BMaker11 said:
selnor said:
MikeB if I was to compare the to flagship titles of both HD consoles for graphics, I'd rate like this. Bearing in mind this is based of visual representation and not how technical it was to achieve the result.
Animation = KZ2
Textures = Gears 2
Lighting = Gears 2 (sorry)
Visual effects = KZ2
Then I would break it down further.
Breakable sceneary = Gears 2
Amount on screen = Gears 2
water = Gears 2
The funny thing is KZ2 I think looks slightly better overall. Why. Purely because the effects and animation are so good, it lends the game to looking great in motion. But then theres also the point of how can we compare the 2? Epic have said time and time again in development they are not striving for photorealism becasue that is not the art style of the game. Evident in overly bulky characters to boot. But on the other hand it's obvious that KZ2 is aiming for photorealism easily visible through the near perfect animation.
You may say about HDR on PS3. Personally HDR and LDR is evidently the best in Halo 3. That game is abundant with it to the point of having 2 seperate frame buffers 1 for each. (the only console to use 2 buffers as well). Again people complain about Halo 3 graphics. God thank that Bungie didnt listen to these people. The art direction called for the graphics to be that way. And as Ive said 4 player split screen Halo 3 Campaign was what the fans wanted. The engine had to do that smoothly.
Like I said visually on screen what we see is important. Not how the dev got there. |
Nowadays, every PS3 thread ends with KZ2 vs. Gears 2, so I've come to expect this. But if you give lighting to Gears, I'd have to tell you to slap yourself. That's just silly....
|
Sorry bro. It's only my opinion. Reason is, purely because the actual best graphical WOW moment for me still belongs to Gears 2. The first time you see the underground cave levels. The lighting down there is in a league of it's own. But thats that. :)
