April 8th, 2011
Posted in 
“So who’s the new Graphics King?”
 |
 |
|
 |
|||||||||
| Sony |  |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
EA | |||
| Guerilla Games | 1 | 1 |
Crytek | |||||||||
| FPS | mb | opt. | FPS | |||||||||
| Release: 02/22/2011 | sec | 30.6 sec | Release: 03/22/2011 | |||||||||
| ESRB: Mature |
Low | Low | ESRB: Mature | |||||||||
 |
 |
|||||||||||
 |
||||
 |
 |
|
Head2Head – Killzone 3 vs. Crysis 2 Analysis:
We go Head2Head with Killzone 3 and Crysis 2! |
|
 |
 |
|||
 |
||||
Welcome back for another exciting Head2Head! This week we put two of this generations best looking games against one another in a classic battle for the title of current FPS “King of Graphics”. Of course the two games we’re talking about are the PlayStation 3′s Killzone 3, and the Xbox 360 version of Crysis 2. We’ve had so many requests for this one we just couldn’t avoid it. So come on in and relax for a bit while we show you the battle of the century, (well, at least this year anyway). Enjoy!
Graphics: The first thing we need to remember about these two games is that they have two very different styles. Killzone 3 seems to be shooting for a very realistic, yet strong, sci-fi feeling with both setting and character models while Crysis 2 tries to capture a more true to life realism. Needless to say, both versions set out to do what they aim for. Everything from character detail to the texture of the terrain is done perfectly. While the difference is so minimal that it will go unnoticed, Killzone 3 seems to have a resolution advantage here. While Killzone 3 runs at full native 720p, Crysis2 runs in very SLIGHT sub HD resolution of 1152 x 720. However Crysis 2 doesn’t hesitate to hit back with slightly better HDR lighting throughout.
Furthermore, both Crysis 2 and Killzone 3 have a slew of next generation rendering techniques that only high end PC’s with decked out SLI graphics cards are able to achieve. For example, the physics engine handling the water and fluid effects, as well as destructible environments react in a very realistic manner. Although both games had these effects implemented, they both handled them slightly different - let us explain. For starters, environments in Killzone 3 seemed more destructible throughout. In some scenes you can literally make entire buildings collapse if certain support beams were destroyed. In addition, walls, concrete pillars, and even bathroom toilets could be obliterated. On the flip side, Crysis2 had its fair share of destructible objects, but the selection was a much less than those found in Killzone 3. Instead, Crysis 2 focuses on allowing players the option of interaction with a slew of objects. For example, almost any object in a scene can be picked up and used as a weapon, and there were tons of them in every level.
Finally, what really got our attention, and what sets Killzone 3 apart from the competition are its’ in-game cinematics. Aside from Killzone 3′s opening cut scene, all others used in-game props, and were rendered using Killzone 3′s in-game graphics engine. Let us just say, they look amazing. As for Crysis 2, we were really disappointed with the FMV’s it presented. To be honest, a few of the cut scenes looked down right ugly showing signs of compression and pixelation (reference the image below). This is something we haven’t seen since the 32bit era. Overall, the graphics in Killzone 3 were more polished throughout.
Performance: This category had some noticeable differences. For the most part Killzone 3 ran a consistent 30 FPS with a few occasional, and very slight, drops with no screen tearing at all. Crysis 2 on the other hand dropped FPS noticeably more than Killzone 3 however. The worst of these drops seem to happen in the heavier fire fights more often than anywhere else. Also there was some very slight screen tearing at the top of the screen in Crysis 2, but it was so slight that it will go mainly unnoticed. Another problem that Crysis 2 seemed to have that was absent from Killzone 3 is a few random pop-ins. While the game looks fantastic, pop-ins can take from the beauty of even the best looking games. Luckily however, they aren’t that bad and you probably won’t notice them in action therefore they won’t take away from the experience overall. In the end however the differences are there, no matter how small they may be. Killzone 3 takes the win here with a better average in FPS with little to no pop-ins or tearing.
Loading: The loading is another category with a clear cut winner. Most of the load times for both Killzone 3 and Crysis 2 were masked by pre rendered cut scenes and make them almost invisible your first time through. Even when you try to skip the scenes, it isn’t that bad. Crysis 2 however had some seriously horrific loads when you boot up your save file as you start the game. We believe the numbers speak for themselves.
Rollover to see the Difference.
Mouse over the image to see through our “Lens”.
Move the Slider to see the Difference.
Mouse over the image to see through our “Lens”.
Move the Slider to see the Difference.
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: 
I agree that Killzone 3 holds the crown for best looking FPS on consoles.
I wonder how good Crysis 2′s cutscenes would look if they were less compressed and used up more space on the Blu Ray.
Crysis 2 cutscenes are done in realtime not pre rendered like killzone
Killzone 3 cutscenes are realtime. The only one that isnt is the intro movie.
No they are all pre rendered. They use the same engine as the main game and therefore look the same but they are not running in real time.
Why are PS3 fanboys so insecure that they have to make up crap even though their game has clearly won this time?
Oh he got something wrong so that MUST make him an insecure fanboy. Ever think Dialga might have just made a mistake? Maybe just repeating what he may have heard on a different website?
Don’t be a such a dickhead.
all are pre-rendered in engine, PS3boys already forgot that game has 41GB on bluray disc? yeah and 12is game itself, other are cutscenes.
@Vereor
It isn’t that he got something wrong. Look at his posts in every other topic. He literally is the android123 of the PS3 fanboy camp. Been leaving him alone for a while and probably won’t call him out again for a good bit, but sometimes I can’t help myself.
On a different note, why is it that all my comments supporting KZ3 being the winner (because it is) or the comments where I’m bashing a 360 fanboy are turning green, but the one comment I address a PS3 fanboy for presenting false info (as this one always does) it gets disliked into oblivion? Doesn’t bother me, no skin off my nose. I just find it funny.
Killzone 3 had a pretty solid mix of in-engine cutscenes and pre-rendered cutscenes.
If you play the campaign, the ones that you could skip were the pre-rendered ones, but every other scene would just go to the menu when you hit pause and those were real-time.
Honestly there isn’t a difference in visual quality between the two. The scene where the tank flips over was pre-rendered, but all of the cutscenes in the Frozen Shores were real-time.
@Vereor
I’m assuming at the time of writing you haven’t been here very long or didn’t read many comments, because Shiken is right, he is the Android of the PS3.
I do find it hilarious how you called him a “Dick head” with such an aggressive post, irony is beautiful.
I dont understand why they gave you so many thumbs down…KZ3 cut scenes are done with the engine…but in the same way as Alan Wake. I mean, are not a real time scene running in the console.
On the other hand…in crysis 2 most every cut scene is rendered in real time…if you played the game, just if you play you cann see you can move camera at least and get another perspectives.
Well this doesnt make a game better than the other..but it’s true.
if you hold your lips the shit will stop coming out.
There is the slightest doubt in which the best game.
Killzone 3 holds the crown for best looking FPS on consoles.
Load times will probably decrease a lot if the game is copied to the xbox 360 hd Fact!
pop ins will surely decrease if the game is copied to hd xbox 360 I think I remember that gta 4, red dead redemption, gears of war and all the games in general has improved performace when copied to the hd of the xbox 360.
