Metro: Last Light better looking than Killzone: Shadowfall?

  • 70 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by uninspiredcup (8687 posts) -

My friends, most of us agree Crysis 3 is universally the greatest looking game in the world. But how does Metro Last Light stack up? Is it second in command or is Killzone: Shadowfall exclusively for the Playstation 4 a visually superior game?

#2 Edited by hrt_rulz01 (6117 posts) -

We talking Last Light on PC or consoles? If we're talking console version, then I think Killzone looks better.

#3 Edited by uninspiredcup (8687 posts) -

Pc obv.

#4 Posted by PinkieWinkie (1362 posts) -

You make the worst threads on this forum.

#5 Posted by sukraj (22861 posts) -

metro hands down

#6 Posted by speedfog (3203 posts) -

The only thing that looks good in Killzone SF and makes it look better is the lightning. The lens flare and all that shit. A bit reflection to the ground and people think it actually looks good.

Metro wins ofc.

#7 Posted by farrell2k (6185 posts) -

Metro Last Light is so much better looking than Killzone that is it literally unbelievable anyone would even try comparing the two.

#8 Edited by silversix_ (14645 posts) -

LL certainly didn't impress me as much as 2033 did back in 2010

#9 Edited by uninspiredcup (8687 posts) -

@silversix_ said:

LL certainly didn't impress me as much as 2033 did back in 2010

The 20 second unskippable title intro when launching the game and ranger mode piss me off a lot.

The game feels very ham fisted compared to the first. The "store" option in the main menu is first, before all other options. Deep Silver are cocks.

#10 Posted by Krelian-co (11005 posts) -

@PinkieWinkie said:

You make the worst threads on this forum.

#11 Edited by seanmcloughlin (38216 posts) -

@silversix_ said:

LL certainly didn't impress me as much as 2033 did back in 2010

2033 had a lot more graphically intensive features in its particles and lighting. LL used a bit more pre-baking and I think it worked out all the better for it. Still looked fantastic but ran SO much better

#12 Posted by jg4xchamp (48166 posts) -

Yes Last Light looks better.

#13 Posted by uninspiredcup (8687 posts) -

Since (apparently) Killzone: Shadowfalls grafix isn't 1'st, 2'nd or even 3'rd place. Why u go one about it?

#14 Posted by Maddie_Larkin (6521 posts) -

I will put it like this:

KZ:SF at its best looks better then M:LL, it is however incredibly inconsistant, so it only looks better at its best.

M:LL in general Has Consistantly better Graphics, while it did not reach the peak of KZ:SF but even at its worst it looked better then KZ:SF does on average.

Thae that as you will, if you only look for one scene to judge, or the Whole game on average, is up to each person.

Ultimately I would say M:LL given its consistancy.

#15 Posted by GhoX (5014 posts) -

Inconsistency seems to be the common plague among graphically intensive console games. I ran into the same problem with TLOU, where certain areas of the game are decent and screenshot-worthy, while others have poor low-res texture and cheap geometries.

#16 Posted by PinkieWinkie (1362 posts) -

@uninspiredcup: Are you talking to yourself?

#17 Posted by Muffin2020 (527 posts) -

You already know the answer so why ask?

#18 Posted by rosko123 (518 posts) -

@PinkieWinkie said:

You make the worst threads on this forum.

#19 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38216 posts) -

@GhoX said:

Inconsistency seems to be the common plague among graphically intensive console games. I ran into the same problem with TLOU, where certain areas of the game are decent and screenshot-worthy, while others have poor low-res texture and cheap geometries.

I think that can be said for any game. Some areas get more polish than others due to time and deadlines. I've seen plenty of PC games have inconsistent areas too

#20 Posted by TheTruthIsREAL (761 posts) -

Crysis 3 doesn't even look great so I guess we don't share the same opinion

#21 Posted by millerlight89 (18547 posts) -

No, Killzone beats it. The enviroments are better too.

