| masterb8tr said: Well gears of war 2 doesnt beat killzone 2 in graphics thats for sure. |
Performance is more important than graphics. Let me explain.
You know how Dead Rising on the Wii has about 10 zombies on the screen at once, and the 360 version has 100?
Well, Gears of War 2 manages to look almost as good as Killzone 2, but instead of having 1 guy playing single player in their demo, they had horde mode, which is I think 5 or 6 players at the same time playing the game, all rendered on 1 360, on huge battlefields, with no slowdown or tearing.
Now, let me explain something to you. Mass Effect for the 360 has some impressive graphics. However it had terrible technical issues. So, it's graphics sucked.
On the other side of that coin, CoD4 has some pretty good graphics, but the game runs so well that you never have any issues or framerate hitches, so it ends up having better "graphics" (which also means general graphics performance as well as nice looking still frames) than any shooter out there.
So, while Killzone 2 probably did have better graphics than Gears 2, as well as having nice performance, Gears 2 managed to do only slightly worse technical graphics, with possibly better performance, while it had much more going on, on the screen..
Therefore, despite the fact that Killzone 2's graphics look better in a screenshot and in general play, Gears 2's graphics accomplish more in action and basically have more bandwidth for onscreen action before you get those nagging screen rips and slowdown issues.
That's why IGN game them the award I believe.
This is obvious.
I don't need your console war.
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor.
You're power hungry, spinnin' stories, and bein' graphics whores.
I don't need your console war.
NO NO, NO NO NO.