Read Dead Redemption, for example must be copied to the hd because the improvement in the time of loading of textures is huge.
both games are great, but I prefer Crysis 2
Killzone 3 was able to run more smoothly with no pop-ins and slightly more detailed visuals WITHOUT an install. That being said your argument here is a mute point.
Either you prefer one or the other thats fine, but don’t try to make excuses on why your prefered version fell short in the analysis. Everyone knows LoT compares out of the box and you 360 fanboys always cry about the same crap (even when the PS3 game isn’t installed either).
as you can see LoT cant even compare the games right , saying that crysis 2 cut-scenes are low res ? wtf they are effing ingame while kz3 are prerendered .. but all in all its only matter of opinion anyways and hdd install on 360 kills the pop-ins btw and how btw does it fell short plz care to explain .. as i can see in all the comments you made , you are just one very very petty and sad cow.. why the hell not just play the damn games instead aint youthe one with all these beloved ps3 games just asking ?
Here is how it fell short.
1. Killzone 3 had no pop ins without the game installed, Crysis needs the game installed.
2. Killzone 3 had no tearing and higher FPS when compared to Crysis 2 having a slightly lower FPS and about 2% tearing. No matter how small the difference, Crysis 2 still fell short.
3. About the cutscenes, pre rendered or not Kilzone 3 gameplay looks just as detailed with no performance hit when compared to the cutscenes you claim must be pre rendered. Pre rending the cutscenes was a strategic advantage to having the extra space on blu-ray and it would be foolish not to use it to increase load times.
4. I complete every game I play regardless of the console I play them on. Saying I’m not playing my games makes you look the fool.
5. The only real fanboys are the ones that get offended when I post something that they don’t agree with.
6. If you think I’m a fanboy why not refer to the other H2H out there where I sided with the 360 (sometimes even against the decision of LoT).
You my friend, have FAILED. Have a nice day.
you do know what cut-scenes mean right? they are talking about the cutscenes where you are not playing, just watching. the cutscenes they are talking about are the ones where it doesn’t cut to a little sequence when you are controlling your player. for example thats what crysis 2 does. now if you wanna talk about pre-rendered then go watch the opening cutscene to crysis 2 and tell me thats in game. you can toss all the excuses you want to feel better but the truth still lies right in front of you.
If Killzone 3 runs fine without the mandatory installation ps3 this is a miracle.
but I can remember and everyone remembers that when the staff installs the games on the ps3 hd at least 99% of the time, Killzone 3 I do not know, but in most games yes, they should at least once to do a head to head with the game copied to the xbox 360 hd possible improvement in performance is always great.
and can perhaps change the outcome of a analize, sometimes.
And logical that the sony fanboys will defend Killzone, with the nails and teeth.
The whole installing of the game to the 360 hard disc really is a non argument for 2 reasons.
1. It makes perfect sense to compare the games at there lowest compatability. 360 games play out the box because there are millions prob 10s off millions of xbox 360′s out there without hard drives, where as every ps3 has a hard drive capability. So whither the ps3 has a mandatory install or not the fact is all ps3′s are hard drive enabled and not all 360′s are. Therefore it makes sense to comapre the games at a level every single player can play at.
2. Most mandatory installs for the PS3 are about about 3 gigs where as if you install the data to the 360 you are generally installing about 6 gigs worth off data. This tips the balance in favour off the 360 because theres no option to install the whole game on the PS3(at least i dont think there is) It only becomes a fair comparision if you have the option to install the whole game on both platforms.
In conclusion comparing both games in out the box condition ensure that all consumers are included in the analysis and the analysis is controlled because the results relate to every console out their and not just particular models.
I live in Brazil where taxes are high, and yet I collect video games, the price of xbox 360 and ps3 is much more expensive than in the USA, at the time I bought my xbox 360, I made a point of purchase model elite with hd.
The Xbox 360 and PS3 today is so cheap in the USA and Europe, and shameful someone buy xbox 360 without hard disc.
the guys who have xbox 360 and has no hard disc, I do not understand those who purchase the Xbox 360 without hd …
This is my opinion …
It has games that I think it’s mandatory to use them installed on the xbox 360 hd, red dead redemption, and its DLCs, gta4, and every game that uses unreal engine is always much better when installed on hd, play games, and they read by discs is a thing of the past, observe the pcs all the games are fully installed in HD, because the performace of a game read by Disco sucks, slow-loading textures, slow loadings, bugs when reading the disc is dirty or a little scratched.
I can not imagine someone playing, for example read dead redemption, without being installed on the hd, it sucks, the textures are poping up all the time, and the loading is slower, but when installed on hd, improves the game completely, textures load really fast, the performace in general is greatly improved.
Honestly is any1 shocked? Crysis 2 looks bad even on pc. @ 1080p I look at the ground, and its blurry. What’s funny though is that only terrain is low resolution but if I’m inside a building the textures seem ok (I wonder why;)).
I played through Crysis 2 last night, and I have to say I enjoyed it at times, but the repetitiveness and just lack of vulnerability made it a very mediocre play through. Also AI on both the aliens and humans was bad, but, atleast the aliens were more of a challenge when they started hopping over cars and roofs.
Killzone 3 remains the best graphics crown, but to be honest I’d still take Uncharted 2 over it….just more colorful.
Although the Snow levels in Killzone 3 were out of this world! Same with the stealth mission.
K Thanks LOT:)
not according to the gaming media
I can second that L1qu1d because i got the game on the pc. With it maxed out killzone still looks better. The only advantage to having it on pc is the higher frame rate. Killzone 3 amazes me every time i play it.
killzone def has the graphics crown for consoles, imo crysis 2 was a disappointment. especially after they said its textures are half the size of crysis(still the best looking game to date), the only reason i can think of is they were trying to make it work on consoles which killed the pc version, its sad that crytek let us down so much
Crysis 2 would have been better off as a PC exclusive. Not only would it have been able push the boundary of PC graphics, but the gaming community might have had better opinions of it. Sure, what Crytek did was very impressive to say, but I can’t help but feel a bit disappointed. I mean, imagine what would have happened if all the excessive resources that were dedicated to optimizing the game for consoles were instead focused exclusively on the development of the PC version…*Sigh*… I was seriously expecting that my jaws would break and drop onto the ground when I see the PC version of Crysis 2, but alas, it didn’t happen…
I do have to say it did make me feel better to say Crysis 2 and then 60 FPS constant @ 1080p on highest…
Just saying Crysis and 60 fps together is a long run LOL!
People who decide between what game looks better with a pencil and paper will like kz3 better. Those who decide which looks better based on which one they think looks better will typically like Crysis 2 better. Case in point: that guy who wasn’t sure which one HE thought was better til he read this site. Anyone anywhere can see how ridiculous a comment that is except–sadly, but not unexpectedly–the ps3 fanboy. Just think about it for a second! Really.
http://www.destructoid.com/fact-ps3-fanboys-are-the-worst-149259.phtml
Thanks for this LoT!
I was really confused about which version to consider the console FPS king of graphics as I found myself constently changing my mind, but after reading the analysis and seeing them side by side, I can safely say Killzone 3 still holds the crown. They were indeed very close, but for me the winner is clear.
lol whaaaat ? do you need a site to clarify your own opinion fanboy much ? :O
Your an idiot. They both look so great that it wasn’t until I saw them broken down side by side for comparison that I could determine which one looked better in my eyes. How does that make me a fanboy?
