Halo Reach (Xbox 360) vs. Killzone 2 (PS3): Graphics

By Peter Chubb - Sep 19, 2010

Since Halo: Reach was released we have covered a number of articles, from “What rank are you”, “Ranks, Armor, Achievements Explained”, to “Problems with the disc”. However, we have just discovered that the graphics of the game have been pitted side-by-side against Killzone 2.

If you visit Game Reactor, you will see a series of screenshots of Halo: Reach and Killzone 2 placed one above the other. You can click on the image to enlarge them – this will allow you to study them in detail to draw your own conclusions.

Halo: Reach was released on September 14th, and in that time has gone on and broken the online play record, which Jamie Pert has explained in more detail. Killzone 2 has been around since 2009, which leads me to this thought.

It is unfair for Halo: Reach to be compared to a game that is a year-and-half old. We would like to see Killzone 3 compared, since that is due for release on February 22, 2011, and since halo reach just come out, this is a better match up than the one Game Reactor did.

Follow us on Facebook, Twitter or Google Plus.

Also See: Halo Anniversary maps DLC compatible with Reach

  • ,iuz

    oh you ps3 fanboys cry about an unfair comparison but you still compare the 2005 xbox with the newer ps3 = FAIL

  • someone

    both are really good games, i prefer halo reach but i can see why people like killzone, it's a good game. one thing i find unfair is that people say you can't compair halo reach with killzone 2 because reach just came out, but when killzone 2 was released everyone compared it to halo 3, if you think it's not right to compair them because of when they were released than it's just an excuse. killzone 2 looks slightly better than halo reach although they use very different art styles, graphics arre important but gameplay is even more important.

  • Specter098

    Both are good. just depends on your preferences.

  • Hoe-Zay

    Who cares about *****ing graphics what it all comes down to is the gameplay everyone always wants to compare halo to cod or kz!!!!! do you hear everyone around you talking about kz nope halo all the way, best game play i have ever seen and I've been a gamer for 30 years and none of you little kids know anything about that! I have more expirience than any of you since halo came out it killed everything out there no doubt about that so why argue just buy a copy of halo: reach and shut up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • True Gamer


  • bob

    To be honest, i believe Halo:Reach is amazing, im not going to make some arguement over saying which one is better, i have played the killzone series, its a good game, but i prefer Halo, i feel like you should just go with that you enjoy, i enjoy Halo. im going to stick with that

  • fucku

    Mark is such a poor baby loser

  • Mark

    KIllzone2 is 10x the game Halo Reach is. All this demonstrates is how desperate Xbox owners are to get something worth playing. THey need to wake up and buy a PS3.

    • marhorn

      No! your mum is 10x the man you are! …….you dont get any decent games! FACE IT!

    • sigh

      Must be the reason nobody plays Killzone 2 anymore. Because it is so good nobody can handle it right?

  • marhorn

    Yes it is down to which game you like better! more people play, have love for Halo, therefore Halo wins! The loading spots in killzone aint as bad as that, but by god they are bad!

    Can you drive a ghost in killzone? no! HALO WINS!

    • PermanentlyAngry

      This is a funny post I never really noticed the loading spots in KZ2 at all, my mate however said he had problems with it, so maybe you have a duff blu-ray drive or HDD. lol. Having said that I had a few 'freeze spots' with Halo: Reach, in particular The pillar of Autum was awful as was Oni sword base and on Legendary Nightfall paused loads. Maybe its just another Xbox breaking on me though. lol. Its clear that no matter what happens in these sorts of 'debate' people can't be rational. If you told me I could only have either KZ2 or Halo: Reach I'd personally choose Halo: Reach every time, no question. However (stupid Rico aside) KZ2's AI is better in its environment that Halo: Reach's, sorry the side to side jumping is hilarious to watch when you're sniping and massively predictable, sorry but the AI in Halo hasn't really moved on at all from the first Halo, it still shows the same dumbness, but I love it. Its like an old familiar friend. Graphically on the whole, technically I think KZ2 is again better, but it doesn't play as well, the aiming is sloppy and I don't know it just seems to lack a soul. That might make me an Xbot or whatever you want to call me, but that is my honest opinion on both games. I'm actually more of a PS3 gamer, My PSN ID is PermanentlyAngry and my gamertag is SirAngry and you can check out my trophies / Achievements to back that up. However I stand by what I've said. In pure technical terms KZ2 is better on almost every front, but as a game Halo: Reach is better, now if we could just get Bungie and Guerilla to have a love child together we'll be sorted.

