No, on paper in terms of tech Crysis 2, even on console, destroys Killzone 3. Crysis 2 has things like real time dynamic global illumination. The particle systems are better. The textures are better. The scale is bigger. The destructibility is greater. It beats Killzone 3 on basically every level.
kaveti6616, when you watch footage from Reach like the video I linked to you honestly just shrug your shoulders and think 'those are normal graphics, nothing special'?
If that is the case all I can say is that you and I perceive graphics very differently. Those graphics look exceptionally good to me. Definitely among the best graphics on consoles.
I'm not even saying I think it looks as good as Killzone 2 or Killzone 3, I am just saying that I ...
What is Killzone 2 doing that so much more impressive. As I see it they both have their unique strengths. Halo Reach has better textures, better character models and it has more open, expansive environments. Killzone 2 has better post processing effects and lighting, but the textures and character models are weaker and the environments are more closed off.
Of course you would say that, PS3 fanboy. Halo Reach is a 360 exclusive while those other games are not.
It doesn't just look like previous Halos. And it most certainly is a graphical powerhouse. The quality of the lighting and textures over a large area is extremely impressive. Very few games have that combination. This short video doesn't show it so well, but this video really shows what I am talking about: 5645d ago 12 agree3 disagreeView comment
All I know is that one of the previews I read today said it was a long journey. But I don't know how literal they were speaking.
That's not true. Dead Space was better on the 360 and the rest of those games were essentially equal except Ninja Gaiden 2 which was better on the PS3.
http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...
"it's very clear indeed that Dead Space is first and foremost an Xbox 360 game." "For those with both consoles, the more stable frame-rate makes the 360 bu...
So why is it that people think GOW3 proves anything about the power of the PS3?
We know the PS2 was about half as powerful as the Xbox. It had half the RAM and the processor was about half as powerful. Nevertheless, Sony Santa Monica created GOW2 on that console and it looked beautiful. It had huge scale, great character models and fairly detailed environments.
So if SSM was able to achieve all that on the PS2 why is it surprising that they were able to ma...
By the same token the PS3 couldn't run Halo Reach exactly as it is.
Both games could run on either console. They would simply be modified in certain ways to take advantage of the unique strengths of each console.
Ridiculous. The 360 and PS3 both have some advantages over the other. The 360 has a better GPU with higher pixel fill rate and a unified architecture, the memory architecture is better as well, not to mention that the OS eats up less of the available RAM, and finally the CPU has greater performance at general purpose computing tasks. The PS3 on the other hand has the SPUs that it can utilize to do certain types of graphical tasks.
All we can say for sure is that Halo Reach...
I agree with you. I've detected the same bias in them. Screw biased journalism. If you can't maintain a decent amount of impartiality you have no business being a journalist.
Good points Alpha-Male22.
In the end though the most anticipated title should also sell the most. I mean, it only stands to reason. Since if people choose to buy something other than the most anticipated title that shows that it wasn't really their most anticipated game after all.
By that measure I believe Halo Reach very well could be the most anticipated title. It has the most pre-orders and I have no doubt that it will outsell GOW3. The only ot...
I'll tell you what's wrong with it: the assumption that the PS3 is more powerful than the 360 in the first place. It's not. The 360 has a superior GPU, superior memory architecture, the OS uses less of the available RAM, and the CPU has more general purpose processing power.
Sure, if programmed for in precise way, using massive amounts of parallelization the PS3's SPUs can make up for some of the ways that its GPU is weaker. For certain types of tasks it ...
Blu-ray will be plenty enough for next gen games.
True, but you can't completely disregard the difference in clock speed either. Then there is the fact that the PS2 also had half the RAM as the Xbox. It was unquestionably the weakest hardware by a large margin.
In any case, this generation the two HD consoles are much more equal in power.
comp_ali, I'm pretty sure it was sarcasm. You need to turn your sarcasm indicator up. Unless you were talking about 120FPS in which case I wouldn't agree. It seems like a reasonable question.
This is getting plain stupid. We already know the console versions aren't going to be up to the level of the PC version. But honestly, we already know how Fallout 3 ran on the 360 and it was just fine. Does anybody really believe that now suddenly the sequel, which looks exactly the same, is suddenly going to look worse on the 360? Get real.
Edit: I've read a few comments from PC fanboys that have said things like the 360 version would look "horrid" com...
I know what you mean. It's so close, yet so far away.
For those making a big deal about these PC journalists' comments, here are a couple videos so you can see for yourself the kind of differences we are talking about.
360 version, Crashsite map: http://www.jeuxvideo.tv/vid...
PC version, Crashsite map: http://www.jeuxvideo.tv/vid...
It might have been, but somehow I missed it. This is fantastic news.
C. most likely.
harrykid32 is a ps3 fanboy and his motivation is not to praise Mass Effect 2, but to somehow minimize Halo Reach.
Why did he even have to answer like that? It's not like you can really disagree with the fact that Halo Reach is a juggernaut.