Home Gaming Halo Reach Proves Killzone 2's Worth To The Xbox 360

Halo Reach Proves Killzone 2's Worth To The Xbox 360

3 min read


Last year, around about the time that Killzone 2 hit the world, I posted an article titled Killzone 2: The Best Thing To Happen To The Xbox 360 . While the title confused people at first, it made sense once you read it and my point was made. Many people agreed with me and I even had the honour of having my article discussed on the great 1UP podcast.

I have always believed that Halo 3 was never what it should have been for the Xbox 360. It was the next-gen Halo, the first ever of its kind to grace the HD era of gaming. While the addition of forge mode as well as the replay theatre definitely added a great deal of depth to an already popular formula, the game really felt like it was lacking in the technical wizardry department.

The marketing slogan for Halo 3 was “Believe”, and I believed that it could have been so much better. I was right.

I just want to make it clear that this article really is only pointing towards the technical side of things. Great controls, stories and so on can make a game legendary, but I am looking at it directly in terms of the “wow” factor used to show off your consoles power.

To summarize the original article, I basically said that Killzone 2 was such a heavy hitter in terms of console power and such a technical masterpiece that the ball was now in Microsoft’s court to fight back and bring something special to the plate. I also said that this would eventually work in Xbox 360 owners’ favour because we all know that competition breeds innovation and advancements.

One look at Halo Reach and you can see it all falling into place. Halo 3 was good, it looked ok and played well but Microsoft needed something better, something to make people say “wow, look what the Xbox 360 can do!”. I don’t know about you, but one look at the new footage and screenshots from Halo Reach and it’s easy to see that Bungie are really trying to push for something special now, something better than just another Halo game.


^ The jump from Halo 2 on Xbox to Halo 3 on Xbox 360 was not as large as many fans of the series had hoped

To be completely honest, I have to say that I don’t think that Halo Reach does look as good as Killzone 2, but to be fair the art styles are quite, with Halo going for Sci-Fantasy and Killzone 2 really hitting on realism. Either way, it’s easy to see Bungie have finally gotten off of their butts and put some real effort into making a true spectacle.

Halo 3 made a huge impact when it released and continues to be one of the most played games on Xbox Live week after week. For a moment though, looking at the bigger picture, could you imagine how it would have blown people away if it had already looked as good as Halo Reach did? Sure developers learn more about systems over time, but I truly believe that this level of tech was possible back then already.

Gears of War was the big graphics showpiece for the system, but Halo is the franchise that made the Xbox what it was, the flagship franchise. It was and still is the big name for the console. While any level-headed gamer out there knows that graphics aren’t everything, they make a big difference when you are trying to woo gamers over to your console and seeing Halo 3’s visuals after Gears of War was a little underwhelming.

We have finally reached a high point in this generation of gaming, with both consoles playing host to some fantastic, deep and good looking games. I don’t see Halo Reach as a return of fire, more like the arrival of balance in the force (young Skywalker).

At this point in time, it doesn’t matter if you own an Xbox 360, a Playstation 3 or both, because you can be guaranteed that you already have, and will still be getting some really amazing titles.

Unless of course you are one of those people who decided to stick to their roots and only buy a Wii. Sucks to be you.

Last Updated: July 29, 2020


  1. And cue Wii fanboy ranting in 3…2…1…


    • Nick de Bruyne

      February 18, 2010 at 13:07

      No this isn’t a trap to try and bring a mythological creature out into the open. If one does arrive though, it will be a special occasion.


  2. Goose

    February 18, 2010 at 13:50

    Nice article Nick. I haven’t played any of the Halo games (gasp) but Reach is looking good.

    Oh and btw you have a typo just under the image though “E different ither way, it’s easy to see ” on the 3rd line.


    • Goose

      February 18, 2010 at 13:51

      DAMNIT I tried so hard not to have a typo in my comment and i still failed! LOL!


      • Nick de Bruyne

        February 18, 2010 at 14:16

        Thats always how it happens lol. It’s not a typo, “E [insert word here]ither” is like err… Latin, yes, a Latin way to emphasise something. really :ninja:


      • Fox1

        February 18, 2010 at 16:22

        Put the graphics aside and Halo 3 and ODST are really good games :cheerful:


  3. alex c

    February 18, 2010 at 16:18

    killzone 2, destroys ever other shooter including reach, when it comes,

    kilzone 3 will take the kings crown and lift it high above its own castle fort, others will be banging at the drawbridge, but killzone wont let them into helgahst. no way. killzone forever.


