Killzone: Shadow Fall vs. Battlefield 4 PS4 graphics

By Updated on

This week we have seen a number of our readers debating Killzone Shadow Fall vs. Battlefield 4 PS4 graphics and this comes thanks to the next-gen console launching in the UK along with a number of other countries in 2 days time. We have had one email on this very topic and seen hundreds of forum threads, which reveal gamers considering what game to purchase first between Battlefield 4 and Killzone Shadow Fall.

One Product Reviews reader stated, “I have looked at all the Sony PS4 launch games and narrowed what game to get first down to Killzone: Shadow Fall and Battlefield 4. The multiplayer element is really important to me, much more than single player, and I know both games look visually amazing but I need to know what one is better in terms of gameplay and graphics”.

Also See: BF4 Final Stand weapons, maps live on CTE

To help this reader and hundreds of other gamers in the same situation, we have embedded a couple of videos below showing Battlefield 4 vs. Killzone: Shadow Fall graphics and gameplay side-by-side and obviously on PS4.

The first video runs for over 30 minutes and showcases single player gameplay for both BF4 and Killzone: Shadow Fall, although we have also included a second video delivering 5 minutes of gameplay for both games again but this time you’ll see the multiplayer compared for sound and graphics.

There is many elements of a game and one title might feature better graphics and the other much better gameplay, then we have the differences between online and single player modes.

What game do you prefer between Killzone: Shadow Fall and Battlefield 4 on PS4? Graphics isn’t everything, but overall what game is better for single player and multiplayer in your opinion?

You can also catch up with the debate between Ryse: Son of Rome and Killzone: Shadow Fall in another article, or see the Shadow Marshal tactical combat tutorial for Killzone.

Battlefield-4-vs-Killzone-Shadow-Fall

  • Josh101

    Ooh that’s a toss up. In my opinion. Killzone’s singleplayer is better than Battlefield’s. Battlefields multiplayer is better than Killzone’s. But If you have to choose. Killzone looks better without destruction. Battlefield has destruction. I can see Battlefield lasting longer multi-player wise compared to Killzone. But then again, I like BF’s MP more than I like KZ’s. They are both great entertainment. IDK, get both?? I have them both.

  • Dean

    I think the problem with kill zone is that it’s just a product of call of duty and halo. I mean anybody will notice the visuals look great just like the halo games, yet the gameplay is just as arcadie as call of duty. Therefore I think looking at killzone, it’s just stuck on a cycle of never changing like halo and cod. I guess you can say the same with battlefield however I think there’s major differences despite it being ultimately a FPS. Like in battlefield, theres a much greater emphasis on the environment since it’s so large, you got to use it for your own advantage and most notiably is destruction, you gotta make use of it whilst it’s there, each game in cod is exactly the same, run to the corner stay there for 10 mins. In bf, that corner will last you maybe 30 seconds before it’s blown up by a tank. That difference, whilst only minor, makes a massive impact on how you play the game, it requires you to think constantly. And of course what your team is doing actually trying to make an impact. Kill streaks and “oh I got 40 kills 1 death” doesn’t not mean anything more than somebody with 10 kills and 11 deaths, all because that guy no doubt would have been flying a chopper which led to you getting so many kills. That’s the whole point of battlefield. Teamwork. There’s no special reward for the guy with the most kills, there’s just the gamer to gamer moral respect for being a good sport. If you came first or if you came 30th you were a part of something which helped the entire team win the battle. Even if you were sat on a hill in the horizon using the sniper. You altered the gameplay by shooting other enemy snipers and other enemy team mates.

    I mean just look at the new weather system in bf4, that dramatically alters the entire gameplay, making it darker and harder to hit enemies at a distance. It’s evolving and constantly getting better in my opinion and the upgrade from current gen to next gen makes it 100% better. cod ghosts plays no different and is virtually the same on current and next, where as battlefield is just a completely different experience and game altogether to all console gamers making the upgrade. It’s an obvious choice to me, I honestly do not see the attraction to all other FPSs. I guess you can argue if it ain’t broken don’t try to fix it but what’s really changed in the past several years with CoD, killzone and battlefield? Only battlefield.

    I know this was a bf4 graphics etc vs killzone but in my opinion killzone is just cod with big space guns. There’s no covering that up.

    But to conclude, when you have these debates of battlefield vs call of duty or killzone or any other shooter in all honestly, there’s no comparing battlefield to the rest. It’s a completely different experience.

    PS let’s not mention the campaign they’re always awful and I bet that you don’t play hours and hours of the campaign of an FPS. Multiplayer is where it’s at, it’s time these games ditched single player mode and focused entirely on multiplayer.

    • Josh101

      I agree on most of your points. Except, Killzone is nothing like Call of Duty. Believe me. Before they revamped it, it was sluggish and felt nothing like call of duty. Killzone Shadowfall feels much more refined.

    • Josh101

      Oh and I would never give up singleplayer. You open a whole can of worms by saying that. I don’t want a Titanfall that’s online only for $60. No way, not at all. If it was half the price, why not. But publishers won’t do that when they can charge $60 and people still buy it.