Are people comparing Gears of War 2 to KIllzone 2 serious?

Killzone 2 is miles ahead in terms of graphics and environmental physics. I'm yet to see an ingame screenshot from Gears of war 2 in which the textures don't look muddy and indistinct. I am amazed it is held in any regard graphics wise as it is a marginal improvement over the original, and that is very dated now.

If you think the margin is small you have not played both games. The texture work in gear of war 2 is awful.

Miles ahead is stretching it. Killzone 2 looks better, but only by a small margin.Stevo_the_gamer

no... but they are super cereal

If you think the margin is small you have not played both games. The texture work in gear of war 2 is awful.

teh_cell

The margin is small and I have played, owned, and beat both games. But while you were admiring textures, most people were actually enjoying the gameplay of both games.

If you think the margin is small you have not played both games. The texture work in gear of war 2 is awful.

teh_cell

teh_cell says Killzone2 looks miles ahead....not surprising. In fact Killzone2 looks better but just a bit

There close but Gear 2 lacks a major thing that KZ2 has loads of...

Blur. :P

Killzone 2 had muddy textures, compared to Gears of War 2, but the lighting is much better.

KZ2 might have a slight graphics advantage. certainly not as much as you put (ive play both through multiple time btw) though. but gears is a waaaaaay better game imo

There close but Gear 2 lacks a major thing that KZ2 has loads of...

Blur. :P

SecretPolice

But how do you make it realistic?? lol.

Not to mention gameplay-wise, Gears 2 is a complete mess.

How about this comparrison: Gears of War 2>Killzone 2. And I own both.

Miles ahead is stretching it. Killzone 2 looks better, but only by a small margin.Stevo_the_gamer

Killzone 2 looks better by a considerable margin. For a comparison between games of the same generation the difference isn't that small really.

System Wars is serious business. Lots of people have strong opinions.

Go away mad cows.

well TC since you rely on screenshots i can tell you that having played both games i can confirm that killzone 2 is NOT miles ahead of gears 2.

Killzone 2 is miles ahead in terms of graphics and environmental physics. I'm yet to see an ingame screenshot from Gears of war 2 in which the textures don't look muddy and indistinct. I am amazed it is held in any regard graphics wise as it is a marginal improvement over the original, and that is very dated now.

teh_cell

both r one of the best fps games this gen, buth kz2 is slightly better than gears....

If you think the margin is small you have not played both games. The texture work in gear of war 2 is awful.

teh_cell

If you think the margin is small you have not played both games. The texture work in gear of war 2 is awful.

teh_cell

[QUOTE="teh_cell"]

If you think the margin is small you have not played both games. The texture work in gear of war 2 is awful.

MortalDecay

Both are mediocre after playing through one time.

yeah i know right? how could they compare killzone 2 with gears of war 2

Its no contest which is the better game, in sales, users...ect gears of war 2 wins in every area.

Killzone 2 did every thing else wrong except graphics storyline, gameplay, physics *were crap* and all that it would have served better as an interactive movie then atleast we wouldn't have to see its horrible gameplay.

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]

Both are mediocre after playing through one time.

Hahadouken

I think you need to research what the word "mediocre" means. They may not be to your taste, but they are far from "mediocre" games by any interpretation of the word. The only way to make this case is to isolate yourself from any objective standards of measurement and simply say you prescribe to a completely different set of standards from everyone else. You can't do this with any credibility and still say that Gamespot scores are the be all and end all and all matters can be decided thusly. It's a total contradiction. Something about having cake and eating it too seems to apply here.

The mentality that a polished 85+ Metacritic game is merely "mediocre" is mind-boggling to me. I am not a fan of Fable, but I don't consider it a "mediocre" game. Mediocre means middling, which would be 5/10 on a 10 point review scale.

Cool beans, duder. I didn't read it all, as I feel no need to, but cool beans.

Both are mediocre. My post, my opinion.

I didn't say they're both technically mediocre, as they're both competent in their own right, but they're still mediocre gameplay experiences.

Zzz.

