By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Mr Puggsly said:
DonFerrari said:


Probably you too are talking about different aspects of the graphics... because yes on a balance Halo 4 would perhaps go closer to scale and Killzone to photo realism. To anyone uninformed they could think that it's due a very weaker HW or gen difference

I certainly wouldn't say that there is a gen (or even half gen) difference between the 2 first, like there is to the third pic... but you can't deny that Killzone on a screenshot is a lot more impressive than Halo

I've played all the PS3 games known for their graphics. And my feeling has generally been these games look great, but feel small in scale.

Hence, smaller levels can focus on greater detail.

Looking at a picture I see Killzone has more polish. But the amount of characters and size of the environments in Halo 4 were another level than Killzone. I say that as some who owns those games.

Bottom line, I think we can agree the generation apart in graphics comment is nonsense. Personally I feel BF4 on PS3 is more impressive than Killzone. That's a game that made me feel these 7th gen machines are capable of alot.

On a side note, Killzone on PS2 had horrible, bland, graphics. Certainly not the benchmark for 6th gen or even PS2 graphics.

Agree with everything... just justified that for a uninformed person that just saw a screenshot of Halo and KZ it would appear KZ is on a lot more powerfull machine, but as you said it was used to other important tasks... but we can't expect common customer to evaluate correctly



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."