In my opinion both game's have brilliant music, though I haven't played FF, I like it's music very much after listening to some of the clips. However, one game is an FPS, while one is an RPG. In an RPG, I would 'assume' that most of this music is palyed during a cutscene and not during the gameplay, where instead they play battle music. So FF has the advanatage of being able to craft particular music to go with pre-determined cutscenes where as Halo's music must fit in no matter what the player is doing. Case in point, tea bagging a Grunt while hearing the infamous Halo 2 guitar solo would be a tad weird. Still, respect to both Nobuo and O'Donnell for making the best music in the video game industry.

P.S: Kudos to the TC for coming up with an original topic.

Yes, it was definetely in-game. Basically I am impressed by the graphics, less impressed by the gameplay. Especially that pressing the switch and shooting the lightning gun section.

And the game mentioned earlier that Bungie made and scored badly was Oni. But Bungie did make the Marathon series and others, but espeically Marathon, it was in some ways superior to Doom, yet was only on the Mac so it didn't garner the same amount of acclaim Doom did.

We know very little about the games in 08 for both the 360 and PS3. For most of these titles we've only seen trailers and all are still in their relatively early stages of development. And new IPs could be as spectacular as franchises, it simply means thatwe don't know about them as much.

Some of your points do make sense, and I am one of those people who are a bit puzzled about the enormous hype around Killzone 2. It seems there is not much hype for the game itself, but there seems to be truckloads of hype for the game's graphics. Though I am impressed by the game's graphics and animations I am less impressed about the actual gameplay. Especially the video of the repetitive gameplay (the one of pressing the button and shooting the lightning gun).

I find the comment that Sony's line up is varied not true, as the PS3 has no RPGs coming out this year (Enchant Arm doesn't count, came out on 360 and was pretty bad). But the 360 has no fighting games, unless Soul Calibur 4 comes out this year and somehow becomes an exclusive, which I doubt. Still, it's going to be a fun filled holiday season for both sides.

Looking at the pictures provided, I seriously don't think the screens give Killzone2 the justice it deserves. For me it came down to my preference of the art styles. I personally prefer Halo 3's art style, as the colours are more vibrant and the lighting and shadowing seems more realistic and softer. Killzone 2 on the other hand uses the gritty and raw art style. Halo 3's art style simply allows it to stand out from the crowd of gritty, hard core shooters such as COD4 and Killzone 2 and to me it feels more refreshing and easier on the eyes. So my 'personal' opinion is that Halo 3's graphics are more vibrant and more noticable while Killzone 2's graphics are very impressive but I simply don't like the bland art style akin to Gears.

In terms of technical prowress, the Halo 3 images do have higher resolution textures. But I suspect that some of the textures on the Killzone 2 trailer are placeholder textures. And since it is in a dark setting, you can't really see all of the textures in the Killzone demo. Animation wise Killzone seems to have the edge,it may not berealistic but it certainly is impressive, as it uses a mix of rag doll physicsand canned animations. But the retail Killzone 2 will not look vastly different from the one we see today.

And the poll isabout graphics, notgameplay so even though I suspect Halo 3 will be more 'fun' to play,I urge voters to simply vote according to their opinion on graphics alone.

now someone should do a sony's new year resolution list......