@ Slimebeast

actually that was a very good thread and the OP was 100% correct. Though honestly all the Sony only fanboys called hime a fanboy even though he said from the beginning K2 looked better. No one could understand he was saying WHY it looked better.

^This thread made a Helghast facepalm himself.

In facto toastboy, you cannot compare those games with pics:

- gears of war 2 has better texture: yeah it's true, and you can show that with pictures
- killzone 2 has better animations, particles effect and lighting effects: good luck to show that with pictures ...

I think the PS3 fanboys overestimating and exaggerating Killzone 2 in graphics, gameplay, sales, system selling potential, metacritic average, game ranking average is causing the facepalming.

(Note: I think Kz2 will be a good game. I just don't think it'll save the PS3 and be the best game ever/this gen/this year like most PS3 fanboys do).

@ Tremble

Very good points, K2 always looks MUCH better in motion. Its the kind of game you really gotta see in movement in order to really tell where its graphically superior. In fact its single biggest advantage over Gears is in animations which Gears 2 isn't very good at all to be honest.

the first line is what matters

we are gamers not programmers , I've not read a post complaining about the "LACK OF TREES BEFORE" now all the sudden it matters?

so much hate is poured on KZ2 , why?

On my that's one lame thread... LOL ...yadayadayada

@ Blackstar

well to be honest trees complicate graphics BIG time. It takes out quite a big amount of horsepower to render trees and their movements in real time compared to something more static such as walls and cars or other scenery. From a graphics point of view foliage is a big deal. Which makes Uncharted all the more impressive with its awesome ability for real time rendering of jungle.

Oh my god, it's just another shooter with really good graphics which happens to be getting good reviews -- it's really not worth you spending your life trying to come up with niggling little complaints to stake out some kind of imaginary territory for the xbox on an internet message board. Some of the fanboys really see this as a war they've been heroically thrust into the middle of, which is sad because they're living in an emotional delusion that has nothing to do with what brought them here in the first place, however long ago (i.e. good games).


To put it in more ingratiating terms, just remember that Guerrilla Games made Killzone, and if Sony goes out of business GG will be making games for someone else. (Maybe even for the lovely Xbox?)

Having played Gears 2 for around 20 hours, and having played through the Killzone 2 demo like 20 times, my take on the topic is:

Gears 2 looks better in screenshots than it does in motion,

Whereas Killzone 2 looks much better in motion than it does in screenshots.


This is a result of where the two game's beauty come from:

Gears 2 looks so good because of its consistently great textures - which of course look great when you're standing still, but when you're running around and shooting it's a lot harder to appreciate them.

Killzone 2 looks so good because of the insane lighting effects, animations, motion blur, and other post processing effects - which look great when you're running and shooting, but are a lot harder to appreciate in a still picture.