Wow Killzone looks 'a lot' better to some. Can't see where the 'a lot' comes from. Better maybe yeah but a lot?

Let's see a similar vid vs Crysis.

Sardauk said: Euphoria14 said: Also to add in another point. When you kill a locust and it falls down into debris, a door, etc... it is nothing close to what is shown in Killzone 2. WHen an enemy is killed a Killzone 2 and crashes into a door or debris, etc... it reacts to those obstacles in front of it. If you also pay attention to videos of Killzone 2 you will see that sometimes when a Helghast is shot and falling down they try to grab onto stuff to keep themselves up. Things like these are non-existant in Gears of War. These kinds of things also fall into the "Graphics" debate. I find it funny how it is always ignored and all people care about are textures. Once again, this is my opinion, but I am confident in saying my opinion is spot on.   So it can imitate a bit what the Source engine can deliver from the physics side. Good point but no revolution here.

Still falls into the Engine debate though and should be noted. It is just that each time I see these petty arguments come up it tends to be "textures, textures, shadow, textures".

The "A lot" most likely comes from the animation + Physics side of things which are supposed to be included and not ignored.

As for Crysis. Worthless, it is an unfair comparison.

Show me a comparison vs. Crysis on a PC with the same graphics card as a PS3 and only 512MB of RAM.

Doing that comparison is like saying it is ok to compare Gears to The Conduit.

The dev time is pointless. Four years with 50 people is not different of two years with one hundred people (I'm not specifically talking about GeOW or KZ here).
Starting a game with an engine ready is different than building one from scratch too.

If we really want to know how long it took to develop gears 2 we should add the time that has been spent by X people working on the UE, the X people that worked on the engine for Gears 1 (not artists and directors), and the X people that have been working on Gears 2.

So... maybe (probably) KZ2 took longer to develop, but saying that it had 2 more years means nothing.

Yeah I guess Killzone definately take's the physics and animation side of things.

Oh yes, I forgot to tell. Even if it's definitely biased, this video makes gears look lame compared to killzone, the grenades part even made me laugh. And it's only the demo.

It all can be explained by the lack of trees in KZ2.

Wait that was another thread... /runs away

lol

Yup. A planet that can barely sustain human life, has intense amounts of radiation and environmental pollution to the point where the average lifespan is around 40 years due to death from lungs being destroyed from radiation burn (Even though they use masks) should be filled with beautiful green trees. -.-

I know in Equador for example there is areas that have higher radiation levels than others and trees refuse to even grow. Google " Red Forest", it talks about how trees closer to the radiation died off because the levels were too high. Helghan is also full of environmental pollution, another thing that kills plant life such as trees.

No idea what "nicer" looking areas of Helghan look like though. In order to breathe the trees have to be somewhere, just not where they are, lol.

I'm glad for the developers of the Gears of War series that the planet Sera looks more livable ...