By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Rpruett on 08 February 2009
Edit Thread
C8 said:
The_God_of_War said:
Halo 3 took around as long as KZ 2 with a similar budget. And it doesn't look as good, nowhere near. And if MS did ever make something like KZ 2, I don't see why you would regret getting a PS3, just get a 360 as well. And yes, the demo really is incredible.

 

I've no idea what MS spent on Halo but Halo is not known for graphics, it's known for incredibly balanced online play that doesn't get old for a very long time (just look at the number of people still playing it online every day a year and a half after it's launch - with the possible exception of COD4, nothing comes close in terms of competetive online play.

Halo's graphics are "very good" but they are not incredible.  Gears is far more of a graphical treat (both Gears 1 and Gears 2) - but for Gears it's online play is "very good" but not incredible.

Killzone - well, remains to be seen for me (have PS3, don't have demo code) - beautiful graphics are a great thing to have, but it needs more if I'm going to spend my time and money on it.

The original Halo for the Xbox certainly was hailed for it's graphical presentation for the time.    This new 'reasoning' about Halo being all about "balanced online play" and garbage is just a defense mechanism for a game that has yielded disappointing graphics for the past two iterations.

Halo is a great game though, but acting like graphics wasn't much of a concern in it's design is a total fallacy.