March 27th, 2011
Posted in 
“Head2Head Engaged”
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||||||
| EA |  |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
EA | |||
| EA | 1 | 1 |
EA | |||||||||
| FPS | 2.9 GB | Opt. | FPS | |||||||||
| Release: 03/22/2011 | 29.6 sec | 30.6 sec | Release: 03/22/2011 | |||||||||
| ESRB: M | 0.0% | 1.69% | ESRB: M | |||||||||
 |
 |
|||||||||||
 |
||||
 |
 |
|
Head2Head – Crysis 2 Analysis Single Player We go Head2Head with Crysis 2 for the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. |
|
 |
||||
 |
||||
|
||||
|
 |
|
Head2Head – Crysis 2 Analysis MultiPlayer
We go Head2Head with Crysis 2 for the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 Multiplayer. |
|
|
||||
|
||||
Welcome back for another exciting Head2Head Analysis! This week (thanks to Play-N-Trade Oviedo, FL) we can finally show you our full in depth Analysis of arguably the biggest multiplatform release of all time, and that our friends is Crytek’s Crysis 2 for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. In this Analysis we take both single player and multi-player game modes in to the fight. Will a winner emerge from this titanic battle? Find out below!
Mouse over the image to see through our “Lens”.
Graphics: Graphically speaking, Crytek delivered the best looking multi-platform title this generation. That being said, coming into this Head2Head we were a bit skeptical – would one version be compromised in the porting process? Fortunately, our skepticism seized immediately after seeing these two beauties running side by side. However there were some slight graphical differences we noticed between the two that should be noted.
First up, the native resolutions of each version of Crysis 2 were a little disappointing at first. Considering both versions fell below the standard HD threshold of 1280×720, this was a bit of a let down, we were hoping for at least 720p. The Xbox 360 version had a native resolution of 1152×720, while the PlayStation 3 version fell just slightly below, sporting a native resolution of 1024×720. A 100 pixel difference with an image below the HD standard was almost impossible to see with the human eye. Oddly enough, we did noticed some textures on the Xbox 360 version looking slightly sharper in some areas, while in other parts of the game, the PlayStation 3 version looked to be better. Either way, texture resolution looked virtually identical when viewed side by side. Moving on to the HDR lighting and procedural destruction.
Mouse over the image to see through our “Lens”.
Crysis 2’s advanced graphics engine utilizes the deferred rendering technique made famous with Sony’s visual juggernaut Killzone 3. This technique allowed Crysis 2 to have some ultra realistic lighting effects that can only be appreciated in real time. The number of individual lights in one scene were almost countless. Good news here is both versions utilized this rendering technique identically. Furthermore, Crysis 2’s HDR lighting is a thing of beauty, for example, light beams from the Sun rays would wrap around the branches of a tree, and individual light beams would penetrate through any hole or opening. Again, both the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 handled volumetric lighting effects identically.
Furthermore, Crysis 2 had also implemented a procedural breaking effect with select objects, like barriers and trees. Objects setup for this feature break and chip away when fired upon, setting the stage for some intense fire fights. For example, if you decide to hide behind a concrete barrier for to long the enemy would deteriorate your cover, forcing you to take cover somewhere else. This effect was identical between consoles.
Another rather neat feature new to Crysis 2 were Deformable objects. Only selected models had this characteristic, and both PS3 and Xbox 360 supported this feature. Deformable objects are basically cloth objects skinned to a type of vertex skeleton. Although the principle is based around cloth physics they obviously don’t act like it. Deformable objects can be used to create deformable metal or other bending materials like a barrel, traffic cones, or drums.
Finally, Crysis 2 also had some great looking water effects to go along with the already superb graphics. When walking through a body of water, the fluid effects would move away from you in a realistic manner. Technically speaking , Crysis 2 had a slew of visual effects which transferred between the two versions nicely. Although SSAO and shadows maps are rendered slightly different, they both achieved their visual goals effectively. On a side note, we noticed after killing an enemy the rag doll physics was disabled and the dead corpse was no longer responsive to bullets and explosions. Maybe this feature was turned off due to region issues. This was apparent on both versions.
Mouse over the image to see through our “Lens”.
Single Player Performance: Performance levels in Crysis 2 were consistent to what was shown in our preliminary frame rate analysis we released earlier this week. As expected, the Xbox 360 had a slight frame rate advantage in chaotic areas, but had some screen tearing to go along with it. The PlayStation 3 version had zero screen tearing throughout. Furthermore, both versions managed to hang around the 30 FPS mark, but both also suffered some performance drops in the heat of battle. So pick your poison, in one hand, there’s a version which has a slight advantage with frame rate. In the other, there’s a version with zero screen tearing. Below are the average frame rate and screen tearing percentages we captured from the game’s single player campaign mode. Now only one question remains, which version performed better during multiplayer? Keep on reading to find out.
| PlayStation 3 Frame Analysis Single Player | Xbox 360 3 Frame Analysis Single PLayer |
| Clip 1 info: Length of clip: 2567 frames Average FPS of clip: 28.02 Percent of torn frames: 0.0 |
Clip 1 info: Length of clip: 2567 frames Average FPS of clip: 30.31 Percent of torn frames: 1.67 |
| Clip 2 info: Length of clip: 9161 frames Average FPS of clip: 29.41 Percent of torn frames: 0.0 |
Clip 2 info: Length of clip: 9161 frames Average FPS of clip: 29.98 Percent of torn frames: 1.52 |
| Clip 3 info: Length of clip: 6374 frames Average FPS of clip: 26.96 Percent of torn frames: 0.0 |
Clip 3 info: Length of clip: 6374 frames Average FPS of clip: 28.48 Percent of torn frames: 0.65 |
| Clip 4 info: Length of clip: 5318 frames Average FPS of clip: 25.60 Percent of torn frames: 0.0 |
Clip 4 info: Length of clip: 5318 frames Average FPS of clip: 23.89 Percent of torn frames: 0.26 |
| Clip 5 info: Length of clip: 9714 frames Average FPS of clip: 24.75 Percent of torn frames: 0.0 |
Clip 5 info: Length of clip: 9714 frames Average FPS of clip: 24.99 Percent of torn frames: 0.48 |
| Global percent of torn frames: 0.0 Global average FPS: 26.85 |
Global percent of torn frames: 1.69 Global average FPS: 27.28 |
Multiplayer Performance: Fortunately, there’s not much to tell here, because the performance levels that we experienced during the game’s single player mode transitioned well over to the game’s multiplayer. The Xbox 360 had a slightly higher frame rate with the occasional screen tear. The PlayStation 3 version had none. Crytek has done a phenomenal job matching up the performance levels between these two gems, locking this category in a tie. Great job Crytek!
