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

HellJumper 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...

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

Well yeah, I mean I COULD compare MW2 to Black Ops but it would be stupid and make no point.

Alice 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.

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.

Let me reword.

You were implying that the reason why I thought Halo Reach looked better than KZ2 was because of the different art style. I gave you some specs as to why it's technically more superior.

Release dates are next to nothing in this debate. The fact is Killzone 2's inhouse engine had been in development for over 5 years. The engine used in the Reach Beta had been in development for a little over 2 years (will be 3 by launch). ODST uses the older Halo 3 engine which used engine assets dating back to Halo 2. That wouldn't be a fair comparison either. It would be like comparing the GOW collections remastered on the PS3 vs God of War 3.

They released a couple screens for KZ3, looks very similar to KZ2...as expected considering they even stated it wouldn't look all too different. I don't know, we will see by launch. I'm interested on what they are doing for 3D, considering that they can't use the LOD polygon model swap trick like 99% of console games use.

KonaBro wrote:

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....

You imply paper stats are meaningless in this debate but sound too sure that KZ3 will actually look better than Reach.

Reach is a generation ahead of ODST interms of technology. Bringing up ODST is very irrelevant. Developer attitudes and goals change over time. We are comparing the KZ2 engine (and KZ3 considering they ARE using the same engine assets) to the Reach engine.

Using actual performance specs comparin game engines is alot more accurate than just yelling back and forth "NO NO, IT WILL LOOK BETTER!!".

So criticize me all you like. .

Halo: Reach obviously will have better graphics than Killzone 3.

Halo Reach won't surpass Kz2 in graphics. The graphics won't increase much after the beta, and if you are honest, you know that they aren't that amazing, and i agree with alan1994 here. You all like the graphic style of Halo Reach, or you hate the dark muddy style of Kz2. Some Reviers already said, that they were a little dissapointed, because they exspected more improved graphics after the first trailer. This here is just fanboy bs, saying that Halo Reach will be the new fps graphics king. And i just want to remind you that 99% of you said you wouldn't give a shit about graphics. Halo Reach will be a game for people who think that gameplay is important , not for graphic whores.

Alan1994 wrote:

Alice 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.

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.

Let me reword.

You were implying that the reason why I thought Halo Reach looked better than KZ2 was because of the different art style. I gave you some specs as to why it's technically more superior.

Release dates are next to nothing in this debate. The fact is Killzone 2's inhouse engine had been in development for over 5 years. The engine used in the Reach Beta had been in development for a little over 2 years (will be 3 by launch). ODST uses the older Halo 3 engine which used engine assets dating back to Halo 2. That wouldn't be a fair comparison either. It would be like comparing the GOW collections remastered on the PS3 vs God of War 3.

They released a couple screens for KZ3, looks very similar to KZ2...as expected considering they even stated it wouldn't look all too different. I don't know, we will see by launch. I'm interested on what they are doing for 3D, considering that they can't use the LOD polygon model swap trick like 99% of console games use.

I was implying what? I honestly think you believe you are talking to someone else. The only thing I've said was graphics < gameplay because a game doesn't need to look "amazing" to be good which lots of people here love to think. It may be technically superior, which is expected. Especially since it's being released after killzone 2 which for some reason you simply cannot comprehend. It doesn't really matter how long it takes to develop an engine. But yes I will state the obvious for you before you point it out, taking a few years on something isn't a good thing but with better technology and updated technology it is easier to pull of better things, such as graphics in this case.

Now neither games are out so there isn't much comparing besides a multiplayer beta and an alpha/beta gameplay whatever may have you. Now lets get some things down before I choose to stop talking about this topic. What you brought up about me saying you preferred Halo's graphics you took it the wrong way. Some people prefer ones art/graphic style over the other. Next, the gameplay is different ofcourse, some people do not like killzones controls. It happens, you don't say a game like monster hunter is bad because of the controls. Or Demon Souls, Resonance Of Fate, and whatever else has controls that takes getting used to. I admit some games do have shit controls while others makes the game more interactive and eventually you get used to the controls.

For my closing, once again for like the 10th time or whatever you have to admit it's apple and oranges.

Quote :

The fact is Killzone 2's inhouse engine had been in development for over 5 years.

Guerrilla Games did not get their ps3 dev kits untill 2006, they didn't start the development of killzone 2 right after killzone, they started working on Killzone Liberations. So no it was not in development for over 5 years.

Alan1994 wrote:

KonaBro wrote:

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....

You imply paper stats are meaningless in this debate but sound too sure that KZ3 will actually look better than Reach.

