ODST: Halo Evolved

By Richard Leadbetter Published 6 June, 2009

Taking the fight to Killzone 2.

Page 1 of 2

The earth-shattering arrival of Killzone 2 earlier this year had serious ramifications for Microsoft's reputation for hosting the most technologically advanced shooters on console. Its answer: ODST, a brand new FPS set in the Halo universe but separate and apart from the super-soldier heroics of the iconic Master Chief.

ODST certainly has its work cut out. A cursory inspection of Killzone 2 reveals a beautiful-looking game that arguably wipes the floor with Halo 3 in terms of graphical prowess. It's rendered in full 720p with anti-aliasing for smoother edges, the motion blur model is one of the most advanced in the industry and its artwork, AI and animation are state-of-the-art. Guerrilla Games' epic also works so well on a technical level because the art assets are built around the limitations of both the engine and the host hardware - weaknesses become advantages in the overall presentation. Take for example the implementation of quincunx anti-aliasing: maligned by many for the blur it adds to texture detail, its peculiar visual look interfaces perfectly with the game's motion blur techniques. The Killzone makers seemingly targeted their engine development towards the final effect they desired and this focus paid dividends.

All of which leaves the two-year-old Halo 3 tech looking rather aged. Levels can look low in detail and basic in structure, bright colour schemes often show up the game's sub-HD 1152x640 resolution and in turn add to the jagginess incurred due to the lack of anti-aliasing. Enemy animations are clearly a generation behind Guerrilla's offering. And yet, analysis of the gameplay footage revealed at E3 shows that the self-same two-year-old technology with apparently only minor modifications is powering Microsoft's biggest first-person shooter of the year: ODST. Does the Halo tech have what it takes to regain the advantage in the FPS arms race?

By the end of this feature, hopefully you'll see that the utilisation of the existing engine makes perfect sense, that there's actually method behind the madness, and that Bungie's tech is still at the cutting edge in many different ways. We'll be looking at Halo 3 in more depth, commenting on its strengths and weaknesses and putting the game through performance analysis. Facts and figures about the game derived from presentations made by Bungie itself are the icing on this pretty substantial editorial confection.

But first, the money shot: a breakdown of the E3 ODST trailer, with commentary from Digital Foundry's Alex Goh and an emphasis on what's new, changed, improved or re-focused with the new game.

ODST deconstructed in our analysis, note that video is running at 30 per cent speed.

Overall then, despite a fresh new look, we're not seeing any massive advances in the core tech here. The sub-HD resolution and lack of anti-aliasing remain (though Bungie's software-scaling algorithm is usually very effective), while the core improvements we can pick out include the addition of a grain filter and some edge line rendering. Cinematic animations have benefited from a big upgrade, and additional footage unleashed during E3 shows that this is a global improvement, affecting in-game too. Lighting has been refined for a more dramatic impact (perhaps inducing some black crush but effective nonetheless) while self-lighting on the main view weapon is also much improved.

There's little doubt that the game sees a significant departure from the Halo 3 style: more 'war-like', more gritty. If the seismic impact of Killzone 2 has influenced anything, it's right there, even if the ultra-colourful effects that are the Halo hallmark are still present and correct. Based on what we've seen, the approach to ODST appears to be very similar to the Guerrilla Games line of thinking: concentrate on artwork and gameplay scenarios that makes the most of the engine's strengths. In this respect, it has to be said that Bungie has plenty of thoroughbred tech DNA to work with.

Taking apart Bungie's rendering technology in this Halo 3 analysis.

The focus of this video is Halo 3's rendering properties: its lighting, how it handles its materials and showcasing some of what the engine is capable of, not least of which is its implementation of high dynamic range rendering - something you don't see very often done 'properly' on Xbox 360 titles. Most games on the Microsoft console utilise bloom effects or less impressive MDR rendering, but Bungie went for the technically far more challenging approach. Strictly speaking it's not 'true' HDR (the developer itself describes it as a hybrid of MDR and HDR) the implementation in-game is the key.

Page 1 of 2

Comments (118) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Scribble #1 3 years ago

    Looks like the Halo 3 engine holds up OK today, not brilliantly but OK.

    I do wonder how much extra work will be done on it for ODST, will it be Halo 3.5 or Halo 3.1?

    The suggestion that Killzone is designed around the PS3's deficiencies is an interesting revelation, but is it not also the case that Halo 3 is designed around the 360's, they just had less time to do it in?

  • Scimarad #2 3 years ago

    TBH, Halo 3 looked fine in screenshots. It's only when I actually started to play it at home that it started to dawn on me that it looked a tad crap compared to a lot of other 360 games. Of course, a lot of people seemed to have a problem with admitting this at the time...

  • #3 3 years ago

    Cant say im all that impressed. To me, a lay person, Kz2 looks to shit all over this visually. I don't care for the technicals behind it nor will the vast majority.

    Kz2 is pure eye candy; this is the same, but just not as sweet. Then I will admit that ive hated every Halo game ever released. Probably taints my view somewhat

    :/

  • RedSparrows #4 3 years ago

    Halo 3/ODST look very nice, although clearly not up to Killzone 2 levels, but good enough to engender some 'ooo' moments (via art direction) and not detract from the sheer fun of playing the game. The effects are sweet too.

    N@, surely there's a difference between technical capability and 'best looking'. Halo is *very* smooth, but other games *look* better, and aren't riddled with bugs that detract heavily from the overall quality.

  • Scimarad #5 3 years ago

    Killzone 2 looks absolutely miles better than Halo 3 (or ODST) but Halo has never really been about the visuals anyway. The thing that set Halo (the first one) apart for me was the unfeasible amount of fun we had playing the split-screen campaign.
    Edited by 1 at 06/06/09 @ 09:35

  • Weezer #6 3 years ago

    Jeez, it's not ALL about the graphics...

  • RedSparrows #7 3 years ago

    'I don't care for the technicals behind it nor will the vast majority. '

    Those 'technicals' allow the rest of the game to function. Not speaking in reference to KZ2/Halo 3, but in general terms: You're essentially saying you want good looking fluff.

    Funny how this article deals with AI, lighting and sound, yet people have already jumped to using only straight up visual prowess as the marker of discussion.
    Edited by 2 at 06/06/09 @ 09:39

  • matrim83 #8 3 years ago

    As long its god big open levels with a shitload of covenant (like Halo 3) I dont really care if the graphics are better than H3 TBH.

  • Rodchenko #9 3 years ago

    What has KZ2 to do in an article that essentially compares two Halo Games with each other? Leadbetter never fails to make you look like a site scraping the bottom of the fanboy-barrel. And yes, 'quincunx anti-aliasing' is really an important thing to know about. I shall base my purchasing decisions on it from now on.

  • Xerx3s #10 3 years ago

    "And yet, analysis of the gameplay footage revealed at E3 shows that the self-same two-year-old technology with apparently only minor modifications is powering Microsoft's biggest first-person shooter of the year: ODST. Does the Halo tech have what it takes to regain the advantage in the FPS arms race? "

    Killzone may have the tech but halo has the art style and the fun factor, this is why it continues to outsell killzone.

  • bibalasvegas #11 3 years ago

    I like how they try to dress this up as a serious graphics article but really it was just written to entice the fanboys into a killzone vs halo argument. Poor show.

  • Dizzy #12 3 years ago

    TBH I do not think that MS/Bungie is worried about competing with KZ2.