| PlayStation 3 Frame Analysis Multiplayer | Xbox 360 3 Frame Analysis Multiplayer |
| Clip 1 info: Length of clip: 3087 frames Average FPS of clip: 29.61 Percent of torn frames: 0.0 |
Clip 1 info: Length of clip: 3087 frames Average FPS of clip: 29.94 Percent of torn frames: 1.71 |
| Clip 2 info: Length of clip: 2152 frames Average FPS of clip: 27.58 Percent of torn frames: 0.0 |
Clip 2 info: Length of clip: 2152 frames Average FPS of clip: 30.22 Percent of torn frames: 0.90 |
| Clip 3 info: Length of clip: 8540 frames Average FPS of clip: 27.88 Percent of torn frames: 0.0 |
Clip 3 info: Length of clip: 8540 frames Average FPS of clip: 29.96 Percent of torn frames: 1.26 |
| Clip 4 info: Length of clip: 2623 frames Average FPS of clip: 29.71 Percent of torn frames: 0.0 |
Clip 4 info: Length of clip: 2623 frames Average FPS of clip: 30.72 Percent of torn frames: 0.30 |
| Global percent of torn frames: 0.0 Global average FPS: 28.46 |
Global percent of torn frames: 2.0 Global average FPS: 30.11 |
Loading: We must say, loading was a little disappointing on both consoles – but before you get discouraged, an explanation is in order. The first time you pop your Crysis 2 disc into your system and begin campaign mode you’ll notice that load times before and after missions are well masked behind some dialog and cinematics, and were easily forgotten. Unfortunately, if you quit a mission and decide to resume your current play-through, both games require a hefty load time of around 45 seconds. The good news here is that if you die while playing, the quick-save feature takes a fraction of the time to reload you to your most current checkpoint. Below are our average load times; NOTE: samples 1-3 were captures from quitting and resuming your previous play-through, the rest were quick save restarts. Note: the PlayStation 3 version required a 2 GB mandatory install which took around 6 minutes to complete.
| PlayStation 3 Load Times | Xbox 360 3 Load Times |
|
Sample 1: 43 seconds Sample 2: 45 seconds Sample 3: 41 seconds Sample 4: 10 seconds Sample 5: 9 seconds |
Sample 1: 41 seconds Sample 2: 44 seconds Sample 3: 47 seconds Sample 4: 12 seconds Sample 5: 9 seconds |
| Sample Average: 29.6 seconds |
Sample Average: 30.6 seconds |
Rollover to see the Difference. Notice the textures look almost identical.
Move the Slider to see the Difference.
Rollover to see the Difference.
Move the Slider to see the Difference.
Rollover to see the Difference.
Rollover to see the Difference. Can you spot the differences?
Move the Slider to see the Difference.
Rollover to see the Difference. In this scene the PS3 versions texture mip mapping looks a bit better.
Mouse over the image to see through our “Lens”.
More Roll Overs, Conclusion, Technical Score, Videos and Staff Choice on Page 2. >>
Pages: 1 2
Tags: *To ensure color accuracy from the PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 and Wii U output, the PlayStation 3 has RGB Full Range set to "Full" and Super White "On", and the Xbox 360 has Reference Level set to "Expanded" and HDMI Color Space set to "RGB". Our capture card we have captured segments from the AVS HD 709 . Blu-ray, HD DVD, & MP4 Calibration suite.
As you will see, each system matches each other at the SOURCE LEVEL. No contrast or gamma settings are manipulated before or after capturing our images/videos. We strongly believe that these types of corrections are done on a individuals preference and should not be adjusted by us. Finally, washed out looking images that are due to contrast or gamma differences will not have any influence on our final verdicts. Please Read through our F.A.Q page if you have any questions or concerns.*
sweet am i first in this soon to be epic h2h thread???
heh, let the games begin!
Very close indeed. I’ve got to get it on the 360 cus it looks slightly better to me, most noticeably the anti-aliasing and texture quality. Also the 360 controller is my preference for FPS games. (Just so you know, I’m far from a 360 fanboy and I hate fanboys in general.) Anyways, you can’t lose with either version. Pick this game up immediately!!
anti aliasing is same(temporal aa and texture quality is same(minor differences in favour of both)if u read DF article, but either way looks a win really.
Editing option needs increasing on this site lol
anti aliasing is same(low level temporal aa),if u read DF article and texture quality is same(minor differences in favour of both), and the obvious slight resolution difference(Is it noticeable from normal viewing distances on tv?, not really) The biggest factors u should worry about is frame rate (variable on each,but more stable overall on 360, but drops more in intense situations)and do u have 3d?(better on ps3 version).
Technical differences aside, which controller do u prefer, where are ur friends going to be playing it etc is more important, but whichever console u pick it up on is a win really.
yes now! the true head to head.
xbox 360 version is better.
I’ll buy my copy now.
Eh your a fanboy,their’s less then 2 fps diffrence,the mip mapping on the ps3 is better, and no torn frames.Their are screenshots wheir 360 looked better then the ps3 looked better.If you look at the first video you can clearly see the 360 version has more framerate dips more then the ps3.Theirs a 100 pixle diffrence in resolution which you can’t tell if your playing on a 22-36in tv.Even bigger tvs it won’t matter alot since both are sub hd anyway.The only thing the 360 has over the ps3 version is no mandatory install.
X360 for be because it IS sharper.
On big TV no matter how LoT try to neglect it resolution advantage is a big + for X360.
On bigger screens it is easily visible that picture quality suffers somewhat on PS3 due to need of scalling to full 1280×720 – it is not only case of 92,000 less pixels but also because X360 has a nice 6 point hardware scaller and PS3 doesn’t and it is developer problem to solve scalling – in most cases they use cheapest bilinear scallikng on RSX/Cells SPU.
Surely youre doing game disservice by upascaling it to 1080p anyway?. I have decent tv and let my tv do any upscaling as its better at it then either 360 or ps3.
If u are really able to see the difference that easily, why would u upscale??
if ur sat at 3ft from 50″ screen id say yes its noticeable , but even then its slight, and I suggest sittig back a bit anyway, as its not healthy lol
Try downscaling ur image to its native 720p on ur xbox and watching game the way it was meant to be seen
X360 uses Lanczos resizing in hardware. Very very good (and costly) method with excelent results when upscaling. Comonly used in graphics programs as one of the top choises.
