| CGI-Quality said: Doesn't get more realistic than this. MW2 looks good folks, but to think it competes with Killzone 2 is quite silly. To each there own, but Killzone 2 is technologically a better game. |
How do you mean technologically a better game? Their design goals are completely different and so is their implementation, so please tell me how you can say one is better than the other unless you can clarify and say its better in some specific way.
Killzone 2 = heavely multi-threaded, high frame time (33-40ms per frame) + higher latency (177 or 6-7 frames) but implements a lot of technologies with the express desire to make a graphically immersive game. This game sold pretty much initially because it looked better than pretty much every game out there and this was conveyed by videos over the internet.
Call of Duty 6 = less threaded, low frame time and low latency (assumed from how they did the first game) 16.66-20ms per frame multiplayer orientated experience. Word of mouth sold the previous game because people felt how much better it played than pretty much every game out there in a way that videos on the internet couldn't convey.
Tease.