If anything it is the person who keeps attacking someone who uses the facts on this very page to claim that KZ3 is slightly better that is the real fanboy. I don’t know why you have to get so butt hurt over it.
im aint butt hurt at all, i got both games and both are great games, what lol attacking you what ?.. you get easily offended ? im just gettin tired of fanboys lems and cows .. why not just enjoy both games, but all the sudden lot is credible by the cows when the ps3 is favored just sayin’
and how do i fail exactly its matter on opinion to many people crysis looks better same to kz 3 ? and btw its games lol dont get so offend by someone making a comment to you..
@Strutten
Never said LoT wasn’t credible, and I’ve defended them when they side with the 360. Also here is some food for thought, all times I disagreed with LoT were ties that I said should have been 360 wins. Look up Fallout New Vegas and Enslaved comparisons. So again, fanboy how?
You attacked my opinion and I replied, how did I get offended? Seeing how you started this mess it comes off as you getting offended if anyone. Trust me, I’m more amused by foolish attacks than I am offended.
I never attacked anyone’s opinion. TheFred constantly jumps for joy when the 360 wins but makes excuses when a PS3 game wins. It is pathetic (much like monkeyspoon and another PS3 fanboy I can’t seem to remember). Every once in a while I get the urge to call these people out because I get bored. If you read my comments fromt he past, you would know that about me. I havn’t shot down a fanboy in a long time. Just for kicks, I thought I would confront one for old times sake, without bashing an overall opinion. Sue me.
I’m replying because your ignorance amuses me. Your replies come off as offended and butt hurt. Take a chill pill and enjoy gaming for gaming. Just because someone doesn’t agree with you doesn’t mean your opinion isn’t valid. Falsely attacking other people’s comments and spouting out nonsense on the other hand is very bad for your image.
Have a nice day!
Shiken your definately one of the more intelligent posters here but you do have a tendency to get really fed up with fanboys and make your feelings knowns for all to read on numerous occasions. Do what I do and just ignore them most of the time, they are here to stay. All your doing is banging your head against a brick wall.
and you need to stay on this comment section arguing with this guy about his opinion? he wasnt sure wich was better. you sir need a chill pill. and stop being so frustrated that your precious crysis 2 isnt as well graphically and performance wise.
butthurt much?
btw shiken ..
Note: a verdict was not given considering the major differences between developers and graphics engines, and our staff choicesonly reflect ourpersonal preferences.
Self ownage ?
WTF?I mean,all I said here is “ITS AN OPINION” as I have said about those 30+ reviews stating otherwise.Nothing less.The problem is YOU and some other guys claim that this is TECH analysis and that their OPINION is fact.Well its not.Thats all.
Again…I have no problem if someone likes other games graphics better than the other ones but to act like LOT gave factual technological breakedown is laughable..
@Strutten
Dude it is FACT that Killzone 3 has a higher FPS rate than Crysis 2. It is FACT that 2% screen tearing in C2 is more than KZ3′s 0%. It is fact that KZ3 is running full native 720P while C2 is running slightly sup HD. It is fact that C2 has pop-ins (uninstalled) and KZ3 has none (also uninstalled). None of this is opinion.
An opinion is saying, “C2 is a better game than KZ3″. Trying to say, “C2 is better than KZ3 in graphics and performance” is denial. You can like the look of one game more than the other but the tech difference will always be there. They are CLOSE, but KZ3 wins the H2H based on the FACTS. I have never tired to bash an opinion in this topic so trying to twist words to make yourself look better makes you look to be the stupid one. Don’t believe me? Learn to read.
By your logic I can say Zelda on the NES has better graphics than both C2 and KZ3 and be right? Self ownage much?
And on one final note…AGAIN…I have never stated that the staff is 100% correct in everything they say, but I do hold everything they say in high regard. They work very hard on these H2H and they deserve the credit for providing us with this info. I’m not bothing to explain ONCE AGAIN how I don’t always agree with the staff as I’ve pointed it out several times in this topic already. Whether or not you have the ability to comprehend that, I don’t know. But I’m taking the advice of Badassbab and turning the other cheek to the rest of your pointless comments. Anything else you say will fall on deaf ears.
lens of truth opinion does not equal fact so get over it
Never said it did. Killzone 3 having higher FPS and zero tearing while still running in full native 720p and slightly more detail without the game being installed is fact.
Also, as I already mentioned in this topic, there are H2H in the past where I went against the decision of LoT and sided with the 360. That being said, your comment made me lol at your foolishness.
Now that I got that out there…again…get over it.
all of sudden Crysis 2 realtime global illumination and cutscenes much larger areas to explorer doesnt matter
Comic-Jumper,
you talk about things you just don’t know.
Crysis 2 on console has no GI at all. It’s a fake obtained with light globes (few light globes) put around the environment on purpose. The rest of the illumination is achieved by a unique directional light that act as a sun light.
On PC instead you have real time GI, even if it’s not real GI, but kind of.
But here we talk about consoles.
Both are great games, but as i have said before,crysis is a more interactive game with the enviroment and more open to make decitions on how to aproach the actions, killzone is more like a linear game with little to non interaction with the enviroment and yes, killzone does has a smoother experience
, but having in thought all the things crysis 2 renders on screen, mm well.. u can get my point. That’s why i believe crysis 2 is better than killzone.
um, no, the environment was more broad than it was interactive and the only things that were interactive were minor objects. it gave you decisions but in the end, the outcome was the same once you hit a checkpoint. -_-
you’d think it renders all those things, but it doesn’t; it’s draw distance, and really nice one at that. the environment is entirely dull with very little happening until you make something happen while killzone always has some sort of particle effect going off here and there.
you think crysis 2 has bigger maps, but it doesn’t. the maps are relatively the same size, the only difference is crysis removes those invisible walls and barricades most FPS games have that usually keep your there to follow the story.
stop comparing the damn things if you don’t even know most of what’s going on.
Im sorry, that was my opinion, and my opinion says crysis 2 is a better game than killzone , deal with it, and plis.. don’t kill yourself
Your opinion, unfortunately for you, got pwned by facts.
Facts are: Killzone 3 has larger environment, far far more things goin on on screen, almost totally destructible environment, slitght to none frame drops, 30 fps for 99% of the game (Crysis goes from 28 to 14 fps… yes, 14, ridiculous), native 720p, high-res textures, much more complex models and character models, no difference in graphics between offline and online (Crysis 2 online graphics get destroyed), and so on and so forth.
Sorry man, despite your opinion, these are facts… don’t kill yourself
bullshit reasoning =/= opinion, it’s ignorance.
@Mauro: While the performance is clearly better on killzone the other facts are clearly irrelevant, and taken from ur facts dreams.
This has clearly begin to be a fanboy war, ps3 fanboys dont want to give up to the “fact” that crysis 2 no matter the platform, it is almost if not better game than killzone, what is even worst, it didnt require 30 gb of pre renderer scenes, and to go even further cryengine is a multiplatform engine, something that the guerrilla engine isn’t.
and to @Mauro: i have to say, sorry my man, it is a fact that u are a killzone fanboy if not a ps3 one.
well seeing as how you are calling mauro a fanboy just by him sticking with his facts and knowledge witch honestly you lack towards crysis 2. mauro is right about everything he has said. so everything you say to him makes yourself a hypocrite. so you sticking with your facts towards crysis, witch are not that great make you a crysis 2 fanboy, and maybe a 360 fanboy.
