Interesting comparison.  I wasn't surprised that on pure resolution/frame rate really.  Insomniac are pretty capable technically and have a good record of no screen tearing, solid engines going back to PS2.

Bungie are I would argue equally capabale but - a little oddly I thought - they pushed Reach balance between performance/frame rate a little further with the result there is some tearing and frame rate drops (tiny amounts mind you) which has been noted in numerous analysis including DF.  It's not much, but it's there.

Reach though looks more polished overall I believe, as is clear from many segments of the video.  Resistance 2 looked amazing at times, and featured big levels with lots of enemies, but it could also look poor as well due to lack of polish.  Playing it you kind of went from wow to hmm.  In quite a few spots there was literaly the feeling final detail work on that part of the level hadn't been fully completed.

Overall pure performance seemed close though, with Resistance 2 just edging it due to no tearing, etc. but nonethelss that doesn't mean it looks better in a consistent way.  I think the AA in Reach was a little better though in terms of implementation - but hopefully Insonmniac are looking at using the more recent techniques developed for AA on PS3.

I am very curious to see just how well Resistance 3 performs as I understand Insomniac have finally increased their development time and I'm expecting a similar, rock solid engine / frame rate a'la Resistance 2 but much better level of polish throughout, really showing what Insomniac are capable of.

Really though, you're talking about two solid developers producing two very solid exclusive engines.  Neither I think is seen as a developer that pushes the envelope with visuals, but I think both tend to show a good balance to performance vs visual rendering vs the developers who push things to the extent a lot of tear, etc. is present.

Due to their smaller sales/market presence Insomniac's solid technical capabilities tend to be overlooked I find, while conversely, due to the success of Halo, unrealistic expectations are often heaped on Bungie technically, despite the fact no Bungie title has ever been a true envelope pusher technically (not that they're slouches by any means, but they're focused on gameplay and overall balance as it should be vs trying to push things technically just for its own sake).

Interesting comparison.  I wasn't surprised that on pure resolution/frame rate really.  Insomniac are pretty capable technically and have a good record of no screen tearing, solid engines going back to PS2.

Bungie are I would argue equally capabale but - a little oddly I thought - they pushed Reach balance between performance/frame rate a little further with the result there is some tearing and frame rate drops (tiny amounts mind you) which has been noted in numerous analysis including DF.  It's not much, but it's there.

Reach though looks more polished overall I believe, as is clear from many segments of the video.  Resistance 2 looked amazing at times, and featured big levels with lots of enemies, but it could also look poor as well due to lack of polish.  Playing it you kind of went from wow to hmm.  In quite a few spots there was literaly the feeling final detail work on that part of the level hadn't been fully completed.

Overall pure performance seemed close though, with Resistance 2 just edging it due to no tearing, etc. but nonethelss that doesn't mean it looks better in a consistent way.  I think the AA in Reach was a little better though in terms of implementation - but hopefully Insonmniac are looking at using the more recent techniques developed for AA on PS3.

I am very curious to see just how well Resistance 3 performs as I understand Insomniac have finally increased their development time and I'm expecting a similar, rock solid engine / frame rate a'la Resistance 2 but much better level of polish throughout, really showing what Insomniac are capable of.

Really though, you're talking about two solid developers producing two very solid exclusive engines.  Neither I think is seen as a developer that pushes the envelope with visuals, but I think both tend to show a good balance to performance vs visual rendering vs the developers who push things to the extent a lot of tear, etc. is present.

Due to their smaller sales/market presence Insomniac's solid technical capabilities tend to be overlooked I find, while conversely, due to the success of Halo, unrealistic expectations are often heaped on Bungie technically, despite the fact no Bungie title has ever been a true envelope pusher technically (not that they're slouches by any means, but they're focused on gameplay and overall balance as it should be vs trying to push things technically just for its own sake).

Resistance did perform little better in that video ,but Tech wise Halo Reach wins.

Why? Don't just say something without backing it up. How is Halo Reachs tech better? I'm not being a fanboy but when a website Xbox 360 fans love to bring up when comparing PS3 and Xbox 360 multiplats together says a 2 year old PS3 title outperforms the Xbox 360s biggest exclusive and someone says that Halos techs better, well I wanna know why you think the techs better or are you just letting your bias talk?

You sir are a lier.

Lens Of Truth: We felt once Killzone 2 was announced Insomniacs Resistance series kinda fell off the radar, and Killzone 2 took the spotlight as the PlayStation 3’s top exclusive First Person Shooter. Furthermore, Resistance 1 or 2 has never had an performance analysis done on either one of them, so we were really interested to see how Insomniac has grasped the PlayStation 3 architecture thus far.

For the record Resistance 2 was touted as a visual powerhouse and was put head to head against Gears 2 many times  by it's fans and gaming sites.

Really? It might have better graphics, but resistance is one of the worst designed shooters i've played. You really can't compare resistance to halo and I don't even like halo or have an xbox.