By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Resistance 2 vs Halo Reach [Lens of Truth]

mantlepiecek on 10 January 2011
AWESOM-O said:

---------------------


Who are you talking to?



Around the Network
AWESOM-O on 10 January 2011

ooops give me a minute here



AWESOM-O on 10 January 2011
Nsanity said:
Reasonable said:

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).

When you have large number of advanced I.A. on screen, massive draw distances, dynamic lights, 1000's of colliding particles, insane level use of alpha at full resolution to boot none something obviously is going to be effected but for some reason lens of truth doesn't take any of that into consideration.

Hahaha you hate articles against xbox products dont you hahaha.... You never have even played resistance 2 have you?? NOPE.... I know that by all the xbox stuff.... Anyway onto this topic.... Graphics wise i feel resistance 2 and halo reach are about the same, certain parts of the game i lean one way or the other..... I do agree with you with gears of war 2, hell gears of war is the only reason i still own my Xbox 360.....  



AWESOM-O on 10 January 2011
mantlepiecek said:
AWESOM-O said:

Hahaha you hate articles against xbox products dont you hahaha.... You never have even played resistance 2 have you?? NOPE.... I know that by all the xbox stuff.... Anyway onto this topic.... Graphics wise i feel resistance 2 and halo reach are about the same, certain parts of the game i lean one way or the other..... I do agree with you with gears of war 2, hell gears of war is the only reason i still own my Xbox 360.....  


Who are you talking to?


bottom of the page i hit reply instead of quote by accident



Nsanity on 10 January 2011
AWESOM-O said:
Nsanity said:
Reasonable said:

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).

When you have large number of advanced I.A. on screen, massive draw distances, dynamic lights, 1000's of colliding particles, insane level use of alpha at full resolution to boot none something obviously is going to be effected but for some reason lens of truth doesn't take any of that into consideration.

Hahaha you hate articles against xbox products dont you hahaha.... You never have even played resistance 2 have you?? NOPE

I hate misinformed articles and yes, i have spent some time on Resistance 2 in my brothers flat.



Around the Network
AWESOM-O on 10 January 2011
Nsanity said:
AWESOM-O said:
Nsanity said:
Reasonable said:

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).

When you have large number of advanced I.A. on screen, massive draw distances, dynamic lights, 1000's of colliding particles, insane level use of alpha at full resolution to boot none something obviously is going to be effected but for some reason lens of truth doesn't take any of that into consideration.

Hahaha you hate articles against xbox products dont you hahaha.... You never have even played resistance 2 have you?? NOPE

I hate misinformed articles and yes, i have spent some time on Resistance 2 in my brothers flat.


So from what i see from past comments every ps3 article is a misinformed article cause you comment on all of em with stupid excuses..... 

And what did you think of resistance 2 gameplay wise..... Cause ive beat resistance twice and halo reach once.... I just want an opinion, im not gonna argue with it.... :) 



Chevinator123 on 10 January 2011

resistance 3s graphics look really good



Nsanity on 10 January 2011
AWESOM-O said:
Nsanity said:
AWESOM-O said:
Nsanity said:
Reasonable said:

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).

When you have large number of advanced I.A. on screen, massive draw distances, dynamic lights, 1000's of colliding particles, insane level use of alpha at full resolution to boot none something obviously is going to be effected but for some reason lens of truth doesn't take any of that into consideration.

Hahaha you hate articles against xbox products dont you hahaha.... You never have even played resistance 2 have you?? NOPE

I hate misinformed articles and yes, i have spent some time on Resistance 2 in my brothers flat.


So from what i see from past comments every ps3 article is a misinformed article cause you comment on all of em with stupid excuses..... 

 

My stupid excuses are back up with reliable sources about one is arguably technologically more advanced than the other.



Nsanity on 10 January 2011
AWESOM-O said:
Nsanity said:
AWESOM-O said:
Nsanity said:
Reasonable said:

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).

When you have large number of advanced I.A. on screen, massive draw distances, dynamic lights, 1000's of colliding particles, insane level use of alpha at full resolution to boot none something obviously is going to be effected but for some reason lens of truth doesn't take any of that into consideration.

Hahaha you hate articles against xbox products dont you hahaha.... You never have even played resistance 2 have you?? NOPE

I hate misinformed articles and yes, i have spent some time on Resistance 2 in my brothers flat.

And what did you think of resistance 2 gameplay wise..... Cause ive beat resistance twice and halo reach once.... I just want an opinion, im not gonna argue with it.... :) 

From what i played, if felt boring compared to the original Resistance fall of Man which was much better game.



Badassbab on 10 January 2011

I thought Resistence 2 looked pretty good but not as good as Gears 2 which came out within a couple months of each other. I also really enyoyed it, in fact gameplay wise I think it's easily better than Killzone 2 though of course Killzone 2 is technically on another level. 

The thing about the LOT comparison is first of all I think comparing different games tech can be misleading as they both set out to do different things but while LOT go on about the water effects in R2 being better, why they didn't go on about the explosions and alpha effects being far superior on Reach is bit baffling. Also the HDR lighting is better on Reach. Every plasma shot has it's own light source. But let's face it, Reach isn't the best looking game on either console though I like the fact that it's different. And also let us 360 fanboys swallow our pride and admit technically the 360 has nothing on GOW3 and U2. Though I did see Gears of War 3 and Bulletstorm on 360 at the Eurogamer Expo and boy did they look very, very good. Epic really know how to push the 360.