you don't understand my point,,,why didn't this article comeup when crysis came out???I have played the game it's like most of the shooters with very good graphics and physics egine,,,

instead every one praised crysis GRPAHICS and gave it full score,,,

here we are with killzone2 ,,a game that is beautiful and has amazing physics engine.instead of apleauding Sony and GG for how clsoe they come to the rendered target ,they give them shit,,this is what's upseting

A well written article that says pretty much exactly what I feel about games. In my opinion, fun gameplay is the most important component in a good game. Great visuals will never make up for poor gameplay. Of course, broken graphics can ruin a otherwise good game, but I would rather have average graphics and great gameplay than the other way around.

Great find Twesterm, thanks for posting.

Although we've heard this before, I agree 100% with Sterling here, and not just in the case of Killzone 2. I really don't understand the people who say that the most important aspect of a game is how it looks....gameplay is what is supposed to be top priority for any videogame.

 I don't know, why didn't he write the article when Lair came out?  Who cares.  This is when he wrote it.  

Also, Crysis is something we can actually get our hands on and know how it plays.  All we know about Killzone 2 is that it's pretty.

And nobody is denying that the game looks great and it's great that they are making their target but we want to see something about the game itself.   

It didn't come out when Crysis came out because Sterling is not a PC gamer.  Read the posts in the destructoid article.

Also, one of the posters on destructoid called KZ2 "Greyzone 2: The Fall of the Color Palette".  Heheheh.

Sony is pushing graphics with KZ2 because that is what is known for sure about the game right now, it will have great graphics. since it isn't going to come out for another year, the game play could change by miles and so what is the point of hyping up something that could change by so much.

First, I agree with WoW that this is a dead horse and has obvious console war implications that we've all been over a million times.

But I'll add one new note: I really do love how this generation has finally separated and outed the graphics whores. We called them "graphics whores" for a reason -- it was a pejorative, intended to indict those who were concerned with style over substance. Practically no one would admit to it. Gamers cared about gameplay.

But now, we have the Wii. We're at a point where we can really see who means it when they say that they aren't graphics whores, and who doesn't. Now the tag line has become, instead, "I know we all say that graphics don't matter and all that, but come on, it does matter. Let's be honest."

No, no, no. Some of us weren't faking. Some of us weren't lying to sound honorable or noble or some nonsense. You may have been lying, but I wasn't. I genuinely meant that I have practically no consideration for graphics (not none, mind you). It's like when men say that it's not very important how a girl looks, it's the inside that counts -- and then we're confronted with a smart, kind, but homely girl, and we see who actually means it and who doesn't.

 But it isn't important how a girl looks!  Also, you aren't fat and I would never look at porn.  I mean the plot and acting are just so terrible!

Besides, porn costs money, and I don't have any. Because money isn't important, as long as we're happy.

Graphics don't matter(to a gamer that I would respect). There is no limit of how fun and addicting games can become. A game with 2 stick balls battling each other could be better, have a better story, and look better than Killzone 2. If you can't understand what I'm talking about then honestly, you haven't thought long enough about what I'm saying, or it's beyond your ability to comprehend.

Bad games are bad games, but not because they have bad graphics. Good games are good games, but not because they have good graphics. As long as you hold that as the truth then your damage control of "well graphics can make a good experience better" simply doesn't hold water.

Graphics can make a good experience worse also, can they not? Just look at games with overly ambitious graphics like Mass Effect, where popins and load times keep that game from earning the respect it deserves.

This really isn't an argument to me. It's just silly. I'll steer clear. T-wes is dead on, but it's been said so many times, at this point I'm like, "Yeah, and the sky is blue too, so what's new?"