    Halo is doing a lot more in the background... what you gain in one area you lose in another.
    Edited by 1 at 06/06/09 @ 10:44

  • rotmm #13 3 years ago

    I'm not exactly a massive fan of Halo. I played H1 and was somewhat underwhelmed (this was on the PC though) and never got around to H2 as a had a PS2 and not a Xbox.

    With Halo 3 I was determined to not be pulled into the hype, and yet on launch day I found myself in Zavvi in London with cash in hand picking up a copy. This was around 2pm and the queue was still huge.

    On playing the SP game I enjoyed it. It didn't blow my mind, but it was very fun. I've never played MP Halo and have never touched the MP portion of Halo 3, so maybe I don't really understand the staying power of the game. However, a few months back a friend came round and we played the campaign in co-op, and we just couldn't put it down. That, to me, is where the game really shines.

    Except, actually, where is really shines is that it doesn't look like any other shooter out there. Call of Duty, Killzone, Resistance, Socom, Ghost Recon, Medah of Honor, Rainbow Six, etc all pretty much fall into the same visual style. Halo games are out there on their own. I'm not saying they look better, but at the very least they look different.

    For me, that is pretty much a major achievement in itself.

  • Law07 #14 3 years ago

    I can expect farticusmaximus in here anytime soon, Halo is like his wife.

    Also - Halo 3 is not the best looking 360 game there is, I say Gears 2 is. Then again I don't own a 360 though.
    Edited by 1 at 06/06/09 @ 11:06

  • El-Dev #15 3 years ago

    This is interesting in that I know very little about what they were talking about but in how we have just seen a face-off between 2 high profile exclusives and now the PS3 won technical standards aren't that important.

    I don't really give a shit but we are about to see a lot of people making hypocrites of themselves.

  • MyPointIs #16 3 years ago

    Very lame article.

    What's next? an in depth comparison of Depth Perception Cameras vs Submilimiter Accuracy Recognition?

    " ... that'll keep the trolls clickling during the weekend"
    Edited by 1 at 06/06/09 @ 11:24

  • The-Bodybuilder #17 3 years ago

    So.....what exactly has Killzone2 got to do with this?
    Or is EG fishing for some fanboys to get some reader hits again?

  • Xerx3s #18 3 years ago

    "This is interesting in that I know very little about what they were talking about but in how we have just seen a face-off between 2 high profile exclusives and now the PS3 won technical standards aren't that important.

    I don't really give a shit but we are about to see a lot of people making hypocrites of themselves. "

    You compare 2 different games that do two totally different things. That doesn't make the rest hypocrites, that makes you an idiot. It's like comparing barbie's horse ride adventure to nintendogs. Also, speaking about a being a hypocrite: Claiming that you don't care while crying your hart out.

  • davisorle #19 3 years ago

    First of.. Do you remember when the first announcement for Killzone 2 came out and when it was released you tards..? lol Or you dont know that Halo 3 is OLD practically? cause its been like 2 years since it came out and i can guarantee you that Killzone 2 wont be as much as Halo 3 is 2 years from now. If this doesn't make sence to oyu read what i said a couple of times more. In 2 years from now lets see if u'll be talking about Killzone 2 lol.

    Anyhow the article was very great and detailed. Thoguht it was another Halo related boring article but this was thorough and good. thnx. Question though. The trailers and Demo of E3 on OSDT is final stage or might be improvements on the engine etc..?

  • IneptPercy #20 3 years ago

    Already knew this wouldn't be up to KZ2 standards, it does seem that bungie really are pushing the engine in a different direction. If they should is another question.

    To me this console war was lost by both when affordable PC's surpassed them both, but I can see why many would disagree.

  • woodnotes #21 3 years ago

    Killzone 2 was a lovely shade of grey. With a bit of brown.

  • des #22 3 years ago

    What is Killzone 2?

  • El-Dev #23 3 years ago

    Xerx3s, idiot indeed. But the fact is that this article is showing how 2 high profile FPS's perform on a technical scale. If KZ2 was the game that was less technically impressive the comments section would be full of "MASSIVE FAIL SONY" from many of these claiming this kind of thing is irrelevant. Pretty funny if you ask me.

    Didin't overly enjoy KZ2 if it must be said and from those my mates I've spoken to about Halo3 some enjoyed it some didn't.

    Crying my "hart out", no they would be tears of joy so it would be my eyes.

    As for them being totally different games, guns, aliens, space marines and FPS. Not really that different.

  • local_celebrity #24 3 years ago

    Killzone 2: Strong on eye-candy. Shite on multiplayer.

    Halo 3: Just a very silly game. For bedwetters only.

    Now you know my opinion. And yours.

  • the_dudefather #25 3 years ago

    No need to fight guys, Killzone an halo are BOTH overrated in their own special way

  • chris_ace #26 3 years ago

    Post deleted at 11:55:13 13-12-2011

  • TheNinkyNonk #27 3 years ago

    What a pathetic article.

    We all knew ODST would be a mildly polished version of H3. It is a H3 expansion, after all. And H3 never was a graphical showpiece anyway. It's not even full HD FFS.

    For some real worth, how about comparing KZ2 to Gears2 to establish that, if approached wisely, the PS3 can kick the 360 into touch.

  • patchbox360 #28 3 years ago

    'Maybe not a graphical showcase to humble Killzone 2, but still a good-looking game with gameplay scenarios tailored to the unique properties of Bungie's proprietary engine.'

    'Maybe not a graphical showcase to humble Killzone 2'??? - haha lay off the crack Richard, theres no maybe. Killzone is in another league.

  • berelain #29 3 years ago

    Both games are hugely technically impressive, but the difference comes down to what they are showing on screen. Killzone 2's levels are fairly confined affairs, moslty taking place over narrow strips of terrain which the player is funelled through, and even in the more extreme firefights there are rarely more than, say, 10-20 enemies around at any given time.
    The scenarious faced by the player are strictly controlled set pieces, and the enemy AI only kicks in when you're around. Most firefights in Killzone 2 play out the same when you repeat them (with some exceptions, of course).

    Halo 3, on the other hand, presents massive open-world environments in an almost sandbox style, and lets both players and AI teammates roam around. Certainly some scripted events are evident, but on several maps its not uncommon to find that an area swarming with Covenant on one play-through is devoid of enemies entirely on a different playthrough, because of how the skirmishes fought between AI combatants plays out. The visuals on Halo 3,whilst brimming with artisic merit, simply cannot compete with the technical brawn of Killzone 2's because of how much else is going on in the background.

    A lot of people seem to forget that the reason consoles look so powerful on paper but can't always reach the bar is because of the various AI and sound processing that has to take place as well.

  • DFawkes #30 3 years ago

    How am I supposed to get a fanboy rant out of this? Is there such thing as a Halo 3 fanboy that despises ODST?

    Interestig article. I wouldn't mind seeing more same console comparisons, like a Gears of War vs Gears of War 2. I know there's a tech video of Live, but it'd be nice to see an article anyway.
    Edited by 1 at 06/06/09 @ 12:36

  • Geordiemp #31 3 years ago

    Halo was all about great coop and vehicles, variety of gameplay.

    Not even a patch on other xbox games graphics such as assassins creed or resident evil V, never mind Sony First party stuff.

    Also feel the same way abot Gears slow bitbump flat graphics, few baddies per screen, just hate UE graphics, but thats another story.

    Laughable article really.

  • #32 3 years ago

    If it was a Gears of War vs Gears of War 2 article, Leadbetter would still bring up Kz2 :p

    Id rather have a Eurogamer website face off with Edge Face off tbh.

