Come on, people already knew that the PS3 was more powerful than the X360. Can't X360 fans just enjoy their large games library and good sales?
Ascended_Saiyan3 said:
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.
|
I never said that graphics didn't matter. You're taking everything out of context... Both games look fine, I could care less that killzone 2 looks a little bit better. I like gears of war 2 more then killzone2 anyway... You know where I stand? Are you calling me a casual gamer? That's not even close to an insult to me, but I don't think lot's of casual gamers play games like Metroid...
Anyway, I don't think graphics can improve much more from this gen... A new revolution would be 3d gaming with 120 fps and stuff like that.
Because it's on a technically more advanced console and was released later.
Really, who was surprised that killzone2 has better graphics then gears of war2? What's next... Mario kart wii looks better then GT5?
I own a wii only, I'm not in to graphics all that much really. I'm just saying that killzone 2 looks better then gears of war for those 2 reasons. I like gears of war 2 more then killzone2(I've played both at my friends house) even though killzone 2 looks better.
Conclusion of this thread: They're both great games and everyone bitching about the graphics of these games need to get a life.
| CGI-Quality said: I know bro, I'm all for games of technical prowess. That is why KZ2 and Gears 2 get full respect from me, even though KZ2 is the technically more advanced game.
|
Is it really? GoW2's graphics are already amazing as it is and they managed to keep co-op/splitscreen in the game. It's likely that it could've looked much better if they didn't include those, but this is why Epic has much more respect than me than GG ever will - they didn't sacrifice gameplay in favor of visuals.
Good graphics are always welcome, but I personlly won't welcome it when they get in the way of what a video game is supposed to be about.
Killzone 2 wins in gameplay and fun, and that's what matters.
Yeah its great that its not only fun, but has great graphics, but the fun is what matters.
Owner of 360
Future owner of a PS3 (when it drops to $300)
| Neptune said: Killzone 2 wins in gameplay and fun, and that's what matters. Yeah its great that its not only fun, but has great graphics, but the fun is what matters. |
C'mon now, if you're gonna be a thick-headed fanboy, at least try to be less obvious about it.
A friend came over yesterday and he wanted to play KZ2. We were sorta takin turns playing online......If I had a 360 with GoW2, we could've been doin splitscreen co-op.
| Samus Aran said: I own a wii only, I'm not in to graphics all that much really. I'm just saying that killzone 2 looks better then gears of war for those 2 reasons. I like gears of war 2 more then killzone2(I've played both at my friends house) even though killzone 2 looks better. Conclusion of this thread: They're both great games and everyone bitching about the graphics of these games need to get a life. |
You must not own a HDTV. Gears had about the same about of time of development as Killzone 2, if not more. You must think Gears 2 tech development only started after Gears 1. Gears 2 leveraged ALL the tech development over the entire time period Gears was in development (around 2004). Your reasons fail terribly.
Going by your rationale, Too Human was suppose to look better than Killzone 2. It had 7 to 8 years of development and around a $80 million budget. What about Alan Wake? It was in development longer than Killzone 2. Killzone 2 has 3 to 3.5 years of development time. The E3 2005 trailer was before they started work on Killzone 2. The Alan Wake E3 2005 trailer wasn't pre-rendered. Development had already started. Do you think Alan Wake will be technically better than Killzone 2?
People need to try a better excuse. It's just lame and anyone with technical knowledge knows the Killzone 2 development time was normal for games.
| CGI-Quality said: We can argue opinions all day, it doesn't change the FACT that people should just enjoy their games and quit worrying who's are better/worse.
|
I do enjoy KZ2, but sometimes I'd enjoy it alot more if it had co-op/splitscreen - I personally really like gaming with friends when they're right here in my room. Whenever I have people over, KZ2 usually sits there collecting dust.
Parasitic said:
Is it really? GoW2's graphics are already amazing as it is and they managed to keep co-op/splitscreen in the game. It's likely that it could've looked much better if they didn't include those, but this is why Epic has much more respect than me than GG ever will - they didn't sacrifice gameplay in favor of visuals. Good graphics are always welcome, but I personlly won't welcome it when they get in the way of what a video game is supposed to be about.
|
See?! This is the kind of crap that needs to stop. Stop trying to take credit away from Killzone 2 to make you feel better. Framerates in co-op dips in the teens. Even then, the online only deals with 10 players MAX. Killzone 2 deals with MUCH larger environments, MANY more effects, more animations, AND over 3x the amount of people. That doesn't even touch on the audio. PLEASE just stop the non-sense.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
