A website by the name of LensOfTruth.com has created a bunch of comparison images between Killzone 2 and Gears of War 2 along with a comparison video in HD or SD. In some of the images, like the one above, I find the differences between the two to be quite minor and would call it a very close really. However on other shots like the one available through the jump the difference is quite striking. 
To be fair to Gears of War 2 here they did manage to get 2 games out during the development time of KIllzone 2 alone. However the extra development time has obviously given Killzone 2 the win here and graphically at least I think it is the winner. One things that did surprise me when I read the article is that Gears of War 2 (93) has a higher Metacritic score than Killzone 2 (91), I guess after the release date their will be a slew of reviews about Killzone 2 that could push it up but I have always found a games peak Metacritic score to be just prior to release date. I will try remember to keep an eye on that one, as for more comparison shots and the video just head through the jump below. Source: LensOfTruth | Posted in PS3, Xbox 360 |  |
| 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License.
8:00 am
February 25, 2009
8:30 am
I’m sorry, but personally, I can’t see how you can
compare the two. Gears have never strived for realism.
It’s not just two completely different TYPES of games,
it’s two completely different STYLES.
Although Killzone 2 looks amazing, I still stand by my
point that there’s not much I haven’t seen yet in COD4.
(being a pc gamer,I think using Crysis as an example is a bit unfair)
February 25, 2009
8:50 am
why the hell are you “lazygamer” always nay saying about any ps3 game that is released…? , you pro xbox or what
February 25, 2009
9:08 am
1. Killzone 2 is not released
2. I said Killzone 2 looked better
3….. ah I give up…
time to go find a beer
February 25, 2009
10:42 am
Dude, while ya at it can you grab me one too.
February 25, 2009
9:06 am
its not “nay saying” they just tell you the facts
February 25, 2009
9:23 am
Agreed. Cant compare you diffrent engines to each other just seems unfair.
February 25, 2009
9:56 am
graphically gears2 is the bench mark for xbox games as kz2 is for the ps3…
they are obvious choices when doing comparisons of the respective consoles’ flagship games.
February 25, 2009
9:26 am
Its a beauty… did any one pick it up at zaps on fri? can nay one comment?
February 25, 2009
10:21 am
There are better areas in Gears 2 to compare with KZ2
February 25, 2009
10:51 am
Personally I would not be able to compare the two, just because of the huge disparities between the way the the 2 engines render similar objects. A prime example is just to look at the skin of the characters. KZ’s characters are all smooth skinned and shiny, whereas GOW’s character have faces like leather. Totally different approaches, but is the one better than the other? Almost impossible to say in my opinion.
February 25, 2009
10:53 am
Oh and personally, art direction is far more important than polygon count. To this day, Kameo remains one of the most visually impressive games I have ever played, just for the sheer impressive design.
February 25, 2009
11:09 am
Agreed, and Kameo was just ‘upscaled’ from the originally planned xbox 1 release.
Gears uses a Mutliplatform UT engine. KZ was coded specifically for the PS3 and the PS3 only.
It does look pretty damn amazing, but like somebody all ready mentioned, Nothing that COD4 did not all ready wow us with.(and that was 2007….)
Kudos where it is due, KZ2 looks better to me than the original ’4d’ game show of 2005, but then again, it is now 2009 and hell, most games look better than I had ever hoped.
February 25, 2009
11:42 am
i dunno about cod4 looking as impressive as kz2.
don’t get me wrong, i’m still hooked and amazed by cod4, but after seeing hi-def (720p) in-game footage of kz2, it kinda makes cod4 look old!
time marches on
February 25, 2009
2:29 pm
Look at the lighting and shadows in Killzone 2 – they are miles ahead of CoD4. CoD4 is impressive, but there were many shortcuts taken to get it running at 60FPS.
It has some really fugly textures for a next gen game, for example, and runs at a sub-HD resolution, compared to Killzone 2, which runs at true 720P.
Killzone 2 needs to be played to be appreciated – the screens and videos don’t convey just how much stuff is happening at any given moment in the game.
February 25, 2009
3:18 pm
That’s because COD4 was designed for multi-platforms
February 25, 2009
11:05 am
How about bringing question of the week back but on a Friday? Or make it question of the month. Leave the question up for the weekend or month so everyone can respond. My question will be which is our readers most graphically impressive game.
February 25, 2009
11:38 am
We can look at that Fox, but it was mainly stopped due to lack of interest, even with prizes involved
February 25, 2009
11:36 am
Ja I’m not really as “floored” by KZ2′s gfx as I thought I would be. The Lost Planet 2 trailer had more drool factor for me.
February 25, 2009
12:48 pm
and when might that be coming out -_-
February 25, 2009
2:17 pm
my 2 cents, so killzone 2 looks better, but the question i’m interested in is it better gameplay, i loved gears 1 & 2 purely for the fun factor, and i do have a ps3 too, and yes i will be playing killzone 2, but if it isn’t as fun, then gears will be back on my xbox.
February 25, 2009
2:25 pm
Lighting, animation and effects in Killzone 2 are far superior to Gears 2, but Gears 2 still has nicer textures. If only Sony had doubled up on the memory or offered a more flexible memoery architecture, the PS3 wouldn’t have these low-res texture issues.
February 25, 2009
3:00 pm
An important consideration that is being overlooked is respective budgets for the 2 games. GOW 2 was put together for about 10 mio (mainly because Epic owns the Unreal engine) , KZ2 by all accounts cost about USD 60 mio to make before marketing and distribution. Sony’s 1P releases are designed from the outset as “system selling” technical showcases – 3rd Party devs are in it to make money. If Epic or Infinity Ward spent 4 years and $60 M to make a game I’m sure it would be very shiny.
February 26, 2009
8:17 am
yet gta IV’s budget was $100m… so going by those figures, gta IV is 10 times better than gears2?
budget does not make a game better or worse, of course it helps though
February 26, 2009
9:31 am
Either Rockstar has the most overpaid programmers and developers in the world or a very skelm accountant because I seriously don’t know where all that money went
February 25, 2009
5:00 pm
LOL Luigi, look at the floor in the comparrison in the first image and tell me again how the PS3 has rubbish textures
August 13, 2009
3:39 am
1 Graphics (KZ2) 2 gameplay (KZ2) 3 online experience KZ2 32 players GOW2 16 players so the winner is simple KILL ZONE 2
March 10, 2010
8:42 pm
killzone2 has better graphics and the gameplay is way funner