@ Lord-Nicon:
So your facts are: Killzone 3 30 fps vs Crysis 2 14 fps equals to Crysis 2 is obviously far better than Killzone 3, uh?
And, sub HD is definitely better than native HD, uh?
And mid to low-res textures are far better than high-res textures?
And dynamic destructible environment (Killzone 3) is worse than poorly destructible one (Crysis 2)?
And no HDD install with no popin and tear whatsoever (Killzone 3) is worse than popin and tearing even when installed on HDD (Crysis 2)?
And not to mention your “badly compressed videos” (Crysis 2) is far better than high qualitiy ones (Killzone 3).
Last but not least: almost perfect ragdoll dynamics (Killzone 3) is worse than… no ragdoll dynamics at all (Crysis 2 and its floating dead people).
Well, yeah, I see your points, and I admit I am a fanboy…
…LOL.
Now I know who I have to deal with, hehehe.
Take care
you’re still bullshitting, aren’t you? you’re not even making an effort to support all the crap you keep spewing out.
1. mauro is pro-ps3 and on so-so terms for 360.
2. oh, really? people can’t debate technical aspects of a game without being “A fanboy” or “B fanboy”?
3. okay, here we go again with your crap. starting the “fanboys don’t want to give” crap isn’t an opinion. what’s worse is that your ignorance is, if not worse, on par with android’s stupidity. [Commas, hyphens, periods, etc. use them, hobo.]
4. yea, the prerendered cutscenes weren’t a requirement.
this will fall on deaf ears but please, do go on with your bullshit.
great H2H
)
crysis has more open areas and kz3 is more linear, so hard to tell what is better…but i think that killzone has more realistic look and better lighting effects
and there are better areas to show ground and walls textures … (sorry for my english and crap photo
http://img854.imageshack.us/i/kz3.jpg/
Killzone 3 clearly wins this H2H in the tech department.
But i prefer the more realistic look of Crysis 2.
Killzone 3 looks better to those who prefer a more slightly cartoon cg look vs photorealism. And I agree with you that–even with the lower res and fps–still manages to edge out kz3 which no mean feat. And a note to others, it’s been proven about 100 times over that crysis on ps3 was not and never was a port of the 360. That is a 100 percent indisputably confirmed fact. You can find crytek developer diary type vids and tech documents and config files on places like beyond3d that completely prove without any recourse for argument or denial of any kind whatsoever that crysis 2 on ps3 was not port of the 360.
I knew all along kz3 was still the best looking gm but it will loose that crown come November 1st to uncharted 3
Nope, it’ll happen Sept 13 (RAGE).
;-P
Good one Lens of Truth… It’s just is what it is. KZ3 looks better. not only does it look better but it also performs better. No pop ups, no frame rate dips no matter how much is going on during fire fights. It does not disappoint. I love both games but KZ3 still holds the crown. Matter of fact KZ2 still looks better and Uncharted 2 also. I DO love Crysis 2 campaign better though.
jaime always favor the 360 …
While Crysis 2 is a very good looking game, it’s a flawless victory for KZ3. For me more so than the graphics is the performance which is amazing on KZ3 considering how advanced the game engine is and that it’s on a console that really should be quite long in the tooth but alas in the hands of a few 1st party developers continues to really astound.
I haven’t played either of these games, but agree KZ3 looks to have a slight edge over C2. However, I think RAGE is gonna smoke them both; can’t wait for that game…
“Furthermore, both Crysis 2 and Killzone 3 have a slew of next generation rendering techniques that only high end PC’s with decked out SLI graphics cards are able to achieve.”
Is that a joke? On the lowest settings the PC version of Crysis 2 is superior to either console version – all that is needed to run at those settings is one 8800GT; a card that came out in 2007.
Sorry man, you are wrong.
At the lowest settings Crysis 2 on PC look definitely worse than console version.
Crysis 2 for console is set to the mid level graphic settings.
You have to pump up to the extreme settings to spot real differences.
And by the way, I’m sure you know that the textures are the same for all the three platforms, don’t you?
You lie:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-tech-comparison-crysis2
“Players can choose the target resolution and whether to engage v-sync or not, with graphical quality limited to High, Very High and Extreme settings…”
“Crytek says that the console versions operate at the High level, but in truth it seems that even at this setting the PC is running with more light sources producing more dynamic shadows, an effect that scales up still further as you move on up through the higher graphical levels.”
Also, the textures are the same, for now. Mods are in the works to bump up the texture resolution. Also, Crytek has confirmed that a DX11 patch is coming.
Where am I lying?
Textures are the same now. I do not care what mods are working on. Fact is that out of the box the truth is what I have stated.
I read DF article as soon as it first came out. So what?
Can you please write the link that states that Crytek is making a DX11 patch? Because as far as I know they said just the opposite. But may be they changed their mind and I am wrong.
By the way, here is an interesting excerpt from the DF comparison you linked:
“On the minus side however, texture quality on the PC version is fairly uniform with the console SKUs. Some environmental artwork looks blocky even at the target 720p resolution, and the deficiencies of these textures become much more apparent at 1680×1050 and beyond.”
Eeeehhhh…
Ok man,
I have to apologize with you: I have just found an article stating that Crytek is working hard on the DirectX 11 patch and they won’t tell nothing about the improvement until they are not sure about the result.
Sorry about that, it definitely was my lack of infos fault.
“At the lowest settings Crysis 2 on PC look definitely worse than console version.”
As meehan pointed out with the Digital Foundry article (which Bit-Tech more or less confirms in one of their own articles), the PC version’s lowest image quality present visually exceeds what is available in both console versions and this is without considering resolution or texture filtering.
As for the ““Furthermore, both Crysis 2 and Killzone 3 have a slew of next generation rendering techniques that only high end PC’s with decked out SLI graphics cards are able to achieve” comment made by the LoT staff, a few things:
1) Deferred rendering is not a new technique (it’s been around for years) and it’s not some next-gen, magic bullet; it’s great for reducing the overhead of rendering multiple dynamic light sources at once, but it is at a severe disadvantage compared to traditional forward rendering when it comes to rendering transparencies or using hardware AA if a pre-DX10 level API is used.
2) It’s painfully obvious that the extent LoT staffers interact with modern computers is to write, browse the web, or use youtube. Console hardware is 5-6 years old and IT IS SLOWER and less feature rich than hardware solutions that were released during the same time frame. If a console can competently handle a game at 1280×720 with various bells and whistles at a consistent 30 FPS, a PC with a modest processor and a SINGLE $150 discrete card can run the same game at double the resolution, with higher quality assets, with AA as well as AF enabled, while being able to run at a consistent 60 FPS.
Please LoT!! Bring us a KZ3 vs U2 vs GoW3 comparision to determine which game is overall (console) graphics king not just FPS graphics king. PLEEEEASE
Might as well wait for Uncharted 3 and The Last Guardian while we’re at it. But if Lens of Truth is going to do it, then I would recommend letting it be more of a tech talk that focuses intensively on the visual department instead of putting it in H2H format, seeing that would be more appropriate as each of them belongs to a totally different genre.
I agree. Its a very convincing win for KZ3 over C2
Both look amazing but its pretty obvious by now that KZ3 looks better, but I will say I enjoyed Crysis 2 more. Story in KZ3 was all over the place.