  • marhorn

    Halo Reach owns killzone! The AI in Halo has always been the best and having huge indoor, outdoor hyper enviroments which you can traverse with any vehicle you want says A LOT! in killzone you have like a 10 metres of space you can explore! And the game loads like every 10 metres you walk, making it look like its continually loading (or skipping) HALO WINS!

    Get over it

    • M T Mind

      Neither owns the other imo, it's really down to which game you like better, i.e. which gives you the most fun. As for the loading spots in KZ2, they are nowhere near as bad as you claim.

  • Yourself

    killzone loooks better, but halo runs at 60 fps instead of 20 to 30 fps like killzone. Halo has better controls and better online. if halo ran at 30 fps it would look as good as killzone. i own both games and they are both awsome. But halo is more fun

    • M T Mind

      Both games run at 30fps 'Yourself'.

      I do agree Halo is more fun, but I'm looking forward to KZ3 too, because this time I expect they've had time to focus more on the gameplay and design rather than mostly the graphics.

  • bob

    in all of the halo shots the player is moving and the picture is blured and the player is still on the killzone shots don't see how thats fair

  • This is a joke right? Killzone 2 is over a year old and you are trying to compare that to a game that was released a week ago? Why not compare Halo Reach to Duke 3d or Quake, or Quake 2? That equally relevant comparing a new game to old ones…clown

    • M T Mind

      Ok, and when Killzone 2 was released and gamers were comparing it to Halo 3 which was almost 1.5 years older (just two months less than the gap between KZ2 and Halo Reach), were you always on forums saying it's unfair to compare KZ2 to Halo 3? Somehow I doubt it.

      Out of interest, at what gap between game releases does it become 'fair' to you? 11 months? 10 months? 9 months? 8? 7?… etc.. At some point, almost no game comparison would be fair by that logic. 🙂

  • That one guy

    Wow. Comparing an almost 2 year old game. I guess that’s a big blow to the 360 since it’s being compared to KZ2, a game that’s not even the best looking game on the ps3 yet still manages to beat halo: reach graphically, in my opinion

  • GordonShumway

    Halo Reach is great fun online, and has plenty of fans, but I don't see how we can compare it graphically to Killzone 2

    Perhaps I am looking at a different game to everyone else, but I honestly don't think Halo's graphics are anything to write home about. Now, the number of units playing smoothly on-screen, that's good… the AI is smart… but comparing its graphics to Killzone 2 doesn't do Halo any favours. Killzone 2 is a more realistic looking game, and KZ3 looks insanely good from the previews.

    Still, I think Halo's developers knew what they were doing with Reach, by concentrating on gameplay and the online experience they made a really good game. If they had tried to make the graphics better they would have had to compromise on other aspects. The 360 can play games with better graphics than Reach, but that doesn't always mean that it should.

    • PermanentlyAngry

      100% agree. As I said I loved Halo: Reach, it was really enjoyable. Compare that with KZ2, which I had a lot of gripes about (AI not being one of them, the AI in KZ2 is amazingly realistic) I enjoyed KZ2 but not as much as Reach. Also KZ2 does have moments where the levels are large and open and have loads of people on screen, in fact I think KZ2 does the mass fire fight better than Halo: Reach. I also think they toned the number of badies down on the screen in Reach compared to Halo 3. However does any of that matter? No because its still a great game. As is Halo 3 and KZ2, really looking forward to KZ3 now. Just be happy that there are so many good games out there now that we can all enjoy. Its good to be a gamer right now.