[QUOTE="teh_cell"]

If you think the margin is small you have not played both games. The texture work in gear of war 2 is awful.

bez2083

The margin is small and I have played, owned, and beat both games. But while you were admiring textures, most people were actually enjoying the gameplay of both games.

[QUOTE="Hahadouken"]

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]

Both are mediocre after playing through one time.

BioShockOwnz

I think you need to research what the word "mediocre" means. They may not be to your taste, but they are far from "mediocre" games by any interpretation of the word. The only way to make this case is to isolate yourself from any objective standards of measurement and simply say you prescribe to a completely different set of standards from everyone else. You can't do this with any credibility and still say that Gamespot scores are the be all and end all and all matters can be decided thusly. It's a total contradiction. Something about having cake and eating it too seems to apply here.

The mentality that a polished 85+ Metacritic game is merely "mediocre" is mind-boggling to me. I am not a fan of Fable, but I don't consider it a "mediocre" game. Mediocre means middling, which would be 5/10 on a 10 point review scale.

Cool beans, duder. I didn't read it all, as I feel no need to, but cool beans.

Both are mediocre. My post, my opinion.

I didn't say they're both technically mediocre, as they're both competent in their own right, but they're still mediocre gameplay experiences.

Zzz.

while i don't agree with the TC opinion, I'll say that UC2 have Gears 2 in visuals by a great distance though

I don't think that the visual margin between KZ2 and Gears 2 is a stretch, but i really wouldn't call it "barely" either

Phrases like "miles ahead" makes anything you post to lose credibility. KZ2 is better looking but GeOW2 can hold its own just fine.

Miles ahead is stretching it. Killzone 2 looks better, but only by a small margin.Stevo_the_gamer

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]

[QUOTE="Hahadouken"]

I think you need to research what the word "mediocre" means. They may not be to your taste, but they are far from "mediocre" games by any interpretation of the word. The only way to make this case is to isolate yourself from any objective standards of measurement and simply say you prescribe to a completely different set of standards from everyone else. You can't do this with any credibility and still say that Gamespot scores are the be all and end all and all matters can be decided thusly. It's a total contradiction. Something about having cake and eating it too seems to apply here.

The mentality that a polished 85+ Metacritic game is merely "mediocre" is mind-boggling to me. I am not a fan of Fable, but I don't consider it a "mediocre" game. Mediocre means middling, which would be 5/10 on a 10 point review scale.

DragonfireXZ95

Cool beans, duder. I didn't read it all, as I feel no need to, but cool beans.

Both are mediocre. My post, my opinion.

I didn't say they're both technically mediocre, as they're both competent in their own right, but they're still mediocre gameplay experiences.

Zzz.

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]

Cool beans, duder. I didn't read it all, as I feel no need to, but cool beans.

Both are mediocre. My post, my opinion.

I didn't say they're both technically mediocre, as they're both competent in their own right, but they're still mediocre gameplay experiences.

Zzz.

DragonfireXZ95

TEH CELL

also i agree with the 'fighting over pc scraps' guy. who cares? killzone 2 is irrelevant and people who like to sound ike cool indie gamers dump on gears 2. nothing new here.

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]Miles ahead is stretching it. Killzone 2 looks better, but only by a small margin.themyth01

awww I've had enough of these kinds of games

Gears 2 is a lot more fun. I enjoyed the campaign mode a lot more...especiall the part where you're chainsawing the giant worm thing's arteries.

KZ2 is the best looking game period, even better looking than crysis. crysis is close tho but no cigar.

[QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"][QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]

Cool beans, duder. I didn't read it all, as I feel no need to, but cool beans.

Both are mediocre. My post, my opinion.

I didn't say they're both technically mediocre, as they're both competent in their own right, but they're still mediocre gameplay experiences.

Zzz.

Hahadouken

The "Zzz" were put to represent the gameplay experiences, not your post.

Don't jump to conclusions, my friend.

KZ2 is the best looking game period, even better looking than crysis. crysis is close tho but no cigar.

p2250