It's almost like there needs to be 2 visuals awards: technical merit (give the nominees the "lens of truth" treatment for things like frame rate consistency, screen tears, pop ins, lighting etc etc, you know some objective analysis, though it needs to be on the highest output performance settings possible to show case the best a game can offer); and then aesthetic quality.
By the looks of this thread 6/10 people would give the technical merit award to KZ2, and 6/10 people would give the aesthetic quality award to UC2. IMHO if you were to give an overall award by combining technical merit and aesthetic quality the weighting should go in favour of aesthetic quality. In the end the aim of the game is entertainment, and if people are more entertained by the visuals of a game that is slightly less impressive technically then the finer points of the technical elements are of less importance.
obviously with R&C leo-j is looking at graphics from an aesthetic point of view. And aesthetically R&C (I've only really seen Tools of Destruction) is very satisfying/entertaining. But it is lower on the technical merit score.
“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."
Jimi Hendrix
