By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
priteshmodi on 13 March 2009
Edit Thread
selnor said:
Jo21 said:
selnor said:

^ Yeah have played KZ2 single player about 3 hours. Not online though. Thing is The breakable sceneary is the same as Gears 2, only Gears 2 seems to work better with all models of material. Both in single and in multiplayer Gears 2 has all of that.

 

 

killzone 2  multiplayer have it too, actually since the maps are smaller everything is breakable except metal with great animations.

that doesn't make it better but equal.

 

I agree, actually. Maybe it's because I saw all the breakable scenery stuff back in Nov 08 with Gears 2 that it didnt wow me like it is for PS3 only players?

The only point I was trying to make was that Gears 2 and KZ2 are very close in graphics, but many a fanboy will try and pip one over the other. Hell I even stated that even though I think Gears 2 excels in more areas KZ2 seems to look great moving and I gave the reasons why in previous posts. But again when noone is being shot or no grenade effects are happening, Gears 2 looks better. Basically if Gears 2 had equal animation and incorporated post processing effects it would clearly beat KZ2. Everything else in Gears 2 is top of the game. And still in some campaign set pieces does top KZ2. Just not as a whole package. (only talking graphically here people). If I had to choose a top graphical wow moment ever in console gaming that would go to Gears 2. If I had to choose best graphical looking package it would be KZ2. Do I make sense?

There is still times when we play KZ2 and we say yeah it's the best. Then couple of days later we will be playing Gears 2 and all say actually I'm not so sure. This alone tells us (at least me and my friends) that theres basically bugger all in it. Both excel at different things. Cliffy said Gears 3 would incorporate more graphics enhancements as he said there's room for improvement in the game yet.

 

 

Good work selnor! You saved me the effort or writing a blog saying EXACTLY what you've been saying throughout this thread. I agree with you completely. When I look at both KZ2 and Gears 2 closely and separate the different areas where tech applies, I feel that Gears 2 is superior in more separate fields. However, Killzone 2 is superior overall as the separate parts are more cohesive with one another, making the game more appealing visually when taken as a whole. Gears 2 gave me a few "Wow!" moments too. I couldn't think of a better one than when you first enter the cave in Act 2. Killzone 2 also had these moments (the level in the red desert :D), but like you, I didn't find them as stunning as parts of Gears 2.

Also, I don't get why people rag on Halo 3's graphics. Last night I started playing the campaign again with some buddies and this was the first time I've played it on my new TV (Samsung LN46A950) and I was actually really impressed with the lighting. The texture work I'd say is only second to MGS 4 this gen. Both games have this quality where you can zoom into things 10x and they hold up in detail, if not adding more. However, I'm finally starting to get people's complaints about aliasing in Halo 3... Some metallic interiors in the early Earth levels looked pretty atrocious.

 

Edit: Before I'm attacked for the texture comment regarding Halo 3, I haven't played Uncharted yet so don't judge my taste yet :P. I plan on getting to it very soon though and maybe the texture comment will change. From what I've seen of Uncharted, I think it will.