Not only that, technically Uncharted 1: Drake's Fortune had better lighting, anti-aliasing, higher quality textures and higher polygon counts. It's general art style was more appealing to me, such as Drake vs Markus character design.
Of course, I understand Gears of War 2 has a certain cool-factor amongst many XBox fans and it's still a very good looking game.
I've played the shit out of Uncharted: Drake's Fortune.
And it in no aspect is better looking that Gears of War. It just isn't. Its a beautiful game sure, but is nowhere near current standards inlcuding Gears 2.
Actually he's got a point (and quite a bit of reviews agreed). Uncharted 1 did have smoother aliasing and less frame drops than Gears 1, not to mention higher detailed textures, better water effects, and higher polygon character models. Lighting was a toss up, and Uncharted had more screen tearing, but overall, Uncharted 1 etched Gears 1 out on a technical level.
Gears 2 changed the game, and even though Uncharted still beat it in charatcer models, Gears 2 got overall more respect visually. Of course Uncharted 2 put to rest any debate about Gears vs Uncharted visually, but that's irrelevant.
I don't care about technical terms and all this stuff people throw around to be perfectly honest. A game can have 1 million polys and it can be ugly as hell.
Gears 2 is a better looking game than Uncharted. By quite a bit.
You initially said Gears of War, not Gears 2. If it's about Gears 2, I agree (for the most part), as made evident in my post. As for technical stuff, whether you don't care for it or not, that plays a factor when determining which games are ahead of others. Personal opinions are fine, but the tech stuff isn't based on opinion. And frankly, Uncharted 1 was anything but ugly.
Either way, if I misunderstood, you have my apologies.