Blend games does a screenshot comparison showing a lot of the lighting details for Halo: Reach and Mass Effect.
LOL ps3fanboys just watch the reach video. I forgot it say Reach_ Alpha_Work in progress right hand corner.
According to brain dead xbox owners, Halo Reach > Mass Effect 2
Halo is going to murder any game this year!
You retard that's Mass Effect 1 in those shots.
They should compare it to Killzone 2 lol. And you should know, that Gears of War 2 clearly looks better than Halo Reach..
Reach has large open areas with sandbox gameplay. Killzone 2 is tight spaced fighting. When you look at the big picture, Killzone 2 looks phenomenal for it's style of gameplay. Reach looks phenomenal for it's style of gameplay. If Reach took away the vehicle combat and large open battles then maybe a comparison to Killzone would be logical. For now they both look good in their own respects.
I agree, Halo Reach and Killzone 2 both look good in their own ways.
Totally agree with the 2 above
lol, Reach is not sandbox. There are just some big enviroments like in MGS4. It's still linear. A to B. And Killzone 2 has much much better lighting. It has better textures, better level detail, better particle effects and so on.. The enviroments in Killzone 2 are huge. The game may be more linear, but the enviroments are same as big as in Halo: Reach. Do you know the Multiplayer map "Pyrrhus Rise"? Halo: Reach is looking very good, but not Killzone 2 good. Accept it! Halo is great because of the gameplay and the story, so don't get fanboyish!
"And Killzone 2 has much much better lighting. It has better textures, better level detail, better particle effects and so on" And you know this stuff how? Last I checked reach isn't even finished yet to do a comparison. KZ2 is a gorgeous game don't get me wrong but So is Reach and right now neither looks better or worst.
Even Halo 3 had much bigger and more open levels than MGS4 and Killzone2. The levels in Killzone 2 can be pretty big but you mostly move from one linear area to the next. There aren't that many large outdoor environments with tons of vehicles and enemies and physics going on all around you like Halo is famous for. Halo Reach looks at least as good as Killzone 2. The only thing is that it is kind of hard to compare them because they have a completely different look.
@bnaked are you really trying to say killzone 2 has better textures? the textures in killzone 2 were one of its weakest points. the textures in halo reach look way better.
you say the textures are better in killzone 2? well let's compare the textures in the two games. halo reach http://xbox360.ign.com/dor/... vs killzone 2 http://www.gamespot.com/ps3... there is no way you can tell me the textures are better in killzone 2. look at how flat the textures are on the characters in killzone 2 vs how good they look in halo reach.
Looking at those screen shots it is impressive just how much better the character models and textures are in Halo Reach as compared to Killzone 2.
After looking at the vidoc..the game looks stunning even in pre aplha stage it has already surpassed many games. From Xbox 360 and PS3. Reach will be graphical powerhouse, It has already beat Uncharted 2 and Killzone 2. Reach 40 AI + 20 Vehicles at once Vehicles from land to air. Unscpirted and non linear game with huge enviroments! Epic lighting and effects Facial animation superb Uncharted 2 Linear game Scripted events and QTE LOL PS3 can't handle the scale of Halo Reach. Its the truth.
What a retarded article...borrowing a lightning from another engine?O really?LOL...who wrote this piece of ****?You cant borrow lightning from another engine,i mean even if you could judging with pre alpha scans?WHOA...
Thats mass effect 1...
The game's visuals ARE complete if they plan to launch the game this year. I'm not sure where people get this idea that somehow Bungie's going to be able to upscale the graphics within a few months and still meet the deadline. It took Gearbox close to a year to overhaul the graphics for Borderlands and the game didn't look better it just looked different.
Lightning =/= lighting.
@cyguration - nope, shaman is correct, according to bungie, those screens were pre alpha from before thanksgiving last year..atleast the ones in that article were did you see the recent vidoc? some things were added, textures were replaced, lighting improved(?) a bit, not as dark as some of those daytime pics and more colorful, but not over doing it
-Not this fanboy site again! This guy is a moron with an agenda. It's plain as day. Don't give the site hits. I did and it was pure trash.-
These article guys don't get tired to make fools of themselves.