  4. Chewrafa

    February 18, 2010 at 16:33

    Sorry for Halo Reach, but KZ2 it’s still a level up from what Bungie is achieving with their last instance of Halo. This Halo is what Halo 3 was supposed to be, in so many ways, but when you look at the images and compare with KZ2 it’s so obvious that the level of detail on both textures and level complexity it’s bettet on KZ2, you can’t compare those games this way. BUT Halo 3 Online is possibly better than KZ2 counterpart, because the kind of action Halo proposes ir’s more popular, and KZ2 it’s a kind of “weight simulator using future WWII scenario”. Kz2 is a great game, and visually is a behemoth. Halo Reach don’t need to do that effort, it will be a great game with outstanding visuals, but it can’t be compared to KZ2 overall tech. KZ2 was created to demonstrate some particular things that Halo Reach don’t need to demonstrate.


    • Joe

      February 19, 2010 at 03:39

      take the motion blur and lighting out of BOTH Reach and Killzone 2 and already Reach is looking a lot better than Killzone 2.

      Killzones texture work is shoddy at best. everything is low resolution, some textures are very pixelated (check out the ground when you jump off the ship on the beach landing), and most are just completely flat and blurry.

      Halo on the other hand has always been incredible texture-wise. Reach looks to be taking it to the next level.

      The reason i say remove the lighting and motion blur is because BOTH games are using the same lighting method and both use a lot of motion blur.

      i was more blown away by the first in-game Reach footage in the vidoc than i was by playing Killzone 2 for the first time, and thats coming from a multi-console owner who still holds the original killzone on PS2 up there with my favourite games of all time, despite its problems. to say i was looking forward to killzone 2 would be a gross understatement.

      not to mention that in terms of actual gameplay, Halo stomps all over Killzone 2. whoever decided on 200ms of input lag in Killzone 2 (although i fear it may not have been a decision made by choice, moreso because of technical limitations) shouldve been fired. it simply made the game not fun to play. i did complete it though, and the single player was just boring, generic, and short.


      • Joe Bloe

        February 19, 2010 at 04:32

        take high res textures, bloom effects, real time physics, character animation, cuts scenes, multiplayer, why not reduce the polygon counts, the sony brand name and xbox brand name out and what do you get…. just a bunch of shooters.

        Uncharted stomps all in the graphics department, story telling, and gameplay.


      • Anonymous

        February 19, 2010 at 12:17

        dude look at the the textures on some of those halo reach screenshots. paticulary the ground lol absolutely pathetic. Looks like a halo 1 on xbox. stupid fanboy. All you do in halo is run around shooting shit followed by some really boring unorignal multiplayer.


        • Flamebaitboy

          February 19, 2010 at 12:21

          dude look at the the textures on some of those killzone 2 screenshots. paticulary the ground lol absolutely pathetic. Looks like a killzone on ps2. stupid fanboy. All you do in killzone is run around shooting shit followed by some really boring unorignal multiplayer.


  5. Lon

    February 18, 2010 at 16:47

    its called competition…..nothing else


  6. Todd Gak

    February 18, 2010 at 17:08

    I agree with this article and all, although it would make more sense to write the same thing about the dozens of things 360 has pushed Sony to get off their butts and implement; but to say Killzone looks better than REACH!?!?! Are you nuts, have any of you people done a side by side of those two games?!?! REACH blows Killzone away! Killzone II is a blurry mess next to REACH!


    • RSA-Ace

      February 18, 2010 at 17:34

      I have seen the comparison’s and from what the majority seem to think KZ2 looks better. But Reach isn’t out yet so there is no point in even judging it yet.

      To quote the person who did the comparison “Judging by the screen shots above, Killzone 2 is a better looking game. But Bungie still has time to up the ante.”


    • Anonymous

      February 19, 2010 at 12:17

      are you blind??? dumbass halo reachs looks like the helgasts shit fag


      • Flamebaitboy

        February 19, 2010 at 12:23

        are you blind??? dumbass killzone 2 looks like the spartans shit fag


  7. Todd Gak

    February 18, 2010 at 17:12

    And one more thing, I think I know whats going on here, we are going to see all these journalist saying KZ2 looks better just so they can avoid being attacked by the PS3 fanboys that have over ran the gaming space of the web.

    That is such a cowardly thing to do, especially for journalists, to abandon the truth just so you can stay popular, what a bunch of tools the gaming media has become.


    • RSA-Ace

      February 18, 2010 at 17:30

      I’m pretty sure if KZ2 looks better then the journalists will say it looks better. They not going to just say it to appease a certain crowd – and if they do, they not journalists so it doesn’t matter.


    • Geoff

      February 18, 2010 at 17:36

      Did we just get accused of pandering to the PS3 masses?
      Consider my mind blown.


      • V@mp

        February 18, 2010 at 18:00

        It certainly would appear so :biggrin:
        From raging Xbots to Ps3 fanboys in the blink of an eye.
        There just doesn’t seem to be any middle ground for you guys hey! You just can’t win Lmfao


  8. Joseph

    February 18, 2010 at 17:14

    It’s not fair to compare Reach to Killzone 2. Just look at Reach. It’s at a pre-alpha stage and already has way more detail on screen than Killzone 2 ever hoped to have.
    Besides, KZ2 uses blur shenanigans to hide the bad textures, giving the player the impression of being playing a fast and graphically impressive game when he’s actually not.