  • PermanentlyAngry

    Very surprised anyone would do a comparison of an almost 2 year old game compared to a new game!!! Just finished playing Halo: Reach and thoroughly enjoyed it, its way better than the disappointing Halo ODST. As for the graphics comparison I'm going to have to say that KZ2 actually looks better. So I'm not too sure what Games Reactor's point is. Perhaps it shows the Xbox 360 is starting to show its age and is starting to struggle to keep up with the PS3 graphically, I mean KZ2 isn't even the best looking game on the PS3.

  • M T Mind

    To continue from my last post…

    Halo Reach does address many of Halo 3's graphical shortfalls, and likewise I expect KZ3 to do the same over KZ2.

    And Rookie, I don't believe gamers are saying "it doesn't matter about graphics", what gamers are saying is that graphics should not be the ONLY thing that matters, which is the impression I get sometimes when reading comments on forums. Graphics is the icing on the gameplay cake, and hence given the choice between a cake that looks great but tastes horrible, or one that looks ok but tastes great, then I'll choose the latter. But yes, a cake that looks and tastes great is even better. 🙂

  • M T Mind

    Anyone who's actually played Reach (rather than only looked at screenshots and videos) can see a great improvement over Halo 3, especially with the amount going on. Of course, it will generally look similar due to the graphics style, just as Killzone 3 will look similar to Killzone 2, just as UC2 looks simliar to Uncharted, just as Gears of War 2 looks similar to the first, etc.

    Getting back to those two games, although both are FPSs, comparing Halo to Killzone is still like comparing apples to oranges. Halo is more about advanced AI and large open more colourful environments for combat both on foot and in vehicles, whereas KZ is about fewer enemies (respawning to get more) with a grittier darker graphics style and more restricted environment (in terms of where you can go as a player). Hence KZ puts more of it's resources into the graphics (and looks superb as a result) and Halo more into the AI, vehicles and open scale (but still looks great). Imo, they both have their strengths and weaknesses, and therefore to say one is graphically better than the other is rather simplistic.

    • ldam

      ur way off man, killzone 2 has always had the superior ai, and the less space doesnt result in better graphics for kz2, maybe back then, but guerrilla games is using the same engine with killzone 3 and it will have much larger environments, so far i havent seen the kz3 graphics any worse than the kz2 graphics. on halos part, its no excuse cuz there r sandbox shooters that look better, red dead redemption is a good example

      • matt

        Agreed. Kz has probably some of the best AI in any game, that and the best console graphics were what sold that game.

        Regarding this comparison, it is completely pointless. Kz2 will destroy Halo Reach in graphics quality, especially since it is essentially impossible to get that level of detail in a bright setting, like Halo.

      • M T Mind

        I'm not saying the AI is superior in Halo just because *I* think so, but also because it is recognised throughout the games industry as the leader in *non-scripted* AI for console FPSs. I've read countless reviews of Halo 3 and Killzone2, and whilst those that compared KZ2 to Halo praised it for it's graphics, not a single review that I can recall ever stated that the AI in KZ2 is superior, quite the contrary (although it has some great scripted events).

        As for KZ3, yes it will be better in certain areas compared to KZ2, that's to be expected in a sequel using the same *but improved* game engine, just as UC2 was better than UC, but the overall look of the games is much the same as their predecessors. Like I said, KZ goes for the grittier (and hence more realistic) style which some prefer, whereas Halo is more colourful with bigger gameplay environments and (yes) better AI. 🙂

      • soulreaver

        actually less and darker spacec indeed means better graphic you moron!, you should know it, even in movies is the same!
        Halo always had superior AI, graphics not much

    • angelo

      Dude…you are so biased towards halo…it is obvious…having played both games I can tell u that the ai in killzone is far superior…they do into cover…move from cover to cover…and will come get Ur Ass if u stay in one spot too long…reach elites jumps side to side in an obvious and easily predictable pattern….as far as graphics…killzone 2..even being almost 2 years older still looks better….side note…I absolutely love both games.

