I hate to get involved in graphics debates because I always get so annoyed at just how little the people I'm arguing with know but I don't see what I'm going to post as a graphics debate thing... just more a 'clearing the confusion' thing. So here I go...

I don't think d21 was suggesting it was the undisputed top of 2008 graphics. He was just responding to someone who earlier suggested that Gears 2 wasn't even near (keyword... that's why it's underlined) the top of console graphics tech at its release. Now you must agree that it's just ridiculous to say that when, bar MGS4 (which we kind of already successfully pointed out - ends up being sort of a preference thing), Gears 2 was right up there at the time. d21 was just giving a few examples to show that it was indeed considered up there at the time of release by citing some graphics awards it had won and saying that no game could possibly win one if it looked poor as quite a few members here are suggesting. And yes, IGN and Gamespot (and many others) did give it to MGS4 (d21 was wrong here) but at the same time Gametrailers and Gamespy (and many others) gave it to GeoW2. So they're both damn fine looking games.

Guten Tag Roomie!!!

For someone who came down on another poster for sharing their opinion ill-versed opinion, you really aren't helping the situation...

Same thing applies. You could voice your opinion on the matter in a less condescending tone.

My sole gripe is the influx of people who just can't help but go out of their way to try and attack something that people love.  I find myself doing it, too.  Lately, I've been able to find a little bit of self restraing (not all the time) and just not post anything if I don't have anything good to say. 

I mean, look at the "Gears of War 3 Campaign Trailer" article on gamrFeed (not sure if it's on the front page, anymore.).  One guy made the comment "Compare it to the Killzone 3 Story trailer.  Not even close! LOL!" or something like that.  Why would 360 owners looking at a glimpse of the campaign of the most anticipated game of the year for that system care about a PS3 exclusive FPS?  What did a comment like that have to do with anything?

I'll let it be.  It's just that Gears is probably in my top 3 franchises this gen.  It provided me with too many good times and I have a hard time sitting idely by while people try to trash it.

You're assuming no one cares. They may be a common enemy to you but may be a great source of entertainment to someone else. As you yourself stated, they are popular and that happens for a reason. You calling the people who enjoy such experiences "idiots" is no different than what Lyrikalstylez was doing.

And we're in a Gears thread where people are talking about the Gears gameplay formula. You commenting on GuiltySpartan's post the way you did, you're commenting about Gears. But sure go on ahead and back-peddle and get defensive and such and enjoy your constructive time at VGChartz.

Of course, this conversation is as constructive as peddling a bike backwards. I'm done with it. Respond as you will I'll leave you be with w/e else goes on in this thread.

trash out

What!?  This looks like a job for google!!  As for the bolded part, it's cool that you don't agree but I never said that.  Everybody has opinions and that's cool. 

*edit*  I meant Gamespy when I said Gamespot http://goty.gamespy.com/2008/special/index.html

*edit*  I meant IGN when I said IGN http://games.ign.com/articles/893/893833p4.html (unfortunately, that was just E3, 2008)

I hate to get involved in graphics debates because I always get so annoyed at just how little the people I'm arguing with know but I don't see what I'm going to post as a graphics debate thing... just more a 'clearing the confusion' thing. So here I go...

I don't think d21 was suggesting it was the undisputed top of 2008 graphics. He was just responding to someone who earlier suggested that Gears 2 wasn't even near (keyword... that's why it's underlined) the top of console graphics tech at its release. Now you must agree that it's just ridiculous to say that when, bar MGS4 (which we kind of already successfully pointed out - ends up being sort of a preference thing), Gears 2 was right up there at the time. d21 was just giving a few examples to show that it was indeed considered up there at the time of release by citing some graphics awards it had won and saying that no game could possibly win one if it looked poor as quite a few members here are suggesting. And yes, IGN and Gamespot (and many others) did give it to MGS4 (d21 was wrong here) but at the same time Gametrailers and Gamespy (and many others) gave it to GeoW2. So they're both damn fine looking games.

Guten Tag Roomie!!!

That looks really nice I know, and no...it won't look 'alot' better in fact it'll look practically the same. I've already seen the trailer in the original post and those graphics are final so I and everyone else who has seen that trailer know what to expect.

That aside, the textures do look really good, kind of artsy but not realistic. When you look at these screenshots you can tell very easily that it's a video game and that's because everything looks like it's made out of clay, especially the characters. Honestly, fast forward the trailer in the OP to :25 and look at the guys face (best example I could find), it's underwhelming I'm sorry that's just my opinion.