unfair comparison, halo rach isnt reaching out to be best looking fps.

what will be great if killzone 3 is shown this year, would be more credible comparison.

the only way for reach to better in grafix is go on to multiple dvd which it cant.

@ Killzoned I played halo from the begining and when i played halo3 i got into the level 50's bracket for MLG and team slayer list...competition is hard has hell

I bought a ps3 and got my red ribbion my first week of playing...killzone has about 100k players a week...halo3 is older and has 100k online a night

dont say kz2 takes more skill lol

I can tell you these screenshots do not do this game justice. First of all we are comparing an alpha build which is unfair and second of all I have the ViDoc downloaded in HD quality with Dolby Digital sound on my 360 and it looks beautiful and sounds fantastic.

Another thing. Killzone may look amazing but it's certainly not without it's flaws due to the limitations of the PS3 hardware in certain areas. Quite a lot of low res textures (there's only 256MB of ram to play with), the application of Quincux AA which while it smoothes off most edges very nicely, it also blurs every texture giving it a dull look. Also low res alpha effects due to the PS3's limited bandwidth (though the explosions are well animated), long load times thanks to a lack of an option to install (only a 2 x Blu Ray speed) but worst of all in order to achieve the high graphical standards it frequently suffers from slowdown. Now a lot of it is minor in nature but it happen quite often which is quite annoying.

Halo Reach isn't going to suffer from any of those though it might not have as good AA and lower resolution. Also Reach will have far bigger open spaces to fight in with a lot more enemies (that don't respawn), better better AI and more variety in the levels with much more colour. That's what Halo is about- FUN. I just hope that Bungie stick to it's rock solid 30FPS we are all used to even if it means sacrificing visual fidelity. Though it looks better than Halo 3, it's still a (massively) upgraded Halo 3 engine, not a brand new graphics engine.

Also there's no character in Halo as annoying as Rico Let's hope Reach is the same!

Crysis was on one DL-DVD......disk space isnt an issue with pushing graphics.

So crappy control make a game more realistic and competitive huh? I don't know about you but when I tell my hand to move it moves, it doesn't take half a second before it reacts.

Also if you want a challenge I dare you to go into the MLG playlist for Halo 3. You don't know competition until you've played a round of MLG. 

OT: The comparison is clearly flawed when your comparing a game that has almost a year to go with one thats already out. For those of you that don't understand game development the graphical bells and whistles are what come at the very end of development.

Killzone 2 is almost 2 years older than Halo: Reach, yet I don't see much of a difference.

One of the screenshots used is a concept art and not an outdoor environment real time screenshot of Reach.

Badly researched article and amateurish error.

The amount of bias in this thread is just staggering. Can't we all just enjoy our exclusives without bashing the others? I mean I understand comparisons or giving reasons why you like x game over y game, but to actually say y game sucks is just ridiculous.

Reach looks pretty darn good from those screenshots, to actually say they suck is just blatantly bias. And as others have said, a comparison can't really be done until the game has released. However, when it comes out it can go either for or against it. It could have even better visuals as seen in the pics, or they may find they were too ambitious and have to scale it back a little. Which is a reason I think people on the 360 side are at fault as well when they say Reach will have this and that, or be better in certain ways, when no one has played it nor do they know what the final product will be like. Either way, I'm sure it will be fun and above Halo 3 in visuals.

It's also pretty dumb for someone to say one is better as a fact, when it's truly just an opinion. Just because Killzone doesn't have something that Halo has/will have doesn't make Halo BETTER (or vice versa), it makes it DIFFERENT. Not every FPS is going to be the same, nor should it. Otherwise these games would begin to be very boring.

One last thing, I don't understand when people say that FPS controls on the PS3 suck. I've played Halo on 360 and various FPS on PS3, and for me it's pretty much the same. The only difference, besides slight variations in sensitivity of the axes, is the positioning of the your hands on the controller. Even my buddy, a Halo fan, doesn't get all the fuss about controls. I personally prefer the alligned analog sticks of the DS3, but have never found the 360's controller unusable. Now I know Killzone's default settings have a lower sensitivity for the axes, from what I have heard it is to create a more weighted/realistic feel, which I actually like. But for those who don't, it just takes a quick trip to the axes sensitivity option to fix it.

Killzone is not fixable and I don't see here anyone talking about inferior controls of FPS on the PS3 in general.

The only thing I can't stand is I'm used to the right trigger when shooting stuff (which is fucking awesome) so I normally set it on R2 on the DS3, but the button are so slippery, that I had to buy a 3rd party add-on to play properly.

It's sad that when a developer decides to introduce new gameplay elements into their game, it's now considered broken because it isn't the same or as easy to use as Halo or Call of Duty. Anyone who think's Killzone's controls are crappy, either havn't played the game or have reduced ther adaption to new game's by a significant amount.

Well anyway, Reach look's fantastic, the colour and creative stage designs will be welcome. I just hope they make the AI more challenging and at least tighten the gameplay a little bit, just to make it less floaty.