a ps3 fantard said killzone 3 has better graphics than halo reach

xSTONEYx187x wrote:

Halo: Reach looks amazing from what I seen. But Im guessing Killzone 3 will have better graphics.

Considering Killzone 2 looks gorgeous, not much colour variation but still, I expect Killzone to have better graphics than Reach but I highly doubt it will sell as well.

Not really, they said they aren't aiming to make the game look alot better. Perhaps they are aiming to improve KZ2's gameplay experience.

Halo Reach looks gorgeous...Alot better than KZ2 graphics even when it was just a multiplayer beta. Halo Reach at E3 will look amazing.

Alan1994 wrote:

xSTONEYx187x wrote:

Halo: Reach looks amazing from what I seen. But Im guessing Killzone 3 will have better graphics.

Considering Killzone 2 looks gorgeous, not much colour variation but still, I expect Killzone to have better graphics than Reach but I highly doubt it will sell as well.

Not really, they said they aren't aiming to make the game look alot better. Perhaps they are aiming to improve KZ2's gameplay experience.

Halo Reach looks gorgeous...Alot better than KZ2 graphics even when it was just a multiplayer beta. Halo Reach at E3 will look amazing.

you're mistaking art for graphics. as i said before art trumps all when it comes to visuals, but at the same time it doesn't make it graphically superior.

Permafry 42 wrote:

Alan1994 wrote:

xSTONEYx187x wrote:

Halo: Reach looks amazing from what I seen. But Im guessing Killzone 3 will have better graphics.

Considering Killzone 2 looks gorgeous, not much colour variation but still, I expect Killzone to have better graphics than Reach but I highly doubt it will sell as well.

Not really, they said they aren't aiming to make the game look alot better. Perhaps they are aiming to improve KZ2's gameplay experience.

Halo Reach looks gorgeous...Alot better than KZ2 graphics even when it was just a multiplayer beta. Halo Reach at E3 will look amazing.

you're mistaking art for graphics. as i said before art trumps all when it comes to visuals, but at the same time it doesn't make it graphically superior.

I agree.

Games like gears of war and killzone have great graphics,but are they really nice to look at compared to a game with great art?nope

ghost23 wrote:

Jetpacks were announced for Halo earlier this year.

Guess what gets announced for Killzone 3 a few months later?

Just putting it out there.

To counter, the Killzone PSP game had jetpacks.
Killzone 3 "jetpacks" are modified KZ2 flying sentries you can mount.

when will ps3 gamers go back to their PS1 and ps2 roots and realize graphics < gameplay.

GeneralMLD wrote:

when will ps3 gamers go back to their PS1 and ps2 roots and realize graphics < gameplay.

Aren't there plenty of threads on this forum laughing at how 360 has better graphics? Alan Wake vs Uncharted, Halo vs Killzone, Red Dead vs Red Dead.

Alice wrote:

GeneralMLD wrote:

when will ps3 gamers go back to their PS1 and ps2 roots and realize graphics < gameplay.

Aren't there plenty of threads on this forum laughing at how 360 has better graphics? Alan Wake vs Uncharted, Halo vs Killzone, Red Dead vs Red Dead.

I was just about to say that! lol

GeneralMLD wrote:

when will ps3 gamers go back to their PS1 and ps2 roots and realize graphics < gameplay.

One of Killzone 2's major selling points was "immersion" and that is achieved with technical feats and the ability to make you like you're in a believable atmosphere thus a need for graphics to aid in drawing you in.
Playstation, coming out with the last console, it makes sense for them to try to boast SOMETHING over their competition and technical feats are their way to go.
This includes many things from the graphics and processing of Killzone 2 and God of War 3 allowing for really amazing looking things to happen in real time to the innovative server set ups of LittleBigPlanet and MAG (and with that we get the upcoming multiplat, DUST 514).

And plus, before Bad Company 2 it had one of the best multiplayer experiences... but that's just me.

Sorry but using information we have now without full launches.. We can't really say which one is better.