#22 Edited by uninspiredcup (8687 posts) -

I'm not really understanding the appeal of this game (metro). While the setting and visuals are great, it seems overscripted. It's been about a half hour and so far I have followed paths, been unable to open doors until scripted NPC's do it. Unable to pass them (they block the way) and seem to be funneled down a highly linear path constantly. It's starting to piss me off.

This seems just as bad as a Call Of Duty title. Why are pc gamers praising this? Stalkers much better.

#23 Edited by murray69murray (126 posts) -

@TheTruthIsREAL said:

Crysis 3 doesn't even look great so I guess we don't share the same opinion

It's not a matter of opinion, Crysis 3 is technically the best looking game available right now.

#24 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38216 posts) -

@uninspiredcup said:

I'm not really understanding the appeal of this game (metro). While the setting and visuals are great, it seems overscripted. It's been about a half hour and so far I have followed paths, been unable to open doors until scripted NPC's do it. Unable to pass them (they block the way) and seem to be funneled down a highly linear path constantly. It's starting to piss me off.

This seems just as bad as a Call Of Duty title. Why are pc gamers praising this? Stalkers much better.

Not like the game is supposed to be open world or anything

The game opens up a lot more in later levels when you're allowed to go outside especially the swamp level and the one after it at night. The tunnel section with the car also has a lot of side areas that you can totally miss or just drive passed.

and of course STALKER's better. Metro has always been a more casual version of STALKER. Nothing wrong with that, expecting more from it and then getting disappointed is all on you, not the game

#25 Edited by jun_aka_pekto (16167 posts) -

Perhaps I like KZ4's setting better. It appeals to me more than Metro Last Light's. So, to me, KZ4 looks better.

#26 Edited by jg4xchamp (48166 posts) -

@seanmcloughlin said:

@uninspiredcup said:

I'm not really understanding the appeal of this game (metro). While the setting and visuals are great, it seems overscripted. It's been about a half hour and so far I have followed paths, been unable to open doors until scripted NPC's do it. Unable to pass them (they block the way) and seem to be funneled down a highly linear path constantly. It's starting to piss me off.

This seems just as bad as a Call Of Duty title. Why are pc gamers praising this? Stalkers much better.

Not like the game is supposed to be open world or anything

The game opens up a lot more in later levels when you're allowed to go outside especially the swamp level and the one after it at night. The tunnel section with the car also has a lot of side areas that you can totally miss or just drive passed.

and of course STALKER's better. Metro has always been a more casual version of STALKER. Nothing wrong with that, expecting more from it and then getting disappointed is all on you, not the game

Eh, not necessarily. Game is just shallow in general, and it doesn't help the games cause that if you bought it post launch(or got it with your graphics card) that the ideal way to play that game is DLC. I think that's what really gives a lot split reactions on that game.

Ranger Mode that game is better. On normal settings the AI is too stupid to ever really be a challenge when being sneaky or being rambo. Plus the Russian stuff and the storyline gets amazingly cheesy.

I will say I am also sick of sight seeing tour method of creating environments. It really feels restrictive especially when you want the game to open up and try to sell the environment more. Bioshock Infinite did that stuff a lot too with Columbia.

#27 Posted by lundy86_4 (43438 posts) -

I have yet to play it... So sad.

#28 Posted by TheTruthIsREAL (761 posts) -

@murray69murray: what? Maybe the most technically advanced but it's ugly. Not visually pleasing to me. Don't tell me what to think lol.

#29 Posted by lamprey263 (23975 posts) -

hopefully they make a Metro collection for the next gen consoles, and improve on 2033's issues while they're at it

#30 Edited by cfisher2833 (1703 posts) -

@speedfog said:

The only thing that looks good in Killzone SF and makes it look better is the lightning. The lens flare and all that shit. A bit reflection to the ground and people think it actually looks good.

Metro wins ofc.

I don't even know if I'd agree with that. Remember this part in LL ^^^^

Also, did Killzone even use tessellation? Because Metro LL had some amazing tessellation. Dem bald heads!

#31 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38216 posts) -

@jg4xchamp said:

Eh, not necessarily. Game is just shallow in general, and it doesn't help the games cause that if you bought it post launch(or got it with your graphics card) that the ideal way to play that game is DLC. I think that's what really gives a lot split reactions on that game.