Reach is a generation ahead of ODST interms of technology. Bringing up ODST is very irrelevant. Developer attitudes and goals change over time. We are comparing the KZ2 engine (and KZ3 considering they ARE using the same engine assets) to the Reach engine.

Using actual performance specs comparin game engines is alot more accurate than just yelling back and forth "NO NO, IT WILL LOOK BETTER!!".

So criticize me all you like. .

I imply paper stats are meaningless because anyone can speak them and they mean nothing until we see it in action. After playing with friend's fiancee in the Halo: Reach beta, I can honestly say that it's going to be the best looking 360 FPS to date but in no way is it going to surpass KZ2 IMO. KZ2 (like Uncharted 2) set the bar for games of their respective genre and now everyone after them are trying to play catch-up. So really, I don't have to criticize you at all because if Halo: Reach ends up looking like the Beta but a bit more polished up, then I'm not expecting much.

The only killzone 3 gameplay fotage was some blurry camara recording in the background of and interview with no sound.

This is an xbox fanboy forum so i can understand why everybody is quick to say halo reach will look better but seriously calm down everybody! I am sick of everybody blindly worshipping the xbox all of the time.

Rant over

Kendo wrote:

Halo: Reach obviously will have better graphics than Killzone 3.

kendo there's a reason why people call you retarded. once again, Kilzone 3 will have better technically graphics than halo reach; halo reach will have better art work.

i havent seen any footage of killzone 3 but unless all theyve been doing is working on graphics it will most only be as good looking as halo reach although it will have 3dif you wanna count that but on a technical level well idk. well at least i think i cant quite remeber because i was having to much fun...

KonaBro wrote:

Alan1994 wrote:

KonaBro wrote:

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....

You imply paper stats are meaningless in this debate but sound too sure that KZ3 will actually look better than Reach.

Reach is a generation ahead of ODST interms of technology. Bringing up ODST is very irrelevant. Developer attitudes and goals change over time. We are comparing the KZ2 engine (and KZ3 considering they ARE using the same engine assets) to the Reach engine.

Using actual performance specs comparin game engines is alot more accurate than just yelling back and forth "NO NO, IT WILL LOOK BETTER!!".

So criticize me all you like. .

I imply paper stats are meaningless because anyone can speak them and they mean nothing until we see it in action. After playing with friend's fiancee in the Halo: Reach beta, I can honestly say that it's going to be the best looking 360 FPS to date but in no way is it going to surpass KZ2 IMO. KZ2 (like Uncharted 2) set the bar for games of their respective genre and now everyone after them are trying to play catch-up. So really, I don't have to criticize you at all because if Halo: Reach ends up looking like the Beta but a bit more polished up, then I'm not expecting much.

ok ive played uc2 and the reach beta so if uc2>kz2 then i can honestly say halo reach beta was better than kz2 because the beta looked only slightly worse than uc2.

arnt god of war wrote:

i havent seen any footage of killzone 3 but unless all theyve been doing is working on graphics it will most only be as good looking as halo reach although it will have 3dif you wanna count that but on a technical level well idk.

No, all they've worked on is gameplay and varied setpieces.
Graphically it's a little better but with a much bigger scale.

Also, KZ2 is hailed as a better look game by the Uncharted 2 devs.

Wolfshiemhere wrote:

arnt god of war wrote:

i havent seen any footage of killzone 3 but unless all theyve been doing is working on graphics it will most only be as good looking as halo reach although it will have 3dif you wanna count that but on a technical level well idk.

No, all they've worked on is gameplay and varied setpieces.
Graphically it's a little better but with a much bigger scale.

Also, KZ2 is hailed as a better look game by the Uncharted 2 devs.

It probably is. Although UC2 has epic set pieces which really show off how good it looks. Are the cut-scenes in UC 2 real time?

xSTONEYx187x wrote:

Wolfshiemhere wrote:

arnt god of war wrote:

i havent seen any footage of killzone 3 but unless all theyve been doing is working on graphics it will most only be as good looking as halo reach although it will have 3dif you wanna count that but on a technical level well idk.

No, all they've worked on is gameplay and varied setpieces.
Graphically it's a little better but with a much bigger scale.

Also, KZ2 is hailed as a better look game by the Uncharted 2 devs.

It probably is. Although UC2 has epic set pieces which really show off how good it looks. Are the cut-scenes in UC 2 real time?

Nope

Wolfshiemhere wrote:

xSTONEYx187x wrote:

Wolfshiemhere wrote:

arnt god of war wrote:

i havent seen any footage of killzone 3 but unless all theyve been doing is working on graphics it will most only be as good looking as halo reach although it will have 3dif you wanna count that but on a technical level well idk.