I like Halo's lighting more though for a few reasons. It has beautiful HDR. Mass Effect's lighting makes it feel like the light source is right above your head. I also don't like the way the shadows in Mass Effect jitter. I still love both games but Halo has the edge in the lighting department IMO.
From cyguration's comment, "I'm not sure where people get this idea that somehow Bungie's going to be able to upscale the graphics within a few months and still meet the deadline." Why is it that with ps3 games all we ever hear before they are released is "well the game isn't finished yet; it's going to look way better by the time it comes out"? But with 360 games, even when the game is like a year away ps3 fans will say "it's not going to look any better". I don't think anybody is expecting it to look hugely better, but it will get more polished and a few new graphical techniques might be added.
This was such a ridiculous comparison. Who is this guy trying to fool? Halo Reach is an amazing looking game. He tries to compare it to Mass Effect and as good as that game looks Halo Reach still looks better. The other thing is that Halo Reach has a lot of lighting and post processing techniques that can only be fully appreciated while the game is in motion. But like I said, even though Halo Reach looks better in motion and is pre-alpha in these screenshots, it still looks much better than Mass Effect 1.
comparing unfinished game with one released.smart move. But good for halo. Now days every game that comes out get to compare with halo. this just shows how great halo is.
Or how popular it is. Otherwise we'd all be comparing games to ray traced enviroments.
Halo reach looks better .
Judging by those screenshots not by much. Still is good news Halo finally enters the high definition gen. To be honest I find very appealing the more mature look of Reach. If Alan Wake is any good, I may "jump in" and get a xbox to try Halo:Reach, Alan Wake and Shadow complex.
It looks more then a a "little better" to me . http://i49.tinypic.com/343k... http://img215.imageshack.us... http://i49.tinypic.com/2ske... http://i50.tinypic.com/2hx2...
@kionic Very nice Gif images you found there! edit: which reminds me, spartans better run fast as hell.
No...Xi found them . http://n4g.com/RedirectToOb...
-It looks a lot better, and Mass Effect is already a great looking game with some of the best character models out there. Trying to compare character models of a shooter with an RPG that has some of the best character models around just goes to show how disingenuous this guy's motives are. Why not compare some up close character model screen shots from Resistance 2 and Killzone 2? Because he knows they would lose. But it's funny, even in his slanted comparison Halo Reach still looks better.-
@^^ Have you seen KZ2 characters? have you seen KZ2 at all? BTW, highly compressed 2'x2' videos (or animated gifs for that matter) dont allow for any detail. Drawing conclusions out of them is foolish to say the least. @bellow Give me a 720p video/screenshoot and we can talk. KZ2/UC2 run on my TV I know how great they look. Small res videos and cutscenes with ingame assets are always misleading. I learned that with the small videos of BF:BC2 and ingame cutscenes from R&C:ACiT.
that didn't stop the flooding of kz2 and uncharted gifs on this site...
Somebody asked for a more fair character model comparison between actual first person shooters, well here you go. Halo Reach http://bangbangtech.com/wp-... Killzone 2 http://static.gamesradar.co... Resistance 2 http://static.gamesradar.co...
spartan sprinting.... awesome
Wow thanks for the screenshots starchild. It makes it really obvious how awesome Reach's characters look compared to other shooters.
