if you have a red 360 elite then i want to add.. whats your gamertag ?? ... i think i got u lol  ;)

GOW2 sales having better results than KZ2 sales is a fail statement ?

That vid's been posted b4.

and the comparative sales video?..,..

KZ2 sales is a fail ..     1.32 m

gow2,mnega bomb    4,75 m..wow..thi,s power for me ...

And as a 360-biased person, let me counterbalance here and say that the game engine for KZ2 is likely superior to that for Gears 2.  I will say the art style is more varied and colorful than in KZ2.  This has to do with the world that Gears is set in is more varied than Helghan, which is a sucky dustball with some water, that gives the planet of Dune a run for its money in how much it sucks.

It does have trees though. Thers like two of them in radec academy.. A multiplayer map. They are dead though and are in montres so it's fairly certain they are just for remembering.

The thing is...no one is trying to take anything away from Gears 2.  I'm trying to keep people from taking anything away from Killzone 2, which CLEARLY a lot of people are trying to do.

You have people talking about to small differences between multiplatform titles like RE5, but try to blow off the HUGE differences between Killzone 2 and Gears 2 or RE5.  It's madness!

Someone here even said they think RE5 is technically near Killzone 2.  Of course, they are missing the 345+ additional dynamic lights in a scene over RE5 for a start.  They there is draw distance, DoF, full screen motion blur, the extra dozen or so characters on screen, physics based weather, particle effects, physics based particles, ray-traced bullet holes, etc.  THEN, there is the audio side of things with DSP effects, higher fidelity, AND more channels.  These are things you aren't really suppose to see until NEXT-gen, but you are starting to see them in PS3 1st/2nd party titles.

It's no small accomplishment.  People need to stop treating them as such.

Why does graphics matter that much to you guys? Go watch a movie, you guys are no hardcore gamers. You're pathetic.

(This is directed to people who actually care about this comparison)

The problem is people like bugrimmar saying "graphics are slightly better" while knowing full well that the difference is NOT slight at all.  That's called taking credit away from the game and it's completely unfair.

---------------

It's a completely fair comparison.  Both games are built on tech.  The tech is completely open grounds for comparison.

Graphics AND audio matter to me, because these are things that improve immersion in the experience.  The same goes for movies.  Even in the GDC 2009 presentations, they mention how these things change the immersion level in a game (whether you realize it or not).

Otherwise, we would STILL have Atari 2600s and there would be NO need to upgrade.  I think some gamers have forgotten why they purchase consoles every generation.  It's a shame, really.  A more powerful console can bring more elements into a game that's entertaining, which is the purpose of a game (to entertain), right.

Hardcore gamers should understand that.  Casual gamers may have a harder time understanding that point.  I guess I know where you stand.