 2/26/2009
Time difference: 27 months

Please don't just make up random numbers that happen to fit your argument when it's incredibly easy to research this sort of thing.

Also, the validity of comparing Resistance vs GoW on release was discussed back when the PS3 was just released. The comparison was often considered valid because, while the PS3 hadn't been out for a year (obviously), the dev kits had been in the hands of developers for nearly as long for both consoles, which is what is really important - how long the game was in development, not how long after a console's release it came out.

I keep hearing "4 years" as the number of years KZ2 has been in development. Given that Halo 2 came out in 2004, the maximum number of years it was likely in development is 3. Of course, Bungie's goal was never to make the prettiest game possible. This comparison is absurd, simply because Halo 3 was never supposed to be a graphical powerhouse. A true comparison would be vs. GoW2, where KZ2 would of course still win, but it wouldn't be as ridiculous of a comparison.

Marquis_de_Sade3152d ago

I think the bottom line is Killzone 2 without its' quality graphics would be a distinctly average game to many, whereas Halo 3 is by no means the best looking game around, but has stellar gameplay, and the volume of people who play it is testament to that fact.

Sevir043151d ago

What every you tell yourself. KZ2 has proved it's self, the devs set out to deliver a gut renching frantic, cinematic shooter thats realistic and fun to play including it's multiplayer, there is no where near an average game. but keep telling yourself that. the only review score that agrees with what you are saying is the 1 seven that egde gave it and it was strictly for the story which everyone else praised it for so... have a good time wrapping your head around that. average. that would be the halo series after it part 1. as a 360 fan from xbox.com said in his article, "... it's strange to say, but Halo 3: ODST has something to live up to" and it isn't halo 3.

gametheory3151d ago

"the dev kits had been in the hands of developers for nearly as long for both consoles,"

That's a flat out lie. The first dev kits for 360 were given away little after Halo 2's release. Developers had already been working with early Xbox 360 dev kits by then, that's why they were able to show initial builds of quite many 360 games during E3 2005. The final dev kits were received around Xbox 360s launch.

On the other hand, the only game we saw running real-time on early PS3 dev kits during E3 2005 was UT3, and that's because Epic probably had a priority over the majority of 3rd party devs (it's no wonder why UT3 was a timed exclusive). Still, early dev kits for 360 were a lot more similar to the final 360 architecture and were released a lot earlier. The first dev kits for PS3 didn't even have a cell processor, i.e. it didn't have SPE's, a fundamental component of PS3 engines. On the other hand, the PCs for initial 360 development were similar, the only difference was the amount of cores in the processor (and it's not like many games use multi-core code on 360 anyway).

The Cell processor was finalized in June 2006, so the final dev kits were given a bit later, but mostly to SCE in-house devs, and probably a few to EA, Epic and other heavy-weights in game development. It's safe to say that 360 had its development kits on developers hands much earlier than PS3 dev kits.

Furthermore, it's a very fair comparison for these reasons. 1. It's Xbox 360s flagship title, it's supposed to be the system seller. Killzone 2 aims to be just that for the PS3. 2. The 360 is a very easy system to develop for. It has a pretty straight-forward architecture, so developers in theory could have done a lot more in less time (that is, if the 360 was actually as powerful as PS3, which is not), especially considering it's the flagship game, a game Microsoft spent a lot of money on. 3. Bungie didn't have to start from scratch, Guerrilla did. 4. Both came in very similar time-frames with respect to each console's launch dates. 5 months can only get you so far when you're talking about a 2 year console launch-game launch timeframe. 5. Both games were given very high scores. The question is, why did Halo 3 even get such high scores? Killzone 2 multiplayer is just as good as Halo 3's if not better, and the campaign is definitely better compared to Halo 3's mediocre campaign. That definitely raises suspicion and that's why it's worth comparing these games.

Stop talking out of your ass.

The Lazy One3151d ago

Development kits for PS3 were available by at least 2005 (they were at E3 2005 and TGS 2005)

The original xbox dev kits running on apple G5s were running xbox demos at E3 2005.

They've both had pre-final-hardware dev kits since around the same time (2004-2005).

Time_Is_On_My_Side3151d ago (Edited 3151d ago )

Math is hard...

Nov. 22, 2005 (XBOX 360)
Sept. 5, 2007 (Halo 3)
34 months

Nov. 11, 2006 (PlayStation 3)
Feb. 25, 2009 (Killzone 2)
51 months

51 (Killzone 2) – 34 (Halo 3) = 17 month difference meaning it could have been released in the same year/timeframe.

