This has been on my mind for a while. I'm 15 years of age and my brother is 20. He was born in the 80's whiles I was born in the 90's now he claims that his decade was a lot better than mine in terms of games and shows. But I beg to differ. I believe that my decade had some amazing games and shows. Even though he had the orginal transformers, he-man, thundercats and Dragonball my era had great shows such as Beasties (I now its technically transformers but it's 3-D and a lot different), Pokemon (it's lame now but when it first began it was tight), Reboot and Dragonball Z. Now this goes a lot deeper because a lot of history has been made and a lot of things might not have been the way they are now without those, but the New Era can have some things that are better than the classics. Take for example 3-D gaming. Yes Mario was a classic and so was Gauntlet and other games in the 80's and such but with the 90's we had PS1 and N64 where Mario 64 came out and revolutionized what mario was and what has been done. Im not trying to say the classics were crap, but in some circumstances the New era is better.

Another example is Dragonball-Dragonball Z. Dragonball was a nice little kid show whiles DBZ took that Kid show and it evolved into a completely different show with better fights and more action. Theres also Beasties that took the 2-D transformers and became 3-D with great action and better fights and story lines. We also had a lot of new shows such as Reboot and Pokemon both being amazing shows in their time. Reboot brought 3-D animation and a new style of shows and Pokemon brought a huge movement with monsters battling each other. Now a days a lot of shows have taken from that and made their own types of shows. The Classics are amazing but so is the New Era. I think they can both co-exist with their own greatness rather than ranking the originals number 1 over the news. I think that the NEw Era in some situations can definately compare with the classics so do not rank a classic over a new just because the classic was there first.

Thanks for reading just had to get this off my chest

So E3 2007, Microsoft comes out with their conference (which I thought wasn't very good all they showed were multiplats and games we knew were already coming out) and after a long 2 years of anticipation Sony shows KZ2. There were a lot of doubters and haters saying "Flopzolne 2 will suck, and will never look as good as that trailer." And Guerilla delivered. Maybe it didn't look exactly like the trailer, but there are some parts which do look better than the trailer for instance the lighting was amazing. Guerilla potrayed War like it's suppose to be HELL and they did a damn good job of showing that with KZ2. Now people are still saying KZ2 will suck even though they know they got KILLZOWNED.

he 360 fanboys or "lemmings" are so pathetic, they try and use huge amounts of damage control always going back to their same defences "Halo 3" and "Gears of War" Which isn't even that good, KZ2 looks way better than both those games, and games that we already know about like Uncharted and LAIR look as good as Gears with much bigger scale. And of course Halo 3 looks like Halo 2 with higher res and then when those fanboys get owned they say well it's all about the gameplay now, when they're always talking about graphics and what makes them think that Guerilla can't change the gameplay.

Z1 was made with about 30 devs, less money, less time and not the same amount of inside knowledge. KZ2 is made with 135 devs, they're owned by Sony so they have knowledge about the PS3, have way more money ($40 million) they have had a lot of time, and they have the power. From the trailers and hands on I've heard it sounds a hella lot better. Such as the first person cover system which looks great and is unique.Seriously admit that you've been KILLZOWNED everyone knows the game looks great and other games can't compare.