He is a cunt, and I agree, he really has it coming for him!

I think that video is pretty one sided. They only bothered mentioning the advantages of Killzone 2, but "forgot" to mention the advantages of Gears of War 2.

First of all, somehow he forgot to mention the lighting of GeOW2 from 1:12 to 1:15. In GeOW2 you clearly see the lighting on the ground emitted from the weapon, where KZ2 doesn't show it so clearly. That's also for the lighting on the ground when the grenades explode. Look 1:37-1:40. The explosions in KZ2 are not the best. What is better is the remaining smoke AFTER the explosion. The explosions of GeOW2 look better imo, but particles disappear very fast.

GeOW2 has way better textures too.. That's through the whole video. KZ2 uses smart art direction, but the walls and every object is basically grey, low texture, and square, where Gears has lots of textures, all sort of different shapes in the environment (non square objects are harder to calculate, especially with AA and lighting) and more variation in color in the environment (plants and stuff). Also look at the lighting part in the video. They say only that the lighting is better in KZ2, but they forget to mention the whole room has no reflection at all. Look at the floor in GeOW2. It has reflection. I wonder if KZ2 has some "shiny" reflection in the whole game at all.

I think the only things that make killzone so good looking is the blur (to hide stuff), the lighting and the particle/smoke effects (which is where the cell shines).

OH PLEASE, gears fanboy we got the better game deal with it!

@Ninlenbox: I don't even have GeOW2 -.- Didn't play it either, and also didn't play KZ2. But those stuff ar obvious.. I'm not saying Gears looks better than KZ2, I'm just pointing out the advantages that he forgot to mention in the video. KZ2 still looks more "realistic".

@NightAntilli

It's not like that's an impartial comparison. The author has a thesis (based on his experience on the two games) and to support it he collected the videoclips. As long as we all know this, it's obvious he's going to find only pro-kz2 proofs in the side-by-side comparison.

A nitpick: you, as many others, keep saying that gears 2's textures are so much better than kz2's. Frankly, I played both and I still think that they have approximately the same details. The style though is very different because gears' materials have that stark hilighted look that makes everything look shiny or wet and makes every crevice and rivet stand out, whereas KZ2's surfaces are much more subdued and scarcely bumpmapped. Plus in KZ2, being a FPS, you can get much closer to the surfaces and see the ugly :) There _are_ low res textures in both games, usually on hidden pillar sides or obscure and untreaded patches of ground.

I think Gears looks more chaotic than killzone 2, and they use lots of textures for creating that chaotic bumpy environment. Killzone 2 has more "organized" surroundings and everything is pretty much "squares" and "boxes". Since it looks more organized, people tend to think it has a more "calm" feeling to the eye, where they immediately jump the gun to "omg look at those textures they are amazing" where it's low textures with bump mapping. Just take a look at these images and you might get what i mean. They can be touched up or something, but that doesn't really help textures.

http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/888/888964/gears-of-war-2-20080714001316563.jpg (this one is not touched up)
If you want touched up version:
http://images.gamersyde.com/gallery/public/8897/1560_0004.jpg

http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/884/884154/gears-of-war-2-20080625074336814.jpg

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/3555/156000045md2.jpg

In gears 2 it doesn't get more "organized" than this i think:
http://www.x-power.be/_gallery/Gears%20of%20War%202/gears-of-war-2-combustible-map-pack-03.jpg


KZ2
http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/949/949161/killzone-2-20090129014112294.jpg

http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/890/890010/killzone-2-20080715040152476.jpg

http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/935/935547/killzone-2-20081203111746978.jpg

http://pici.se/pictures/GyyvdMdRW.jpg

If you look at how chaotic the worlds are, Gears wins it, especially with the organics and vegetation. I have yet to see a video or screen in Killzone where there's vegetation, and vegetation are on of the things that are harder to render. The textures in killzone just look "bland" imo. People forget that to create that actually ugly looking environment in gears, it takes graphics power.. Though Killzone 2 has lots more blur and apparently better AA, i still don't think it's superior from a technical standpoint, (exception of smoke maybe), but it is superior if you only look at the art direction. Most people will say gears of war 2 looks to have more detail but that killzone 2 looks more beautiful.

People, please stop bringing screenshots to your arguments. In most case, some game runs better(or worse) than what the screenshots actually show.

I've played the two games a lot lately (I'm almost done with Gears 2) and there's really no comparison to be made. The character models would be a tie to me (gears has better facial structure, killzone's bodies are more fluid), but anything else (textures, animations, effects, particles etc.), I think Killzone is vastly superior. Killzone shines when it's in motion.

You have to see this game in movement to realize how good it actually looks. There will never be a screenshot that will do justice to Killzone 2. On the other hand, those Gears of War screenshots are looking even better than the actual game. Again, I'm not saying Gears of War looks bad, I think it's probably the second best looking console game maybe tied with Uncharted and MGS (but those three games have all their strenghts and weaknesses).

I can also put videos here.. Doesn't make much difference to my argument.

Edit: Here. Reviews by IGN. This is the real deal. The in-game footage in these videos should tell you what i meant in my last post by the textures etc. Also notice how GeOW2 has some really light as well as really dark environments, where Killzone2 basically almost always keeps the same tone.. Remember this is not about the review itself, but just the graphical perspective.

KZ2:

http://ps3.ign.com/dor/objects/748475/killzone-next-gen/videos/killzone2_vidreview_012909.html

GeOW2:

http://xbox360.ign.com/dor/objects/14232680/gears-of-war-2/videos/gears2_vidreview.html

Make sure you watch in high res/quality (or whatever it's called)

@NightAntilli

The very first level (the one in the demo) doesn't really do justice to KZ2 regarding the complexity of environments and objects. I wonder if in later map packs we'll see some of the maps from KZ1, as those included vegetation. More qualified critics and devs have repeatedly explained why KZ2 stands out technically, I stand by the opinion that it shows :)

My nitpick was just that Gears 2 is usually given the upper hand on a technical subject (texturing) only because of a style choice (hyperrealistic, whereas KZ2 strives for realistic).

It's a style choice that works well for it, mind you, the game looks beautiful.

I think both games look great =) I only think it's foolish when people say the X360 wouldn't be able to handle KZ2 graphics and stuff like that, and overall KZ2 does have the upper hand, but i think it's overrated by people who don't really know what they're actually looking at. This video is interesting though, it shows how KZ2 is rendered (no there's nothing of GeOW in here):

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/43388.html

Don't mind the accent, he's dutch :P