GeneralMLD wrote:

when will ps3 gamers go back to their PS1 and ps2 roots and realize graphics < gameplay.

i do (i'm all about Gameplay>Graphics, which was why TTSUF blocked me), and as a multiplatform owner((every platform this gen) i play my ps2, ps1/ps1 classics, and psp more than my ps3 (unless you count using it as a bot device for Folding @ home, the best part of ps3 XD) but yeah, if HD/graphics sony fanboys really were so insistent on HD and graphics, they'd buy a Graphics oriented PC for gaming. The reality is they are more fans of sony than HD.

Yeah, lets compare 1 game in alpha stages with barely any gameplay shown and one game we still dont know that much about...

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Yeah, lets compare 1 game in alpha stages with barely any gameplay shown and one game we still dont know that much about...

OKAY
Seems alright in this part of the forum, doesn't it?

Wolfshiemhere wrote:

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Yeah, lets compare 1 game in alpha stages with barely any gameplay shown and one game we still dont know that much about...

OKAY
Seems alright in this part of the forum, doesn't it?

Cause you can compare the games without knowing barely anything about Killzone.

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Wolfshiemhere wrote:

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Yeah, lets compare 1 game in alpha stages with barely any gameplay shown and one game we still dont know that much about...

OKAY
Seems alright in this part of the forum, doesn't it?

Killzone.

I know a lot about Killzone what are you talking about?

Wolfshiemhere wrote:

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Wolfshiemhere wrote:

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Yeah, lets compare 1 game in alpha stages with barely any gameplay shown and one game we still dont know that much about...

OKAY
Seems alright in this part of the forum, doesn't it?

Killzone.

I know a lot about Killzone what are you talking about?

Killzone 3. You know what I meant.

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Wolfshiemhere wrote:

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Wolfshiemhere wrote:

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Yeah, lets compare 1 game in alpha stages with barely any gameplay shown and one game we still dont know that much about...

OKAY
Seems alright in this part of the forum, doesn't it?

Killzone.

I know a lot about Killzone what are you talking about?

Killzone 3. You know what I meant.

I think logic is very much void of this part of the forum.

TheJubJub57212 wrote:

Yeah, lets compare 1 game in alpha stages with barely any gameplay shown and one game we still dont know that much about...

Still posible to compare.It isnt accurate comparrison,but you can still compare it.

Permafry 42 wrote:

Alan1994 wrote:

xSTONEYx187x wrote:

Halo: Reach looks amazing from what I seen. But Im guessing Killzone 3 will have better graphics.

Considering Killzone 2 looks gorgeous, not much colour variation but still, I expect Killzone to have better graphics than Reach but I highly doubt it will sell as well.

Not really, they said they aren't aiming to make the game look alot better. Perhaps they are aiming to improve KZ2's gameplay experience.

Halo Reach looks gorgeous...Alot better than KZ2 graphics even when it was just a multiplayer beta. Halo Reach at E3 will look amazing.

you're mistaking art for graphics. as i said before art trumps all when it comes to visuals, but at the same time it doesn't make it graphically superior.

In that case, Halo Reach blows away Killzone on a technical level.

-40+ enemies on screen w/ advanced AI w/ 4-player co-op (offline and online) vs 7-8 enemies on screen w/ uninspired AI and no co-op.
-Halo Reach has bigger draw distances with a more consistant LOD.
-Halo Reach has better textures and texture filtering (KZ2 had to use alot of motion blur to cover up flat textures)
-Halo Reach has over 4 million polygons on one character.
-Halo Reach weapon models are more detailed.

The ONLY thing KZ2 had over the Reach Beta is lighting, which may or may not be improved in the final version of Reach. We will have to see.

Alan1994 wrote:

Permafry 42 wrote:

Alan1994 wrote:

xSTONEYx187x wrote:

Halo: Reach looks amazing from what I seen. But Im guessing Killzone 3 will have better graphics.

Considering Killzone 2 looks gorgeous, not much colour variation but still, I expect Killzone to have better graphics than Reach but I highly doubt it will sell as well.

Not really, they said they aren't aiming to make the game look alot better. Perhaps they are aiming to improve KZ2's gameplay experience.

