I would rather figure it with facts.  Do you have any?

I'm not the one who posted it first so I really don't care.  As I said, I use common sense to figure it out so no need to look for the articles. 

Both games have reasonbly large teams but one game took more time than the others to finish.  Both games are very high on quality, quality takes time and money.  Longer time spent means more money spent.

What's the Tommy Boy quote?

I can get a good look at a T-bone by sticking my head up a bull's ass, but I'd rather take a butcher's word for it.

You're wrong. It's obvious to me that Gears 2 cost as much as MGS4, FFXIII, and Killzone 2 combined.

After all, Epic had to spend a load of money to develop Unreal Engine 3 just for Gears. They don't make any money on that engine from other games.

They also didn't receive an assload of money from MS for publishing rights.

I can also fly.

I don't really want to go back and forth on this issue with you.  I understand that you feel that the total development costs of Gears 1 and Gears 2 were less than MGS4 OR Killzone 2 because the length of time each game has been in development. But you can't really use that as a yardstick without an understanding of the burn rate for each team per game.  A "common sense" example would be LBP.  Its development team maxed out at 30 people, and the game took 2 years to complete.  Do you think LBP cost as much as Gears of War 2 since they both took 2 years to complete.

The reason I asked for a link was it the original statement was presented as fact, when in reality it was an opinion.

Uncharted and Gears of war 2 cant really be compared in terms of graphics. In Uncharted you fight a handful of enemies at a time in relatively small environments. In Gears 2 you sometimes fight hundreds of enemies at once in huge environments. So of course Uncharted may look slightly sharper.(Although I like the art in Gears 2 alot more)

Lets look at some of the things we know about these four games:

LBP

• Big budget game
• small team
• About 3 years dev time (I think, don't quote me on that one)
  

Gears of War 1

• Big budget game
• large team
• About 3 years dev time
  

Gears of War 2

• Big budget game
• large team
• About 2 years dev time

Metal Gear Solid 4

• Big budget game
• large team
• About 4 years at least dev time

So looking at those things, we have team size and time.  The large the team size, the more money you spend.  The more time you spend, the more money you spend.  The larger your team size, the more money you spend (and you don't save a lot of time).  All of those are not opinions, those are absolute fact.

Now, assuming my general team size and time spent we can make very good guesses which games cost more than the others.  I would put them in about this order from least amount spent to most spent.

1. LBP
2. Gears of War 2
3. Gears of War
4. Metal Gear Solid 4

Looking at simple known things, it's simple to figure out what games should cost more.  True, I don't know exactly how much they cost but I would be willing to bet that the order listed there is about right. There is no opinion in that, just using known information.

The only one I'm not sure about is LBP and that's only because I don't know much about the development time.

-edit-

And you can ask for links to analysts but they do the same thing I just did but throw in numbers as well.

I have to agree with some of the posts made earlier and what was eluded to in the original post.

The PS3 in my mind is flawed, flawed by its own superiority. You could argue they arrived a generation to soon. It simple does not make financial sense to spend time creating masterpieces for the PS3 when you can create more than adequate games with a higher return on more systems.

Gears of War 2 is just simply BEAUTIFUL. Anyone who says otherwise has either never played the game, is blind, or trying to hate on the 360. One of the things I find the most beautiful is the waterfalls. On an HDTV, it's hard to believe those are in-game graphics and not a real life movie.. nothing compares to it IMHO. At least not until Alan Wake/Heavy Rain, and even still, it's going to take ALOT to impress me after this.

Little things also, like if you shoot into the water it's so realistic it's crazy. Even the way the water ripples afterwards. Try throwing a 'nade in the water. Or shooting various different weapons, all have different effects.

@Twestern - I agree with your last post.

I still do not agree with mrstrickball's statement that it cost less to develop both GeoW and GeoW2 than it did to develop either Killzone 2 or MGS4.  I don't feel as though you can just use common sense to come to that conclusion.  That being said, I think that mrstickball makes a good point that titles like Gears of War provide a much better return than MGS4 and presumably Killzone 2. 

Any chance we can move along?

You should

gears 2 easly beats uncharted in the graphics area and overall gameplay. uncharted and mgs4 are both great games and both games show gamers what the ps3 can do if properly developed for. both systems are great and have a good amount of power left to be shown to the world yet. in terms of graphics it comes down to your individual point of view of what u consider great graphics in a game, because for example: i think the cutscenes and up close look at the characters in mgs4 are great looking but the environment and buildings dont look as polished,and gears i think its the other way around where the environment and buildings look great but the characters are not quite mgs4 quality. all i know is i bought my ps3 for uncharted and mgs4 and resistance, and when i owned a 360 i bought it for gears,halo and rpg's.