Raztad just admit that you're not going to get a 360, ever. If the only thing you care about is the lighting or the visuals of games like Alan Wake or Halo Reach, then just quit gaming already. Halo Reach is going to have a ton of replay value. It brings something to the table: gameplay. Lighting is irrelevant.
yea man, there is no doubt that carmak is a brilliant man, but everyone know the 360 and ps3 graphics cards are more or less equivalent, and its believable that maybe even the 360's is more capable, BUT no where in there did he mention the spu's... OBVIOUSLY in 2 or 3 REAL WORLD YEARS, Naughty dog proved that the spu's make it a more powerful system...so did gurilla, poliphony, and looks like santa monica... I might add it seems that carmack is tunnel visioned into thinking he can only use the graphics card to push polygons, and has not learned how, or doesn't think he can in time, use the spus to push polygons... All I'm saying is by now, the proof is in the pudding of which system is PROBABLY more powerful, but I've been reading these comments, and in no way does halo reach look as bad as me1, i just stand by also that it doesn't look as good as GOW3... i absolutely can't wait to play reach day one, as well as GOW because neither look a minuscule below spectacular! and MLGPRO... i read your posts every day, and you belong next door> mag doesn't look good at all, but you pick a game with 256, Raz is right, why don't you talk KZ2, as on the spec side its more equal than Reach, both have the same number of players, etc. I mean i don't think that i have to say that there are crappy LOOKING games on all platforms, some made by FPStudios, and what i keep hearing from everyone is the gameplay matters, well, from the sh*t throwing in this thread it doesn't look that way huh?... and hey RAZTAD, i see your getting mauled in here bro, let them fight 360 game over 360 game, like U2 vs GOW, its so dumb, don't even try...
Bullsh!t dude. All you did was take the fuzziest looking Killzone 2 picture and a good-looking Halo: Reach one and called it a "comparison". Here are two Halo: Reach and two Killzone 2 pics from the same site. Both the Halo: Reach and Killzone 2 pictures are taken from the games when they were in the alpha stage. Same quality pictures, same conditions makes for a much better comparison. http://ps3.ign.com/dor/obje... http://ps3.ign.com/dor/obje... http://xbox360.ign.com/dor/... http://xbox360.ign.com/dor/... Here's another Killzone 2 one from the alpha stage shots: http://ps3.ign.com/dor/obje... I couldn't really find any the closeups on the faces for the Killzone 2 pics like the Halo: Reach ones, so that comparison might be a little off. Although, this comparison is a lot more fair.
Also, at all the people arguing that the Xbox 360 is more powerful than the PS3, just let me know when there is a 360 game that is pushing more polys and higher res textures onto the screen than Uncharted 2. Kay thx bye.
DEAR GOD thank you for comparing a 360 game with a 360 game.
Yeah i was gonna say the same thing. They are starting to learn. No need to own yourself trying to compare it to ps3 games. Keep it up.
Comparing two PS3 games is alright though? GOW3 vs Uncharted, KZ2 vs Uncharted, Heavy Rain vs Uncharted. LOL I don't understand your point. No point in comparing PS3 games anymore with Halo Reach, Metro 2033 and Alan Wake coming, there's no contest. I wonder why they felt the need to compare Mass Effect 1 with Halo Reach when they could have compared Mass Effect 2 with Halo Reach.
BUUTTT...no thank you for comparing a completed 360 game with an unfinished 360 game, especially pre alpha screens :S lol
Yeah because MAG has next gen graphics. LMAO!!!!!
@ we won: My point is that I find it annoying when authors compare Xbox games with PS3 games. They are two different powerhouses. And, uh, yes. It's ok to compare PS3 to PS3. That should be obvious
@Halo It has mindblowing visuals for a 256 players game and huge maps. You always can compare with KZ2 though(a year old game).
We won you are just so ignorant. No contest? Really? I bet you your one of the few that think 360 is more powerful than ps3 don't you. I can't stand when people downplay amazing looking ps3 exclusives. You know nothing. I am sick of the idiots on this site.
Your very immature seriously! Both consoles are pretty equal in terms of power. Right now 360 and PS3 are both putting out games that display impressive visuals and not just PS3. Just because you believe PS3 is more powerful or has the best graphics does not mean people with a difference of opinion have to agree. Grow up and let people make up there own minds. Quit having a fit because not everyone agree's with you. For me 360 has the best looking games period but in no ways is it a fact. Respect others dude or scram seriously!