Halo Reach looks gorgeous...Alot better than KZ2 graphics even when it was just a multiplayer beta. Halo Reach at E3 will look amazing.

you're mistaking art for graphics. as i said before art trumps all when it comes to visuals, but at the same time it doesn't make it graphically superior.

In that case, Halo Reach blows away Killzone on a technical level.

-40+ enemies on screen w/ advanced AI w/ 4-player co-op (offline and online) vs 7-8 enemies on screen w/ uninspired AI and no co-op.
-Halo Reach has bigger draw distances with a more consistant LOD.
-Halo Reach has better textures and texture filtering (KZ2 had to use alot of motion blur to cover up flat textures)
-Halo Reach has over 4 million polygons on one character.
-Halo Reach weapon models are more detailed.

The ONLY thing KZ2 had over the Reach Beta is lighting, which may or may not be improved in the final version of Reach. We will have to see.

DEM TROLLS MAN
DEM TROLLS

Alan1994 wrote:

Permafry 42 wrote:

Alan1994 wrote:

xSTONEYx187x wrote:

Halo: Reach looks amazing from what I seen. But Im guessing Killzone 3 will have better graphics.

Considering Killzone 2 looks gorgeous, not much colour variation but still, I expect Killzone to have better graphics than Reach but I highly doubt it will sell as well.

Not really, they said they aren't aiming to make the game look alot better. Perhaps they are aiming to improve KZ2's gameplay experience.

Halo Reach looks gorgeous...Alot better than KZ2 graphics even when it was just a multiplayer beta. Halo Reach at E3 will look amazing.

you're mistaking art for graphics. as i said before art trumps all when it comes to visuals, but at the same time it doesn't make it graphically superior.

In that case, Halo Reach blows away Killzone on a technical level.

-40+ enemies on screen w/ advanced AI w/ 4-player co-op (offline and online) vs 7-8 enemies on screen w/ uninspired AI and no co-op.
-Halo Reach has bigger draw distances with a more consistant LOD.
-Halo Reach has better textures and texture filtering (KZ2 had to use alot of motion blur to cover up flat textures)
-Halo Reach has over 4 million polygons on one character.
-Halo Reach weapon models are more detailed.

The ONLY thing KZ2 had over the Reach Beta is lighting, which may or may not be improved in the final version of Reach. We will have to see.

So much for the gameplay > graphics argument. Plus arguing about a game that's under development versus one that's been released for a year or so.

Alice wrote:

Alan1994 wrote:

Permafry 42 wrote:

Alan1994 wrote:

xSTONEYx187x wrote:

Halo: Reach looks amazing from what I seen. But Im guessing Killzone 3 will have better graphics.

Considering Killzone 2 looks gorgeous, not much colour variation but still, I expect Killzone to have better graphics than Reach but I highly doubt it will sell as well.

Not really, they said they aren't aiming to make the game look alot better. Perhaps they are aiming to improve KZ2's gameplay experience.

Halo Reach looks gorgeous...Alot better than KZ2 graphics even when it was just a multiplayer beta. Halo Reach at E3 will look amazing.

you're mistaking art for graphics. as i said before art trumps all when it comes to visuals, but at the same time it doesn't make it graphically superior.

In that case, Halo Reach blows away Killzone on a technical level.

-40+ enemies on screen w/ advanced AI w/ 4-player co-op (offline and online) vs 7-8 enemies on screen w/ uninspired AI and no co-op.
-Halo Reach has bigger draw distances with a more consistant LOD.
-Halo Reach has better textures and texture filtering (KZ2 had to use alot of motion blur to cover up flat textures)
-Halo Reach has over 4 million polygons on one character.
-Halo Reach weapon models are more detailed.

The ONLY thing KZ2 had over the Reach Beta is lighting, which may or may not be improved in the final version of Reach. We will have to see.

So much for the gameplay > graphics argument. Plus arguing about a game that's under development versus one that's been released for a year or so.

So childish. I never said anything about gameplay. You stated graphics =/= art to counter the fact I said Reach looks better than KZ2. So I used actual specs. KZ2 has been in development for 5 years, Reach has been in development for 3. I don't see how you think it isn't fair.

