By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Graphics nutters please enter.

starcraft said:
Anyone that thinks the difference between Gears 2 and Killzone 2 is "like night and day" is a fool.

IGN said Gears 2 was the best graphically at E3.

The only significant difference is the level of graphics hype Sony has used for Killzone 2.

Hype many people in this thread have swallowed like gravy.

 

What so I can't have an opinion because IGN said otherwise. I guess I'm a fool.



"YouR opinion is WronG!!!"

Around the Network
CGI-Quality said:
@ Garnett

A lot of these so called 360 games that look better than PS3 games are ports from the 360. Most of the better outcomes of multiplats on PS3 does depend on the developer and not so much the dev time, so in a sense I agree and disagree with u. The better question would be how would exclusives perform if they we're on opposite sytems ex: Gears of War 2 on PS3 and MGS4 on the 360.

Thats why i respect you,You dont just say "YOU GAY KZ2 RAWKS",you actually post your comment with a mature response,As for KZ2 vs GeOW graphics,Both are good in 1 way,then both lack in another way.

 

KZ2 has Effects and lighting/shadows with average textures..

Gears has good Textures with average lighting/shadows..

 



CGI-Quality said:
@ Starcraft

And what IGN says MUST be true because they are God in video games right? Your post = FAIL!

No, but what IGN says generally isn't the complete opposite of the truth, and it would have to be for comments like "night and day" to maintain any relevance.

 



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

Both versions use a lot of console floptimizations to hide graphical defects.

Quincunx AA is used on Killzone 2 for example. Its like "Wow look at all the awesome uncompressed textures we have! Lets go ahead and blur them because we can't afford the power to use MSAA!!"

For both: "You're not looking at that rock over there are you? I mean its so far away, why don't we just blur it and use DOF to let us improve the close in stuff because you know if you're looking for differences you'll be doing close ups and not staring off at the distance"

On textures: "Oh you like the look of that particular texture? Well because you like it so much its repeated there, and there and there and in that corner over there. See? It saves memory."

Its all floptimizations really, fooling the eye. Btw at this point its up to the artists and not the number of polygons/effects. MGS4 uses half as many polygons as Uncharted or as many as on the enemies and yet they probably do more with them.



Tease.

Killzone 2 will look better. The environment will look better. They have more resources to play with compared to Gears. Since Gears is 3rd person. They use more resources on the main character, animations and such.







VGChartz♥♥♥♥♥FOREVER

Xbone... the new "N" word   Apparently I troll MS now | Evidence | Evidence
Around the Network
Garnett said:
thekitchensink said:
Garnett said:
thekitchensink said:
I'd like to remind everyone that Killzone 2 has been in development since 2005, while Gears 2 probably started in mid '07. So the fact that we can even compare them (even if KZ eventually wins out, which I think it does), speaks to the power of BOTh systems.

Also, I don't know if anyone read the OP without their fanboy goggles on, but he clearly said, "But they are so close that really there is no definitive answer."

 

Too Human 10 years in development that means best graphics ever Confirmed?

 

Oh wait your logic is stupid..

 

Yeah, a game originally in development for the PS1 backs up your argument perfectly.

 

Killzone 2 has been in development since a year before the PS3's launch. Gears 2 has been in development since 2007. Case closed.

Also, did you notice how I admitted that KZ2 looks better? Of course you didn't.

Dev time =/ Better graphics...Dev time does NOT Mean better graphics,if that were true then why so many PS3 games get delayed and look worse than 360 games?

and Too Human was built from the ground up for 360...And who cares if KZ2 was in development before Gears of war 2?

Does that make it better graphics i think not,Besides there is no way to claim "best graphics"

IMO

Texture-Gears

Lighting/Shadow-KZ2

Effects -KZ2 (The dust looks amazing!!!)

So I guess KZ2 wins by 1 point.

 

I agree.

Now, tell me with a straight face that if Gears 2 had two more years development time (still less than Killzone's), that it would not look much better.



Could I trouble you for some maple syrup to go with the plate of roffles you just served up?

Tag, courtesy of fkusumot: "Why do most of the PS3 fanboys have avatars that looks totally pissed?"
"Ok, girl's trapped in the elevator, and the power's off.  I swear, if a zombie comes around the next corner..."

KZ2 is above and beyond what Gears 2 is producing.



I just took a look at the screens of both games on Gamespot, and Honestly I would have to say Gears of War 2 looks better. There are a few screens where KZ2 edges it out with textures but overall the enviroments and character models of Gears beat it out.

So please tell me that the Gamespot shots are just old and need to be updated, otherwise I don't know what ya'll are talking about.



Ah, that seems to be the problem, the majority of KZ2 shots I can find appear to be from December 2007.

Can someone direct me to the new screenshots please.



Username2324 said:
Ah, that seems to be the problem, the majority of KZ2 shots I can find appear to be from December 2007.

yes.

The newer shots for the game is amazing.  And seeing as that it will launch later than Gears 2, it will def. look better.