    • Anonymous

      February 19, 2010 at 12:19

      OMG i just cant beleive it! When are you going to admit that a ps3 game looks better than a 360 game! You dumbass. Its physically more powerful. Uncharted 2 isnt possible on 360


      • Flamebaitboy

        February 19, 2010 at 12:25

        OMG i just cant beleive it! When are you going to admit that a 360 game looks better than a ps3 game! You dumbass. Its physically more powerful. Gears of War 2 isnt possible on ps3


        • Gilbert

          March 30, 2010 at 08:53

          @Flamebaitboy I’m sorry but your hillarious I think your awsome as hell the way you mock that PS3 fanboy lol


  9. Gunpants

    February 18, 2010 at 17:22

    Killzone 2 is a very liner game which allowed them to focus more power on smaller battles.
    Halo (all of them) are wide open fps’s that allow for a much greater area of play, so the power has to be spread out more.
    Yes single screens of killzone look better, but that’s because it’s just a hallway or small room. Gears of war is the same way.

    Look at heavy rain, looks amazing but if you asked them if they could have 40+ charetors or massive open areas, they’d say no way.
    Comparing two totally diferent styles of game is silly. I’d say they are even in there own right.


    • Butchess

      February 18, 2010 at 18:00

      Only thing is, BFBC2 is REALLY wide open, unlike halo, where you have small and large arenas 😛

      And destruction 🙂

      Then there’s MoH which is looking pretty sweet


  10. mark

    February 18, 2010 at 17:42

    After watching the 2 halo reach videos a few times it’s pretty clear that the graphics are a massive improvement, it looks great. But with that said the overall quality looks abit lackluster still. what i mean by this is the atmosphere just isn’t there yet. No weather or wind and with wind effects comes moving shrubbery and grass and dust getting blown about.
    My one main question though is this, were the hell is the destructable envrionments because the videos show nothing in that field at all and graphics are fuck all compared to making things look, react and move like they do in real life. But i do think it will be a great game but in no way will it be a technical brake through, on the 360 it will, but looking at the industry as a hole it’s not going to do anything new at all.

    Killzone 3 is on the way soon enough and from what i’ve read it will have improved textures, animations, particle affects, scale, COMPLETEY DESTRUCTABLE ENVIRONMENTS and if all thats not enough the game will run a 60 frames per second.


  11. ...squirrel

    February 18, 2010 at 17:53

    what about half-life 3?



    • Nick de Bruyne

      February 18, 2010 at 18:12

      Yeah what about it … 🙁 I have been waiting so very long for that game, not to mention Episode 3… I am sure it will be great but we have to get their first lol. Let’s hope that Valve pull their magic again


  12. mark

    February 18, 2010 at 18:00

    @ Gunpants… have you even played killzone 2 because some of the battles are huge. For example one of the early missions, were you have to get in the tank, the amount of enemies is very large indeed and no halo game so far can compete in that area. Sure reach has nice graphics and can support 30 enemies on screen at once but that’s about it. thers no weather effects which can bring alot of life to the environment. simply put, KZ is a technical brake through and halo is not…


    • Davo058

      May 3, 2010 at 02:30

      actually, weather effects are there, in the podcast, the “weather guys” explained how the skies are completely of their own mind, they dont sit there and look nice, clouds move across the sky storms form and fizzle, lightening isn’t always the forefront of the weather system at the time, you can see that lightening is also cracking further off in the distance, lower clouds will impact on flying vehicles, so a small low cloud will hide a banshee or phantom etc as a true cloud would. I imagine you may have meant environmental hazards as in BFBC2 were you’ll enjoy a dust cloud floating around you or a blizzard, but i ask you this, have you purchased your copy of Halo Reach ? is it september yet ? is halo reach available yet in its final form ? no! no one in the entire world has claim to that, and with so long to go till then, maybe thats what the beta is for, to find out what people see as lacking, and with that feedback, they can make it better. Killzone 3 may have many promises, but gears of war 2 promised destructible environments, and the most you can do is shoot up a pillar of its shell, it would be wise to not assume anything until you have the final product in hand or else you’ll always be dissapointed with the result, 100% of the time, because you are but one voice in the demands of such a series.. But when a game like Killzone 2 has great graphics, and another story of soldiers that like to swear alot, its clearly aimed at the teen audience, so the story is almost as in depth as a super mario story. I’ve noticed some gamers here have mentioned story in their comments, not to mention the guy who wrote the article said he wasn’t focusing on story in his statements, but the game dragon age origins has halo 3 graphics i suppose, they aren’t anything to write home about, but they do the job, however its the story and characters that push this game towards the accolades and awards it received not just in the gaming community, but even hollywood took note of it, so graphics really make up about 30% of the greatness of a game, and that number gets smaller and smaller the better the story and the better the gameplay, which is also why halo 3 is still floating around the very top of the game charts as one of if not the most played xbox360 game. So before you start complaining of halo being, for lack of a better word, shit, realise that it has still got almost half a year before it gets into your disc tray completed, and is the reason you have decent shooters on the consoles, if halo never arrived, PC would still be dominant and consoles would be limited to PS3 which would not be as it is now, and nintendos next console that most likely would not have bothered with motion controls, you owe halo a lot, be nice to it.