Thats true. I really did enjoy the Crysis 2 single player, but KZ3 multiplayer wins hands down. Crysis 2 MP didnt even try to be unique. It was just Cock of Duty with superpowers.
to be honest i didnt know what the hell was going on in crysis 2. crysis 1 storyline made much more sense to me.
Awesome, these “odd-ball” Head2Heads are always fun to look at.
Overall, I perceive that the advantage is leaning toward Killzone 3, but I still find that water animation and interactivity is better on Crysis 2. If anyone playing multiplayer on the PS3 version of Crysis 2 and happens to see a guy holding his pistol and keep shooting at the water surface, there’s a high chance that it’s me.
@Lens of Truth:
I’m still looking forward to that “Feature: Killzone Evolution”.
The key here is that even though Killzone 3 is superior, PS3 gamers can play both games so it doesnt which one is better to us. 360 gamers have to bitch and whine to try and claim Crysis 2 is better because theyll never have Killzone XD.
If you’ll excuse me, I’m gonna play Crysis 2 on my PS3, and then some KZ3 later on. Killzone 3 kicks ass.
Be sure to spot for that guy who continuously shoots at the water surface with his pistol if you play Crysis 2′ multiplayer.
oh wow this faggot got 3 thumbs up?
this site gets for fanboyish every day…
This “faggot” now has 4 thumbs ups thanks to me.
Although I will say I agree with the bitching 360 gamers, judging by how many thumbs up you got, there are a lot more of ps3 fanboys here than 360 fanboys.
Well, now im ready to get thumbed down.^^
you’re dead wrong on that one Twist3dM3rc. I’ve been on this website a long time and the amount of 360 fanboys and ps3 fanboys is about equal.
I will play killzone 3 on my ps3 and crysis 2 on my xbox… but u only have one console… its a shame, you use this site only to bash xbox users, so gtfu and all users that thumb up you!!!
For me its the same i can play all games of this gen.
Thumb up for you.
But just for the argument, not for the “gtfu”
Clear win for kz3. I think that 360 fanboys were hoping to have a graphic king in their console but fail short…
IMHO:
Crysis 2:
+Better lighting
+Better Water and fire
+Better Shadows
Killzone 3:
+Better AA
+Much more stable framerate
+Sharper
+More polished
Crysis 2 also has terrible pop-in.
With that said, Crysis 2′s lighting is so good, I still have them pretty equal overall.
I give it KZ3 overall by a bit. C2′s biggest problem for me, was the pop in.
I think what many are overlooking is that Crysis 2, while being a MULTIPLAT, is good enough to go against one of the best looking EXCLUSIVE games on PS3. I look forward to seeing what Crytek can do when they develop Kingdoms exclusively for Xbox 360.
A multiplat developed FOR the 360 and then ported to ps3 and PC…yes it seems like a fair comparison since, its really easy to program for 360.
Also I dont know why alot of 360 titles are all sub resolution, Halo Reach, Alan Wake, Conviction…Although even sub 720p they look great.
Dont look forward to kingdoms at being a major leap.
I consider Crysis 2 an exclusive because it was pretty much developed for the 360 exclusively….
THats my opinion.
The reason why lot of 360 games are rendered sub hd is a technical reason and is explained below.It allows the images to fit within the frame buffer of the 360 edram, without the need for tiling. if they exceed that there a cost to the hardware, whereas if they stay within that, it offers many benefits at no extra cost to hardware.
“Halo Reach renders in in 1152×720 for both single and multiplayer modes, and uses a custom form of temporal anti-aliasing, though the effect is most visible on static objects. The reduced horizontal resolution, and use of a non-standard form of anti-aliasing is required for the game’s framebuffer to fit into the 360’s 10MB of EDRAM without the need for tiling. ”
http://imagequalitymatters.blogspot.com/2010/09/tech-analysis-halo-reach-final-game.html
The below article explains this issue in detail.
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=40456
When programming from ground up on ps3, devs dont have this issue at all, and negotiate the bandwidth issues that they have on multiplatform games on ps3, thus they can produce games like uc2, kz3, infamous 2, god of war 3 etc at 720p with all the bells and whistles too, although they do still have to be careful about bandwidth and often negotiate this byusing particle based effects and often low res textures in explosions etc(these are usually brief and in distance so have little noticeable effect, other than softer image on the explosions “In motion the lower resolution of the alpha buffers is hardly visible with the various post processing effects going on – such as depth of field – and they do look rather smooth and well defined. Although, as we can see below in still screens these effects still appear to look softer than the objects around them.
Impressively, it looks like the developers are using volumetric effects for all the smoke in the game (like with Killzone 2), although in reality this is somewhat misleading. Instead of actually rendering 3D volumetric particles, they are using layers of 2D sprites which have been blended together and combined with geometry using something called ‘alpha test’ in order to re-create that volumetric look without the added processing cost of doing it for real.” http://imagequalitymatters.blogspot.com/2010/06/tech-analysis-killzone-3-e3-demo-2d-vs.html), rather than using more alpha heavy effects traditionally used.
This however has led to some breakthroughs too, as seen in uc3 with the water effects , which are more organic and realistic than alpha based alternative, as well as limiting bandwidth issues.
“The second gameplay clip shows Drake waist-deep, and displays a perfect example of how the volume-based effect has been animated to flow naturally, like how it would in a real life approximation of flowing water. If you think about how liquid is largely stuck together, usually only separating when impacted upon, then Naughty Dog’s solution not only caters to the PS3’s limited bandwidth requirements (by reducing the amount of individual particles used) but also in replicating water as organically as possible. ”
http://imagequalitymatters.blogspot.com/2011/01/uncharted-3-tech-update.html
hope this helps slightly
The reason why lot of 360 games are rendered sub hd is a technical reason and is explained below.It allows the images to fit within the frame buffer of the 360 edram, without the need for tiling. if they exceed that there a cost to the hardware, whereas if they stay within that, it offers many benefits at no extra cost to hardware.
“Halo Reach renders in in 1152×720 for both single and multiplayer modes, and uses a custom form of temporal anti-aliasing, though the effect is most visible on static objects. The reduced horizontal resolution, and use of a non-standard form of anti-aliasing is required for the game’s framebuffer to fit into the 360’s 10MB of EDRAM without the need for tiling. ”
REMOVE SPACES IN LINKS FOR THEM TO WORK< I PLACED THEM IN AS OTHERWISE ITS MODERATING AND TAKES DAYS TO PASS MODERATION
http: //imagequalitymatters.blogspot.com/2010/09/tech-analysis-halo-reach-final-game. html
The below article explains this issue in detail.
http: //forum.beyond3d.com /showthread. php? t=40456
When programming from ground up on ps3, devs dont have this issue at all, and negotiate the bandwidth issues that they have on multiplatform games on ps3, thus they can produce games like uc2, kz3, infamous 2, god of war 3 etc at 720p with all the bells and whistles too, although they do still have to be careful about bandwidth and often negotiate this byusing particle based effects and often low res textures in explosions etc(these are usually brief and in distance so have little noticeable effect, other than softer image on the explosions “In motion the lower resolution of the alpha buffers is hardly visible with the various post processing effects going on – such as depth of field – and they do look rather smooth and well defined. Although, as we can see below in still screens these effects still appear to look softer than the objects around them.
