Alright, here's the deal.

The tagline says "Best Graphics Technology"

We use the term graphics to refer to two things.

A. Technical graphics, like graphics you see in a screenshot. Mass Effect has amazing technical graphics.

B. Functional Graphics, Mass Effect on the 360 has terrible popins, slowdown, tearing, and freezing, which means it has unacceptable/terrible functional graphics.

Now, while Killzone looks great in screenshots and I'm sure runs at a smoother 30 fps(if it doesn't then it doesn't deserve any type of award for graphics technology), Gears also looks great in screenshots, though not quite as good.

Gears manages to stay very visually impressive at a very smooth and functional rate, while also having destructable environments, a "horde of players" mode participating in huge battles, and apparently great enviromental effects, while running as smooth as butter.

That is called being innovative with graphical technology.

So while Killzone is pushing the PS3, Gears 2 is pushing the 360 beyond the limits of what everyone thought was possible with draw limits, on screen independent sprites, and the works. Other games will use what Gears 2 did in games to come. It will improve the way people develop games for next gen platforms. It's excellent graphical technology.

Just because screenshots of Killzone 2 look better than gears, doesn't mean you have a point.

If you have a painting by a famous artist, and you have a gameboy, you can look at both screens and though the painting looks obviously much better, it certainly doesn't have better "graphics technology."

Let's not get carried away here.

In the end, functional graphics are the only thing that matter anyway. If Killzone 2 ends up with graphics better than Crysis, but runs at a solid 15 fps the entire game, then the graphics for Killzone 2 will suck.

You see how we use the word "graphics" as a double meaning, now.

If you know anything about tech you would know that your statement was false. Killzone has managed to create a complete atmosphere. Gears of war looks good don't get me wrong. I'll even say it looks great, but it doesen't touch killzone 2. Just the fact that they are raytracing is incredible.

@ squiliam .. we all know that many of those games looks better on the ps3 nomatter what their resolution is. Its common knowlage that GTA, BURNOUT Paradise, DMC and oblivion looks better on the ps3. It only seems like you highlighted oblivion though.

In the end as someone else said, it does in many ways come down to personal preference. That's how it's gonna be in the future aswell (i would expect)

I agree. But it at least shuts up those annoying fanboys jumping on the whole Cell bandwagon. The funny thing is they based it on there actual playtests on the games at E3. Not even any mighty PS3 exclusive could beat the best 360 exclusive.

Just proves my point when I said ages ago that there will barely be a difference in graphics on the consoles, I was right.

Sony stated that they currently had used about 80% of the PS3's entire power in their conference with games like KZ2. So if Gears 2 is say using 90% of 360, then at the end of the day they are capable of the same graphics near enough. That should once and for all shut posters like MikeB up, who all along I said was touting Fanboyism.

*shouts* We need some spec sheets, pl0x! D:

Seriously, I guess, for this generation of consoles, it will come down to preferences more than anything. You like shooters with more vibrant colors? Play Uncharted. You like shooters with a more dark look? Play Gears or KZ2. Well, that's how I see it...

Alright, here's the deal.

The tagline says "Best Graphics Technology"

We use the term graphics to refer to two things.

A. Technical graphics, like graphics you see in a screenshot. Mass Effect has amazing technical graphics. I would call this visual effect which is a combination of the technical effects and the artistic and design elements which draw everything together to help you suspend disbelief.

B. Functional Graphics, Mass Effect on the 360 has terrible popins, slowdown, tearing, and freezing, which means it has unacceptable/terrible functional graphics. What you're talking about here is a product of the engine qualities and design.

Now, while Killzone looks great in screenshots and I'm sure runs at a smoother 30 fps(if it doesn't then it doesn't deserve any type of award for graphics technology), Gears also looks great in screenshots, though not quite as good.

Gears manages to stay very visually impressive at a very smooth and functional rate, while also having destructable environments, a "horde of players" mode participating in huge battles, and apparently great enviromental effects, while running as smooth as butter.

That is called being innovative with graphical technology.

So while Killzone is pushing the PS3, Gears 2 is pushing the 360 beyond the limits of what everyone thought was possible with draw limits, on screen independent sprites, and the works. Other games will use what Gears 2 did in games to come. It will improve the way people develop games for next gen platforms. It's excellent graphical technology.

Just because screenshots of Killzone 2 look better than gears, doesn't mean you have a point.

If you have a painting by a famous artist, and you have a gameboy, you can look at both screens and though the painting looks obviously much better, it certainly doesn't have better "graphics technology."

Let's not get carried away here.

In the end, functional graphics are the only thing that matter anyway. If Killzone 2 ends up with graphics better than Crysis, but runs at a solid 15 fps the entire game, then the graphics for Killzone 2 will suck.

You see how we use the word "graphics" as a double meaning, now. The double meaning is technical achievement and design/art. Crysis is an extreme example of technical achievement whereas many Wii games are praised for their art - Okami, Super Mario Galaxy etc on the other extreme.