“(in X360) the scaler does 10-tap horizontal by 6-tap vertical sampling for scaling.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanczos_resampling
forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241
Unless your TV is top of the line it has probably the cheapest and most ‘el cheapo’ method implemented. Easy to test simply try to run TV in non native resolution with test image. 90% of TVs will use bilinear and blurr image.
HQ/lossless .png screens from Eurogamer/other sites show clearly difference in sharpness. On big TV especially if ‘upscaled’ by TV and not by X360 hardware scaller to TVs native resolution it gets another PictureQuality downgrades.
Thats why X360 is better choice for games if you have 1080p TV (other too in lesser degree). No matter how crappy upscaller is in TV – it wont be used as X360 will upscale using Lanchos ANY game, PS3 users besides rare 1080p game will have to go with TV hardware.
Even on a big tv nether one of em will look good.You are overlooking the fact that the 360 is sub hd as well.Now if it ran true 720p on 360, this would be a huge diffrence but it’s not.People are making a big deal ohhh it has the best graphics blah blah the fact it runs sub hd with iffy textures and some of the worse framerate drops i seen this gen.Crysis 2 has great lighting but other then that it’s just ok.Everyone knows if it was made on pc then ported down the game would not be playable on consoles.
I was reading your comparison and I happened to notice that the math for the framerate average is off for your single player analysis on the ps3 version. You guys have it at 26.85 when according to the numbers on the clips it should equal 27.55. The 360 average for the same analysis is also wrong. It says 27.28 when it should be 26.21. Your MP analysis numbers seem to be of also but only by a few decimals. Are the clip average fps #’s seperate from the global average? If not you guys need to check your math more often. Anyway just trying to bring this to your attention to help you guys out.
Wow. I Mean really wow. Crytek with Cryengine 3 has jsut set a new console standard for graphics. I’ll be playing this on e on 360. 2 reasons. If I can get 92,160 more pixels (PS3..1024×720=737,280 Xbox..1152×720=829,440 for my 59.99 then I want it. The other is the ps3′s (still unacceptable) mandatory install. Granted Crytek has done an awesome job here, but they really should have called Sony’s first party dev’s for help on this issue. The PS3 version is awesome and the 360 version is also awesome. Great and I do mean great job Crytek.
No.
Crytek has just set a new “multiplatform” standard for sub HD, variable unstable framerate, graphics on consoles.
Guerrilla has set the standard for console graphics.
Yea see i don’t feel that way.It’s in sub hd with iffy textures.I think the game needed more time to get cleaned up theirs framerate issues which are really bad.Anytime you see 18fps thats alarming to me.Idc if it only lasts a second it should never get that bad.Killzone 3 runs full HD with MLAA, better textures and framerate that never dips under 28fps and for 90% of the time it’s 30 fps.Plus the MP in Kz3 is alot better then C2.
Excelent work guys, i saw a tie comming, and i have to say this game amazed me from the beginning to the end and i was really hoping a tie, cause a game like this should be enjoyed equaly on both consoles
.
Well this has proven what others and i have said for a long time, it’s all about the engine, ps3 fanboys cant say now the xbox cant handle this type of games, and xbox fanboys should learn to w8 untill they start to say a version is better than the other.
My congratulations to the crytek team, they made an amazing task, the game has some bugs and stuff, but nothing that serious.
Again thanks for the H2H guys
And there is now a comment editor!! great work
:D
This game fails to impress me thats for sure.Sub hd and framerate issues,and so many bugs it really for me hurt the overall game.Quite sure if you let first party Sony devs they could had got this game full 720 and a more stable framerate.I even think the game was ported down from the 360.Even still the ps3 one has alot more going for it mip mapping is better,no torn frames,more stable framerate in combat.All of this for 100 pixel resolution diffrence.i’ll take that thanks.
Great H2H guys. now all we need is a Killzone 3 vs Crysis 2 on Consoles…
Agreed! And those 5 people are super lame.
Man man man, on one side comparison sites are really great. it’s the case when you own both consoles!
On the other side comparison sites can be (even if they dont do that on purpose)some kind of maniac preachers who easily can start a fanboy-flame-war.
Sure there have been some games like Bayonetta who had a really poor performance on the ps3 or, vice versa, final fantasy 13 had a really poor performance on the xbox 360.
So after occasionally reading the flame-wars on this site or DF before the head2head even was in a “final” state i really thought the ps3 version is somewhat stuttgering and choppy with missing effects and stuff like that.
Yesterday, after reading the DF review i bought the PS3 version due to the far superior 3D mode.
After playing the first two hours i lmao, because i realized how pathetic and overexaggerated most of the comments were. And i bet it is the same thing with the xbox 360 version.
A discussion on a site like this should be:
educated user 1: “Oh i think effetc X is missing on console Y”
educated user 2: “Oh you are rigth. Hmm, why is that so? Maybe it is reason Z”
educated user 1: “Yeah, sounds reasonable! But let’s wait and see what the final verdict on the retail version will be!”
And it should not be like:
xXx_Thomahawk-KiLL3rZZZ_xXx: “LOOOOOOOOL version X looks like a dreamcast game. Console X is such a peace of crap!!!!111!! Console Y 4TW!!”
->->_Sniper_God98_<-<-: "Shut up and die u mf! Console Y 4TW, you are braindead!"
Alright, great works Lens of Truth. Now it’s time for another “odd-ball” Head2Head between Killzone 3 and Crysis 2 (I don’t know about the other aspects but Crysis 2′s interactive water physic is way more realistic than Killzone 3.) Come on, let’s loose the ferocious beasts.
Anyway, I believe that on that last screenshot on page 2 (the one with Lens function), you guys mistakenly put two screenshot of the PS3 version side by side. Just thought I should tell you that.
Tie all the way. Don’t even try to dispute it.
Am I the only one who’s sick and tired of the covers of all fps games sort of looking the same?
Always some dude with his back to us looking over his shoulder in some stupid pose. Really starting to hate the “looking over the shoulder cuz i’m a badass” pose.
I hate FPS titles in general. The only FPS games I can still play without getting bored are Unreal Tournament, Goldeneye, and Perfect Dark.
You, sir, are tr00. Too much, even for me!
Uh, Lens, don’t mean to be nitpicking but the download link for Multiplayer Analysis directed me to the same link as the Single Player one.
What a fantastic comparison by the LOT team! You know, it’s quite a shame that a few gaming sites (*cough* IGN) reviewed an unfinished product on Sonys platform and not the retail copy that everyone will be playing. I wonder if a retraction/edit will occur; doubt it. Thanks again guys for your hard work in putting these H2H’s together. Now I can rest easy, knowing there isn’t a best “console” version. WINNING!
I must congratulate crytek team too, they made an amazing job. I got it 3 days ago for my PS3, and I can assure you guys, both PS3 & Xbox 360 won’t be disappointed.
LOT guys you are amazing and I adore your great tasks,
I just want to raise one point about the PS3, Could’t Crytek made use of the huge space of Blu Ray and at lease left all the video cute scene uncompressed Just like Final Fantasy XIII in PS3 . LOT can you please let them know that.
Otherwise I loved the game.
I also mentioned this before, yeah, Crytek should have used a version with higher bit rate (as in, a lot higher). I mean, all that wasted space.
But uncompressed? You know, despite what they said, even Final Fantasy XIII used compressed videos, I’m thinking maybe some kind of lossless compression (not Bink like the Xbox 360 version, hell no), but definitely not uncompressed. Why? Because when we’re talking about uncompressed videos, we’re talking about hundreds of GB, one or two DL Blu-ray Disc wouldn’t be enough.
1920 X 1080 (resolution) = 2,073,600 (pixels)
2,073,600 X 3 (RGB/color) = 6,220,800 (bytes)
6,220,800 ÷ 1,048,576 (byte conversion to MB) = 5.93 (MB)
That’s 5.93MB for only 1 frame.
Well, at lease something still would look nice at 720p. To be honest, I like Crysis Cute scene but can still see some pixels.
Yeah, no kidding, the macroblocking artifacts are so obvious, it hurts. Seriously, I haven’t seen such poor compression since the Xbox 360 version of Final Fantasy XIII (which obviously could have been better if a different codec was used instead of Bink.) But it truly pissed me off that so much space were left empty when it could have been used for higher quality compression. I think the PS3 version of Mass Effects 2 was also like that, too, just not as bad…
High five mate.
Some spelling mistakes:
Fortunately, our skepticism sized immediately
should be:
Fortunately, our skepticism seized immediately
Crysis 2’s advanced graphics engine utilizes the differed rendering
should be:
Crysis 2’s advanced graphics engine utilizes the deferred rendering
damn is loading… loading… loading…
i figure it would be a tie in the end. both versions have their highs and lows. the only difference is ps3 no tearing and 360 tearing. other than that its identical in many ways. im just surprise that the mp version of ps3 did better than i excepted cause the way it looks and plays it just feels still like the ps3 demo just tweaked to look better. now maybe this will end the debate or what console version is better. lot you should send those vids to ign and cvc maybe they could put their so call fanybosim aside and see both version were just as good as the other.
I played both versions,rent the ps3,bought the 360 for online with friends.I did witness the things you mention as being different,but I cant say that they look equal…First off..the screen-tearing you claim is marginall,and if anyone has a 100hz and above hdtv set,is completely unnoticeble.So performance is an issue far more than the small amount of tearing.And is also a bit unfair to not comparing the 360 version installed,since,many sites,and myself see improvents in loading times and the gaming expirience.Also the washed (even if its not that noticable like other titles)due to the lower resolution,should prevent making this ps3 title,equal to its 360 counterpart.I know both version are very similar,but there are differences in the way of handling things(shadows and water are a bit better on ps3)and most things and general feel of the game,are better in the 360!I always follow your articles,like its a bible for making the right choise on buying multyplatforms,but i cant agree with you on equallity here..I just cant..Great article as always,thorough and legit(just a nit-picker…the fourth photo below loading times section is vice versa,you can tell by the smaller hud on ps3)!Cheers!
I THINK THEY SHOULD DO A 3D COMPARISON ON PS3 IT IS MIND BLOWING. the 2d on this game hurts my eyes its like im straining. in 3d it is very immersive and also it is crystal clear. I think the 3d is written in the code seeing as how the picture is clearer in 3d then 2d. could anyone verify this experience with this on xbox and ps3.
Crysis 2 has no native stereoscopic 3D.
If you buy this game for 3D features you waste your money.
MAURO have you ever played the game in 3d. I can verify it is the best 3d game to date . it dosnt lose any resolution and it is really a technological miracle. by the way i voted this a game a tie based on what was reviewed on this site.
Yes I tryed and it’s not real stereoscopic 3D.
It’s just a bunch of layers one on top of each other: two shots of the same image slightly offset.
If you want to see a real 3D then check Killzone 3.
Crysis 2 doesn’t lose resolution because that is not 3D: everyone can do that.
I can see your point mauro i have killzone 3 the 3d effect is good in a way but i think crysis 2 is way better . they are both good games.
Yes they are both good games.
But when it comes to 3D feature, and this is not only my opinion, Killzone 3 sorts a far better effect.
I can actually see the layers in Crysis 2 and to me it looks a cheap way to produce “kind of” stereoscopic 3D. I simply don’t like it and it has no real depth, if you know what I mean.
But anyway, this doesn’t definitely mean that Crysis 2 3D effect is bad. And from a certain point of view it really depends on people taste, doesn’t it?
1) Screen tearing has nothing to do with your TV refresh rate: you could have a 600Hz TV and you always will notice the screen tearing.
2) 1152×720 vs 1021×720: unless you have cyber-eyes your human ones won’t spot any differences. And Washed out has nothing to do with screen resolution.
3) Whashed out? What are you talking about?
4) LoT staff forgot to mention that frame rate on PS3 is more consistent when it comes to really messy and chaotic fighting scenes, because it drops less frames than the 360 version.
5) Taking into consideration all 4 previous points we can easily state that this head 2 head is a tie.
Fantastic cross platform development.
Graphics – 360 has slightly higher res while the PS3 has better texture filtering.
Performance – 360 runs about 1 FPS higher but has 2% screen tearing while PS3 has 0 tearing.
Loading – Strait tie.
I’m really torn on which version is the one for me though. On one hand the 360 has slightly better res which allows for a little better detail, but on the other the PS3 has no tearing. The hard part is that these differences are so small that you won’t notice them on either version. That being said go with your console of choice as they are both wins.
As for me, PC all the way!
This is def not Fantastic cross platform development lol.
Need for speed Hot Pursuit 2010 is great platforming.
This is a unbalanced nightmare.
Frankly for a company that said that you can’t tell the difference. You can easily tell the difference.
Anyways thnx for H2h, I’m going to wait for a price cut in the PC version and grab it when “DX 11″ patch is out.
i own both consoles, and as great as hot pursuit was , it was a game that was pared back graphically to achieve parity. it still looked great though, im just saying it wasnt pushing barriers technically in same way Cryis 2 is. If crytek had another 3-4 months, they might have squeezeed that extra 10% resolution out their engine by optimising it(maybe), but thats the way it goes im afraid, multiplatforms are awkward to do as they both totally different architectures, and ps3 requires a unique approach. Crytek’s engine is new and still being fine tuned, so theyve done a pretty good job, although lot analysis doesnt seem to highlight what DF noticed about 360 framerates dropping lower than ps3 most the time in intense firefights.
As I and many LoT users predicted its a tie.
I expect some people (you all know who) will be annoyed that the 360 didnt win.
Now I hope everybody will be happy & enjoy this game equally regardless of platform…
lmao just joking! OMG android OMG, man I don’t know to say, just OMG!!! as I said long time ago, MASSIVE ANDROID FAIL.
Honestly, i think if anyone says one version looks better than the other is a complete noob and rediculously picky.
PlayStation 3 for me. When the versions are this similar, the only deciding factor worth mentioning is the price of PSN.
The diference of 100 pixels is in the horizontal only.
The total diference is 92160 pixels.
Looking this way is a big diference.
If I’d choose between the consoles I’d choose the xbox.
But I got it on the pc…
depends whether u factor in that theres 829440 pixel on 360, so that figure u quoted is only 11% drop on that figure (and is upscaled anyway).
Its also worth noting thatif ur sitting in front of a monitor from 1ft away, that 11% seems pretty relevant, but move back about 5 ft more ( a normal tv distance) on a 40″ tv and it becomes insignificant really.
try noticing difference between 720p and 1080p on 402 screen from 6 foot away.
so if u got a huge 50″ tv and sit 3 ft away, u agree go with 360 version, but obviously take into account that as df says 360 version drops more in heavy firefights
Try spotting difference
depends whether u factor in that theres 829440 pixel on 360, so that figure u quoted is only 11% drop on that figure (and is upscaled anyway).
Its also worth noting that if ur sitting in front of a monitor from 1ft away, that 11% seems pretty relevant, but move back about 5 ft more ( a normal tv distance) on a 40″ tv and it becomes insignificant really.
try noticing difference between 720p and 1080p on 42″ screen from 6 foot away.
so if u got a huge 50″ tv and sit 3 ft away, I agree go with 360 version, but obviously take into account that as df says 360 version drops more in heavy firefights
Try spotting difference
* wish theyd put a proper editing system on this site ffs lol, and not one that gives u five mins to spot mistakes, as half the time i dont notice till much later
I have a question for the LOT staff that i would appreciate it one off the guys would take the time to answer.
First i would like to agree with result, it really couldnt be anything other than a tie. Nice job.
The question is how do you work out you global frames per second. It it based on the clips and numbers provided or is it based on running the whole game through the analyser???
I ask because iv worked out the averages based on the information provided and my numbers differ a little. By adding the average fps for the clips provided and dividing by the number off clips used il get the average for easch console.
Heres my findings
PS3 single player average fps- 27.54
360 single player average fps- 26.21
PS3 multiplayer average fps- 28.69
360 multiplayer average fps- 30.21
Granted its not much but it is different so im just curious as to how you guys work out the average(Also is the 2 clips where the 360 averages 23 frames correct?)
Quick paragrath on my first impressions on this game(PS3). Graphic are good(took quite a bit off jigging the telly setting to get colour levels right, now got a crysis 2 channel on my telly lol) but in my opinion it is neither the finest looking console game nor the best looker on either system. Uncharted 2 and alan wake still hold those titles. Only played about an hour off single player so prob really cant comment much on that.
As for multiplayer iv played quite a few games on that and im not sure what to think, i feel its to fast for the control scheme and consequentianly a lot off firefight just become random affairs(not helped by over the top muzzle flash and recoil) Iv died a ridiculous amount off time as well and because off this i dont think iv quite swore at the telly as much in years lol………..still i keep going back so maybe it has something.
Well i know you said you have not played far enough to say for sure though i have got pretty far in the game and i also find it hard to say this is the best looking game on consoles, i know everyone likes to bring up kz3 (rolls eyes) but! i just got done with that one and now playing crysis 2 there is no freaking way it looks better! However, i am not someone who runs games through analysers i just play them.
I dont regret my purchase.
A close head to head.
If you can’t see the screen tearing as it’s such a small amount, it’s of no importance at all.
The higher res is though, but both are still sub hd.
The 360 may have won the loading if installed to hd.
Which would have given it a slight win in this head to head.
A close one but i feel that the ps3 is the one that is flattered slightly by this tie lol.
To play devils advocate here android, i feel the 360 one is flattered as it doesnt mention how the 360 version drops more frames in intense firefights, and also ignores how 360 version has inferior anisoptric filtering(sx af on 360, 16x dynamic AF on ps3)
look at these inages, and notice how in the distance the textures on wall in 360 version get blurred, but remain more crisp on ps3.
http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/1/3/4/2/6/0/5/PS3_024.jpg.jpg
http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/articles//a/1/3/4/2/6/0/5/360_024.jpg.jpg
i agree that if u have really large tv and sit very close to it, then u will notice the res difference( u might notice those pesky frame rate drops more too lol), but if ur sat at a normal viewing distance (6-8 ft) on anything less than 50″ tv then you wont notice difference in res , maybe slightly softer feel).
So take ur pick based on what suits u i guess, i chose ps3 version as I didnt want those extreme frame rate drops(its bad enough as it is on both versions lol) and i can lend it brother after as he doesnt have 360.
I do think its a damn good looking game, but im not convinced its best looking console game on either platform
Here we go again….
I’m surprised you even had the guts to make a comment after what you have been saying on the other Crysis 2 comparison pages.
But once again, the almighty XBOX 360 prevails in your eyes.
Never change android123, you make this website so fun.
android you’re my hero! (no homo)
Don’t hide in the closet any longer my friend it’s ok for u and android to be lovers , it’s 2011 and we won’t judge u based on that. We’ll judge u based on u both being idiots instead lol
Yeah i can’t hide my feelings any longer. I just wanna take a dump on androids chest.
Yeaaaaaaa we have edit button now…….
I’ll get it to my ps3, looks like a fantastic game, and de diferences are fell and I dont renovate yet my Live account, otherwise I get it for 360 for the better controller..
And with that put I consider this a win to ps3 for me because I have a good home theater and most games have better sound on ps3 and is the same for users who has a 3DTV.
Looking foward to see a comparison with Killzone 3.
I do agree with you must of the games have DTS in PS3 and I have a really good home entertainment 7ch sound system. Such as Uncharted 1+2 and others.
This is definitely a tie, and I’m really impressed here, I’m glad I picked it up for the PS3 to be honest, the reason being I don’t like having to pay to play online, and I prefer the DS3 controller to be honest, I’ve been with Playstation since the start, so their controllers feel so natural to me, y’know?
I’m sure I saw a video somewhere, I think on EuroGamer, where the FPS for the PS3 version hovered around the 24-25 mark, whereas this looks a whole lot nicer to be honest, I’ve not touched the singleplayer yet so I’ll have to check it out for myself, the multiplayer is just so fun!
how so? 360 version run at higer resolution not only that but digital foundry said 360 version overall looked better
close our big mouth it s a tie fann boy comic jumper digital gives point to both consoles so close your clapet in french
I can’t pretend to perceive perfect platform parity since the playstation’s paltry passel of pixels provokes passion in people who prefer perfect perspicuity while pursuing this particular pasttime.
Otherwise they’re equal. Well done Crytek.
resolution isnt everything when playing a game. Frame rate plays a large part too, and according to Df the frame rate drops more on 360 when it matter ie in a battle, so if u like staring at pretty still pictures, the 360 is a win, if u like playing a game then…..Ill leave u to figure it out.
btw im playing devils advocate here, i personally think its case of pick ur poison, so id say a tie, as theres no clear winner.
If u want to sit up real close to large tv, then 360 it is, but u get frame rate drops in action, but generally remains higher.
If u want a game with frame rate that doesnt collapse to absurdly low levels , but has 11 % res difference , has improved anisoptric filtering(lines in distance dont blur as much) then its ps3.
pick ur poison, or if u can afford it, get a decent pc and play it on that as it whoops both consoles asses(i havent got that so i went with ps3 for frame rate)
i know, it was just a joke.
IMO this is probably as close as we will ever get to platform parity.
Lol sorry, I’m knew here and hard to know the retards from the normal people who are joking. I wasn’t sure if u were serious or not lol
There’s an epic line in film Snatch( the brad Pitt one, not the porn one lol) where bullet tooth Tony says ” never underestimate the predictability of stupidity ” and this site is living proof of that at times. U think uve seen the stupidist thing possible and then some idiot exceeds it, taking stupidity to a level u never knew existed lol
I was discussing the frame rate issue with someone on another forum( 360 fanboy, who claimed to own ps3 version as well). He said that the ps3 version was far worse frame rate wise, so I quoted df article saying that’s not true , to which he replied that he had a new 50 inch samsung led tv and top of range broadband connection like this would somehow affects frame rates when DF were doing comparison.
I just refused to discuss anything with him after this lol
Lol LED tv, Anybody who is serious about there home theater will have a plasma..
There is something odd about the frame rate analysis
On clip 1 ps3 looses by 2,29 fps
On clip 2 ps3 won by 6,03 fps
On clip 3 ps3 won again by 1,48 fps
Clip 4 was another ps3 win by 1,71 fps
And finaly clip 5 ps3 looses by only 0,24 fps
How the hell 360 ends winning ? Or my math is off or your results are..
Good catch, it was a typo and has been updated. There’s a lot of information thats need to be filled out in these head2heads, and to save time we use a pre-filled out template. Sometimes we miss a line here and there. But the totals FPS and screen tearing percentages were correct from the get-go.
Thanks for the find.
Shawn
u can argue this till end of time, and fan boys will always be fanboys and claim superiority, whilst rest of us think, forget it, lets go play the game instead.
I will reapeat…..
Get this game on your favorite console, I got on PS3, why i can’t play in Xbox 360 yet, I need pay the Gold Acount /jealous >.<"
Nice comparasion, both are good \o/
Heya LOT! Thanks for this h2h! I Agree absolutely, it is a damn tie xD… I actually had the pleasure of trying both versions myself (have some good friends
) and they are almost identical. On 360 the framerate for me was pretty good, but at firefights – low, but i didnt notice it cause ive been too busy fighting xD, on ps3 the gameplay and framerate is very smooth and has no screen tearing at all (v-sync of course 
), but also – i dont know if its my ps3 or what, but some of the details of the game looks more washed out on ps3 than the 360 but its nitpicking from my side 
, but overal, theyre the same, same game, same mechanics, same good crysis 2… After a long-ass time of thinking which one to get, ive gotten myself the 360 version of the game. Purely because of the controller, my new renewed gold membership and because i like that “sharpness” of the 360 version. Enjoyed this game so far, see yall online!! P.S. sorry for my grammar, im not that good at english, im lithuanian >_>….
Ur grammar is fine mate, dont worry about it.
I am Lithuanian too, my friend. Glad to see someone else here that is
Nice to see they did such a great job on both consoles. They deserve some respect for that.
As for the game, i’m playing it on PC right now on highest settings, and its not really the greatest looking game out there.
And why i thought this would be any better than Crysis or Crysis Warhead i don’t know. It has the same boring gameplay and lousy story line that the others had.
Waste of money on my part, but that my problem not yours.
I just hope developers will license the engine, and make some creative games with it.
My take on it. The resolution difference are very minimal. 1024 X 720 is about 740,000 pixels and 1152 X 720 is about 830,000 pixels. And considering it’s just horizontal scaling instead of vertical, the difference is even less noticeable. Also resolution is not the be all end all to a game’s image quality. You also have to take account for texture filtering (AF). 360 version is limited to 4xAF while the PS3 version can at times go dynamically up to 16xAF.
So resolution and texture filtering aside, the game looks identical on both platforms. The frame rate on the PS3 is only a hair less than the 360 version, and likewise the 360 version’s screen tearing is very minimal and is usually at the top of the screen making it largely unnoticeable.
Go out and buy the version of the game for your console of choice. Crytek’s cross-platform parity achievement is only second to Dante’s Inferno. “Can Consoles run Crysis?” Hell yea.
No matter which version you go with, you win!!! Kudos for Crytek for taking the time and making a this game runnable on the home consoles.
QUESTION TO LENS OF TRUTH STAFF:
Did you captured this H2H while having turned ON 720p mode in your PS3 OR 1080p mode? I have Full HD TV and I have turned on 1080p mode all the time and all other games are running in 720p (graphics are sharp) WHILE Crysis 2 runs in 1080p mode (starnge upscalling) which brings a lot of bluriness! The difference is huge in favour of 720p mode (I did my own comparison).