Ranger Mode that game is better. On normal settings the AI is too stupid to ever really be a challenge when being sneaky or being rambo. Plus the Russian stuff and the storyline gets amazingly cheesy.

I will say I am also sick of sight seeing tour method of creating environments. It really feels restrictive especially when you want the game to open up and try to sell the environment more. Bioshock Infinite did that stuff a lot too with Columbia.

I do agree that I wish it was more open at times and I even said in my video while playing that I really wanted a new STALKER and wanted it to look like MLL. Not denying it's restrictive at the start, just that it does open up more in some areas near the middle.

I still don't think the game balance is right even on Ranger mode. It feels really cheap sometimes and yeah normally it's too easy. It's just one of those things. Thankfully though it's mechanics were more solid this time and had more consistency that made sneaking a bit more enjoyable. Skulking in the shadows and saving a girl from being raped by throwing knives at the assailants is badass no matter how you spin it and all of that to be an optional little side part too was nice.

You also need to consider the team that made the game too, they can't really afford to make things any more bombastic than they were. I'm still surprised it even turned out as good as it did

#32 Edited by StrongDeadlift (5175 posts) -

@PinkieWinkie said:

You make the worst threads on this forum.

No, thats Jonny Meltdown/WastedWisdom.

#33 Edited by jg4xchamp (48166 posts) -

@seanmcloughlin said:

@jg4xchamp said:

Eh, not necessarily. Game is just shallow in general, and it doesn't help the games cause that if you bought it post launch(or got it with your graphics card) that the ideal way to play that game is DLC. I think that's what really gives a lot split reactions on that game.

Ranger Mode that game is better. On normal settings the AI is too stupid to ever really be a challenge when being sneaky or being rambo. Plus the Russian stuff and the storyline gets amazingly cheesy.

I will say I am also sick of sight seeing tour method of creating environments. It really feels restrictive especially when you want the game to open up and try to sell the environment more. Bioshock Infinite did that stuff a lot too with Columbia.

I do agree that I wish it was more open at times and I even said in my video while playing that I really wanted a new STALKER and wanted it to look like MLL. Not denying it's restrictive at the start, just that it does open up more in some areas near the middle.

I still don't think the game balance is right even on Ranger mode. It feels really cheap sometimes and yeah normally it's too easy. It's just one of those things. Thankfully though it's mechanics were more solid this time and had more consistency that made sneaking a bit more enjoyable. Skulking in the shadows and saving a girl from being raped by throwing knives at the assailants is badass no matter how you spin it and all of that to be an optional little side part too was nice.

You also need to consider the team that made the game too, they can't really afford to make things any more bombastic than they were. I'm still surprised it even turned out as good as it did

Yeah the mechanics are dope, and dumb AI aside sneaking around was fun since the rules mostly worked with the visuals of that game with the shadows. And that games lighting is frankly on point.

Plus all the surface level stuff in general feels great. But yeah the back story behind the development of that game is crazy. It be interesting to see what that studio could do with a bigger budget, and less shitty environments. I don't think their game lack that much focus that a bigger budget would hurt their cause. They tend to have a very clear vision of the game they want to make, just miss their mark here and there.

#34 Posted by Zelda187 (880 posts) -

On PC?

Clearly

#35 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38216 posts) -

@jg4xchamp said:

Yeah the mechanics are dope, and dumb AI aside sneaking around was fun since the rules mostly worked with the visuals of that game with the shadows. And that games lighting is frankly on point.

Plus all the surface level stuff in general feels great. But yeah the back story behind the development of that game is crazy. It be interesting to see what that studio could do with a bigger budget, and less shitty environments. I don't think their game lack that much focus that a bigger budget would hurt their cause. They tend to have a very clear vision of the game they want to make, just miss their mark here and there.

Well I hope they get the chance to go ahead with something bigger. Really annoyed that STALKER is dead at this point.

