Now imagine Kojima san shared tech with both GG and ND for MGS5, that would be quite something for the eyes.

I enjoyed Gow3 and ME2 both equally in their own ways with Gow3 offering me tons more OMGZ epic moments. Heavy Rain also gave me real emotions and compassions for the characters which ME2 simply couldn't.

Personally I think MGS4's cutscenes looked better than Gears2 but gameplay wise not so much at all. The reason MGS4 got a 10 might be due to the exceptionally well scripted cinematics, acting, and the brilliant art dircetions, in terms of technical achievements it runs behind both Gears 2 and Uncharted 1 imo.

Agreed.

Hopefully you didn't misinterpret what I meant by questioning how your account only has 4 posts. Fanboyism was never a consideration. I should have put a :P after the sentence to show it was a lighthearted question. I had a Sherlock Holmes moment where I was like, "Hmm. Could it be an O.G. who only remembered his alt-account? Perhaps a GS editor? Maybe somebody from another site like B3D or GAF." :lol:

No insult intended.

gamecubepad

No drama mate, as long as we're being honest about the game's look and share our own opinions.

I'm only being objective about my observation so you don't have to check my post history for fanboyism, I own ps360 and a high end pc btw. Now I'm not totally denying Gears 3 or Reach would come toe to toe with kz2 or etc, hopefully they do since we all want better looking games. Though at this stage they're at best equal in some areas but not better overall.

Anyway, I don't get peeps who say KZ2 has better gfx. Uncharted 2 owns KZ2 in textures, models, and DoF, while matching it in lighting. Uncharted 2 has the best texture work this gen, PC included. Wish we could see what U2 or Reach would look like on a GTX 480 or Radeon 5970.

Now more than ever, I'm positive Reach, Crysis 2, and GeOW 3 will all match PS3's best looking exclusives. Can't wait for U3 and KZ3, it's gonna be a real battle for supremacy when they drop. In 2008 I thought console gfx had peaked, and I wanted the next-gen consoles in 2010-11. These devs have done an amazing job squeezing every last drop of power out of the 360 and PS3. Can't believe hardware from 2005 can produce gfx like this.

gamecubepad

I don't think Reach looks on par with any of those games you mentioned, it's still kinda outdated graphics wise when sitting next to them. Crysis 2 on consoles and Geow3 still have KZ2, Gow3 and UC2 to match before they can even taken on U3 and KZ3, from what I can see so far they have yet to match them. The real battle of supremacy IMO would be KZ3 vs U3 in 2011.

I will win 2011 since I get to play them both. But Gears 3 might sell quite a bit more even though Kz3 will have better graphics, sound and 3d.

This poll is a bit of fail without God of war 3 but instead has Gears 2?! It's really between Gow3 and U2 for me and followed closely by Killzone2, nothing else comes close. The upcoming Killzone 3 may very well take back the throne when gameplay is shown.

OK TC, as a proud owner of both Alan Wake and Uncharted 2 and having finished both, U2 definitely looked much better overall. First thing is first, the supposed volumetric lighting in AW does not work like the way you imagined. There are NO godrays or sun shaft coming through the foliage nor most of the game objects. Only time I've seen any sight of volumetric rays was in the room with lady of the light and the occasional flashlight beaming on Alan himself. The cutscene does feature sunshaft but the gameplay does not support it.So in a sense there's nothing too special with that volumetric lighting when compared to U2's own very nice HDR, which also has a per pixel shadowing function.

Speaking of the shadows, they are a lot more crisper in U2 than the low res dithering mess that's found in every corner of AW. So in a sense there really isn't much of a significant advantage in AW's lighting overall.

Now, about the foliage, yes they move and do add to the atmosphere, but their shadows are completely static and baked in as seen in Day time footage. While in U2 every shadows casted by the trees, leaves and plants swayed beautifully as they should, the dynamic shadowing is just much advanced in U2.

Speaking of scale, AW has a pretty impressive view distance but much of it are like in U2, a backdrop that can't be traveled to the end. I do believe it is more open than U2 in terms of total navigation, but it offers far less DETAILED or VARIED textures and geometry. The vistas in U2 is rediculously detailed such as Nepal, SHambahala, and the ICe cave. The sheer polygon density, textures and reflection quality are simply beyond AW.

Now onto effects, U2 is simply a monster. Subsurface scattering, per object based motion blur "far superior to AW's camera based", high quality DOF, parralax mapping on a vast majority of environment and the snow shader are everything AW lacked.

Finally, the animation, character model quality, again, high res textures, lip synching and the dynamic train level are just some of the VERY important graphical features to seperate U2 from AW. Please take notice, no game will ever have everything better than another, but it only takes the perfect overall balance for one to edge out another. Also some obvious disadvantage simply can't be ignored such as the extreme low 540p resolution and blurry textures. That along sticks out like a sore thumb in AW. Both games are very pretty indeed but U2 is clearly superior in graphics.