  13. Kris

    February 18, 2010 at 18:36

    Interesting point of view. I missed the older article about Killzone 2 being the best thing to happen to Halo..but I kind of agree with your logic.

    Which has me pretty excited to see how Killzone 3 fires back. After all, when heavy competition breeds innovation, then we’ll likely see something pretty fantastic from the boys over at Guerilla when KZ3 is finally showcased.

    I’m interested to see more about Halo:Reach. I’m not going to proclaim it the messiah as many do, but I am impressed at their stated goals. If they stick to that and manage to provide a multiplayer experience that finally feels unique, and they’ll capture not only the Halo fans but those that sat on the sidelines hoping for originality for the past two iterations.


  14. solid snake

    February 18, 2010 at 19:47

    Interactive ray tracing is better at global illumination over rasterization because only interactive ray tracing delivers a optically correct result in global illumination.Killzone 2 makes excellent use of interactive ray tracing thanks to the cell processor which has 6 interactive ray tracers at developers disposal & the 360 only has rasterization at developers disposal for global illumination.i said have this a dozen times to people the ps3’s cell processor’s capabilities dorf’s the 360’s cpu’s capabilities in performance hands.


    • Gilbert

      March 30, 2010 at 08:59

      @solid snake I do have to agree with you on that one the PS3’s CPU has 7 core processors while the XBox 360’s CPU only has 3 but each core processor on the XBox 360 is capable of processing 2 threads simultaniously think of a thread as a set of instructions for the computer to follow so its basically like the XBox 360 has 6 core processors instead of 3 and because of this the developers can dedicate 1 processor to running the games Physics Engine and another for playing sound of course its up to the developers on how the systems resources are utilized


  15. nutbear96

    February 18, 2010 at 20:09

    Halo 3 had meh graphics. Killzone has the best graphics a console game has ever seen! Yes it is better than Uncharted 2! Uncharted 2 is a colourfull game so it makes you think that it is better but Killzone 2 is a dark gloomy battlefielf full of depression! I don’t think God of War III can beat but I do think Heavy Rain can beat it… JUST! And Halo Reach? DON’T KID YOURSELF! It has average graphics, well maybe slightly above average graphics. But it will be one of the best looking games on 360 BUT if you think it will be better than Killzone 2 and other PS3 exclusives (they seem to be the ones with the best graphics) then you must be having a laugh you over-confident fanboy!


  16. darthdad

    February 18, 2010 at 20:31

    They are both great games(franchises). I personally think KZ2 is far greater in the graphics department than the screens I have seen from Reach. I thoroughly enjoyed KZ2 after my second attempt at playing it. But, and there is always a ‘but’! If I had to choose only one game to play for the next couple of years, between KZ2 and Halo3, it would be Halo3 without any hesitation. The gameplay alone blows KZ2 away(IMO). The co-op and the online of Halo is in a different league. Please do not misunderstand me(you people called fanboys). The story of Halo is so intriguing, and I did not feel that with KZ2. I’m actually more suited as a gamer to the more tactical and slower pace of KZ2(which I still play BTW), but the fun factor is entrenched totally in Halo. It is in my opinion a great game, and hopefully as Nick has said, it gets its just deserts in ‘Halo Reach’.


  17. HipHopGamer

    February 18, 2010 at 20:52

    hey man was up nice site man. i was just wondering where did the inspiration for your article came from because it seems kinda familiar.



    • darthdad

      February 18, 2010 at 21:03

      Ummm? The first thing Nick mentions is his article from ‘last year’!(with a link). Maybe we should ask you where you got your inspiration from? :ermm:


    • LazySAGamer

      February 18, 2010 at 21:38

      I was wondering the same thing about your article to be honest. This one was published first (remember the timestamp on this website is set to South Africa) so if anyone’s lending idea’s it would be you :ninja:

      But seeing as you made a video I think this is just an extremely weird coincidence… you wouldn’t have been able to put it together in time.


    • Nick de Bruyne

      February 19, 2010 at 01:13

      I just saw your video and I was wondering the very same thing?? I posted the original article around a year ago and decided to follow up since Reach was proving my point. I was so sure you got the idea from me :dizzy:


  18. My Little Pwny

    February 18, 2010 at 21:22

    This site only supports ONLY Rock music.