  • Retroid #33 3 years ago

    The Halo 3 engine only looks nice to me when it's rendering something sci-fi. With vegetation, especially, it look bloody awful.

    As for "detail complete" split-screen - at least on co-op in the main game it dialed back vegetation, lighting and all water animation, so I'd hardly call that "detail complete" :)

  • Tlaloc #34 3 years ago

    This article has gone a long way towards helping me make my mind up. Australians get a crap deal from MS Live (no Wolfenstein etc etc etc) and Killzone looks really good. I think I am about ready to jump ship.

  • Geordiemp #35 3 years ago

    why jump ship, sail on both. Multiplt games often better on Xbox, and prefer system link coop.

    Could not do without drake or Infamous etc.

    Uncharted best console graphics todate in my opinion (graphics means animations on main chaacters and others, movement as well as pretty static stuff).

  • Rodchenko #36 3 years ago

    That doesn't make the rest hypocrites, that makes you an idiot.

    Nice name calling, Xerx3s. Let me remind you of your number-one-argument -- the one you never cease to come up with when you smell an opportuntity: "but they had 3 years to develop KZ2, so no big deal that it looks so good. No other developer has that luxury". Now, let's look at how long Bungie has been working on Halo 3 tech. And it still looks... decent.

    Hypocrit indeed.

  • Darren #37 3 years ago

    I noticed as soon as they showed the Halo 3 OSDT gameplay that the game was still running sub-720p and without AA. Looks very rough and jaggy in that unique PS3 kind of way (take a look at inFamous for example, terrific game, granted, but it often looks like a PS2 game at times!). It's not something you expect from the Xbox 360 to be honest, which tends to do AA much better than rival consoles.

    While Halo 3 ODST isn't exactly ugly, it's nevertheless disappointing that such a big name Xbox 360 exclusive still cannot even manage the 720p and 2X AA minimum spec for an HD game that Microsoft promised way back at E3 2005. Visually the two current generation Halo games are nowhere near as technically or visually impressive as the original Xbox game was back in 2002. My jaw never hit the ground once in the entire time I played Halo 3 unlike Halo. Shame but so long as the new game plays well I don't suppose its core fans will care.

    Personally I wished the new game looked as good as the screenshots produced in Halo 3 which were 720p and included AA. This was the kind of visual update we got going from PGR 3 to PGR 4 for example, but it's not to be. Oh well.

  • #38 3 years ago

    360 at peak of power confirmed!

    /exits.

  • Geordiemp #39 3 years ago

    Look, if you had a game in a small room as a whole level, they could do 1080 P with incredible detail, a large level you scale it down, sandbox large level even more as guess it would be hard to stream data in sandbox.

    Infamous has great large level sandbox graphics, period. dumb comment. If it was a small linear type corridoor shooter, they could obviously do more.

    Racing game with one track, they can stream the graphics small corridoor, the benchmark here is 1080 P like 2 Ps3 games.......

    Halo ...it depends on the size of the level, if its very large you could consider it to be a bit sandboxish and so you would expect sub 720 if there are lots of things going on as well (number of enemies / animations)

    Edited by 4 at 06/06/09 @ 14:11

  • Widge #40 3 years ago

    halo > half life

  • spudsbuckley #41 3 years ago

    Both Halo 3 and Killzone 2 were fairly mediocre.

    Both of the Gears games were better looking than Halo 3 and Gears 2 was better looking than Killzone 2.

    This article is absolute flame-baiting tripe as well. EG seems to love putting one of these horribly biased wastes of time up now and then to get the clicks a-flowing. We get it. You love the 360, Sony killed you puppy and you've sent Nintendo to the nursing home to be wheeled out and doted on occasionally.

    What's the matter guys? Not enough traffic for your E3 coverage?

  • kule #42 3 years ago

    I don't really care with one has better graphics to be honest - the graphics on most games these days are majorly impressive.

    Are you really going to turn off your console because of a bit of screen-tearing when your having a blast??

    The most important thing is whether the game is immersive & fun to play.

  • Wastelander #43 3 years ago

    YOU'RE the ones giving them the hits you friggin' numpties.
    If you don't like the articles or the idea that EG are getting hits for them, don't fucking click on them and leave pages of comments.
    If no-one truly cared like you all claim, EG wouldn't get the hits and they wouldn't run the articles, but you just can't help yourselves!

    I personally love them. Keep 'em coming EG, and thanks to all you whining idiots for making these articles the most popular on the site.

    How about a Stalker/Clear Sky article soon since we've got Call of Pripyat on the way?

  • TONYgr #44 3 years ago

    i dont play halo games for the graphics.i play them for the epic set pieces and the story.and yes,killzone has better graphics.when i first played it i couldnt believe my eyes.graphics is the only reason i played killzone 2.and i didnt finish it to tell you the truth.i ve got to sometime.

  • siro #45 3 years ago

    Very nice article to which you can't add much more. Didn't intend to write a comment until I saw N@'s comment. How is Halo 3 the best looking game on the xbox? That's either a super level fanboy comment or done by someone who doesn't own more than 1-3 games (the other two probably being Fusion Frenzy 2 and Perfect Dark Zero). No, seriously, it's just above average at best.

  • Geordiemp #46 3 years ago

    Got both Xbox and Ps3, but it really embarrasses me when people use Gears as an example of good graphics, god they are bad, flat bitmap low poly flat rubbish. and so slow. Best fake bullshots though, but in game, very poor animations, number of characters, speed, list goes on.

    MT framework, thats a good engine, Resi 5 looks great on 360, or assassins creed, or COD 4 or 5, but please not Gears....
    Edited by 2 at 06/06/09 @ 15:19

  • daz_john_smith #47 3 years ago

    The title really needs to be changed to ODST vs. Killzone 2

    MT Framework: Lost Planet 2 was looking especially pretty at E3
    Edited by 1 at 06/06/09 @ 15:30

  • Feanor #48 3 years ago

    Personally, I feel 30 fps doesn't really cut it for shooters anymore.

    I'll stick to the PC.

  • Lukus #49 3 years ago

    Who else was masturbating as they read the article?

  • spudsbuckley #50 3 years ago

    Before, during and after.

  • Bigglesworth #51 3 years ago

    "The suggestion that Killzone is designed around the PS3's deficiencies is an interesting guess,"

    Fixed that for you.

    Its good though that in general more people are recognising these articles for what they are.

  • malmer #52 3 years ago

    I get so sad that fanboys of both sides tear these articles apart calling eurogamer names, when the EG/DF-articles probably are the most interesting and different game articles out there. These are not articles for you to decide which game to buy! These are articles for those of us who are actually interested in the tech behind the games, who care not only for how a game looks and plays but WHY it looks and plays a certain way. Those who actually know a thing or two about 3d tech or are curious about learing more. If you are not the type then these articles are not for you. There a plenty of reviews/previews/news for you to enjoy.

    I love these articles and I sure hope EG keep them coming.

  • trooperdx3117 #53 3 years ago

    I din't really even understand the point of this article, Halo 3's graphics looked dated when it came out and frankly if Halo ODST wan'ts to be the seminal shooter for 2009 then it should make sure to have superior gameplay to Killzone 2

  • drumbaby #54 3 years ago

    'Killzone 2 is much better looking'.

    That's all the article had to say, really.

