You can't also go off of what reviewers say anymore. Look at AC2, they wouldn't let people review it ahead of time unless the secured a 9/10 score. Look as well at GTAIV, you yourself must admit that due to its over-hype, it received review scores that it just didn't deserve. BTW, below everyone's icon they have which systems they own, which do you own?

kz2 have 16vs16- 32 players.

mw 9 vs9 so not it doesn't show more, neither the firefights killzone 2 have or destructible enviroments.

We have to draw the line somewhere when technically comparing different games. I do agree that comparing Forza 3's graphics to Killzone 2's ones makes little sense because the toolsets and goals are entirely different.

But here we're speaking of an FPS versus an FPS. Now you want to draw a finer line because one chose to go for 60fps instead of 30. Guess what, that's part of the design choices that affected the final visual outcome, it does not allow the game who went either way to go free of a comparison of the final results.

Either the 60fps rate affects the visual quality substantially, and then the comparison holds and any player is free to explain how they think it improves the graphics, or it doesn't and still the comparison holds, and we agree that IW simply had to make some trade-offs because they wanted the framerate for some reason.

Btw, stealthily pitting a "pretty but dumb" KZ2 against the multiplayer heaven of MW2 was neither subtle nor correct. You make it sound like the 60fps is needed for the "multiplayer orientated experience". In terms of design goals, i'd say that KZ2 is as much multiplayer oriented as CoD. In terms of tech results, I'd underline that KZ2 is not sacrificing MP action on the altar of visual prowess, as it offer 16vs16 matches over some huge multiplayer maps with plenty of drones, turrets, debris and physics going on at any given time. MW2 offers 9vs9, I understand, so I fail to see how the low frame time bettered the multiplayer experience per se.

Unless you go to the real root of the issue: CoD's engine stems from Quake tech. On PCs the dominant FPS genre has been always based on fast framerate that is needed with twitch mouse controls (fast pans look jerky very easily). CoD inherited the whole fast and light turning/smooth design, and complimented it with some aim assist because of the limitations of double analog controls.

It's a legitimate design choice and a gameplay style that millions seem to love - though as a PC gamer I found KZ2's heavy and tactical gameplay more interesting, being different from what I could play better with a mouse.

If this design choice led to visual trade-offs, this is the thread to point them out.

The question I was asking was not whether KZ2 looks 'better' or if it implements more advanced techniques. The question I was asking was considering they had differing design goals can you really say that one has better technology than the other? If we take John Carmacks word as gospel, 30fps relative to 60fps yields roughly 3* the performance budget per frame you can see that there is quite the performance tradeoff.

Unless you can prove otherwise, the fact that the two highest selling multiplayer shooters are also the shooters with the lowest latency (Halo 3's latency as low as you can go @ 30fps) is quite telling. Call of Duty 4 sold once it was in players hands. The legs on that game were quite godly and that was simply due to word of mouth. Can you really call it a coincidence that the only 60fps shooter franchise is also the best selling franchise? One of the best selling Arcade games 'Trials HD' sold over half a million copies and had one of the best demo - purchase conversion rates, again it was 60fps!

Perhaps the low latency is needed and the games themselves have suffered due to the marketing effect where people have been drawn to games which visually look better in video. You cannot get a 60fps video to even convey to the public on any of the gaming video sites the difference in gameplay. You have to wait until it gets into peoples hands.

So given the benefit and tradeoffs for taking a game to 60fps, can you definitively say that a game has better technology simply because it looks better. What about playing better?

First: this thread -and CGI's comments in the specific- was about visual technical prowess. That's why I said that you either bring the 60fps issue in the field of how it improves the visuals, or you accept that it went in the way of more sophisticated graphic effects. Saying that it's necessary for the MP experience is a red herring in this context, and I point to my previous post for the issue about its PC roots and its design goals.

Second: no, that's not how it works. I don't have to disprove your theory about low latency being the key to better gameplay and then to sale success, you have the burden to prove it. And no, I don't even consider Halo and CoD and Trials HD proofs in this sense. GTAIV is culprit of 30fps -and not rock steady at that- and a high latency when shooting. So what? It was a blockbuster anyway. R&C always boasted a smooth 60fps action, and it sold ok but not in the same league.

And more importantly, when you want to advance correlation hypothesis you should at least start by defining the terms you're using. The "latency" word you're touting as if it clearly meant something is actually quite devoid of a well defined value. Latency in what? The Gamasutra measurements and the DF ones were about the latency of some very easy "discrete" actions, such as shooting and jumping. That doesn't say much about the latency of other actions or more importantly the "feel" of movement and aiming. Which is much more about inertia and acceleration curves than the difference between shooting in 100ms (3 frames) in Halo 3 vs shooting in 133ms (4 frames) in KZ2 vs shooting in about 67ms in CoD.

Frankly, the 1/30th of a second difference in shooting time between Halo and KZ2 isn't even close in my mind to what any reasonable person will find as a necessity for "good gameplay". Halo, CoD, KZ2 have very different gameplay styles differing in speed, immediatness, aim assist, matchmaking, multiplayer modes, weaponry, progression and ranking... I can find much more poignant commonalities between the gameplay of the two most successful franchises than being "low latency".

The game looks amazing, simple as that. Yes there are a few spots that suffer from bad textures but those spots are random cars in random spots outside of the areas of battle. You might find some bad textures in other out of the way areas, but overall I think the game is one of the best looking I've seen in a long time. The smoke effects are awesome and the level of destructible detail is awesome as well. Shooting luggage and watching clothes fly out is the best.

I understand this is somewhat of a graphics thread and you guys are comparing it to KZ2 but the one main point is MW2>>>>>KZ2 in gameplay. Its head and shoulders better. Who cares if KZ2 is a little better looking.

except, we dont care about gameplay here ... the only thing we care is this ...

Ok let me rephrase that. MW2 is head and shoulders about KZ2. Its not an opinion. I dont care if the graphics aren't, the game is. And 7 million people on day 1 agree with me.