No, all they've worked on is gameplay and varied setpieces.
Graphically it's a little better but with a much bigger scale.

Also, KZ2 is hailed as a better look game by the Uncharted 2 devs.

It probably is. Although UC2 has epic set pieces which really show off how good it looks. Are the cut-scenes in UC 2 real time?

Nope

Umm..I thought the were.

xSTONEYx187x wrote:

Wolfshiemhere wrote:

xSTONEYx187x wrote:

Wolfshiemhere wrote:

arnt god of war wrote:

i havent seen any footage of killzone 3 but unless all theyve been doing is working on graphics it will most only be as good looking as halo reach although it will have 3dif you wanna count that but on a technical level well idk.

No, all they've worked on is gameplay and varied setpieces.
Graphically it's a little better but with a much bigger scale.

Also, KZ2 is hailed as a better look game by the Uncharted 2 devs.

It probably is. Although UC2 has epic set pieces which really show off how good it looks. Are the cut-scenes in UC 2 real time?

Nope

Umm..I thought the were.

They do a good job at masking it.
In KZ2, everything but the CGI opening is real time though

Well of course Naughty Dog is going to say KZ2 is the better looking game, they are humble guys. However its not really conducive to compare a TPS like Uncharted 2 to a FPS like Halo or KZ2. As for Uncharted 2, none of the cutscenes are real-time, however all cutscenes were done in-engine instead of CGI.

Kill zone 3 will have superior graphics i can bet on that.

But it will never bring the fun the halo brings to the table. as hutch and many other machinima directors say halo brings people together.

You can play it with 4 random people and end up adding them up as friends after a few games. Its brings the good ( and the bad ) out of people. Killzone will never have the psychological effect halo has on people.

popjack88 wrote:

Kill zone 3 will have superior graphics i can bet on that.

But it will never bring the fun the halo brings to the table. as hutch and many other machinima directors say halo brings people together.

You can play it with 4 random people and end up adding them up as friends after a few games. Its brings the good ( and the bad ) out of people. Killzone will never have the psychological effect halo has on people.

What am I reading?

popjack88 wrote:

Kill zone 3 will have superior graphics i can bet on that.

But it will never bring the fun the halo brings to the table. as hutch and many other machinima directors say halo brings people together.

You can play it with 4 random people and end up adding them up as friends after a few games. Its brings the good ( and the bad ) out of people. Killzone will never have the psychological effect halo has on people.

*sigh* Once again subjective. Just because you assume people don't have fun with KZ doesn't make it true.

KonaBro wrote:

popjack88 wrote:

Kill zone 3 will have superior graphics i can bet on that.

But it will never bring the fun the halo brings to the table. as hutch and many other machinima directors say halo brings people together.

You can play it with 4 random people and end up adding them up as friends after a few games. Its brings the good ( and the bad ) out of people. Killzone will never have the psychological effect halo has on people.

*sigh* Once again subjective. Just because you assume people don't have fun with KZ doesn't make it true.

its the popular opinion.

@ alice and the other anime chick

hey i play killzone2


i never said it was was not fun. I said most people enjoy playing halo more. just check out how many people played reach. you can argue all you want. both are great games and killzone 3 will hopefully bring something new to the table.

You should not assume that all people in this forum are mindless fanboys. Most of us actually know what we are talking about.

popjack88 wrote:

@ alice and the other anime chick

hey i play killzone2


i never said it was was not fun. I said most people enjoy playing halo more. just check out how many people played reach. you can argue all you want. both are great games and killzone 3 will hopefully bring something new to the table.

You should not assume that all people in this forum are mindless fanboys. Most of us actually know what we are talking about.

exactly. i too am not a mindless fanboy. though i still don't like killzone 1, 2, and most likely 3. halo is a decent series, but only for it's campaign and it's story; i hate playing online on halo from all the prepubescent kids that spam their mics.

popjack88 wrote:

@ alice and the other anime chick

hey i play killzone2


i never said it was was not fun. I said most people enjoy playing halo more. just check out how many people played reach. you can argue all you want. both are great games and killzone 3 will hopefully bring something new to the table.

You should not assume that all people in this forum are mindless fanboys. Most of us actually know what we are talking about.

No I'm not assuming, I know people just love putting words into other peoples mouths. You really need to learn how to phrase what you're trying to say. For one you didn't say "most people enjoy halo more" You mentioned other stuff which is purely an opinion on ones on likes. For some reason people here love thinking opinions = facts.

About the mindless fanboy part, lol.