  19. cell989

    February 18, 2010 at 21:36

    even IF and thats a big IF, they can surpass Killzone’s 2 graphics with Halo Reach, what will they do when Killzone 3 comes out?


  20. Pat.O

    February 18, 2010 at 21:45

    It’s so funny how the Xbots try to think “Halo Reach” is on the same graphic Level of KillZone2 LMAO(^_^)!!! No it’s not even close. Sorry back to the drawing board,Let me make this clear in order for Xbox360 to have graphics even close to KillZone2 there going to need a bigger Disc format, plain and simple people. I guess Xbots need a game that they can believe will rival PS3 Exclusives in some way but it’ll never happen. It’s comin sense if they try this problems will flourish 1. Disc space 2.Higher RROD count 3.Lose of Market Share 4. Lose of respect do to higher RROD from gamers. The hardware just isn’t capable of doing so this gen without huge failures.


  21. isarai

    February 18, 2010 at 22:21

    It’s a decent improvement from Halo3/ODST, but by now these graphics are nothing more than average. Bungie has never really been that great when it comes to their game engine. If it looked this good in Halo 3 it would be a whole nother story but sadly their are tons of games (even multiplat) that look just as good, and some even better.


  22. xino

    February 19, 2010 at 01:27

    halo 3+Killzone 2=Halo Reach!?

    oh please you fanboy!


    • Fanboy

      February 19, 2010 at 01:37

      Of which console am I a fanboy?


    • Nick de Bruyne

      February 19, 2010 at 03:42

      It’s a formula for how they got to this point. Not the way you are thinking.


  23. what what

    February 19, 2010 at 04:31

    Killzone 2 has amazing graphics but the game doesnt play well. The controls blow and online struggles with replayability. Also if game developers develop a game for 6 years it should look as good as Killzone2 aka halo killer lol not a chance


  24. lolcunts

    February 19, 2010 at 13:30

    You 360 fans are funny. Halo will be the best looking 360 FPS but is still getting whipped-on by Killzone 2 which is a year old. Killzone 3 will smash it.


    • Flamebaitboy

      February 19, 2010 at 16:25

      You PS3 fans are funny. Killzone 3 will be the best looking PS3 FPS but is still getting whipped-on by Quake 3 which is a bazilion years old. Gears of War 10 will smash it.


      • Bobby Kotick keeps corpses in his refrigerator

        February 23, 2010 at 23:11

        I personally can’t wait for Killzone 3. I only recently got Killzone 2, and it absolutely blew me away.


  25. dano

    February 19, 2010 at 15:06

    the only way a game will ever be better than killzone 2 is if crytek are making it


    • Flamebaitboy

      February 19, 2010 at 16:27

      the only way a game will ever be better than any other game is if Bioware are making it


  26. Krishna

    February 19, 2010 at 16:17

    yep..crytek rocks….and plz xbots…there is no way 360 can match ps3’s power…
    And @the guy who said kz2 is better than unc2..lol


    • Flamebaitboy

      February 19, 2010 at 16:30

      yep..bioware rocks….and plz ps3bots…there is no way ps3 can match 360’s power…
      And @the guy who said kz2 is better than halo reach..lol


  27. TheBeasht

    February 19, 2010 at 16:23

    Nice interesting article.
    BTW, all ya all are fanboys…. game-fanboys. AMIRITE?!?!
    High fives all round. Fuck yeah! Woohoo!!!!


  28. Bobby Kotick keeps corpses in his refrigerator

    February 23, 2010 at 23:09

    Excellent article Nick. I agree 100%.


  29. BHW

    February 24, 2010 at 10:08

    My first encounter with Halo was many moons ago with Combat Evolved on the PC. And it was pretty crap compared with some of the other FPS available on PC at the time. So when Halo3 came out I was about as excited about that as I was for E-tv’s Sunday morning Oprah omnibus (not a lot)- eventually picked it up used about a year ago for R100 – and have to say I was thoroughly surprised by how good it was , dated graphics notwithstanding.

    Killzone 2 on the other hand blew me away graphically – but about 4 hours into the game I was bored. It was like a shiny version of Quake 2.


  30. solid snake

    February 24, 2010 at 22:31

    well the only way to truly created a proper comparison between two games on two different gaming platforms which have two entirely different architectural approaches & formats.You would have to really have a excellent technical observation of both systems specifications & what game developing techniques are being used in both games from the two systems specifications.


  31. AlKi

    February 25, 2010 at 10:17

    KILLZONE 2 is the best looking game i had ever seen and when i saw the trailer for Halo reach i was a bit wow,but with the latest gameplay pics im not so sure anymore!I really think the only threat to KZ2 is crysis 2 and with crysis 2 coming soon and crytek making claims that not 1 devp out there are doing what they are on ps3,with no KILLZONE 3 footage even seen yet crytek better hold on coz its gonna be a very bumpie ride!