-Talltony, I responded to you in another article but maybe you didn't see it. You were saying that the PS3 was more powerful and claiming John Carmack agreed with you. You want to know what John Carmack actually thinks about both consoles? Well here you go: "Yeah, I mean that's our position that it's almost unequivocal across the board that the 360 is a better platform to develop for. When you get down into actual comparisons on the hardware performance characteristics, it's not quite an apples to apples comparison. On almost anything on the strictly graphical side, in terms of pushing vertexes and triangles on there, the 360 hardware is superior to the PS3's RSX on there." "...the only thing Sony has going for them over the 360, is the data storage on the blu-ray..." "...the only real advantage that the PS3 has over the 360, from our point of view, is the extra space." "And the other major difference is the memory partitioning. Where they're both 512mb machines, but on the PS3 it's partitioned into 256mb of video and 256mb of main. And one of the biggest things that Sony does poorly for developers is their system stuff sucks up a lot more resources than it does, than Microsoft's does on the 360. So memory is much more painful on the PS3. We spend a lot more time trying to crunch down the memory for that..." "...given an infinite amount of development time on there, you can craft a program that's gonna work more efficiently on the cells there than on two additional processors on the 360. But given a finite amount of development time, it's much-much easier to get things working well on the 360 than it is on the PS3. And that's pretty much the case across the board." http://gamevideos.1up.com/v... Ok, so let's recap. Everything on the graphical side goes to the 360. The 360 also has the advantage in terms of memory. And finally, on the CPU side he says that the PS3 has more theoretical power, but in the real world, given a finite amount of development time (which is always the case), you will get better performance out of the 360. GPU --> 360 wins Memory --> 360 wins CPU --> PS3 wins in theory, 360 wins in real world application So no, the PS3 is not more powerful. In real world terms it is actually less powerful.-
yes, and also it should be said after 4 years of these comparisons that difficult programming for complex hardware is nothing to boast about.
@above Are you guys for real? I didnt know PS3 was already 4 years old. Are you still pretending xbox is more powerful than the PS3? Even the old GT5:P destroys Forza 3 in visuals, yeah, go and read Eurogamer in depth comparison of Forza3 and GT5:P. At least wait till you have something to back up your claims. Small low res videos and halfarsed multiplat ports dont make the cut. EDIT: looking at my disagrees I guess it's impossible to make a logical argument here. Off for some MAG.
"Even the old GT5:P destroys Forza 3 in visuals, yeah, go and read Eurogamer in depth comparison of Forza3 and GT5:P" I don't need to read Eurogamer to tell me what looks better silly boy. Gt5p does not in anyway look better than Forza 3! Your free to have an opinion but it's clear you can't make one on your own. "logical argument here" What's logical about it? You stating your opinion like it's the only one that matters? Well let me tell you something. Go play some Mag and leave us mature gamers alone with your one sided completely unreasonable bias views.
I have played both Gran Turismo 5 Prologue as well as the Time Trial demo and in no way did either of them look better than Forza 3. Here's a video comparing Forza 3 to Gran Turismo 5 Prologue: http://www.youtube.com/watc... Like I said, I have played both and I think Forza 3 looks better. But even if you thought GT5P looked better, nobody with any honesty could claim that they are that vastly different. So, even if you say GT5P looks a little better, that still wouldn't mean the PS3 is more powerful because Polyphony Digital take a lot longer in their development and have a lot more experience than Turn 10 do. And raztad, I'll turn the question back around on you: are you still pretending the PS3 is more powerful than the Xbox 360? Especially after seeing Alan Wake and Halo Reach?
You're using one game to compare? Last i checked that demo of prologue doesn't allow for thousands of layers of custom decals, doesn't have the same level of physics and has been in the works for what, 5 years now? how about you make a relative comparison, or how about showing us some technical proof. john Carmack Cevat Yerli corrinne yu tim sweeny Gabe newell all stated near parity between the 360 and ps3. I'm still waiting for people of that caliber to tell me otherwise. The 360 is showing it's power, showing it's capable of killzone 2 and uncharted 2 graphics, and there's people still trying to argue the 360 is weaker.
