[QUOTE="sts9kid"]again, you just pulled that from you a** without any proof.
![](http://img.gamespot.com/gamespot/shared/emoticons/lol.gif)
-wii60-
Proof? It's pretty much common sense, but please feel free to address anything I've actually said. Do you actually disagree with the following:
1.) Gears of War is not a completely smooth game, several times during the campaign frame rates would drop below 30fps (the game is capped at 30fps)
2.) The frame rate dropping indicated that the CPU, RAM, or GPU is at full load
3.) Obviously Epic did not put an artificial cap on the game, allowing it to only access 25% of the RAM, CPU, GPU, etc.
4.) Talking about the potential of a machine is highly subjective and speculative
If you disagree with anything I've said, please feel free to show me the error in my ways.
Well, I read your post... unfortunately, there has been no indication that Epic was "only scratching the surface" of the 360. Over a year later and Gears is still the best looking 360 game available. Devs simply are not able to push the Unreal Engine as much as we once thought... we are already seeing better looking games, and engines, running new IP on the PS3 and even some multiplats coming out this year look better those games that have used the Unreal Engine. It simply isn't the "king" anymore. At any rate, GeOW2 is not likely to look any better than MGS4, yet alone Resistance 2, Uncharted 2 or KZ2. So this whole thread is pretty stupid.
Log in to comment