  32. james braselton

    March 30, 2010 at 15:32

    hi there goose lighten up no ones perfect not even me


  33. solid snake

    May 4, 2010 at 16:11

    Killzone 2’s development started way back when the cell processor was still freash in developers minds & difficult to work with.developing killzone 2 was a both major challenge & learn as they go process for the developers behind killzone 2.The developers did say in a interview in the official us playstation magazine which featured killzone 2 on the font cover that they could of in fact pushed the Fidelity bar much further with killzone 2 then they did already but were pressed for time because how long the game was in development already.There’s no dout in my mind killzone 3 will turn heads & shock gamers worldwide with the amount of fidelity killzone 3 will display.


  34. solid snake

    May 4, 2010 at 16:21

    Now that developers are getting really comfortable with the cell processor so developers can really push Fidelity of the playstation 3 to develop some truly amazing technical feats.Sorry lazy gamer but when it boils down to total peak performance playstation 3 has the advantage & it already shows in exclusives such as god of war 3,uncharted 2 & upcoming future releases.


  35. Bloogueonenia

    May 24, 2010 at 18:34

    comment7, oxycodone cr, 7993, , 410, , 5762, 2mg ativan, 6814, zolpidem ambien, 6657, zithromax rash, 9544, hydrocodone vs codeine, ::-), phentermine with prescription, 3134, , 1104, , :’-)


  36. solid snake

    August 5, 2010 at 01:05

    I think it’s obvious your a fan of microsoft platforms in general & haven’t played a playstation 3 ever so just get lost if all your going to do is troll this post.


  37. Pojken

    August 5, 2010 at 09:21

    I call bullshit. Play FarCry and then tell me Halo’s a “wide open FPS.”


  38. Dec

    August 12, 2010 at 00:10

    i will admit that i am a slight ps3 fanboy. but i have played xbox a lot (as in A LOT) and after playing gears 2, i playe uncharted 2 and, lets just say there is no comparison. uncharted 2 poos all over gears 2 and halo reach.

    uncharted 2 vs gears 2

    graphics: uncharted
    gameplay: uncharted
    voice acting: uncharted
    cutscenes: uncharted
    multiplayer: uncharted
    story: UNCHARTED!!!

    get the point.

    killzone 2 also will beat reach, an even if it doesnt, KILLZONE 3 PPL! microsoft will hve to make a new console to match the ps3. oh an btw; THE £40 you xbox fanboys spent on a year’s subscription to XBOX live, i can buy killzone 2 and uncharted 2 and still have £13 left. owned


  39. Bootstrap

    September 4, 2010 at 00:14

    We must be looking at completely different games…

    Killzone 2:





    Halo 3:


    Halo Reach:




    Halo Reach looks just fine. Even Halo 3’s textures are better than Killzone 2’s (which were pulled from the single player) as you can clearly see. Killzone’s graphics were amazing for entirely different reasons. Games tend to go towards darker color paletes and effects, because they can more effectively mask any shortcomings. Killzone 2 does this so well you don’t even notice. When the game is in motion it’s beautiful. Only when we stop to compare the roses do we see the thorns.


  40. Aussious

    September 4, 2010 at 09:09

    Ey no I am convinced that PS3 fanboys have infiltrated every gaming website and forum on the net! I get the point that Nick was making it had nothing to do with which game looks better but that competition has resulted in Reach looking way better than Halo 3 which I personally though was over hyped I mean I finished the the game twice and I still dont get what the fuss is about( then again im nt big on online multiplayer games), but looking at Reach it looks like something I would love to play.As for the whole graphics thing, its a pointless arguement yes Killzone 2 & 3 look great, but Halo series is a great experience(to the Millions of those who love it)and Reach is going to outsell both Killzone 2 & 3 COMBINED in a matter of weeks and thats not an exageration BY ANY MEASURE just check the pre orders its crazy! I am not a Halo fan but I am greatful to Halo because without Halo there would be no 360…Frankly I loved the PS2 but without the 360 games like Mass Effect would have stayed PC only and we still be playing corny unprogressive JRPG’s like FFXIII (says me a huge FFVII & VIII fan )and frankly I’m over JRPG’s well except for Persona which I love. But my point is heck I love games unconditionally I mean went from N64 to PS2 to 360 who know my next console could be a Wii HD or a PS4.


  41. Aussious

    September 4, 2010 at 11:20

    Very interesting fact the leader of Team Noble in Reach Cammander Carter is infact a South African a Durbanite, born in Biko. This might not matter in 26th century but in does today. I have sneaking suspicion dt he is a descendant of Pierre Spies.


  42. solid snake

    September 18, 2010 at 18:15

    @Bootstrap this is killzone 2 what the finish product really looks like in terms of graphics presentation.

    I personally own this game & played through all the single player & played multiplayer too & everything close up in killzone 2 it’s very clean & detailed from gun models to facial models.so don’t sit here kid yourself.