Impressively, it looks like the developers are using volumetric effects for all the smoke in the game (like with Killzone 2), although in reality this is somewhat misleading. Instead of actually rendering 3D volumetric particles, they are using layers of 2D sprites which have been blended together and combined with geometry using something called ‘alpha test’ in order to re-create that volumetric look without the added processing cost of doing it for real.” http:// imagequalitymatters.blogspot.com/2010/06/tech-analysis-killzone-3-e3-demo-2d-vs. html), rather than using more alpha heavy effects traditionally used.
This however has led to some breakthroughs too, as seen in uc3 with the water effects , which are more organic and realistic than alpha based alternative, as well as limiting bandwidth issues.
“The second gameplay clip shows Drake waist-deep, and displays a perfect example of how the volume-based effect has been animated to flow naturally, like how it would in a real life approximation of flowing water. If you think about how liquid is largely stuck together, usually only separating when impacted upon, then Naughty Dog’s solution not only caters to the PS3’s limited bandwidth requirements (by reducing the amount of individual particles used) but also in replicating water as organically as possible. ”
http:// imagequalitymatters.blogspot.com/2011/01/uncharted-3-tech-update. html
hope this helps
As explained by other posters it’s cause of the 10MB EDRAM limit on 360 and most developers would like to fit the framebuffer within it otherwise tiling is required which can affect performance. More tiles required = more of the system resource being used.
You can work it out yourself here:-
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241
Read about 360 predicted tiling here:- http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb464139.aspx
and here
http://www.beyond3d.com/content/articles/4/5
Thanks for the posts guys! But I just meant, that they have the means to fit a little bit extra even though they would prefer to use the edram. I mean I’m pretty sure Devs have a harder time using the split 512 MB on the ps3 than the 512 + 10 edram on the 360.
I’m just saying:P
But some great posts, check marks for you!
wern’t all 3 versions worked on by different teams, i didn’t get the impression that the ps3 version was a port.
Lets be honest here for a second, this wasnt really a competition. Killzone really does win this by a considerable margin in both visuals and performance.
I actually think Lens off truth were quite light on crysis 2 and could have gone on to mention several other factors that would further increase killzone 3 advantage in this H2H……..Anti Aliasing implementations for example.
Through out this comments section iv also noted that some off the usual 360 supporters have still tryed to argue crysis 2 case but i suspect this is down to not actually having seen killzone 3 in action first hand(ie seeing it for real and not just on youtube vids)
You really have to see killzone 3 first hand to believe just how good looking a game it is. Crysis 2 does have its stupidly good lookin moments where everything falls into place beautifully but mostly it just looks nice………..Killzone 3 on the other hand just wows you from the first frame to the last.
Comfortable win for killzone 3 in my opinion.
i agree the lack of them highlighting the mlaa and the use of more low res textures to offset the use of lighting, seems like they were going bit easy on crysis .
im no fan boy and can still recognise the technical achievements of crysis 2, just overall as a package, its not as impressive as kz3.
all u have to do is find some hig res uncompressed images of both, and the detail in kz3 is gobsmacking.
Please make a Two Worlds 2 PS3 VS Xbox 360 Head2Head. The differences between the versions are very clear and is a good H2H game to analyze
Chew on these in the mean time:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/6/18/2480786/Two%20Words%20II/545749491.jpg
http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/6/18/2480786/Two%20Words%20II/545749492.jpg
http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/6/18/2480786/Two%20Words%20II/545749493.jpg
http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/6/18/2480786/Two%20Words%20II/545749494.jpg
http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/6/18/2480786/Two%20Words%20II/545749495.jpg
I am not surprise that KZ3 win over Crysis 2 but remember that this is Crytek first game on the consoles so they have minimum experience on the console. Guerrilla however have alot of experience with the console especially for PS3. Despite that Crytek really bring a masterpiece to the console. I hope that Crytek learn their mistake so they can create Crysis 3 perfectly with no prob at all.
As for the game, Juz get whichever game that sastified you. If you have one console juz get the game which is on ur console. If you own both juz get whatever you like. My advice to you all, If you dun agree on LoT on the analysis. Juz buy that game play it till the end and make ur own review and analysis to your own satisfaction.
I don’t care about Crytek being at their first experience on consoles, because they boasted stating that their Crysis 2 on console would have been the best thing ever seen that would have wiped out everything else, and that the PS3 version would have been the best version, far better than Killzone 3 (Crytek words, not mine).
And we all know what those bullshits did end up with, don’t we?
So, next time Crytek will learn to be humble and admit they are inferior, before saying another bunch of nonsense.
In Italy we use to say:”reap what you sow”.
Cheers.
what if crysis 2 will test on pc to very high settings? of course crysis 2 will stand out!!not anyone can play killzone so they might didnt know whats the full graphics detail of that great game because its exclusive only for the ps3!!so in my opinion crysis 2 is the best.!but for high end pc only!
I think ur comment is usless. This is a h2h between sony and xbox to 5 years old hardwear system. No one on this site gives a shit about pc version of games. Any way, even on highest setting on pc, consoles doestnt have to be ashamed ofBeside that, pc fanboys and pc lover (including me cuz i grow up with conter strike), this is just a bigining, we gonna loose more and more exclusives when next gen consoles would come out. Cuz dont forget : how matter a games can be gogeous on pc, the ratio fun/graphic and graphic/hardwear are always superior on console
The most useless comment as far as now.
Man, do you know, by the way, how much does a ultra high-end PC cost?
And do you realize that the gap between 5/6 years old machines with half a Gig ram and your current PC does not justify the price you paid to play games?
Think about this, try to make a few calculations and see by yourself.
Of course a PC has infinite more potential by its side, but everything has to be taken into account from the price/quality/reliability point of view in this particular case.
That said, here we are comparing console games, so PCs have nothing to do with us
For a $300 pc i built, I can run crysis 2 on extreme in 1600×900 at 60fps. Cost is no longer an issue. The cost of processors and video cards has dropped a lot over the years. If nobody cared about pc stuff on LoT then why do they put up articles about it? One thing is for sure even though i can play crysis 2 at its best i still prefer killzone 3. The game looks better and there’s no denying it. My brother got crysis 2 on the 360 and i played it a few times but i was let down by how poor it performed. It’s hard to believe that a 5 year old console game looks better then a pc game.
Despite what you are stating about prices, Digital Foundry states that on a top notch PC Crysis 2 cannot be played at 60 fps if you set the graphics at the maximum.
And apart from what DF says, I perfectly know how much does a high end PC cost and it’s miles and miles and miles away from your $ 300 box.
Really, for $ 300 you can’t even afford the right graphic card to make Crysis 2 run maxed out.
Please, do not insult my intelligence. I’ve always built my workstations by myself, I am 38 years old and I’ve been doing this for almost 15 years.
Here’s my specs. Amd athlon II x4 processor. 8gb’s of ddr3 1333 memory, a nvidia Geforce gts 250 512mb’s gddr5, biostar A77oe3 motherboard and a western digital scorpio black hdd. If you know how to shop and get deals like i do you can build a nice gaming system for $300. I find it quite odd that your 38 years old and are commenting on video game websites. Seriously i hope i never need to be on a video game website at 38 years old lol.
Hahaha, sorry man, but why do you find odd a 38 years old man commenting on videogames website?
I am and I have always been a videogames lover.
Age doesn’t matter at all. If you hope such a thing this means that you are already much much older than me inside.
Instead, I hope you’ll be here when you are 38 years old.