  • Calgon #55 3 years ago

    Yeah come on people they arent comparing either of these games to Killzone2(or they shouldnt be anyway), they seemed to have upgraded rather than rebuilt from the ground up(its the equivelent of a dev using renderware, Unreal engine2.x now with upgrades) so its a little unfair even attempting to bring Killzone2 into it, considering how much time and money was spent on just building the engine for Killzone 2.(the devs have barely talked about their engine here, the hype has been on gameplay features rather than tech for bungie and halo this gen... an interesting contrast)

    Edited by 2 at 06/06/09 @ 20:31

  • VandelayIndustries #56 3 years ago

    TheNinkyNonk "For some real worth, how about comparing KZ2 to Gears2 to establish that, if approached wisely, the PS3 can kick the 360 into touch."

    I suspect there's a Gears 2/Uncharted 2 face off in the pipeline ;)

    berelain "Certainly some scripted events are evident, but on several maps its not uncommon to find that an area swarming with Covenant on one play-through is devoid of enemies entirely on a different playthrough, because of how the skirmishes fought between AI combatants plays out."

    I think I must of hit the mother load on my play through then because some of the later stages were an absolute chore (The ascent up the tower structure on the snowy map being the hardest).

    I think Halo 3 was ruined for me because of the across the board gushing from game sites and magazines, I was just unable to see what everyone else saw. Same happened with GTA IV :(

  • Calgon #57 3 years ago

    if approached wisely, the 360 can kick the PS3 into touch.

    Fixed(either can be true btw depends on how much time money and effort the devs and publishers pour into that area)... meh some things never change fanboys will fool themselves to beleive whatever they want to beleive without any facts, science or logic in some cases to back up their statements.

  • #58 3 years ago

    Is that why nearly every ps3 exclusive so far looks better than any 360 game calgon? Mgs4, Racket and Clank:TOD, Uncharted, Killzone2 etc. IMO, still on GOW is the best looking game on the 360, but really thats it ( for me ).

    This article fails, only 66 posts. I was expecting a 200+ fest.

  • Calgon #59 3 years ago

    DaemonB but you probably dont know the first thing about what you are looking at(if you really beleive any of these "blow away" everything on the 360)... you are just telling us what you think LOOKS better, really doesnt mean alot to anyone but yourself mate.

    Also of that list there are about 2 I give props to on their technical merrits(please MGS4 and the like... dont make me laugh) stick in dev budgets and man hours spent on these exclusive games and compare them and it will become clearer to you that you are seeing Sony desperately trying to live up to their claims throwing cash at it and MS kicking back laughing at them and not needing to invest even nearly as heavily... so far(I personally hope it does give them a kick up the ass, btw if you think for a second Im gonna buy "oooh it doesn't matter how long they spent building the engine and how much cash they poured in calgon" think again because you will be mocked and shamed).

    I can tell you there is and never will be in all probability a PS3 game that couldnt be done on 360(oh and by that I mean if 360 was approached in the right way... before anyone brings up a single disk arguement regarding disk capacities). You can fool yourself all you like the rest of the world will go on without you no matter how much you stomp and shout about how "powerfull" your console is ;).
    Edited by 4 at 06/06/09 @ 20:14

  • Waldo #60 3 years ago

    If I didn't know any better, I'd swear console gamers were graphics whores.

  • miiiguel #61 3 years ago

    ^^ huh? I spent all my afternoon playing Wolf 3D. For me a game is the whole package.

    I love Halo "comics style", don't want to annoy anyone, but please,please, let me like Halo, kthxbye.

  • Calgon #62 3 years ago

    Ive actually been playing Kotor II on Xbox recently :p. I just dont like PS3 fanboys, especially when they are talking complete rubbish. :D

  • drumbaby #63 3 years ago

    "stick a good game in there and it would have been worth buying. "

    Played it, loved it....great multiplayer = great replay value.

    But anyway, back on topic...it clearly looks better than ODST: HE.

    I'm wondering why EG even attempted to compare. Does it irk them that Sony now have the best looking fps game when traditionally it's the Xbox brand that has this claim to nerd fame? Has EG's cage been so badly rattled that they're now writing articles which are little more than a fanboyish musing-out-loud session? :/

  • MeBrains #64 3 years ago

    hey malmer... although i did not think of it before, that is just plain well said and it is why I enjoy reading these articles as well.

    but I admit: I do enjoy reading about PS3 bettering 360 as well. the only reason here being that when Sony was running up the PS3, there was so much bad "internetz" brabble of how Sony was doing shit this and doing shit that, while as a gamer I was fully respecting the company for the lengths it went to in trying to bring us top notch gaming. that just deserves repect. Sony was like defense or aerospace - being in high-tech market and actually researching because of that. Super computing and all the benefits it brings just's taking a hike with it. And they are bringing it for an - arguably - affordable price. What did MS do? Contact IBM and pay for part of the technogoly co-financed by its (main) rival? And that company, in the early days of this gen without doubt, gets backing from the internetz with an ill-engineered product?!? Beyond me. Fanboy me?! I do not consider myself so.

  • #65 3 years ago

    But Calgon, that's exactly it. You are in the minority. I see eye candy and that is it. I honestly don't give 2 fucking monkey hoots about what's going on in the background, obviously some do.

    So what your telling me is, Sony is throwing vast sums of cash and man hours into games to make them look better, where as MS who are minted are just letting devs put out what they please or find acceptable? Is that what your saying?

    As much as I like my 360, I personally feel as time is getting on, the better looking games are now beginning to manifest on the PS3. MS and 360 devs have had ample time to put develop games that are in toe with GOW1,2, but the fact is, those 2 games probably are still the best looking 360 games, they're just stunning to look at. But thats it, those two seem to be so far the pinnacle.

    This article was never about Sony exclusives per se, until Leadbetter involved Kz2 and its graphical fidelity, which if you are blind or in denial still is the best looking FPS this gen, and Uncharted 2, is likely going to push the bar again. Thats a sequel btw, so i doubt Sony has thrown vasts lumps of cash at it, yet by all accounts, it looks like in graphical terms is going to shit all over the 1st Uncharted for graphical eye candy, which has been touted by this very site and many others still being the best looking game in its class.


  • CHAZBIGPOTATO #66 3 years ago

    @ Waldo, "If I didn't know any better, I'd swear console gamers were graphics whores. "

    LOL!

    For me, I can play any standard of graphics with an easy conscience so long as my console actually has the game with the best graphics!

  • Calgon #67 3 years ago

    So what your telling me is, Sony is throwing vast sums of cash and man hours into games to make them look better, where as MS who are minted are just letting devs put out what they please or find acceptable? Is that what your saying?So what your telling me is, Sony is throwing vast sums of cash and man hours into games to make them look better, where as MS who are minted are just letting devs put out what they please or find acceptable? Is that what your saying?

    You only need to say it once you utter deluded fool(you are obviously getting quite worked up about this, you expect me to beleive you are not a Sony fanboy when you are getting emotional about so little?)... Im telling you that MS hasnt needed to take nearly as long or spend nearly as much so far on their exclusives are you denying this? Are you telling me man hours and budget dont more often than not yeild better results?(as far as technical aspects go its almost always the case... gameplay is another kettle of fish)... they spent that much more because they bloody needed to, would they have done so if 360s graphics were crap? No they wouldnt, MS have been concentrating their efforts on 3rd party more, to deny this you would have be an idiot. MS has shown Bungie, Bizarre and a few other's that were making MS exclusives, arent as inportant in the short term atleast, this could change and they might start to invest in 1st party again... the simple fact is which you dont seem to grasp is there hasnt been a whole lot of proprietary tech investment done for 360... not anywhere near the level Sony has invested. This actually matters, if you are going to bother comparing something as difficult to do as 1st party exclusives then do it fucking properly, know your subjects or dont bother mate.