Don't care about you lowcarb like what you like think what you think I disagree end of. My whole point is people downplaying ps3 exclusives are idiots like we won. CWMR you proved my point in everything I was trying to say. More peak performance and we see that performance in sony's amazing looking ps3 exclusives. John carmack actually said the ps3 has more peak performance but we wouldn't see that in all games. Watch the video on YouTube with John carmack on ps3. I mean you people keep downplaying ps3 exclusives for no reason. Anything that comes out on ps3 you guys act like a xbox game looks better even if it's not even out yet or clearly isn't.. Btw like I said before reach looks awesome but it's getting to your heads and alot of you are hyping the visuals waaaay too much.
You don't have to like me in the least bit you blind little legless troll! The point I'm making is you are nothing more than a whining baby trying to prove a point nobody agree's with as stated above. The best thing for you to do is go hide for another two hours and think of even a better come back. You can't force people to like PS3 so grow up already!
@ talltony Nope. He is one of the many. I am not a fanboy. I'm a realist and I absolutely love both Xbox and PS3 for what they are: Two different machines that please my 15+ year gaming needs. Beautifully
Talltony, who is downplaying any PS3 exclusive? You are the one not giving credit to amazing looking 360 exclusives because you want to believe the 360 is weaker. Nobody is saying Killzone 2 or Uncharted 2 don't look great. And as far as that John Carmack video is concerned you obviously didn't understand what he said. He said the PS3 had more theoretical performance ONLY IN THE CPU. The CPU is only one element among many that impacts graphical performance, and it isn't even the most important one. The GPU has way more importance as far as graphics are concerned. If you have a computer with a weak GPU and a powerful CPU, you will still end up with crappy graphics. On the other hand, if you put a powerful GPU in a PC with a weak CPU, you will run into some performance issues, but it will still give you vastly better graphics than the previously mentioned set up. Besides, John Carmacks exact words were "theoretical peak performance" and he was only talking about the CPU, not all the other components of a system. He made it clear that the PS3's CPU only has more theoretical performance, but that when you get down to the reality of actually programming for the thing you will actually get better performance out of the 360's CPU. The other thing is, I noticed that you, like many PS3 fans, talk about "Sony's amazing looking exclusives" as if all PS3 exclusives look good. The simple truth is, only a couple PS3 exclusives look amazing and most of them look more average. I'm not saying games like LittleBigPlanet or Infamous look bad, they just aren't that exceptional.
And I'll say it again: Console wars are so STUPID!
I got you guys so butthurt. All you idiots are so freakin biased and stupid it's unbelievable. I got a degree in computer electronics and you guys are telling me what makes good graphics? I would love to debate you guys in real life. And lowcarb you act like "dissapearing" is a bad thing. Sorry I can't be on here all day to post comments you automatically disagree with. Lol "legless troll" good one if only I didn't own a 360. Wait I have a prediction, gow 3 will come out and no matter how good it looks none of you will be impressed. You guys are so predictable and seriously I'm sick of you fa*boys. And to think this all started from we won hyping metro and all the other games that aren't out yet by saying ps3 exclusives are "no contest to them. Lol have a good one guys. I really don't care what any of you think of me.
O really you have degree?Woa im impressed,listen if you had degree you would know what theoretical means.It means this 7*spus one ppu=205GFLOPS.Real life means this 6*spus(180 Gflops)-ppu(in ps3 ppu doesnet do s***,it is made to give jobs to spus which cant because they are not cores and they cant access to memory,so why to count 40 GFLOPS of it?) that brings us to 140GFLOPS,when you realize that you need to allocate some spu power for taking workload of rsx,and thats more taxing then cpu cycles for cpu processes because its doing gpu calculations,then you realize that its flops fall to about xenon range,and you can add harder to use power more efficient you get real life numbers.Get it?7*spus one ppu=205GFLOPS of theoretical power,but duo to the architecture(using its power in real life)you wont use ppus performance or yours flops because duo to architecture,and you will lose some cpu cycles duo to helping rsx.Then 205 Gflops almost breaks in half :)
Exactly, Shaman. You really understand it. All these theoretical numbers that Sony throws out are only so much marketing spin. They have no meaning in the real world. Sony always does it. They did it with the PS2 and the numbers they gave for that console were never even close to being achievable in the real world. It's basically lying and adding up all kinds of arbitrary numbers that can never be achieved at the same time in the hopes of impressing people that don't have any technical background (which most gamers and members of the gaming press do not have).