There is no need, there is pleasure and fun, but you look like you don’t even know what the heck they are, and this is really sad.
Cheer up man, enjoy life like if everyday would be the last one
I do live like every day is the last one when I’m racing my car on a track at 130mph. Not sitting home playing video games and getting fat. But i do have a considerable amount of xbox achievements and ps3 trophies. So don’t go telling me i don’t know how to have fun and definitely don’t go to the pleasure route because i get more pleasure then most men have had in a life time and I’m only 21.
LOL, 21 years old and you thik you know everything about life? Ok ok
Anyway, videogames are a relaxing way to have fun, not a mean to get fat. That statement of yours again shows how close minded you are.
I’ve been practicing martial arts for 15 years and now I am at my fourth martial art technique, so fat does not equal to me at all.
Just grow up man, instead of guessing what others do and judging what others should do, it’s almost time.
Lol martial arts is for fags. Every time one of you homo’s came up to me jumping around saying they were gonna kick my ass it only took one shot and they were on the ground. Probably because i was trained by a ww2 army ranger but who knows. You say i need to grow up?! you’re 38 years old on a video game website arguing with a 21 year old about computers and games. Sure i guess im the one that needs to grow up..
unscarred785-
Still being disrespectful dickhead I see? I’d love you to tell UFC fighters martial arts are for ‘fags’ using your 60 year old WW2 Army Ranger techniques presumably taught by your grandad lol. You sure he wasn’t just spanking you for being a naughty boy for wetting your bed?
Cut your bullcrap, your just a fat spotty nerd pretending to be someone your obviously not.
Don’t talk shit bitchassbab my grandfather can beat the shit out of most men in the ufc even in his old age. Any of you want to come see me I’m at 86th broadway new york. No more talk, If you think you got balls then you come and back it up.
You just proved my point about what a penis you are. It’s hard to believe your 21. You sure it’s not a typo and should’ve been 12?
I’m going to post your comment on Sherdog (check it out). It’s regularly visited by UFC fighters and I’m sure they would love to beat the living daylights out of you and see how tough your Grandad really is (that comment about your Grandad beating UFC fighters made me laugh so hard- what with? His walking stick lol).
@unscarred785: and yet you keep up guessing without knowing.
I told you: grow up.
Good i hope you put that comment all over the internet. I need a good fight, well actually it would be too easy because ufc guys just fight, they don’t know how to kill a man with the flip of a wrist. Whats the matter? you two ladies are scared to do it yourselves? you need other people to back you up? yeah thats what i thought keep on talking because thats all you are is talk.. All this started because mauro couldn’t live with the fact that I’m playing crysis on extreme and getting 60fps with a $300 pc.. But sure, I need to grow up.
Mauro hand unscarred785 $300 and tell him to build you a PC that can play C2 Maximum settings @ 60 fps on avg.
If he cant he’ll pay u double back the money. No bitching no cat-fighting. Hows that?
Sounds great, I can’t see the time.
But I don’t want to play 60fps average it must be 60fps all over the game, for $ 300, with a monitor (of course wit no input lag and with instant pixel feedback) that can easily handle everything at the maximum resolution possible.
I am waiting. Ah, by the way, I live in UK, even if I am Italian, so you have just to tell me where I can buy all the pieces I need to achieve that awesome performance.
And last but not least, please unscarred785, stop talking about your ability to kill with the flip of a wrist, you are making yourself ridiculous.
It is my personal belief that crysis 2 looks better then kz3. Lens of truth and the president could say otherwise. I hope crytek keeps putting out these kind of graphics how i love to behold the game.
This head to head pretty much confirms what I’ve said in previous Crysis 2 threads.
Crysis 2 is a great looking multiplatform shooter which really stands out compared to the competition in a few areas (lightening and water physics),yet it still falls short in many other areas in comparison to other graphical masterpieces (including but certainly not limited to KZ3).
Shiken ur just a hardcore xbot n u can’t hice u said it in ur posts. No1 can list 2 ur complete biased look on either game kz3 looks, plays, n has a bttr sorry so far n I’ve played about 9hrs into crysis n yet have I been exited about it
Read much? lol
Jesus christ! Shiken is not an xbox or a ps3 fanboy! He has stated in the past that he leans more towards the pc! Which is probably why he knows so much about the technical aspect of console games.
So if he does know such aspects of the consoles then y can’t he understand both ps3 n xbox gm will produce the exact same graphics about 99% of the time but yet each time PS3 will always have better effects and lighting throught. And also all the ports ps3 gets nvr get worked properly. Most multiplat never use both the ps3s gpu n cpu they only use 1 n the ps3 needs for the games 2 b coded onto both 2 run n look the way they should. Even crytek said that the ps3 can render particle and everyother effect bttr than an xbox can though the xbox can have more pixels on screen
No really, learn to read cause it is obvious you havn’t read ANYTHING I have ever commented on this site.
1. CVG “best looking fps ever”
2. IGN “Crysis 2 on Xbox 360 has taken the crown for best graphics in a console game”
3. PSU (Playstation Universe) “best looking shooter on PlayStation 3″
4. Eurogamer “sits next to Uncharted 2 as the most detailed”
5. “Crysis 2 is outstanding in almost every department, not least its visuals, which are the very best either PS3 or Xbox 360 has to offer right now”electricpig.co.uk
6. “Crysis 2 does run on consoles, and it does so beautifully. We’re calling it now: Crysis 2 is possibly the best-looking console game ever.” Gamesradar
EVER HEARD…
of the ‘hype machine’ Jim?
All those are simply opinions, offering no technical Evidence to back their statements up , the cold hard facts state otherwise.
If we going to
Just go with opinions , I say pong is the most beautiful game ever, or how about bit techs scathing comments in their review of crysis “It’s clear that, in terms of graphics and performance, Crytek has had some issues balancing Crysis 2 atop of the Xbox 360’s six year-old hardware – and the key word there is definitely balancing. There are places where Crysis 2 looks nothing short of phenomenal. There are others where it verges on unacceptable. ”
“Most of what wounds the game on the graphical front, however, is a simple lack of AA combined with a lot of low-res textures. Even at its absolute worst it would be unfair and melodramatic to claim that Crysis 2 looks”
“yet the sequel which was supposed to move the technology on even further, ends up looking merely middle of the road on consoles.”
“
All those are simply opinions, offering no technical Evidence to back their statements up , the cold hard facts state otherwise.
If we going to
Just go with opinions , I say pong is the most beautiful game ever, or how about bit techs scathing comments in their review of crysis “It’s clear that, in terms of graphics and performance, Crytek has had some issues balancing Crysis 2 atop of the Xbox 360’s six year-old hardware – and the key word there is definitely balancing. There are places where Crysis 2 looks nothing short of phenomenal. There are others where it verges on unacceptable. ”
“Most of what wounds the game on the graphical front, however, is a simple lack of AA combined with a lot of low-res textures. Even at its absolute worst it would be unfair and melodramatic to claim that Crysis 2 looks”
“yet the sequel which was supposed to move the technology on even further, ends up looking merely middle of the road on consoles.”
There’s been other critical comments too, if you looked around , and thats excluding criticisms regarding frame rate and ai, but with the exception of eurogamer, none of those sites are high quality sites that I’d recommend looking at for reputable technical information.