    So to repeat:

    Are you telling me you dont beleive MS has not had to spend nearly as heavily as far as development goes, ie man hours/money?

    MS wont spend more than they need to, they do want to make a profit where they can. While Sony were spending to try and catch up, MS have been releasing games and trying to claw back some of the losses theyve had to take so far. Its not that difficult to see whats the likely explanation, oh and btw I dont beleive for a second you have enough objectivity that makes even mentioning that you own a 360 worth anything at all because you sound like a fanboy to anyone who can see through the bullshit hype surrounding PS3's supposed "power".

    Are you telling me that you havent noticed the difference between the time a game is announce and the time its released between the exclusives you are comparing.

    You mean to tell me that from KZ2 to Halo3 there arent HUGE differences in development approach? I'll give you a clue because you have none ;) One was released in a fraction of the time with a fraction of the dev budget, KZ2 had lots of cash and time thrown into just the engine alone(it was all they talked about for a long time)... Bungie didnt even build a new engine for a start.

    Uncharted is 2nd gen PS3 title the follow up will be 3rd gen that engine has had a shitload of money and time thrown at it when you add it all up, but IMO they are PS3's best developers for their rate of output and how fast they've moved... I actually give them some credit. I can only imagine what wonders they could acheive with the 360. Even with that said though Uncharted is often VASTLY overrated by PS3 fans on its technical merrits and the second one is going down the same path... I mean there was barely anything worth getting too excited about in the trailer shown, the only people who got excited about it where PS3 fanboys who were getting way too carried away over so little.

    Btw dont make statements about everybody else beleiving in the PS3 hype because they dont, YOU are in the minority, PS3 fanboys all seem to have that common trait, everything apparently revolves around them and Sony.

  • #68 3 years ago

    Calgon I did only say it once, recheck my post you utter retard.

    LMFAO

    *** You only need to say it once you utter deluded fool(you are obviously getting quite worked up about this, you expect me to beleive you are not a Sony fanboy when you are getting emotional about so little?) ***

    yeah, thats it. You have me nailed 100%. Im a fanboy.

    /faceplam
    Edited by 1 at 06/06/09 @ 21:55

  • #69 3 years ago

    EDIT.
    Any chance of backing any that up with evidence or is this your own personal opinion?

    and btw, drop the insults. I didn't insult you so kindly act like an adult, if you can.
    Edited by 1 at 06/06/09 @ 22:00

  • Calgon #70 3 years ago

    Ok no insults then but you started it by getting all emotional and personal because someone said the 360 can do anything the PS3 can and can actually back it up with atleast some insight/sound basis.

    I noticed you never even attempted to address anything other than insignificant error on my part(big deal I must have double pasted).

    Ive already told you but I'll have another go at explaining to you, it doesnt even matter if you own a Mini Cooper and a Ferrari nobody is going to think you're anything but biased if you try and tell everyone that the Mini Cooper blows the Ferrari away in every way just because you tell them "no but honest I'm not biased, I own them both". Nice try but that buys you zero points on integrity. ;)

    edit: Toned down on the insults, fine by me, I much prefer a proper discussion so long as you practice what you preach ;)
    Edited by 5 at 06/06/09 @ 22:45

  • spudsbuckley #71 3 years ago

    Mission accomplished EG. Mission accomplished.

  • Calgon #72 3 years ago

    DaemonB evidence for what? I dont have access to Sony's spending but its been said that PS3 is in general(or atleast was) the most expensive to develop for console, also time IS money and that you can see for yourself... no Im not going to spend time fishing it all out for you because its common knowlege.

    Halo3 - KZ2
    Forza2(and probably Forza3) - GT5

    I mean even Lion Head and Rare have been putting PS3 devs to shame and they are known to be SLOW going.

    Also how many 360 ONLY engines are there out there? Can we even call Bungies a true 360 engine? Was Forza 2's?(Im not too sure about that, someone else might beable to tell us as Im not really a big fan of Forza in general, all I can say it wasn't a good effort if it was, the only thing of note they managed was it was 60fps IMO and thats compared to 3rd party Racers on the same platform).

    For a long time Rare didn't have a true 360 engine(I seem to recall them saying something about Banjo being their first after they announced it was in development; Kameo and Viva Piniata were started last gen) and that was still done in short amount of time compared to the PS3 counterparts. Lion Head Im not sure where you would place the Fable 2 engine to be fair, I've always thought the art is where Lion Head shine rather than their graphics tech, that and the gameplay additions that are often unique to their games.

    So what do we have? As far as I know we only have Forza, Banjo and Fable worth mentioning... all of which never had as much time and money spent on them as their PS3 counterparts(if they even have any) and all of which are difficult to compare to anything on PS3 if you ask me... it seems the devs of all 3 of these titles spent alot more time hyping their gameplay/features than they did their engine tech.(which were mearly brushed over when pushed for)

  • Les #73 3 years ago

    Good job, EG, going for the fanboys again... :(

    Are there any sites out there that do cater for the gamers over 13?!

  • maximusfarticus #74 3 years ago

    @Les

    Try Destructoid mate.

  • Xerx3s #75 3 years ago

    "Is that why nearly every ps3 exclusive so far looks better than any 360 game calgon? Mgs4, Racket and Clank:TOD, Uncharted, Killzone2 etc. IMO, still on GOW is the best looking game on the 360, but really thats it ( for me ). "

    "but I admit: I do enjoy reading about PS3 bettering 360 as well. the only reason here being that when Sony was running up the PS3, there was so much bad "internetz" brabble of how Sony was doing shit this and doing shit that, while as a gamer I was fully respecting the company for the lengths it went to in trying to bring us top notch gaming. that just deserves repect. Sony was like defense or aerospace - being in high-tech market and actually researching because of that. Super computing and all the benefits it brings just's taking a hike with it. And they are bringing it for an - arguably - affordable price. What did MS do? Contact IBM and pay for part of the technogoly co-financed by its (main) rival? And that company, in the early days of this gen without doubt, gets backing from the internetz with an ill-engineered product?!? Beyond me. Fanboy me?! I do not consider myself so."

    Wow.

    "But Calgon, that's exactly it. You are in the minority. I see eye candy and that is it. I honestly don't give 2 fucking monkey hoots about what's going on in the background, obviously some do. "

    Monthly sales say that the minority is you. \o/

    /dances

  • mkreku #76 3 years ago

    I'm not a fanboy of either side, but I have to say that this is a really weird comparison. It's almost like comparing an open-world game's graphics to a linear shooter one's! Halo 3 has some pretty impressive levels, while Killzone has the best graphics I've seen so far on a console. Personally, though, I much prefer huge, open levels compared to linear ones, no matter how good the graphics are in the corridors of the linear shooter.

    Next time, please try to compare more similar type of games.

  • septimus #77 3 years ago

    EG was getting better at leaving this fanboy baiting bullshit alone. Well done Dick for binging EG back to normal.

    WTF have Halo/ODST got to do with Killzone?

  • El-Dev #78 3 years ago

    Basically Calgon is saying that if you spend a lot of resources on a game you will get majorly impressive results.

    So this explains why devs who make quick ports of multi plat games from 360 to PS3 get poor results hence many "EPIC SONY FAIL" face off comments.