"Please don't just make up random numbers that happen to fit your argument when it's incredibly easy to research this sort of thing."

- Silellak

Maybe you should start listening to yourself is my suggestion but that's just me.

As with Gears of War I was talking about that it makes more sense to compare Resistance: Fall of Man with Perfect Dark Zero. Key word(s) in that sentence “makes more sense” because you would be comparing launch titles vs. launch titles, making it equal grounds. Now with Halo 3 ok it isn’t there graphically but the quality isn’t there as well. Killzone 2 is a perfect example of “quality” something lacking with the XBOX 360 for example Fable 2. In reality Halo 3 isn’t quality and is just a slightly updated version of Halo 2, not quality. Now if you compare Killzone 2 with Killzone the difference is so large it equals quality.

"To me it wouldn't make sense to compare Gears of War with Resistance: Fall of Man if you wanted to be fair in time frames."

- Some_One_Plays

Key word(s): timeframes, compare, sense.

This is partly why so many gamers call gaming sites bias because they don’t rate on quality and Halo 3 fails on quality. Killzone 2 looks to be a true next generation game so this comparison is fair because Halo 3 is a flagship title. In other words this is comparing flagship titles with flagship titles, in the first person shooter genre. Unlike you, I comment without the bias, maybe you should try that too.

The Lazy One3151d ago

you're comparing solely on graphics, not on gameplay experience, when you use screeenshots.

Chess and civilization are both turn based strategy games. that doesn't mean they both concentrate on skill advancement, and thus should be compared with civ > chess. some games just don't care about graphics as much, and when you consider halo 3 has one of the best online party systems and a map editor on top of a lot of the features killzone has, it becomes an apples oranges comparison.

Time_Is_On_My_Side3151d ago

More features don’t mean better and graphics is part of quality. For example if a movie has the top ten actors/actresses, best directors, the best technology, concept, storyline...etc. If everything doesn't fit together all around it doesn't mean it will be the best movie ever made. Some actors might not be performing a hundred percent all the time, camera angles off, CGI needed work, story presentation not there, will be with many other things to take into consideration.

In the end because Halo 3 has a hundred features it doesn't mean it makes it the best game out there. Another example would be Grand Theft Auto because the world will be fifty times bigger than in number four doesn't mean it will be better.

king dong3151d ago (Edited 3151d ago )

lol perhaps you should be called some ones stupid. are serious with those month tallys that you've posted?? if so, then my god, even basic arithmatic is far to much for you my friend.

Nov. 22, 2005 (XBOX 360)
Sept. 5, 2007 (Halo 3)
34 months = wrong..lol how did you get 34 months?? please explain how you came to that!
the answer is 22.

Nov. 11, 2006 (PlayStation 3)
Feb. 25, 2009 (Killzone 2)
51 months = wrong again, how did you 51 months?? lol
the answer is 27.

gametheory: stfu. sony dev weren't available til lat 06(said in squeaky teenage voice), is ridiculous. the delay in ps3 lauch was for blu-ray, not to finalize anything else...lose a bubble.

edit: some ones plays, after reading your comment. yeah kz2 graphics are without doubt quality, no question about it. but am i wrong in saying that bungie just "jazzed"up the halo2 engine for halo3, hence why the difference is not huge? i'm sure i read that they didn't create a new engine for halo3.

whereas kz2 has been built from the ground, especially for the ps3, with well over 4years and multiple millions spent on it! dont even dream of saying too human was in dev for 10years.....especially when they had a dispute with epic over the ue3 engine, and had to start over in 06 and build their own crappy engine.

bottom line, this comparison is flawed...lets leave it that.

Time_Is_On_My_Side3151d ago (Edited 3151d ago )

Lol, I knew someone would say something I counted in hours not months and the real focus was on the logic of the comment. Now with yours proudly stating your advanced math skills missed the whole point of the argument.

No matter how you put it Halo 3 isn't quality it doesn't matter what engine they used it doesn't mean that you can inflate the ratings that's bias. The only thing that's flawed is that you can't come to the reality that Sony games are at better quality than Microsoft's and you only prefer Halo 3 to be on top. Sorry to break your reality but Sony games are usually at a higher quality than Microsoft titles whether you prefer it or not.

The fact that Killzone 2's engine was built from the ground up shows you how dedicated they are to making a real game, unlike some other companies I know. I can't say it's flawed because one company made a better business decision than the other, lol. Or do you want me to put more math so you can correct me to feel good again?

Silellak3151d ago (Edited 3151d ago )

PM me when your math skills are above the 3rd grade level. Maybe then you'll be worth having a discussion with.