      And I agree…killzone isn’t even the best looking game on the ps3…that goes to uncharted 2…which beats both these games..

      So glad I have both systems though..reach…then lbp2..gt5..kz3..gears3…so many good games to play

      • M T Mind

        Dude…you are so biased toward Killzone…it is obvious.

        There now, see how easy it is to throw accusations around.

        Now go find a review or article (from any all format website) that claims the AI in KZ is "far superior" to the AI in Halo. As I said before, this is not simply about your or my opinion, if what you say is true, then many journalists would agree. Hence you'll have no problems finding reviews that agree with you on the graphics, but not the AI.

        So is KS2 aesthetically better? Yes in general. Is it technically better than Reach? In some areas yes, in other areas no, so overall I call it a draw. Both games have their strengths and weaknesses, hence it really comes done to gameplay, and therefore some will prefer KZ others Halo. I'm sorry if that opinion offends you.

        I'm please you have both systems (I do like your implied yet false claim that having both systems means you can't be biased ;-)), I too have a 360 and PS3, plus a Wii (for my kids) and a PC, plus my old XBox, PS2 and GC (broken), and in my artic my good old Playstation and N64 (no Saturn though) and so on. See a pattern here?

        • angelo

          I did not intend to deny my preference for the ps3..

          I love both games…just didn’t agree with your assumption that the ai is better in reach..especially having finished both games on the hardest difficulty. Having PLAYED through both, I don’t need to go fishing for articles to support my observations. Anyone who knows anything about so called ‘journalism’ knows it would be easy for either one of us to find articles supporting our opinion.

          Having said all that…I am one who played halo and halo 2…and wouldnt touch a ps2, and am not happy with the direction that halo and Microsoft are heading….so i now prefer Sony ..but that has nothing to do with the ai in these games…

        • M T Mind

          Yes, you're right that it's often easy to find articles supporting our opinions, and so you'll have no difficulty finding those that support the view that the graphics in KZ are better, but the lack of support for the view that the AI in KZ is superior to Halo is telling imo. But yes, you have your opinion and I have mine, therefore we'll just have to agree to disagree. 🙂

          As for preferring MS or Sony. I've never been into 'company devotion', and I never will, my preference is strictly for the GAMES themselves, and so I couldn't care less whether it's on a console from MS, Sony, Nintendo or whoever enters the games market in future. Maybe that's just me.

        • angelo

          Well I didn’t always go one system over the other…but my 2 original xboxes and my 2 360s vs. One $20 used ps2 and one ps3 kinda sent me that way…my playstations have outlived 4 xboxes..currently on 5th and final Microsoft console..

          But yeah…no flame war here…or blind fanboyism…just a matter of preference.

  • Waldo

    I have no idea WTF the point of this comparison is. Two different games, different engines.

    The only common link is that they are both FPS’s. is this merely a trolling experiment? Or is it fanboyism at a whole new level?

    Achtung Games Reactor, Aghtung!

  • Rookie

    It about graphics not sale so you can compare them, Halo Reach which I haven't got yet waiting for it to have a lower price point. But vie seen on YouTube that Halo reach is like halo 3 with. A little bit better graphics. Killzone 2 kills it on graphics but not sales.

    But people with say it doesn't matter about graphics well why have a next gen console. You rather pay xbox games or ps2 games

  • Ryan

    Killzone 2 is a year and 7 months older than Halo Reach and the graphics are still way above the quality of Halo. I'm suspecting a bit of foul play by the games company as the Kilzone pictures have 'preview code' written above them. If so they may be trying to use earlier less inferior code so the graphics don't look as good.