I'd love to see them take on an almost horror like game,some parts of Last Light and especially 2033 had some great horror-esque sections

#36 Posted by jg4xchamp (48166 posts) -

@seanmcloughlin said:

@jg4xchamp said:

Yeah the mechanics are dope, and dumb AI aside sneaking around was fun since the rules mostly worked with the visuals of that game with the shadows. And that games lighting is frankly on point.

Plus all the surface level stuff in general feels great. But yeah the back story behind the development of that game is crazy. It be interesting to see what that studio could do with a bigger budget, and less shitty environments. I don't think their game lack that much focus that a bigger budget would hurt their cause. They tend to have a very clear vision of the game they want to make, just miss their mark here and there.

Well I hope they get the chance to go ahead with something bigger. Really annoyed that STALKER is dead at this point.

I'd love to see them take on an almost horror like game,some parts of Last Light and especially 2033 had some great horror-esque sections

Nah, man Russian FPS.

So you know it's gonna be full post nuclear bullshit ;p. OOO maybe it be something like Cryostasis that game was pretty cool, when it worked.

#37 Posted by ReadingRainbow4 (14119 posts) -

Shouldn't this be a blog post?

I'd actually vote for every topic you make to be forcefully relegated to the confines of your blog.

#38 Posted by jake44 (2021 posts) -

Metro obviously looks better. Why make this thread?

#39 Posted by JangoWuzHere (16442 posts) -

It's not hard for games to be better looking then Shadowfall. Shadowfall is easily one of the most graphically inconsistant games I have played this year. The game really dazzles you with it's first few game chapters, but the later levels look incredibly flat. Lots of poor animation, bad textures, dull lighting, etc. It doesn't help that the game has one of the worst campaigns of 2013.

#40 Posted by Nengo_Flow (9770 posts) -

@jun_aka_pekto said:

Perhaps I like KZ4's setting better. It appeals to me more than Metro Last Light's. So, to me, KZ4 looks better.

KZ4 doesnt exist

#41 Edited by jun_aka_pekto (16167 posts) -

@Nengo_Flow said:

@jun_aka_pekto said:

Perhaps I like KZ4's setting better. It appeals to me more than Metro Last Light's. So, to me, KZ4 looks better.

KZ4 doesnt exist

Whatever the latest one is.

#42 Posted by Tessellation (8803 posts) -

Of course it does,only a moron would say otherwise..but we know how the upset camps rolls.

#43 Edited by seanmcloughlin (38216 posts) -

@jg4xchamp said:

Nah, man Russian FPS.

So you know it's gonna be full post nuclear bullshit ;p. OOO maybe it be something like Cryostasis that game was pretty cool, when it worked.

Cryostasis is legit, it was janky as hell some times but it was a great experience. That flashback mechanic and the dude coming through the cinema screen was awesome

#44 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (16167 posts) -

This thread just sucks without maxed out screenies of both games.

#45 Edited by NFJSupreme (5378 posts) -

I haven't played KZ:SF but I have Metro:LL and it rivals BF4. Not a big fan of the character models and animation though.

#46 Posted by uninspiredcup (8687 posts) -

@jun_aka_pekto said:

This thread just sucks without maxed out screenies of both games.

#47 Edited by seanmcloughlin (38216 posts) -

@uninspiredcup said:

@jun_aka_pekto said:

This thread just sucks without maxed out screenies of both games.

Hah! good one

#48 Edited by MrXboxOne (743 posts) -

@uninspiredcup said:

My friends, most of us agree Crysis 3 is universally the greatest looking game in the world. But how does Metro Last Light stack up? Is it second in command or is Killzone: Shadowfall exclusively for the Playstation 4 a visually superior game?

LOL no one thinks KZSF is anywhere close. Hell Gamespot,ign,game trailers,adam sessler, euro gamer and much more agrre Ryse is the console graphics king. deal with facts and move on.

#49 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (16167 posts) -

@uninspiredcup: Surely we should have a whole slew of KZS user images by now that aren't similar to those shown before the game released..

#50 Edited by uninspiredcup (8687 posts) -

@jun_aka_pekto said:

@uninspiredcup: Surely we should have a whole slew of KZS user images by now that aren't similar to those shown before the game released..

They tend to be biased.