+ Show (14) more repliesLast reply 3151d ago
bmatthews3152d ago

Killzone 2 looks better.

why are they being compared anyway?

edhe3152d ago

Idiocy.

Next it'll be time to compare pacman to galaga.

dachiefsman3151d ago

Cause people are already bored of the KZ2 demo. ZING!

Kleptic3151d ago

these 2 games don't even look like they are from the same console generation...

I don't get the point of this either..and good thing this comparison didn't compare shots of character models...

DaTruth3151d ago

If the media spends 3 years debating whether this is the Halo killa, wouldn't it be stupid to not do a comparison once the game finallly releases?

According to genre and time frame(given average between U.S and Europe release) in comparison of consoles for a console war(if I have to see VGchart numbers every week) then the comparisons should go like this...

Flagship titles FPS 2 years into console life: Halo 3 vs Killzone 2.
3rd person shooter exclusive one year into console life: Gears 1 vs Uncharted.
3rd person shooter exclusive two years into console life:Gears 2 vs Uncharted 2(upon release).

I don't really like the whole console war thing, but since it exists and is impossible to ignore and I have to put up with multiplatform comparisons, here's the other side.

donator3151d ago

I can't help but think that sarcasm was underlying this comparison. I think they were poking fun at how silly comparisons really are with this ludicrous comparison because everyone, even blind people, know that KZ2 looks better.

s8anicslayer3151d ago

it's only a demo!gorilla should of not released the demo and let the excitment continue to build for the launch of the game.somehow i don't fell that excited for kz2,i want to play it but the urgency is gone

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3151d ago
Algullaf3152d ago

ya i know your feeling :P kanda you feel sad and shamed you own 360.

just wish more (alan wake) since u lost all the hopes lol.
just to remind you ( blueray not needed dvd enough for this gen :D )

Sir Ken_Kutaragi3152d ago (Edited 3152d ago )

Halo 3(xBox 360) vs GoldenEye(N64) - Graphic Comparison...

GoldenEye(N64) WINS!!! ;-D

+ I keep on getting PM's from xBot Zombie DLC Lemmings saying GAY things to me??? (He/It was called - 'SONYSLAVE' on this)

ARE THEY ALL GAY??? ;-D SORRY I LOVE WOMEN!!! ;-P

blackbeld3152d ago

Agree... ^^^ Killzone 2 can not be compared with halo wars or any halo games... cmon.. graphics Killzone is way better..

Aquanox3152d ago (Edited 3152d ago )

The bad thing about N4G is that unkown websites can post idiotic comparisons like these which idiotic fanboys will immediatly boost as news.

Obviously, Killzone 2 looks better than Halo 3, nobody says the opposite. But from that to comparing the WORST possible Halo 3 screenies vs. the best from Killzone is far from being objective.

I swear I can do the exact opposite and find those awful textures in Killzone 2 comparing it to the best screens to any other game and make it look exactly like Halo 3 is suppossed to in this comparison.

Either way, whereas Killzone 2 - a game that took more than 4 years to develop - looks good, it still has a long road to walk in terms of gameplay and innovation to be considered a real Halo or Gears of War 2 competitor.

AngryTypingGuy3151d ago

Actually, in the photos shown, the Halo 3 pics hold up in most shots, and the textures in the first picture were actually better for Halo 3. This makes me think that the pics for KZ2 weren't shown in their full capacity.

But yeah, why is there a graphics comparison between the two when Halo was never touted as a graphics powerhouse in the first place? The human character models in Halo were some of the worst I've seen. Nevertheless, gameplay should always be valued over graphics, and that is why Halo 3 is the highest selling exclusive this gen. It is a very fun, addictive game. The four-player co-op rules, and then there is the always popular multiplayer.

KZ2 looks great, but it will be the gameplay that makes or breaks it like any other game. Alan Wake will look amazing too, but we'll have to see what the gameplay is like before we know if it's a keeper or not.

You bought an Xbox3151d ago

Steven ColBoT Strike's Again

Ha Ha

mxdan3151d ago

They weren't.

Halo 3 was built in 720p and Killzone 2 was built in 1080i...

The screens were took in 720p. Obviously they are going to look similar. However had they shown the comparison in full compacity on both games killzone 2 would look far superior.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 3151d ago
-EvoAnubis-3152d ago

Halo 3 didn't have great graphics when it came out in '07; it's no shock that KZ2 destroys it. It's a comparison that's unrequired.

mal_tez923152d ago

The graphics were very outdated for its time. Gears of War showed how good graphics can be, but Halo 3 fell short by a country mile.