Not that the KZ2 people don't need to be put in their place, but the thread parent doesn't contain anything measurable and just engages in a bunch of hand waving. Furthermore, the ridiculous OS comments neutralize any effect the appeal to authority has.

If you are not pleased with my simple explanation, you are free to read the more technical discussion on page 5. Also, what OS comment are you talking about?

good read...

Though my opinion is that these graphics are crap.... I haven't appreciated graphics in games since the HD launched... looks too much like PC graphics and those I forgave thinking it was my graphics card that was not powerfull enough... can't do that for consoles.

I'm all for cell shading, looks a lot nicer to my eyes than "real like" textures that only look pixelized to me (and that is the case in every one of the screenshots up there...) don't look real....

Sorry

That is why I picked a lot of images from 2 sites, so no one can say I'm cherry picking.

Congratulations for this thread. Someone would expect it would turn to a f*boy war, but look how smooth the chat is getting!
I liked your OP, and I enjoy the conversation.
I still lean a bit to the Gears camp, but that's only my opinion. Killzone looks incredibly fantastic too!
Thanks again for all those interesting tips!

Thanks for the comment, I'm glad you enjoyed it! I wasn't able to sleep last night so I decided to stay here and defend my thread from trolls!

I found this to be a very interesting read.

Even though it seems like the OP thinks KZ2 has a better look overall (I could be wrong), I still do not see how this is a fair comparison. Isn't this a comparison between a demo and a finished product?

Judging from what many said in the KZ2 thread as well as the KZ2 demo thread, on the main menu of the demo the game reads "2008 Sony Computer Entertainment Europe", actually if you look at a Dec 2008 to Jan. 2009 comparison you can pretty much figure out for yourself this is dated code. So there is a good chance the comparison is a dated one from Dec 2008, before GG added the extra bells and whistles to give the game a much better appearance.

What I find impressive though is as the OP said, you sit someone in front of both games and odds are they will say KZ2 looks better. This is exactly what happened last night when me and my Sisters Boyfriend played KZ2 and Gears 2, he thought KZ2 looked much better.

@Garnett

How often do you play a game and spend your time zooming in and looking at textures on a wall? I certainly do not.

You can sit here and say Gears 2 has better textures, but graphics account for MUCH more than just textures. Gears 2 does not have anywhere near the amount of stuff going on around you, the animation is not on the same level, the physics as well. You need to take this all into account. Both may look comparable with images on the forums, but in game it is clearly obvious KZ2 has it beat.

My opinion by the way.

The art style and level design is pretty much finalized. There really isn't much they can do about that in a few months. So even if this wasn't the final product, I wouldn't expect it to be much different. Last couple of months of development are usually used to find and get rid of bugs.

According to previews, reviews, etc... the time between the Dec. 2008 and Jan 2009 builds made quite a difference.The footage they showed in Dec could have been from back in Sept/Oct for all we know. Maybe someone knows, but I certainly do not.

In the demo the game still has this blue tint going on quite a bit, just like it was in the Dec 2008 build. If I can find it, I think the best way of seeing this is with video from Visari Square. The 1-month of work between the 2 builds was very easy to spot.

To be honest though if we get into technical talk I will get lost. I just think a fair comparison can not be made yet, unless of course someone can compare unreleased KZ2 footage to unreleased GEoW2 footage.

Released vs. Unreleased just isn't fair, even if the outcome puts KZ2 on top.

That is my opinion.