What do you prefer GFX wise? Halo or COD ?

thedoc46

thedoc46

thedoc46

Soldato
Joined
18 Jan 2003
Posts
5,995
Location
Expat in the USA
You know something is amiss here, IGN rates COD Blk OPs GFX's at 8.5 and then gives Halo Reach 9.5 ??

The difference is like night and day between the two. COD being silky smooth, with a stupendous attention to detail. Actually I'm thinking it's probably the best looking game on any console to date, given the perfect frame rate and attention to detail. My opinion of Halo's gfx is meh.. Not knocking the game.. Halo is an amazing game, just graphically i honestly think at best it's just OK. Maybe not as crap as Halo 3, which hurts my eyes so poor is the frame rate, but still at best I think its just OK.

Its a crying shame that developers go through such lengths to make a game look as good as it does with COD Blk Ops and get no credit for it.

If Jeremy Clarkson drove in a banged out old Skoda that was rattling down the road and then told everyone it was the smoothest thing he's ever driven, but then gave a nice German top of range whatever, built with quality in mind, a just okish review, the car buying public would be up in arms.. But in the video game industry, no says nothing.

Anyway, what's your opinion on it all?
 
I would say the scale of halo could play a part in its score. Plus its surreal surroundings versus an attempt at a more realistic game. Vibrant colours vs well realistic colours. To be honest I would also put halo ahead, but its because of scale and the ability to look fantastic. I remember when I first played halo 3, the opening level walking through the jungle. Nothing looked like that on call of duty. Vivid colour goes along way
 
I agree on the scale part. Reach for me had many more 'woah' moments because of those times where you feel part of something much bigger going on around you. Loved that about the game. Possibly a bit too ambitious on the devs part as there was some bad slowdown at times. But I forgave them for it because immersion on that scale isn't easy to achieve.

In fairness I liked the look of BO too. Halo for me though :)
 
thedoc46 said:
The difference is like night and day between the two. COD being silky smooth, with a stupendous attention to detail. Actually I'm thinking it's probably the best looking game on any console to date, given the perfect frame rate and attention to detail.
Click to expand...

Are we playing the same game here? Everytime a napalm strike gets called in my frame rate drops below 10fps and I get smaller drops in frame rate all the time, so in my experience it's far from 'silky smooth'. MW2 on the other hand was a rock solid 60fps and it looked better.
 
This

Alrik said:
Are we playing the same game here? Everytime a napalm strike gets called in my frame rate drops below 10fps and I get smaller drops in frame rate all the time, so in my experience it's far from 'silky smooth'. MW2 on the other hand was a rock solid 60fps and it looked better.
Click to expand...

Bops is built on an old engine it certainly is not cutting edge the SP experience - yes it looks good but MP is a step behind even MW2.
 
Last edited:
thedoc46 said:
Actually I'm thinking it's probably the best looking game on any console to date,
Click to expand...

No chance, I'd probably give it to Red Dead.

But as others have said there is a lot more going on in halo, it's just a bigger game in general. CoD is pretty simple so there is plenty of resources to dedicated to graphics. But, it doesn't even look that good. Doesn't play particularly great either. A solid but uninspiring game.
 
Nymins said:
Halo Reach is a lot better visually than Black Ops imo. Prefer BO as a game, but Halo looks better.
Click to expand...

a 60fps game vs a 30fps, the differences are immense. ALL 30fps look jaggy because of the way they render. Yes the shear scale of Halo does make you open your mouth in awe at times, BUT it doesn't stop it from being a jaggy, sloppy framerate mess that is unable to add nice touches such as 60FPS ( a biggy imho) or reflective lenses, of other nice touches. Look down the scope in BlkOps then look down the scope of Halo ? See any difference ? oh man :rolleyes:

I think this thread is living proof, that people struggle to tell the difference of what looks good and what doesnt. I feel sorry for the gfx devs that are in the same boat as me..
 
Its more proof that people care less than others to be honest. I for instance couldnt care less if its 60fps or 30fps. reflective lenses, yeah fair enough. Those are nice touches. But to be honest, I couldnt care less aslong as the game is enjoyable. The upscale debate between PS3 and 360 versions of GTA, about resolution and upscaling. I found it hilarious watching the debates going on. Because the difference was tiny, but yet because there was a difference it became a mass debate.

Consoles have limited GPU/CPU power available, and what ever the devs do to get a game on the console, is fine by me. 2 different engines, so different things will be achieveable. And also, I doubt COD would cope at 60fps if it was on the same scale as Halo
 
Wyrdo said:
Urgh, just no.
Click to expand...

BC2 fan here, would say that Reach > Black Ops but BC2 > both for the sheer amount going on and not getting unplayable slowdown like you do in Reach.

Realise BC2 isn't in this but wanted to point it out lol it does have jaggies by the bucket load but for this gen its the most impressive FPS in my eyes for scale and graphical quality average.
 
thedoc46 said:
a 60fps game vs a 30fps, the differences are immense. ALL 30fps look jaggy because of the way they render. Yes the shear scale of Halo does make you open your mouth in awe at times, BUT it doesn't stop it from being a jaggy, sloppy framerate mess that is unable to add nice touches such as 60FPS ( a biggy imho) or reflective lenses, of other nice touches. Look down the scope in BlkOps then look down the scope of Halo ? See any difference ? oh man :rolleyes:

I think this thread is living proof, that people struggle to tell the difference of what looks good and what doesnt. I feel sorry for the gfx devs that are in the same boat as me..
Click to expand...

Black Ops is rendered at 640p and whilst it has MSAA, it is jaggy, especially in multiplayer. The texture streaming is broke in the sense that it takes ages to load in some textures and even when it does it looks down right awful at times.

I'm not a fan of Reach, even having played the singleplayer and multiplayer a lot. The graphics are definitely better in Halo. You need your eyes checked if you think other wise. Yes the frame rate is 30fps, but visually (which I thought this thread was talking about) it is better. The particle and lighting effects are brilliant and the detail zooming into say a Ghost or Warthog is phenomenal.

Seriously, go up to a Ghost and zoom in with the DMR or something. The detail is incredible.

And what do you mean, "ALL 30fps look jaggy because of the way they render". Played Uncharted 2 lately?
 
Last edited:
Both aiming for different things TBH, a game at 30FPS mostly look much better than a 60FPs title and many wont notice the difference in frame rate, but most will notice graphical effects like motion blur and better textures. Also the reviews are from two different people so its not quite apples to apples.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom