Jeff and the guys over exaggerated the graphics improvements!!

#1 Posted by TwoOneFive (9449 posts) - 4 years, 4 months ago

I really enjoyed the second game, but i after getting to seriously look at some decent comparison shots here, i actually thought the first game looked better in many of the comparisons (i didn't read anything they wrote though, which you shouldn't either, they're just trying to feed you their opinions, just check out the pics and make your own judgements.)

all i know is though, that the guys on GB were making it out like this game blew away the previous one in terms of graphics. i remember Brad, in a bombcast, getting all nerdy about how incredibly detailed Marcus' face was and getting all into to detail about the gruesome scarrrrsss 00o0oh. really not that big of a difference.

#2 Posted by patrick5152003 (244 posts) - 4 years, 4 months ago

what does gamespots graphic comparison have to do with giant bomb? and are you sure you're not mistaking "brad's comment on a podcast" with guy cocker's comment in a gamespot review?

#3 Edited by SpikeDelight (634 posts) - 4 years, 4 months ago

No I've played the Gears 1 campaign like 10 times with different people and on different accounts, as well as working with the actual Unreal Engine 3 in the Gears PC map editor so I'm somewhat of an expert in this field. The graphics are quite a significant improvement over Gears 1, maybe not in texture resolution since it can't get much better in the way Gears was bumpmaped to kingdom come to make everything look current-gen (and it worked) but in the art style and scope. Graphics aren't always about the technical side, Okami had better graphics than a lot of 360 and PS3 games because of its distinct art style but it was only a PS2 game. They also added a lot more textures and stuff over the existing ones to make everything look varied and there were a lot more loose items to shoot. The world then felt more cohesive and everything was bristling with a lived-in quality. Plus there were improvements to the engine. Water physics were dynamite and you could break apart walls. They have like a fog effect for depth of field now which makes everything look very nice and the glow that comes from the morning sun onto the snow is unmatched in its beauty. In short, it's definitely a large improvement, if not as much improved as other games are over their predecessors. It's kind of unfair because Epic knew how to make their game look so good in 2006 that the nostalgia ramps the old game's graphics right up to the level the new graphics are on. Play Gears 1 if you have it and you'll really see the difference. You won't have to look for it either, it'll be readily apparent.

#4 Posted by TwoOneFive (9449 posts) - 4 years, 4 months ago

patrick5152003 said:

"what does gamespots graphic comparison have to do with giant bomb? and are you sure you're not mistaking "brad's comment on a podcast" with guy cocker's comment in a gamespot review?"

yes. i am.

Gears of War 2

Join Delta Squad once more in the fight against the Locust Horde, in this "bigger, better and more badass" sequel to the 2006 smash hit.

Comment and Save