I own both games and I have even gone as far as opo them in and compared them and I can say with complete confidence that GT5 P is better looking, the lighting, reflections of the cars, in car detail etc are almost lifelike in GT5 P but there are subtle details in Forza 3 like functioning clocks, glowing brake discs and the tarmac looks better in Forza 3 but aside from that GT5 P takes the price in terms of visuals but that didn't stop me from enjoying the s*** out of forza, still am, I can't predict the future so I don't know which'll be the better game in the end but the engine and body customisation in Forza 3 just did that much more for me and is going to be hard to top.
@talltony Again, who is downplaying PS3 exclusives or saying that games like God of War 3 don't look good? You are just making that up. And no, you haven't made anybody butthurt, people just disagree with you. I think it is hilarious that you think having a degree in computer electronics makes you an expert in game graphics. If you knew what I do, you would know why I find that hilarious. You call us all biased and stupid, but you haven't even bothered to support your position. You basically just make bare assertions and expect people to agree with you. You say you would love to debate us in real life? Well here we are, what is preventing you from debating us here? You think the PS3 is more powerful, but you give no evidence except saying "I think this PS3 game looks better than any 360 game". That isn't evidence, because for one thing it is subjective, and two having a better looking game at any given moment does not mean that the console it plays on is more powerful. People have already covered what John Carmack has to say on the matter, but here are the opinions of another developer named Jason Booth who previously worked for Turbine and Harmonix. http://www.gamedaily.com/ar... "Fill rate is one of the primary ways to measure graphics performance - in essence, it's a number describing how many pixel operations you can perform. The fill rate on the PS3 is significantly slower than on the 360, meaning that games either have to run at lower resolution or use simpler shader effects to achieve the same performance." "Additionally, the shader processing on the PS3 is significantly slower than on the 360, which means that a normal map takes more fill rate to draw on the PS3 than it does on the 360. And I'm not talking about small differences here, we're talking roughly half the pixel pushing power." "Getting data off the Blu-ray drive takes about twice as long as it does to get the same data off the 360's DVD drive. That translates into longer load times, or god forbid if you're streaming from disk, tighter constraints on the amount of data you can stream." "most developers who use the entire Blu-ray drive are doing it to work around other problems with the PS3 such as its slow loading." "the performance centric research into the PS3 has been around making it easier for developers to get the same level of performance you get out of the 360 naturally... developers must spend significantly more time and resources getting the PS3 to do what the 360 can already do easily and with a lot less code." There you have it, another perspective from a developer. Notice how most of the comments from developers are saying the same thing.
Yes indeed,Sony has always used those numbers to describe power of their console while thats definitely not true representative of real life situation.Emotion Engine had twice as many flops then P3 733mhz,its 3 times faster then EE but still has 2 times less flops but then again xbox used celeron which is even weaker.Result?No contest,xbox won by long shot as far as gfx goes. The thing people dont realize is that in Cell and EE you have units(spus and in ps2 VUs) which can handle gfx calculation and gpus have always higher peak flops then cpu,thats were those numbers come from,EE and Cell both could handle some gpu work so its numbers are higher.Not to say that architecture(6 spus practically no use of flops from ppu)of ps3 doesent let you use 60% of those theoretical flops,but ok let them believe in hype.Once again MS proved sophisticated GPU is the way it goes.Its easier to program,much more economical and in the end results are about even.Let them believe that console with gpu outdated to current integrated intel laptop gpus and less memory then 5 yr old PC is supercomputer.