Argueing about gameplay is subjective. But many have been complaining about KZ2's laggy and sluggish controls.

I fail to see how spewing back paper stats verbatim from the developers' mouths are "proving" Killzone 2 looks inferior to Halo: Reach. Speaking of which, how many Best Graphics of 2009 did Halo: ODST compared to Killzone 2? If Halo: Reach ends up looking graphically better than KZ2 when it's all said and done then I will be impressed considering on consoles, KZ2 is the FPS graphics king. However, right after Halo: Reach is KZ3....

Alan1994 wrote:

Alice wrote:

Alan1994 wrote:

Permafry 42 wrote:

Alan1994 wrote:

xSTONEYx187x wrote:

Halo: Reach looks amazing from what I seen. But Im guessing Killzone 3 will have better graphics.

Considering Killzone 2 looks gorgeous, not much colour variation but still, I expect Killzone to have better graphics than Reach but I highly doubt it will sell as well.

Not really, they said they aren't aiming to make the game look alot better. Perhaps they are aiming to improve KZ2's gameplay experience.

Halo Reach looks gorgeous...Alot better than KZ2 graphics even when it was just a multiplayer beta. Halo Reach at E3 will look amazing.

you're mistaking art for graphics. as i said before art trumps all when it comes to visuals, but at the same time it doesn't make it graphically superior.

In that case, Halo Reach blows away Killzone on a technical level.

-40+ enemies on screen w/ advanced AI w/ 4-player co-op (offline and online) vs 7-8 enemies on screen w/ uninspired AI and no co-op.
-Halo Reach has bigger draw distances with a more consistant LOD.
-Halo Reach has better textures and texture filtering (KZ2 had to use alot of motion blur to cover up flat textures)
-Halo Reach has over 4 million polygons on one character.
-Halo Reach weapon models are more detailed.

The ONLY thing KZ2 had over the Reach Beta is lighting, which may or may not be improved in the final version of Reach. We will have to see.

So much for the gameplay > graphics argument. Plus arguing about a game that's under development versus one that's been released for a year or so.

So childish. I never said anything about gameplay. You stated graphics =/= art to counter the fact I said Reach looks better than KZ2. So I used actual specs. KZ2 has been in development for 5 years, Reach has been in development for 3. I don't see how you think it isn't fair.

Argueing about gameplay is subjective. But many have been complaining about KZ2's laggy and sluggish controls.

lol childish? You have me on the point that you didn't mention gameplay I misinterpreted it wrong so that's my mistake. But there is a difference between when a game is released, such as reach having a release date after killzone. We all know over time graphics improve with video games because people understand the hardware more and whatever may have you. Which is why Reach looks better, so theres no reason to compare a game under development with one that's already released once again. I never stated graphics =/= art, I stated Graphics > Gameplay which once again has nothing to do with this issue which I've previously stated.

Killzone had a more dull colored atmosphere, while Halo is more colorful which is more appealing to the eye. But they both have different art styles which brings this into a conversation about apples and oranges. Comparing Killzone 3 to Halo Reach seems more far, if you want to compare killzone 2 compare it to Halo ODST.

Alan1994 wrote:

Alice wrote:

Alan1994 wrote:

Permafry 42 wrote:

Alan1994 wrote:

xSTONEYx187x wrote:

Halo: Reach looks amazing from what I seen. But Im guessing Killzone 3 will have better graphics.

Considering Killzone 2 looks gorgeous, not much colour variation but still, I expect Killzone to have better graphics than Reach but I highly doubt it will sell as well.

Not really, they said they aren't aiming to make the game look alot better. Perhaps they are aiming to improve KZ2's gameplay experience.

Halo Reach looks gorgeous...Alot better than KZ2 graphics even when it was just a multiplayer beta. Halo Reach at E3 will look amazing.

you're mistaking art for graphics. as i said before art trumps all when it comes to visuals, but at the same time it doesn't make it graphically superior.

In that case, Halo Reach blows away Killzone on a technical level.

