I don't want you saying a bunch a stuff after I present technical info.  I want you to SHOW THE DATA like I did, because you are getting out of hand with some of your statements.

When you have the data from a reliable source or two, THEN we can have a real conversation about this.

Earlier when I saw the first few pages of that PDF I thought "That's neat, Naughty Dog is starting their presentation in much the same way they started the history of Uncharted presentation." 9 pages later, closed out of the PDF. Why? Out of all of the technical documents Naughty Dog has released, you posted one that couldn't be any less reverent to our conversation. The entire PDF is just an overview of how Naughty Dog structures their development studio and some of the tools they use. There are 2 useful slides in which they brush on SPU usage then it jumps into generic algorithms and methods that any graduate student could learn in their first semester. Even the 2 SPU slides are completely irrelevant since they don't even list the exact usage of the SPUs, any code, exact bandwidth, loads, memory usage, etc. The final slides show things which many developers already do and post effects which anyone with a background in computer graphics could spot just by looking at a screenshot of the game.

You showed generic data that has no value. I could change the name of the game/studio and show that data and no one would know where it is from nor care because it's just so darn generic! Naughty Dog is one of my favorite studios and they have released a lot of awesome code, algorithms, and presentations on their work. However, this is not one of them, this is the kind of PDF that you show someone that has no knowledge of Naughty Dog or how Uncharted works. 

Don't worry, I won't bother posting any numbers or specs like I did before, I'd hate for you to have to alt-tab to wikipedia every 10 seconds. Also, don't bother replying to this, I won't humor you anymore. Had you just posted that PDF, your opinion, and fundamental understanding of game graphics, I would have respected your opinion and politely pointed out any flaws in your understanding of computer graphics. However, your last post came off extremely rude. I can excuse your ignorance but I won't stand for your arrogance.

Right.... because you can never have plant life in a desolate wasteland.

Wow, I had to do a double take at that... I played Fallout 3 but man... That screenshot impressed the hell out of me. And trust me, I am not impressed very easily. By any chance, do you have the URL to a 720P version? I'd love to see how it looks at full resolution.

@Jetrii

Major props man for staying level headed throughout this entire thread.

As for Fallout 3, the game is very impressive. Have you checked it out yet?

I have also watched some videos on Killzone 2 and while it may not be confirmed (unless someone on the forums proves it) I have seen some things that hinted at a level or two that may contain barren woodland areas like those shown in that Fallout 3 picture.

It is understandable why the World looks like that though, in terms of "lack of vegetation", because from what I have read trees and plant life are unable to live in such conditions of high level radiation and environmental pollution. I did a quick google today and I read up on "Red Forest", it talks about how all tree and plant life close to the power plant there were unable to grow, the surrounding area is pretty much barren. I think there is an area in Equador with the same problem.

I would love to see Killzone 3 though return to the ISA home planet though, to see what GG can do in this regard. I had no idea Killzone 2 looked that good, I have the game sitting here in front of me and have not popped it on yet. Those screenshots you posted make me think that even with the technical issues the game had, there is no denying it looked great for the system it was released on.

Once again, great job with this thread.

I did play Fallout 3, I just never got the chance to play more than 20 minutes of it. I saw similar scenes to the one posted, but that one just took my breath away. Perhaps it was the low resolution of the screenshot but I am definetely going to run out and buy that game tomorrow instead of waiting for Gamefly to ship it.

I agree, Killzone 2 does look amazing. I just wish people would at least read a couple of my posts before trying to start some sort of holy crusade in Sony's honor. I'm not here to bash any games or systems, I just wanted to write an informative article which I thought a few people would enjoy.

Thank you for the comment! If I can stay level headed while dozens of engineers and mathmaticians scream while running from terminal to terminal trying to figure out why our simulation program crashed on a cluster that is costing the company $150 dollars a minute, I can certainly handle a few trolls and fanboys.

I had the game on Gamefly as well and am thinking of eventually picking it up to continue where I left off. Fallout 3 truly is impressive. I doubted it at first and I admit I was wrong in my initial opinion.

Keep it up with how you present yourself.

+1 respect.

well if i am correct doesnt the story say that the planet in killzone 2 is poluted? maybe thats why we dont see organic matter or plants in the game and for me thats a valid excuse and is another planet too so is not going to be the same like in earth it can be completly different. it may look like they played safe, but if the story is like that then the enviroments need to be related to the story. i mean i think is like when people say about killzone 2 being to grey. if it is a warzone and a poluted planet then it cant be all colourfull like a normal enviroment.

You are REALLY trying to get out of presenting any documentation for Gears 2, aren't you?  I knew it.  All you can say it that it's done in games.  ND isn't reinventing the wheel.  It's using all those techniques in ONE engine where other engines or the same engine couldn't do it on other systems.  560MB was used for textures alone.  Remember this was back when the PS3's OS used to take up 86MB of the split RAM pools (not the 24MB of XDR RAM it currently takes up). ;)

Now, for the Crysis physics stuff.  Watch how this gun floats down to the ground.  Watch the LACK of physics based death animations.  Why did he catch on fire after falling to the ground?!

Now Killzone 2...

http://www.videogamer.com/videos/killzone_2_visari_square_gameplay.html#

This gameplay has weather physics effecting the fires, cloth physics, qrenade tossing, particles of debris, etc. and ALL while tons of characters are moving and firing at each other.  Where is that level of physics in Crysis?  Where is that show of power?  Even the characters have physics (a feeling of weight for them and the weapons).  There are about the same amount of polygons in each soldier's FACE in Killzone 2 as in an ENTIRE LEVEL in Killzone (link below).  Of course, this was before they added even more detail to the faces in 2008.

http://www.psu.com/2GB-levels-in-Killzone-2-News--a1111-p0.php

I'm still waiting for your credible evidence to show up.  This is looking completely one-sided as far as proof goes.

I just wanted to let you know that I'm still waiting.