    FUCK YOU SONY FOR SPENDING RESOURCES TO BRING GAMERS THE BEST POSSIBLE PRODUCT!

    The real assholes in this are the multi plat devs who don't spend their resources to develop games using the PS3's strengths and still demand full price for their poor ports. EG users should pick on them and not Sony who it appears are doing their job now.

  • Machiavellian #79 3 years ago

    If you look at the game Uncharted, I remember a comment from one of the developers that they spent 3 years on he engine alone. This was an interview and the developer was asked what they lest liked about something.

    3 years on the engine alone is a huge time and resource investment but you cannot deny that the results are stunning.

    I do agree with Calgon that MS 1st party devs probably haven't even come close to that type of time developing their engine.

    I tell you what the problem is with the articles at EG, nothing. Instead the problem is centered around the people that come to the site. Everything is bait for the fanboys. No article can mention either big coporate name or games because the Fanboys will get riled up. Everything has to be tempared so that we do not hurt some fanboy feeling or rouse the mob. Every article has someone crying because this or that was said about a game, company etc.

    The article make a slight mention of Killzone2 as a simple comparison about how certain engines are able to leverage their strenghts and weaknesses and suddely this is a article about KZ2 and Halo. It's interesting how we love games so much that we are willing to read everything about them but damn do not tell me the technical merits.

  • HiredMan #80 3 years ago

    What is this Nioshock 2 you speak of? Sounds intriguing.......

  • AHiFi #81 3 years ago

    Image result for Nioshock shows some sort of 'Big Bird' and 'Little Fairy' thing. Interesting spin.

  • Tallon4 #82 3 years ago

    I'll take HALO over KZ2.....anyday

  • spudsbuckley #83 3 years ago

    'look at Alan Wake , Splinter Cell , Mass Effect 2 , Nioshock 2 , Forza 3 , Modern Warfare 2 , Final Fantasy XIII (Best looking game ever) oh and Crysis 2 will be better on X360...'

    Yeah, look at all these games that aren't out yet!

    They prove.......something?

  • Les #84 3 years ago

    "I tell you what the problem is with the articles at EG, nothing. Instead the problem is centered around the people that come to the site."

    That's just total bullshit, sorry.

  • SaberEdge #85 3 years ago

    Of course Halo 3 doesn't look quite as good as Killzone 2. That would be like expecting inFamous to be better looking than Uncharted.

    A game with smaller environments and less action going on on screen has more left over to improve the basic graphical look.

    Halo 3 has some of the best AI, huge levels, all kinds of vehicles, crazy physics going on and co-op. In terms of raw computational horsepower I have no doubt that it is doing as much or more than Killzone 2. A lot of what makes Killzone 2 look good are clever little tricks that give the game a certain sort of cinematic quality, but in technical terms it is way overrated. The textures are mediocre for the most part and the lighting while generally impressive has a lot of inconsistencies and shadow maps are pretty low resolution and jaggy looking. The water effects are also a lot better in Halo 3.
    The physics in Killzone 2 are good, but no more impressive than some of the crazy stuff you see happen in Halo 3. Everything else is mostly post-processing effects like motion blur, depth of field, etc. The reason the Quincunx anti-aliasing doesn't look bad is because they went for a very soft, sort of 'analogue' look for Killzone 2 which hides the effect of the quincunx anti-aliasing.

    From a purely technical level I think Halo 3 is every bit as impressive as Killzone 2. Just in different ways.

    There is a reason Killzone 2 didn't include any kind of campaign co-op, and I would be willing to bet it was because the engine couldn't handle it. Halo 3 needs to be given more credit for all the stuff that it accomplishes.

  • Xerx3s #86 3 years ago

    "Yeah, look at all these games that aren't out yet!"

    Yeah, forget all those games that are already out!

    "They prove.......something?"

    That ps3 fans have shouted for years to wait for those games that weren't out yet.

  • captainrentboy #87 3 years ago

    Killzone 2 looked far better than Halo3, there's absolutely no denying that. But fuck me was I bored of Killzone 2 after about two hours. Same old identical looking enemies, same old environments, same old smoke and lightning effects everywhere. Bloody yawnsville. My mate was willing to let me borrow his PS3 to finish the game off, really couldn't be arsed.
    Halo 3 might have a colour scheme that looks like somebody puked up a rainbow, but at least it was actually fun to play. All in my opinion of course.

  • miiiguel #88 3 years ago

    The brains dude is right, maybe Sony should be doing missile launchers or space shuttles, they seem to forgot what the ludic industry is all about.

    edit: then again, he's (the brain dude) tottaly fooling himself if he thinks he's not a fanboy. Dude, I've seen your posts on Forza, on the MS conference, and so on...
    Edited by 1 at 07/06/09 @ 14:16

  • Buran #89 3 years ago

    Halo 3 and Halo ODTS uses one of the most mediocre engines all arround in the actual world of first person shooters.

    It can't be compared with other top notch fps as COD 4/WaW/MW 2, UT III, Gears 1 & 2, Bad Comapny 1 & 2, Lost Planet 2 and, of course Killzone 2. IMO even the CryEngine 3 downgraded to consoles in the latest Crytek tech demo in the GDC sweep the floor with Halo ODST.

    The things are very clear: Halo ODST is still sub-720p, the landscapes lacks geometric detail -absence of complex wireframe, small amount of trees-, fully not-interactive scenaries, in most of cases with plain terrains showing the small amount of polygons rendered. You can't compare these void landscapes with the maps showed in Bar Company 1 and 2, and of course the physics aren't the same.

    In terms of textures, ODST is still bland compered to what Unreal Engine 3/3.5 can render, and the particles and special effects from weapons are more detailed and complex in those games. The detail in the wireframe from the characters is very noticeable compared to Gears ones. The lack of deep of field, motion blur and other post processing filters makes ODST falling far away from Lost Planet 2 and Killzone 2. Ragdoll deaths and animations are some grades of magnitude under the ones from KZ2, even with KZ2 supporting 32 players in mp matches at the same time.

    The fact is, no matter how many units ODST will sell, technically it can't be considered a top notch game. It supports a low number of players in multiplayer, it lacks in the wireframe department, the textures are irregular, the post proccessing is absent, the native resolution is low, the animations can now be considered mediocre, the physics are very limited, with mainly not-interactive enviroments, and the big landscapes lacks detailed meshes.

  • miiiguel #90 3 years ago

    But, but... Is it fun? People have a good time playing it?
    It definetly seems so.

    All in all this is but rethoric. Somehow Bungie made a hit, which is bigger than counting pixels.

    What you're gonna do for me
    Compress me or undress me
    Equalize me finalize me
    Pump me pimp and untie me
    Show me oh show me
    How you dig that shit
    And beat this bitch with a hit
    Edited by 1 at 07/06/09 @ 16:00

  • Zappa #91 3 years ago

    ODST and halo look like a last gen game compared to Killzone2.


  • Stoatboy #92 3 years ago

    @Buran re: "it lacks in the wireframe department"

    Speaking as a 3D artist I haven't the first clue what the hell you mean. What does "lacking in the wireframe department" entail? Why would that be bad? What the fuck,basically, are you talking about?


    Utter bollocks.
    Edited by 1 at 08/06/09 @ 01:35

  • MeBrains #93 3 years ago

    miiiguel: I don't know where I said that Sony should be in defense or aerospace. I made a comparison, like done in the whole article. I said that like in other high-tech industries, Sony (together with T and I) had the guts to actually innovate with new technology, as opposed to its main competitor. Its main competitor brought the online community aspect of gaming forward - that is where its main merit lies, certainly not on hardware.

