| Euphoria14 said: Here you go to those asking about the plant life thing. http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=59585 Part of the comparison. I don't mean to discredit Guerilla Games, but they took the easy route. Killzone 2 looks this good because it is easier to make this type of game look good. It is a game with very little organic and natural figures. I bet they have at least one in there, but for the most part, the game has no trees. The game also lacks vegetation and features very little landscape. Why is this important? Simple, organic content is very hard to make look good and takes a lot of power. Trees in particular require a lot of power to render properly. Lets take a look at these pictures:
Note: I included links to 720P pictures. I didn't include them in here because VGChartz seems to cut them off. I also didn't resize them because resizing pictures introduces artificial AA which benefits 1 of these games more than the other. Killzone 2: http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/949/949161/killzone-2-20090129014059684.jpg Gears 2 : http://www.gamershell.com/static/screenshots/12987/356480_full.jpg |
I remember this thread. Here's my take on it.
Killzone 2 looks better than GeoW2 because K2 implemented a deferred rendering engine, has 300 + unique light sources (compared to most games utilizing 4), better character models, and better character animations.
I guess you could say GG also took the "easy way out" because they didn't include crappy looking trees like Epic did. I just hope we don't spend 90% of the game in a cave or inside some alien animal. 
Thanks for the input, Jeff.