To ALL PS3 and Full HD TV users: for Crysis 2 turn ON 720p mode in your PS3 (better sharpness).
Other than that, this is a definite TIE.
Been hearing this a lot lately. So is there actually any truth to that at all, ’cause it seems like that everybody is claiming the same thing.
Personally I can’t see any change in picture quality between running in 720p and 1080p. Maybe it’s my vision or something, I don’t know, but I just don’t seem to percieve any change between the two (haven’t run them side-by-side, though).
Can anyone provide some factual data or screenshots perhaps that could confirm this?
Oh, and also FYI for the LoT guys, the new lens “hover” feature doesn’t seem to work on Firefox 4.
I actually think it looks better in 1080p of course my tv is only 768. I dont know how the upscaling works.
There will be a difference as games being upscaled ( quite badly probably as it’s rsx doing upscaling) to 1080p. So it’s effectively guessing where pixels should be and adding them( not in a true fashion though) , which means ur losing picture quality. It won’t make huge difference , but it’s still a difference, like difference between 1080i and 1080p
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE!
Go to Multiplayer, choose private match and for example “Skyline” map, then wait for end of loading and you can see this map from different static cameras (switch view with d-pad) before the match starts.
Choose one camera view and try to remember the details. Then exit the game and turn on 720p/1080p mode in your ps3, launch the game again, same map, same camera view and see for yourself! I see a big difference in sharpness!
The singleplayer average is incorrect obviously.
Lets do a first aproach:
Ps3: 28.02+29.41+29.96+25.6+24.75=137.74 fps in total
If we divide by 5 = 27.55 fps
xbox360=30.31+23.38+28.48+23.89+24.99=131.05 fps in total
That /5 = 26.21 fps
2. That way of make the average has a trouble anyway, it dont consider the length of clips. So doing it correctly:
Ps3: (28.02×2567+29.41×9161+29.96×6374+25.6×5318+24.75×9714)/(2567+9161+6374+5318+9714)=27.43 fps
xbox360:
(30.31×2567+23.38×9161+28.48×6374+23.89×5318+24.99×9714)/(2567+9161+6374+5318+9714)=25.45 fps
Checked multiplayer average and its ok, you used the second (accurate one) way.
Now it can happen 2 things:
1- You did the singleplayer average wrong, and its the one i showed you.
2- The fps data you show us in the web are wrong, and the average is ok.
What are you going to correct?
You corrected the clip 2 on xbox360 while i wrote my first post but … till is wrong.
The ps3 average is 27.43 and no 26.85% unless the data here are till wrong too…
Sigh!
Pd: the average on xbox360 is 26.27 and no 26.28 fps anyway but ok…
Thanks again, another typo. Has been updated, and again the average fps and screen tearing percentages have not changed. Thanks for the heads up.
I can’t believe there are a lot of websites are bashing PS3 and they can’t just admit that Crysis 2 also look as good as Xbox360. And all they get to say is that Crysis 2 in Ps3 is less resolution and less frame rate.
who the hell they think themselves are!
(Being Sarcastic)I bet CryTek or I bet they are Naughty Dog, and they know every thing about games, and they just lent LOT all their equipment for this H2H.
Can’t they just be a decent journalist.
Oh, and i almost forgot to say that the multiplayer is pretty good! Very similar to CoD to me, but its more fun with the nanosuit
… The only thing thats bad about it is the damn cloak, almost everybody use it, but other than that, i have to say its a very well made game. And it looks beast on both consoles (as a PC gamer for years, i have to say – im impressed! 
) thank god, nobody had to fight to prove which one is better, its a tie, youll win by getting any version. Again, thanks Crytek for this bad-ass experience!:) Another great package this year! 
Happy to see “Tie” it’s the most voted option…i feel like a proud father, my little boys.
hahaha im 20
I know I might get flamed for this but I’m just commenting based on my experience with both versions.
I’ve played extensive multiplayer on both versions. However slight the resolution differences might be I can still tell the difference on My 50 inch Sony Bravia.
The “vaseline” coating at least to my eyes is still very visible on the ps3 and is non-existent on the 360.
I just feel that such a coating hurts an already gorgeous looking game.
Again it’s like looking at a breathtaking scene through a slightly fogged up windshield that you can’t remove unless you move to another car.
The 360 also has slightly better frame rate and lighting which is also backed up by digital foundry.
I guess I could see how you would give this a tie but I can’t help but feel that the ps3 was given a “pass” to avoid backlash and controversy.
You can’t help but feel that way because it’s how YOU feel and how YOU think. Nothing can be done about that, so just go pick up the version that you like and drop the subject.
I Can’t help but laugh at this. Did u find black ops on 360 to be blurry too? The reason I ask is it runs at even lower res of 1040×608.
The difference is minimal here especially if u run 720p, rather than upscaling it further on ps3.
As for getting a pass, hmm maybe we could apply this to 360 frame rate in intense firefights,which drops regularly 4-5 frames lower than ps3 version( as discussed in df face off too you missed out that bit from ur assessment lol
How about the poor 3d on 360 version in comparison to ps3 version , or the 16x dynamic anisoptric filtering of ps3 over 4x Af on 360 ( crytek as source).
How bout the better texture filtering according to df face off?, or how they said that in motion it was hard to tell difference, due to the post processing effects?
If you going to source an article at least make sure u use all the information before you make such points, as u kinda skewed article by leaving them out.
Don’t know about you guys but the HUD seems to be stretched out on the PS3. Just look at the screenshot comparison with the shotgun.
I hope they fix that in a patch, but it isn’t a major issue.
Are my eyes decieving me or are both Xbox and PS3 fans actually harmonizing lol? You guys need to store up all your passion for the next gens which should be here in 2 years.
As for the game, they did an amazing job with this game. When I first saw the L0T vids on youtube I felt the game should be a tie. On another note, the game just looks amazing and I am going to pick up my copy tonight. You guys do good work on this site, we as gamers are lucky for the experiences developers work 80 hours a week to deliver for us. Gaming is an art form, I wish the industry would see these works for what they are, the same way ground breaking movies are celebrated. I’ll be a gamer forever, until I’m old and gray lol. Take it easy you guys.
@Lens of Truth:
Sorry if I sound like I’m being rude, but it seems my comments were lost among others so I’ll restate it again:
– On the last comparison screenshot which use the Lens function on page 2 (the one where Alcatraz was looking out the window with a C.E.L.L. solider on bridge) a.k.a. “h2h_lens_zoom_06.jpg”, you have two of the same screenshot from the PS3 version put side-by-side instead of one for PS3 and one for Xbox 360. Please fix that.
