I'm not gonna get drawn into an arguement about my opinions on PS3 exclusives. However Gears 2 is not even at the top of 360 graphics. I own Alan Wake, Reach and Gears 2. Alan Wake is the king on 360 right now, followed by Reach due to the the awesome Engine, it's not just about small levels and high textures. Gears 2 is good. But Gears 3 needs to improve a fair bit to match Alan Wake let alone Crysis 2.

Just so you know, I dont rate so called heavy hitters like many do here.

What I mean by that is that the top on 1 console is minimal compared to the top on another console. Regardless of which way it goes. It's just rose tinited fanboys who portray some uber difference as if it were really there.

I am very happy to give praise to 3rd party publishers when they do a grand job. And I expected no different from a company who has held the graphics crown for more than 10 years. ( Crytek ).

Did you just say Halo Reach has better graphics then Gears of war 2?

You are right, no point arguing.

To be fair Crysis 2 levels arent corridor based or fixed camera so give credit where its due.

That is fine but I'm telling you that Crysis 2 doesn't look all that amazing. I've played both demos for the 360 and nothing changed from January to 3 weeks ago. The multiplayer textures are slightly above MW2 with the lighting being the only thing that looks amazing. Even if the singleplayer looks better, which I'm sure it will, it still will not be one of the top 5 looking games on console. Halo:Reach looks better than the Crysis 2 demo MP wise. Don't believe me? Play a few games of the Crysis 2 demo and then pop in Reach. Reach has better textures, character models, and animations. Reach is actually underrated in that I think its the best looking game on the 360 and holds its own against the PS3 best, but that is a different conversation.

Also I love when people say a finished game will look much better than the demo  or "beta" that they play. No actually it won't. When a beta or demo is released the graphics are 99.9% finished and the only thing they are looking for is feedback on gameplay and bugs so they can go back and tweak them. You have to remember the last few months of a games life are on tweaking code so it runs better and is as bug-free as possible. When they make games its like an assembly line. You have the concept artists, 3D artists, 3D environment artists, animators, coders, people that make the game work, etc. After a demo or "beta" is released they aren't going to send it back 4 steps to the 3D artists to add more polys or better textures. That would be stupid. Every demo or beta I have played looked the exact same as the finished product so this is what Crysis 2 is going to look like.

Halo:Reach does have better graphics than Gears of War 2. Gears of War 3 on the other hand will destroy both.

People need to put these games into perspective. 

The exclusives are usually designed to showcase the hardware and make the game look as amazing as possible. Games like Killzone 3, Uncharted 2, Alan Wake and God of War 3 all look amazing but have a range of tricks to acheive that look. They generally have smaller traversable areas, cheap (in terms of processing requirements) and clever effects, optimisation etc.

Crytek are trying to showcase their engine and are trying to pack as much into Crysis 2 as is humanly possibly to show off the tech. They don't just want to showcase pure visuals but the full range of capabilities in the engine to developers. This means larger areas, realtime effects, scalability, physics etc. Developers are more likely to see the full range of effects available without having to resort to the visual trickery typically used in exclusives. Crysis 2 still manages to look good but is doing more than the exclusives. 

No it doesn't. Halo Reach was actually criticised for graphics by IGN. Gears 2 looks awesome and if I didn't own killzone 2, I would have said it looks better than killzone 2 as well, its just that after playing it made me realize otherwise.

Selnor is obviously downing games like Uncharted 2 for no reason. People did the same when Alan Wake was releasing, I am sorry but people shouldn't get their hopes up before even seeing how the game looks.

But Gears of War 3 I agree with, I have seen its videos and it does look amazing better than crysis 2 by margin.

I'll repeat again. If the retail version of Crysis 2 looks anything like the demo, then it's not going to be the best looking of anything. Battlefield: BC2 looked better.

I agree Reach is my 2nd fave 360 game for graphics engine. But better than Crysis 2? No. The demo of Crysis 2 obviously was not meant to be the graphics pusher.

OPM have said it's a technical marvel, and that they pushed the PS3 hardware to the limit. Thats the latest review Ive added to the Crysis 2 thread. And oddly reports are the 360 version is better from early reviewers. Also GameReactor said it's the best 3D TV game so far, better than Sony's first party efforts. Thats impressive stuff.

Just knowing what this following clip will look like on my HDTV on my 360 is killing me. It looks amazing.