The point is to actually prove the pictures wernt messed with. And that Uncharted looks better then Gears 2.

And no, the PS3 is nowhere near max... Uncharted 2 looks to blow everything out of the water, and there are a few more games beyond that what look even better.

This again?

Uncharted does not look "better" than Gears of War 2.  It has more color, but Gears of War 2 and even Gears of War 1 had better textures, animations, more realism, etc.  Uncharted went for plastic/barbie/cell shaded color, Gears went for "grit/grime/glory/realism of war".  They can't just be directly compared because the term "better" doesn't really have defined criteria.  In terms of realism and textures, Gears of War series easily wins.  In terms of color, uncharted wins.

Also, those screenshots for both games are absolutely awful.  They are all blurry and jaggy, which from playing both games they look way better than the screenshots there.  They must have a lame capture card.

As for the topic at hand.

Both looks great, both play great. All in all, both titles are of top quality and should be in 360 and/or PS3 owners gaming libraries.

Do we really need to always go to graphical comparisons?

Why don't we see what MAG looks like when it's released, and how many players it supports then?  Sony has a history of promising things that don't quite pan out.  (Home, anyone?)

Everyone is speaking in this thread as though it's a done deal, and 256 players will happen, and it'll be at an acceptable framerate.  I'll believe it when I see it.

I hope sony can put those 256 player online. i think the main problem would be lag. Because it doesnt only depend on the quality of the server, but on the quality of the players internet.

Funny thing is that I see "Let's wait first to see if it supports 256 players before we judge how good it is" but then on the other hand I see "Graphics look like crap".

Why not wait first before judging on that too?

Or is it that PS3 owners need to wait before they can say anything good about a game and PS3 haters can just begin spewing trash whenever they please?

They are trash talking the game like it is a done deal.

^ See what I did there?

I see what you did thar. 

Look, I think the point is this...  Screenshots get posted (whether they are genuine, or not), and they are panned by some.  Others praise them, saying that "with 256 players, these graphics will be fine!"

Well, if it's not 256 players, will those graphics still be acceptable?

Any game in development will normally acquire more polish before release... but given the constraints the developers will have in this particular project, it may be unrealistic to think that the graphics will even be able to improve that much.

I guess we should just take a "to be continued" approach with MAG for the moment.  Let's revisit in 2 years when it's nearing release  

If this game was not 256-players I think the general consensus would be different. I personally feel that anyone expecting 256-players and Killzone 2 quality graphics is totally out of touch with reality. If Killzone 2 couldn't do co-op or splitscreen what makes anyone in the right state of mind expect MAG to be near that quality and on top of that support 256-players, which is 8x the size of KZ2 multiplayer.

Huxely was made to be 128(?)-players online for the 360 and it looked nowhere near Gears 1 quality. When you get something that massive in terms of online you have to expect a hit somewhere in the graphical quality, it is a given. It is not a double standard or whatever other BS was brought up yesterday by so many. It was just people being realistic and having realistic expectations.

Also, who says it is coming out in 2-years?

By that same token we should expect the next Alan Wake, Huxley, etc... threads sometime next gen right?

I own Uncharted and Gears 2. Yes. Uncharted has awesome character models and water effects, and such. Does that make it better than Gears 2 as far as technology and appearance? Not in my opinion. Uncharted was the second PS3 retail game I bought. It looked very nice, but I was never "blown away". With Gears 1 & 2, I was constantly impressed. Dozens of enemies were on the battlefield. Several different enemy types would appear. Some were as big as houses! There would be urban levels one second, and the next second, you were inside of a giant worm. Then, you'd be driving through an ice covered lake or flying through the air on a giant insect. Does any of this make Gears 2 technically superior to Uncharted? No. But I will say that throughout Gears 2, I was constantly saying "Wow!". Throughout Uncharted, I was constantly fighting the same few pirates (or monsters, near the end). The same environments/enemies repeatedly

Don't bring common sense into a troll thread.