– The download link for the multiplayer analysis video is the same one for the single player analysis. Did you put link for the single player analysis video there by mistake or did you not plan on having a downloadable video for the multiplayer analysis? Either way, please fix that, too.
I wanna see what else can do Crytek with our consoles(Ps360)…the game looks just awesome on both systems…
EDITED: OMG!!!!!! NEW EDIT OPTION!!!! WIIIII!!!!!!!
why is everyone hating? A Tie is always good. Thanks Crytek
Good to see so many people taking the right choice by playing it on 360.
With the ps3 version slowing down just as much in busy scenes(you’d better believe it), there really isn’t much point getting the ps3 version over the better looking 360 version.
Better graphics and smoother framerate=better choice.
OMG dude please shut up
You sure about that??? From the voting screen, all I see is Tie 1st, PS3 2nd, Xbox 3rd. Put your glasses on Xboy. M$ time is up. It makes me laugh too, as now that it is apparent, there has been a dramatic increase in web traffic regarding the next Gen. *Xboys on knees, armes raised to sky screaming “please save us M$”*
Do u ever play games ? Or just sit on here annoying ppl?
I’m guessing u don’t own either console and ur bitter as ur mom said u couldn’t have a ps3 for Christmas and all ur schoolmates made fun of u, so now u have a vendetta against the ps3.
Give us a credible source for ur claims that ps3 drops frames equally . Now think logically , if the global frame rate difference between ps3 and 360 is 0.44, and we know that ps3 version drops more frames generally( we’ve read df and watched video), so where is the 360 dropping those frames huh???? They have tonne dropping somewhere , so the logical conslusion is in , yup u guessed it, firefights . The ps3 is triple buffered unlike 360 so that’s why it doesn’t drop them in those situations, and u know that’s a fact .
So just accept now ur being a clown and I’ll not humiliate u any further lol
close your big mouth héméroide both site lens and digitslsaid that the 360 had the most trouble when the combat were moe intense so ferme ta gueule en bon français crétin de fanboy you are the worst blind fann boy on this site the two versions are équal so ferme ton grand clapet tous le monde parle de toi comme un con
Well done LOT. A very diplomatic, well constructed H2H. I might have to check this game out, but still go so many others to get through…..and so little time.
AN EDIT OPTION!!!!!!! NO MORE GETTING FLAMED FOR TYPE-O’S!!!!
I was more seeing a PS3 win, seeing as the screens look much better on PS3. But oh well, a tie is a tie, and at least it’ll get those stupid Xbots to stfu.
Regardless, I bought this on PS3, and I’m loving this game. Best FPS I’ve played since KZ2, and I hope both console gamers enjoy playing it regardless of which is better
Can PLEASE get a Killzone 2 vs Crysis 2 (console)
and Killzone 3 vs Crysis 2(console) would be nice as well.
Bar the lighting in crysis 2 and the scale of environments , kz3 anihliates crysis 2. Obviously those factors are big factors though as they had to make cuts elsewhere to compensate ( certain if kz3 used sandbox environments more and dynamic lighting it would have to make cuts elsewhere too), but I’m guessing from a pure tech pov that kz3 is still pushing hardware more.
Once again the PS3 can barely keep up with an Xbox 360 Arcade, even with a 2GB forced install. The 360 version has a higher resolution, higher framerate in single player and multiplayer, and much shorter loading times when you install the game – obviously Lens of Truth always compare an Xbox 360 Arcade to a PS3, so they’re happy to sit through a long forced install on PS3 (which doesn’t count against it), but won’t install the game on 360 which improves performance and decreases loading times.
Mind you, if they did start installing 360 games, there would be bitter tears from the PS3 fanboys that hang around on here every day as their console would lose even more of these head2heads. LOL.
The PS3 versions runs fine and is v-synced at 26 FPS. The 360 is constantly having dips in the frame rate, dropping anywhere from 1 to 8 frames. Also, the 360 version has frame tearing where as the PS3 has zero. All 360 models are the same just as all Ps3 models are the same, so I guess your IQ is just somewhere in your ass when you talk about Xbox 360 A0rcade.
You know what they say, its better to lose head 2 head’s for shitty multiplats than it is for your console to lose all its games lol. I bet you and your Xbot butt buddies are in tears about that lol. How does it feel to know that the PS3 is actually getting games this year. You guys have to wait until September 20th for your only actual exclusives this year. Have fun playing Sesame Street on Kinect. XD
Earlier on I mentioned that the xbox fanboys won’t be pleased that it’s a tie.
It looks like the pathetic retards are proving me right. It’s a bit sad really. Will they ever grow up.
they should call you fried brain xbox 360 fan bo instead od fried chicken they both had threir plus and minus and you tou you are in the minus side in the head between your two ears
If there was a H2H with Killzone 3 and Crysis 2 It’s hard to tell who will be the winner. If it was xbox version of Crysis vs Killzone 3 I would give Killzone 3 a very slight win. Although Crysis has one of the best lighting and water effects. Killzone 3 has much better AA(MLAA), Artificial inteligence, resolution, and better performance with no screen tearing. And it’s multiplayer graphics are much more consistent with it’s singleplayer.
personally i dont think it would be a contest!!!!
While I agree with LOT,Crysis 2 is the best looing MULTIPLATFORM title to date let’s not get carried away by claiming it’s a match for Killzone 3.
Visually Crysis 2 has it’s awe inspiring moments (where it looks better than anything we’ve seen on 360) but textural fidelity fluxuates from great to average back to great again…at times I felt like I was playing two different titles.
IMO Killzone 3 is still definitively the better looking title,Crysis beats it in water physics and possibly lighting but thats about it.Killzone 3 is the better looking title and it’s stellar visuals are consistent,it has a steady framerate,doesn’t suffer from consistent pop in and graphical glitches,multi-player isn’t a severe downgrade from single-player,and it’s in 720p.
I think Crysis 2 is a great looking title (most of the time) I just wish Crytek took a little more time to iron out wrinkles on the technical end.The AI sucks but it has the best water physics I’ve seen on consoles.
Agreed 100% , the ai is bitter disappoinment and the textures are a mix of great and awful , bit tech in their review described it as visually a mix of the astounding and the unacceptable, and I’m in agreement. Aa and resolution clearly aren’t up to kz3 standards either, but lighting and water are amazing , although I’d happily lose both those for better textures , frame rates, aa, and resolution if I’m honest, especially the frame rates, which again are far better on kz3