-40+ enemies on screen w/ advanced AI w/ 4-player co-op (offline and online) vs 7-8 enemies on screen w/ uninspired AI and no co-op.
-Halo Reach has bigger draw distances with a more consistant LOD.
-Halo Reach has better textures and texture filtering (KZ2 had to use alot of motion blur to cover up flat textures)
-Halo Reach has over 4 million polygons on one character.
-Halo Reach weapon models are more detailed.

The ONLY thing KZ2 had over the Reach Beta is lighting, which may or may not be improved in the final version of Reach. We will have to see.

So much for the gameplay > graphics argument. Plus arguing about a game that's under development versus one that's been released for a year or so.

So childish. I never said anything about gameplay. You stated graphics =/= art to counter the fact I said Reach looks better than KZ2. So I used actual specs. KZ2 has been in development for 5 years, Reach has been in development for 3. I don't see how you think it isn't fair.

Argueing about gameplay is subjective. But many have been complaining about KZ2's laggy and sluggish controls.

You seem to not understand what the guy is trying to say.
1. There has been a discussion that gameplay is more important than graphics and bashing PS3 fanboys for all talking about graphics before you arrive and show the 360 fanboys that 360 fans do the same thing.
2. The guy was trying to say that you liked the art direction, not the graphics.
3. I'm not going to go into how wrong your statements are... well okay, one thing. "Halo Reach has over 4 million polygons on one character." No, Halo Reach as a whole has 4 million polygons than Halo 3 as a whole.
4. That controls issue whateverthehell thing was patched days after the release.

Wolfshiemhere wrote:

Alan1994 wrote:

Alice wrote:

Alan1994 wrote:

Permafry 42 wrote:

Alan1994 wrote:

xSTONEYx187x wrote:

Halo: Reach looks amazing from what I seen. But Im guessing Killzone 3 will have better graphics.

Considering Killzone 2 looks gorgeous, not much colour variation but still, I expect Killzone to have better graphics than Reach but I highly doubt it will sell as well.

Not really, they said they aren't aiming to make the game look alot better. Perhaps they are aiming to improve KZ2's gameplay experience.

Halo Reach looks gorgeous...Alot better than KZ2 graphics even when it was just a multiplayer beta. Halo Reach at E3 will look amazing.

you're mistaking art for graphics. as i said before art trumps all when it comes to visuals, but at the same time it doesn't make it graphically superior.

In that case, Halo Reach blows away Killzone on a technical level.

-40+ enemies on screen w/ advanced AI w/ 4-player co-op (offline and online) vs 7-8 enemies on screen w/ uninspired AI and no co-op.
-Halo Reach has bigger draw distances with a more consistant LOD.
-Halo Reach has better textures and texture filtering (KZ2 had to use alot of motion blur to cover up flat textures)
-Halo Reach has over 4 million polygons on one character.
-Halo Reach weapon models are more detailed.

The ONLY thing KZ2 had over the Reach Beta is lighting, which may or may not be improved in the final version of Reach. We will have to see.

So much for the gameplay > graphics argument. Plus arguing about a game that's under development versus one that's been released for a year or so.

So childish. I never said anything about gameplay. You stated graphics =/= art to counter the fact I said Reach looks better than KZ2. So I used actual specs. KZ2 has been in development for 5 years, Reach has been in development for 3. I don't see how you think it isn't fair.

Argueing about gameplay is subjective. But many have been complaining about KZ2's laggy and sluggish controls.

You seem to not understand what the guy is trying to say.
1. There has been a discussion that gameplay is more important than graphics and bashing PS3 fanboys for all talking about graphics before you arrive and show the 360 fanboys that 360 fans do the same thing.
2. The guy was trying to say that you liked the art direction, not the graphics.
3. I'm not going to go into how wrong your statements are... well okay, one thing. "Halo Reach has over 4 million polygons on one character." No, Halo Reach as a whole has 4 million polygons than Halo 3 as a whole.4. That controls issue whateverthehell thing was patched days after the release.

I stand corrected.

But the KZ2 controls are still sluggish as hell. A simple patch didn't and won't fix that. It's something the developers would have had to fix before going gold.