  43. solid snake

    September 18, 2010 at 18:37

    Here’s halo reach’s graphics presentation below in this link:

    Here’s halo 3’s graphics presentation below in this link:

    Just for the hell of it here’s killzone 3 alpha graphics presentation so far below in link:


  44. Bootstrap

    September 22, 2010 at 10:25

    I own the game as well, so my points weren’t made from ignorance. Notice I specifically mentioned it looks far better *in motion* than in screenshots. This is actually my main point. It’s difficult to make your game look equally good on all fronts. Halo always had great textures, something you can’t really see in the middle of a firefight. You probably felt the stills I picked for killzone didn’t do it justice, because screenshots in general don’t show the game’s strengths. It’s a pretty noticeable discrepancy. Truth is you would be hard pressed to find better ones. Guerilla chose to have a more contained shooter experience and it reflects in their presentation(Maelstra Barrens), whereas Bungie devotes a lot of their resources to expansive environments & encounters that stretch for miles(Reach: Tip of the Spear). For Halo the detail has been there, you just have to see it.


  45. solid snake

    September 23, 2010 at 02:25

    All the compressed data on the dual layer dvd games are upscale in high definition on 360 because the 360 insn’t designed or capable of displaying a true pixel per pixel native hd display even with a hdmi connection.Developers use short cuts to achieve a believeable visual presentation in 360 games by using the avalible techquies with the gpu onboard the 360’s motherboard like baking in lighting,shadows,reflections,refractions ect…on top of & around objects,characters,structures,environments ect..to mask the amount of visablity of low resolution textures,jags ect…


  46. Nick de Bruyne

    September 23, 2010 at 02:46

    But if the textures still look that good then I don’t really see a problem with doing it that way?

    I am pretty sure that the best textures I have seen have been on PS3, but the Xbox 360 doesn’t look much different to be honest and in multi-platform games I can’t say that I’ve ever seen much difference at all.


  47. Aussious aka Reach killedzone 3

    September 23, 2010 at 09:28

    I just finished God of war 3 and to be honest the first couple of hours were great very scenamatic but slowly its starts to feel and even look very similiar to God of War 2 infact I would go as far as to say I was more impressed with what GOW 2 did on the PS2 than what GOW3 did on PS3 the fact that the gameplay mechanics are indentical between the three games makes GOW3 seem very last gen in my opnion. As for Uncharted 2 I tried to play it and 2 hours in I felt like I was playing Tomb Raider with a dude, a dude that really annoyed the crap out of me the “Hollywood archtype” lead character just killed the game for me. The one game that truly impressed me and made me a bit envious was Infamous theres absolutely no game like it on the 360 ( maybe Prototype) from gameplay, graphics and the story brilliant. MGS4 and now Infamous are the only games on PS3 I be interested in playing.


  48. solid snake

    September 23, 2010 at 16:09

    That’s debatable because you have to factor in which platform is the lead platform for the development of the multiplatform game & is the multiplatform engine flexiable enough to scale to either platforms hardware without having to scale anything down in order for it to fit on either format,maintain stability & playability.


  49. Nick de Bruyne

    September 23, 2010 at 16:25

    It just also depends on the developer most of the time, I mean I have seen some games on both consoles with spectacular visuals, textures etc. while you see others that are bland, low res and choppy.


  50. solid snake

    September 23, 2010 at 16:46

    This is why a good handful of multiplatform developers are starting to choose PS3 over 360 as the lead platform for more games now because of the unrestricted creative freedom that’s avalible to developers with PS3 that they can’t get out of 360.Everybody should of known this day was going to come sooner or later because it shouldn’t be a suprise to anybody given the capabilities of PS3 over 360.


  51. Nick de Bruyne

    September 23, 2010 at 16:52

    I can’t say I agree, both consoles have their ups and downs but more importantly, both are very similar in terms of performance. The differences that are there are minimal and not nearly in the same range as comparing say… a console game to a brand new beefed up PC gaming rig.


