ZenfoldorVGI said:
Alright, here's the deal.
The tagline says "Best Graphics Technology"
We use the term graphics to refer to two things.
A. Technical graphics, like graphics you see in a screenshot. Mass Effect has amazing technical graphics.
B. Functional Graphics, Mass Effect on the 360 has terrible popins, slowdown, tearing, and freezing, which means it has unacceptable/terrible functional graphics.
Now, while Killzone looks great in screenshots and I'm sure runs at a smoother 30 fps(if it doesn't then it doesn't deserve any type of award for graphics technology), Gears also looks great in screenshots, though not quite as good.
Gears manages to stay very visually impressive at a very smooth and functional rate, while also having destructable environments, a "horde of players" mode participating in huge battles, and apparently great enviromental effects, while running as smooth as butter.
That is called being innovative with graphical technology.
So while Killzone is pushing the PS3, Gears 2 is pushing the 360 beyond the limits of what everyone thought was possible with draw limits, on screen independent sprites, and the works. Other games will use what Gears 2 did in games to come. It will improve the way people develop games for next gen platforms. It's excellent graphical technology.
Just because screenshots of Killzone 2 look better than gears, doesn't mean you have a point.
If you have a painting by a famous artist, and you have a gameboy, you can look at both screens and though the painting looks obviously much better, it certainly doesn't have better "graphics technology."
Let's not get carried away here.
In the end, functional graphics are the only thing that matter anyway. If Killzone 2 ends up with graphics better than Crysis, but runs at a solid 15 fps the entire game, then the graphics for Killzone 2 will suck.
You see how we use the word "graphics" as a double meaning, now.
|
thanx