    How are you going to dismiss that?

  • Gearskin #94 3 years ago

    Considering the scale involved... it looks excellent, and the tech is nothing short of amazing. Recordings, screenshots etc.

    Nothing in Killzone 2 reaches the scale of the battles in Halo 3. Nothing in Gears 2 reaches the scale of Halo 3.

    It's massive.

  • Nephirion #95 3 years ago

    Not sure if I could go back to Halo after KZ2 it would feel like a step backward ...

  • muscleblade #96 3 years ago

    Halo 3 has a considerable higher metacritic average than Killzone 2 that means most reviewers like Halo 3 more than KZ2.
    Does that make Halo 3 a better game? Probably. I have completed both camapigns and played both online i know wich one i prefer.

  • miiiguel #97 3 years ago

    @ Brains: "aspect of gaming forward - that is where its main merit lies, certainly not on hardware."
    Oh you're so right, I dig games not "hardware", I'm not a mechanic, lol. You get kicks out of spec sheets, fair enough.

  • Darren #98 3 years ago

    @Gaz40 - "The kind of engine I like in a shooter is CoD, running at solid 60fps and still with some great effects."

    This I agree with.

    The last three Call of Duty games (and no doubt Modern Warfare 2 too) run at 600p-ish but they also use AA so they still look very good. The fact that this engine looks so good and runs (mostly) at 60 fps is especially impressive on the consoles. IMO, it's one of the best engines to date in that it runs well on all the consoles with virtually no issues such as excessive jaggies, texture pop in or screen tearing, something you can't say about many other engines such as Unreal Engine 3 for example.

    The engine Halo 3 and ODST use is pretty average if you ask me because Bungie decided to focus on HDR lighting, which in all honestly looks no better and no worst than other Xbox 360 games out there. This HDR lighting meant that they couldn't use AA or a 720p resolution because the 10 MB frame buffer wasn't big enough. So in that respect, from my point of view their efforts were wasted. Halo 3 could look moderately impressive at times but it was never a showcase for the graphical abilities of the Xbox 360 even when it was released. That ODST shows no obvious improvement since then is very surprising really.

  • muscleblade #99 3 years ago

    N@

    "Halo 3 is still the best looking game on 360"

    Halo 3 isnt even close compared to the other AAA 360 titles like Gears 2. Its one of the best 360 games, but far from one of the best looking ones.

  • MilkYMoO #100 3 years ago

    What makes the halo series of games so great, is that they're great fun. The graphics on halo odst are fine. I just hope its fun.

    Halo 3 is better than killzone 2 because its got a far superior single player campaign, when it comes to multiplayer though things are a lot closer. Its like apples and oranges, if I had to pick one I'd go for halo 3s multiplayer but then again I don't have to choose between either because I have both and enjoy both.

  • Bander #101 3 years ago

    Here's how to easily make Halo look like Killzone 2.

    [link url=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v28/puffertro n/PS3vignette2.jpg
    ]http://im g.photobucket.com/albums/v28/pu...[/link]

    KZ2 is all about the vignette filter. Great for screenshots and vids, but as far as visual clarity when playing is concerned, it's a big negative.

    Worse still, vignette filters make my eyes tired, and I've had to pass on several racing games that I'd like to play because of them.

  • MeBrains #102 3 years ago

    @miiiguel:" Oh you're so right, I dig games not "hardware", I'm not a mechanic, lol. You get kicks out of spec sheets, fair enough."

    wrong conclusion again, hmm? ;)

    I get kicks from innovation, including innovative games. There too, is what Sony seems to be better at. They started EyeToy, including motion based gaming back in 2003, which lead up to Natal. They started singstar. They co-developed the most powerful processor the world knows today. They had Ico, SotC and Okami on PS2. They brought gaming to the masses with PS1 and its incredibly well thought-out marketing. Without it, there might as well not have been Xbox. Each gen, the platform brings us something genuinly new - instead of sticking to the tried and tested formula's like its main competitor. For me, that deserves respect and certainly did not warrant the negative press Sony received at the start of this gen. MS innovated the online aspect - and charges premium for it.

    How are you going to deny that? By giving another evasive answer? O_o

  • Calgon #103 3 years ago

    MeBrains they co-developed what?????

    You give Sony FAR too much credit, Sony flash the cash and let others work everthing out for them these days, eyetoy was just a standard webcamera pretty much... I think there were probably already people working on PC Webcam applications just like it and Sony snapped them up.

    PS1? What was innovative about it? I wonder apart from the CD drive just how much Sony ripped directly from what they saw when they were working as a partner with Nintendo till they pulled out. The only thing Sony did was show the everyone else in the industry how to market your hardware right... it was all marketing not innovation, all of the credit for the library is owed to 3rd party devs who could just as easily have been making the same games elsewhere(granted the increased market was there so they could spend more/bigger loan/investment/grants).

    PS2? Overrated on its hardware, there was no reason to complicate it they could have gone down conventional methods to save themselves and everyone else alot of money... but atleast it handle piracy for a while longer right? Maybe Bleem ticked them off more than they let on.
    Edited by 2 at 08/06/09 @ 17:32

  • man.the.king #104 3 years ago

    @Law07

    "Halo 3 is not the best looking 360 game there is, I say Gears 2 is. Then again I don't own a 360 though. "

    I do own a 360, do own the GeOW2 Collector's Edition, and I agree. Halo 3 doesn't display the same graphical prowess as Gears 2. However, I do think that Halo 3's draw distances are much, much better than Gears.

  • man.the.king #105 3 years ago

    @trebell

    "Traded in after two weeks sadly"

    I am curious as to how KZ2 ran on your 360? Your profile seems to state you have only 360 games.

  • Widge #106 3 years ago

    Going out on a limb here, but I believe trebell has flower!

  • man.the.king #107 3 years ago

    @Widge

    "Going out on a limb here, but I believe trebell has flower!"

    Not according to his game collection and profile :)

  • MeBrains #108 3 years ago

    @Calgon: we seem to be agreeing quite well on what we are saying about two out of three sony consoles there's been. Only, I give props to them, while you seem to be more negative about Sony's accomplishments.

    Cell? never mind that most of the CPU know-how was with IBM, factory construction with Toshiba and the cash with Sony. Fact is that Sony was a crucial part of the STI alliance leading up to cell. I do not know which line of business you are in, but the one with the cash steers and decides. Without it, no product. So, props (also) to Sony for bringing the world CELL - although admittedly, I am not seeing that much distinct applications. Maybe that is because I am not following super-computing too much...

    PS1? My mentioning their contribution with PS1 was exactly and only the marketing part - or did I say something else about the console? We seem to agree there then. I give props to them. Without PS1, gaming would never have become the size it is now.

    PS2? I did not praise its hardware, although arguably PS2's HW also tried innovation instead of going for the tried and tested. What I did praise was its software library. Most notably SotC, Ico, Okami and the like.

    Flash the cash?! Again, without cash, no products. Also, MS has consistenly and continuously been doing this throughout its history. I do not even blame them. Business as usual I guess. This gen, they even flashed the cash (1) to buy out part of the technology being financed by Sony and (2) to make sure that their processor was done first. I'll just mention "some games" as well. Flash the cash might indeed have bought them Eyetoy. Frankly I don't really know who developed the product. I do know that Sony throughout its history has always tried to invent and innovate and that Eyetoy might as well have been a Sony-internal product.