  52. Bootstrap

    September 24, 2010 at 09:28

    This is somewhat true, though the 360 does have the ability for AA to counter jags. The file compression is due to space limitations rather than the hardware’s inability to output an HD signal. The HDMI output actually DOES ensure a native 1080p display, since the signal isn’t analog like the older 360 models. Think about it, why would they even bother adding HDMI if it did absolutely nothing for the resolution? You just aren’t going to see any *games* push that resolution natively. It’s rare to see that even for ps3 games. One reason being the need for higher res textures (more space) to support the display. Also most devs don’t want to take that big of a performance hit when 720p looks just as good to most people. Any pc enthusiast will tell you how difficult it is to find the right balance for a graphics intensive game. The first sacrifice you usually make is for a lower resolution. It’s not much of an advantage though considering the consequences. The Blu-Ray’s capacity is more of a detriment than a solution. All PS3 games(especially exclusives) have access to that space, so there is a very good reason why Guerilla didn’t use that strategy. Sure you would have the best looking textures, but think of what it would mean if you were to fill an entire Blu-Ray disc with uncompressed files for everything… If you tried to stream all that during gameplay you would be faced with ridiculously long load times, or massive installs to compensate. You forfeit your experience for great quality. Whatever points a game would get for doing so, it would immediately lose after the player had to wait a day for them to load. MGS4 is a prime example. I appreciate that they tried this approach for their audio, since I’m a bit of an audiophile, but remember how long you had to wait in between chapters to play? Even though the ps3 has the ability to store higher res textures on the disc, the technology hasn’t caught up enough to retrieve them at a reasonable rate, so most devs choose not to do so. Notice there aren’t as many mandatory installs for your games nowadays? KZ2 surprised me with no install, although I did run into a freezing problem when my available space dropped below 10 gigs, but you can google that later.

    Anyway I’m not trying to debate hardware, because I don’t really care. Besides we’re judging the end result here regardless of tech are we not? The areas in which Halo excels graphically aren’t “in your face” effects or other things games like Gears or Killzone smother you with. It’s easy to notice that awesome smoke effect when it’s consistently in play. It’s not the absolute best, but it’s still leagues above most in certain areas. Who stops to inspect individual scratches on a surface or to watch what’s going on in the distance? Not everybody has that kind of attention span, so the game’s best qualities aren’t seen by all. The more you scrutinize it and realize what’s really going on, the more you gain perspective and appreciate what it does.


  53. solid snake

    October 8, 2010 at 19:28

    It’s come to my attention that the majority of people who debate about 360 & PS3’s hardware capabilities don’t seem to completely comprehend & factor in all the onboard components inside the 360 & PS3 before making a proper technical hardware anlysis.Same goes for the majority of people debating about games weather exclusive or multiplatform don’t completely comprehend game sign to make a proper technical software anlysis.


  54. TheBeasht

    October 9, 2010 at 09:24

    What’s a “weather exclusive”?… Excuse me, I’m just not very familiar with the games development process or the technical lingo. :silly:


  55. solid snake

    October 16, 2010 at 06:05

    Then start boning up on game design/software programming & computer hardware engineering.


  56. liquidviag

    October 27, 2010 at 07:00

    Aloha! liquid viagra


  57. Aussious

    December 17, 2010 at 14:08

    I recently played Killzone 2, and here I was expecting some super powered Halo killer of an FPS… i was very dissapointed to find a rather OK looking game with graphics that aren’t really revolutionary or ground breaking really poeple can exharagerate. I fell asleep after like 30 minutes of starting up the game!1


  58. Mr Peace

    December 17, 2010 at 16:56

    Bollocks! I seriously doubt you actually played it. How do I know this, because you supposedly were bored by Killzone 2 (BALLS!! In terms of immersion Killzone 2 eats Halo 3 and ODST).

    Had you actually played it, a valid piece of criticism would have been the curious height of the protagonist, or that he just seems shorter than everyone else. If you had played it, you wouldn’t have posted something about how awesome the helghast are, and how you’d rather want to be one of them.

    So no, you didn’t play it. Now stop trolling and go back to your failbox.


  59. Aussious

    December 17, 2010 at 21:50

    First off yes, what I did like about the game was the intro i though it did great to introduce the game, having played the first on I recognised Rico I suppose the guy you played in the first one has bn promoted nt sure if he ws da dude in da cap never rely cared much so the story. The voice acting is very solid, but the genric story lets it down. first thing i noticed ws the crappy textures on the female scientist u meet b4 the mission starts something Halo 3 was notorius for, the enviroments look very ‘samy’. The Helgast are the worst coz like in the first game they all look the same with those cheesy red goggles. The effects are brilliant though the actual graphics not so nice, I’ve seen better textures in the first Gears….


  60. Aussious

    December 17, 2010 at 21:58

    First off you’re right I only played like an hour and got really bored, so I didn’t rely play the game coz its just not what everyone made it out to be…It felt more like de ja vu,nothing about the game stands out. what I did like about the game was the intro i though it did great to introduce the game, having played the first on I recognised Rico I suppose the guy you played in the first one has bn promoted nt sure if he ws da dude in da cap never rely cared much so the story. The voice acting is very solid, but the genric story lets it down. first thing i noticed ws the crappy textures on the female scientist u meet b4 the mission starts something Halo 3 was notorius for, the enviroments look very ‘samy’. The Helgast are the worst coz like in the first game they all look the same with those cheesy red goggles. The effects are brilliant though the actual graphics not so nice, I’ve seen better textures in the first Gears. FYI Kinect just Cleared 4M…


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Check Also

Sony Aims to Launch 10 Live-Service Games by 2026

During a recent investor call, Sony revealed that they plan to release 10 new live service…