This analysis seems to fairly unbiased but at the same time incredibly weak , I don't think you have to be a programmer to recognise that.

"As you can see, the organic matter does not look so great. As you introduce bumps, round objects, and surfaces into a game, the power requirement to make it look good jumps up. It is very simple to make square edges look good but round edges take more power. Now, I've played the Killzone 2 demo and although there are some broken surfaces with rough edges that do look pretty good, they are pretty minimal throughout the demo."

Assuming everything that you say is true , you still not taking into consideration the number of animations occuring at the same time , on screen enemies , on screen activity , physics , audio etc etc. (None of that matters to the GPU)

You say that Killzone 2 has an easier to develop art style than Gears Of War 2 , that sounds stupid art style is only one of the many considerations a developer would have to make when developing a game.

"f killzone 2 were running on its engine on the PS3 and the exact same game on Epic's engine on the Xbox 360, I have no doubt that Killzone 2 would look better on the PS3. However, the difference would not be by much. Due to its smaller OS, the Xbox 360 has more memory available to it than Killzone 2. Killzone 2 on the PS3 would probably have a bit more going on on the screen at the same time but the Xbox 360 version would have higher resolution textures."

I think your overstating the memory advantages the 360 has over the PS3 if there actualy any at all , your making assertions with little to know justification . IIIRC the ps3's ram isn't a straight forward as saying the 360 has % more memory than it . they have very different architectures. You also create a fallacy , you said something to the effect of "killzone 2 could run more things at the same time than the 360 , but the 360 can run less things with better textures " Surely your saying the same thing and not proving anything ?

"
Yes, Killzone 2 does have a very advanced engine and it does make great use of the Cell processor, however, it mainly looks the way it does because of the art style. Not only did it take the safe path, but it also (in my opinion) selected a superior color palette. Based on what I saw from the demo and other Xbox 360 games, I think that it *can* be done on the Xbox 360, it would just take as long as the PS3 version. If they use procedural synthesis, it would take longer. If they don't, it would have to ship on multiple DVDs. "

I'm also calling BS on this , your basicaly saying the limiting factor in making Killzone 2 is the number of DVD's you'll be putting the game on ....Wtf ?. "If they don't it would have to ship on multiple DVD's" implying that if they did it would only ship on 1 ?

Great post,no matter what you tell PS fanboys KZ2 > all other games graphics.

Thanks but I also think that KZ2 > all other console game graphics, I just don't think that the gap between it and GoWII is as big as some of the more extreme members of this forum would like to think.

While the game has awesome shader effects the textures are no where near as good as Gears 2.

And the same thing reverse for gears 2,Awesome texture medicore shaders.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I'm glad that you like GoWII so much, it really is a great game. :D

No, not at all. The underlying technology is great, it is just a little unconventional by today's standards. Hacking engines like this is something which people did in the NES/PS1/early PS2 days due to their low power. I've stated countless times that I think it's refreshing that Guerilla spent so much time on them to make the game look good. 

However, it seems that you have a problem with this. First you're unhappy with the simplification I gave so people could understand it, and now you seem unhappy with the underlying technology explanation.

This question is by no means rhethorical, but are you upset over the fact that Killzone 2's graphics can be explained fairly easily?