  • Calgon #109 3 years ago

    Me Brains - Ah but the biggest problem was with...

    They co-developed the most powerful processor the world knows today.

    Where on earth did you hear that? Unlearn it where ever you got it from, there's enthusiam about the CELL which I have no problem with(personally I dont see CELL being the way forward for anyone but Sony who will probably put the next generation of it in PS4 beyond that though is anyones guess) but thats got to take the buscuit for over the top hyperbole... was it just a sarcastic jibe to wind him up?

    If not just... no... sorry its nowhere near, even if I am going to give you credit for meaning consumer level chips on the market.

    As for flashing the cash I agree... it just happens to be a common weapon for anti-Xbox folk, in some peoples eyes MS just bought their way to where they are now and Sony are the shining example of innovation and a working class hero to boot. :/
    Edited by 1 at 09/06/09 @ 04:35

  • MeBrains #110 3 years ago

    @Calgon: in much ways it is the most powerfull processor. It easily can be given that name. In a lot of benchmark tests - pure computational power - cell comes out on top. Read here for example: [link url=http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~samw/research/papers/cf06.p df
    ]http://ww w.cs.berkeley.edu/~samw/researc...[/link]

    Cell's also used in the fastest HPC on earth: http://www.top500 .org/lists/2008/11, which also seems to be the most energy efficient. So no sarcastic jibe. No hyperbole. It is looking at some facts. I might be wrong, so correct me with factual information if that is the case.

    Does it mean it is the most powerfull processor for all imaginable applications? I personally do not think so as well...

    as for me regarding Sony. I have always liked their products and have always thought they are innovating. C1's picturebook for example, released in 2001 was the first netbook. Problem with the company from time to time is that they release technology too soon, when consumers are just not ready yet. Just look at this list: the first popular transistor radio, Trinitron, Betamax / Betacam, 3,5'' floppies, co-dev'd the CD, discman, video8 / Hi8, DAT... Arguably from that point onward, Sony had more of an uphill struggle to create leading technology, but kept innovating (or tried to depends on who you ask) with SACD, MD, PS1, MemoryStick, SDDS, S/PDIF, ATRAC, BluRay...

    but anyhows. /me likes the company, some don't. (btw, don't get me wrong, I like MS as well. I got "opposed" to the 360 community when it was undeservedly negative towards sony because of what it was doing with PS3. Sony did not deserve such negativism - that imho was hyperbole!)
    Edited by 2 at 09/06/09 @ 14:02

  • Calgon #111 3 years ago

    Ok Mebrains Im short on time but will come back to it later maybe but for a start your first link proves very little you cannot measure everything by GFlops... if you did someone could release a hybrid GPU as a CPU and utterly pown the CELL... thats one of the reasons.

    Contrary to your beleifs theres been very little interest in CELL... the link you provideed for most powerfull super computer seems broken, Im skeptical so fix it please... be interested to see just HOW MANY of these processors were needed to make a supercomputer out of them... Im geussing alot... it could be that they were offered cheap by a certain company to increase CELLS cred. ;)

  • chubster2010 #112 3 years ago

    re 'Halo has never really been about the visuals anyway.'

    Hmm.... I don't agree. The first Halo was surely one of the best looking games of its day, and this was one of it's big draws surely? - it was certainly held up as a flagship Xbox title by MS, and as a demonstration of what the console was capable of. (of course it also had fantastic gameplay, controls, ai etc....)

  • MeBrains #113 3 years ago

    link is fixed. the comma got taken into the URL...

    as for amount of processors, the top 3 have (processors, not cores! # of cores being inherently part of the CPU design):
    1) RoadRunner: 12.960 Cells and 6.480 Opterons - totals 19.440/
    2) Cray Jaguar: 45.000 Opterons
    3) Pleyades: 12.800 Xeons (but it runs at 40% of roadrunner's speed)

    Power-consumption wise: RoadRunner comes out on top.

    But hey, I just looked this up myself. It does seem to prove the point I am making. I am no expert though, so do point out if I am misinterpreting the data I am looking at.

    edit: Pleyades uses Xeons not cells like was written before.
    Edited by 1 at 09/06/09 @ 18:16

  • Calgon #114 3 years ago

    Right ok first to your ray tracing benchmark test, it was a test probably paid for by Sony back in 2006(common practise though, all CPU and GPU companies do it to take to their press conferences so you have to be carefull with how much credit you give them) as Ive said elsewhere one of the most common reasons people get confused about how powerfull CELL is, is the GFLOPs figures... ie people saying its a super computer on a chip and the like(which is amusing).

    I said you could compare these figures directly to that of a modern GPU(the SPU cores are where the bulk of this fugures come from and as you probably know the SPU cores themselves are pretty simple/not robust compared to the modern CPU core... so they wont be as flexible with double precision operations) from memory you could compare CELLS 218 GFLOPs to a modern GPUs 900 GFLOPs+(probably higher now add to that an SLI configuration and you can double it although thats extra expense so probably not wise if it was a price performance ratio) and its not looking too hot.

    So on to your other link which is working now, the chip they are using is the PowerXCell™ 8i multi-core processor which is a newer generation based on CELL for the server market as I understand it, so its not the one in the PS3 by any means I expect its much improved in the areas it was lacking(specifically improvements to the SPUs in the double precision and more complex stuff required for CPUs at that level). Interesting though that they still needed some Opterons in there so they still(even after the improvements they must have added to this generation for the server market) have to be lacking somewhere or it wouldnt have been necessary(ie they'd have gone with a full set of PowerXCell 8i).

    Pretty good going by IBM all the same though(maybe there is a market for CELL technology in the server market, I say expect something new to take the spotlight again soon as is usually the case there), still that Supercomputer was the first to reach 1 petraflop apparenly(which is Im guessing is how they order the list)and in the same month the latest upgrade to the Cray XT Jaguar supercomputer put it at 1.64 petraflops so they must have just missed it.

    I'm sure there must be other lists out there which are more thorough with their criteria but regardless, that list is about to be updated again this month so it could all change again.

    Also as Ive said elsewhere IBM are showing no signs of leaving their Power PC line behind either quite the opposite, Power6 taking the fastest processor on the market title when it was released IIRC.

  • Buran #115 3 years ago

    @Stoatboy re: "Speaking as a 3D artist I haven't the first clue what the hell you mean. What does "lacking in the wireframe department" entail? Why would that be bad? What the fuck,basically, are you talking about? Utter bollocks."


    The amout of polygons used in exterior landscapes in the single player campaign and the modelling of the characters -enemies and allies- are terrible low. Most of the building extructures are very simple, based on cubes and with a evidence of lacking in geometric detail.

    Things are even worse when the Halo 3 engine try to render organic assets as trees, grass, rocks. Sometimes the parallax in the textures are capable to hide these problems, but most of times in outdoor enviroments -maily in "big, open, landscapes"- the absence of power to render complex geometyry is evident. Look at those maps in Halo 3 and then look to Bad Company, Far Cry 2 or COD. All of them can render much richer -in complexity and cdetail- outdoor mpas in both sp campaign and multiplayer.

  • RedSparrows #116 3 years ago

    Christ, what a lot of long winded moaning that does nothing to diminish Halo's position as a fucking awesome FPS.

  • Farzlepot #117 3 years ago

    Alone in the Dark is prettier than either of them.

  • MeBrains #118 3 years ago

    @sparrows: the article is about technical merrit. not about playability, hmm?!