“
God it’s like being in a playground with ten yr olds, booooo how dare u have an opinion or base ur opinion on facts, or how dare u disagree with my opinion about my favourite toy, u will make me cry and I’m going to tell my mommy on u, I’ll neg u, that will teach u a lesson!!
bloomin idiots grow up lol
Gears of War 3 and Uncharted 3 for games of the year
I want to play Killzone 3…i don’t have a Ps3…but i want to.
You guys convinced me, hehehe, ok, Crysis 2 looks awesome but till you look closer.
And i want to play Uncharted, and GOW III, and HR, and MGS4…
You DON’T have a PS3!? o.0
LOL. He likes crysis 2 cos he likes the realistic shooters! Ya shooting aliens in NYC wearing a suit which makes you invisible is so much more realistic! Seriously?! Crysis 2 is a mess compared to Killzone 3.
you make sense, but you’re being an ass. i have no idea what to this of this…
i dont care which game looks better…..i m a xbox 360 owner and and all i can say about crysis 2 is that it looks nothing short of phenomenal…..this game has shown that xbox 360 has not maxed out its capabilities yet and is capable of much more……gears of war 3 will be the showcase of xbox 360 graphics capabilities…..by the way from d above i can also say that killzone 3 looks amazing as well…….
Dumbass xbots defending a a MULTIPLAT title that failed to beat KZ3 in almost every aspect of graphical achievement.
Seriously, not defending your Sub-HD Gaylo Reach anymore?
LMAo xbots your frickin console is the true SUB-HD console of this gen.
RDR is sub HD on PS3
That’s because it’s a XBox 360 porting.
360 was the lead platform for the console version.
Crysis 2 is overrated and disappointing. Killzone 3′s single player campaign continues to blow me away with the amount of detail and action going on the screen at once with it’s rock solid framerate, very sharp textures, awesome AI and full 720p resolution with absolutely ZERO screen tearing at all times.
Killzone 3 wins.
Crysis 2 was a very good effort, but Crytek kinda got cocky saying stuff like “I don’t know why people think the PS3 is hard to develop for”. It seems Crytek even had a hard time developing for the PS3 because it’s not even running at the same resolution as the 360.
I’m pretty sure Killzone 3 is impossible on the 360.
try counting the number of sub-hd exclusive titles on the xbox u fag.
KZ3 graphics >> all exclusives on xbox3sh1tty. Ha!
Resolution is not a decisive factor in making one game graphics better than another.
Stop talking like a fanboy.
There is a scientific research center that does research on tv quality. i know the number 1 thing is color saturation the 4th thing in the area of importance is resolution. I wish people would quit saying resolution is king. I have a samsung 720p plasma i know of no 1080 p tvs that have better picture quality. although resolution is a factor it is not even the top three factors that determine picture quality.
What are we? back in 2006? Sub-HD is a bad bad word in 2011.
Damn feels good on the HD console.:)
Besides HD >> Sub-HD. Fact. You dont agree??
That’s dependable…
Ridge Racer 7 ran at native resolution of 1080p (yes, I’m talking about 1920×1080). Does it look better than Gran Turismo 5 (1280×1080 upscaled to 1080p) or Forza 3 (1280×720 upscaled 1080p)?
Actually yes it more ‘pretty’ than GT5 but its lacking alot in other areas coz its a straight up arcade racer. If GT5 is a straight arcade racer I have no doubt it can push for TRUE HD.
Dont get me wrong dumbass. HD is only ONE of the criteria for being the graphics king.
If C2 is as perfect as KZ3 and in HD. Then we’ll have something to talk about.
Prettier? Well, I’m seeing GT5 being much more attractive in motion compare to RR7. But that’s my opinion. Beside, it isn’t a problem of whether it is an arcade racing game or not. It’s just simply that the cars and the environment is simply more detailed than RR7. But of course, RR7 came out quite sometimes ago (I still enjoy it though.)
By the way, feel the need to call me a dumbass? Ha ha, well, whatever make you happy, I guess. And as you say, “HD is only ONE of the criteria for being the graphics king.” Thank you for clarifying your own statement, since the only thing in it was the whole “HD >> Sub-HD” deal, I simply replied to that since there are sub-HD games out there that clearly look better than HD games.
If you’re going to state something, it doesn’t hurt to put in more details to clearly clarify what you’re aiming at, does it?
Well Im not talking to a 8 year old am I?
What i meant by RR7 is a arcade racer is
Fake handling
Fake physics
Fake cars
Fake lighting
In short its a fantasy. And by going that way, you can see it doesnt need much resources to run
Well my HD >> Sub HD still holds true. Since if you havent noticed, both RR7 and GT5 are in HD idiot…
OK! Here is my opinion and remember it is only an opinion, but after playing both games I have to go with Crysis 2.
Yes! From a scientific point of view Killzone 3 has the better graphics, frame rate, less pop-ins and screen tearing, but Crysis 2 just looks better.
After, playing both games it just looks better. The shadows, the lighting, the size of the environments, the color palette.
Killzone 3 looks like a colorless narrow corridor FPS compared to Crysis 2.
Before you call me a fanboy PS3 owners I have both systems.
Peace!
it’s called technical and artistic not “scientific”, and saying something looks better just like that isn’t an opinion more than it is a statement. not only that, you lack any form of reasoning as to why it’s better. this is a very lacking opinion.
“killzone 3 looks…” you’re rather ignorant here. saying it felt like that would have been more appropriate because it’s hardly just narrow corridors. also, it has colors so you’d pretty much need to be colorblind to say that it lacks colors.
not really saying you’re not entitled to your opinion, but it’s a very flawed one. that, and the way you portray your opinion doesn’t make it seem like an opinion.
You could also own both systems but I am sure 100% you don’t have Killzone 3 and you’ve never played it.
i was tired of ps3 fanboys dragging uncharted 2 and killzone 3 in every conversation of ps3 vs xbox 360 saying that graphics like uncharted 2 and killzone 3 are not possible on 360…….now according to cvg , ign , eurogamer , gameinformer , gamesradar , psu this is the best looking game ever on a console so it means it looks better dan uncharted 2 and killzone 3 or atleast on par with these two games…..so the fanboys saying that d graphics like uncharted and killzone cant be done on a 360 , this game is a slap on their face……..
i was tired of ps3 fanboys dragging uncharted 2 and killzone 3 in every conversation of ps3 vs xbox 360 saying that graphics like uncharted 2 and killzone 3 are not possible on 360…….now according to cvg , ign , eurogamer , gamesradar , psu this is the best looking game ever on a console so it means it looks better dan uncharted 2 and killzone 3 or atleast on par with these two games…..so the fanboys saying that d graphics like uncharted and killzone cant be done on a 360 , this game is a slap on their face……..
First off, Kage56 do not tell me what is a statement and what is an opinion and please spare me the English lesson. In my opinion Crysis 2 looks better. I listed the reason why I think it is better. Whether you approve of my opinion or not I don’t care.
Also, how can you say Killzone 3 is not a corridor shooter. The game is so linear it makes Black Ops look like GT4. Did you even play the game? Also, lets talk of the color palette in the game. Compare it Crysis 2 if you have even played it.
Mauro I purchased and played Killzone 3 till the end, it sucks and after 8hrs I traded it back to GameSpot. Whether you believe me or not is your decision. Play Crysis 2 then write your opinion.
I have to admit owning both systems really shows me which system (PS3) is the most insecure.
I’ve played both games and I can confidently say that Crysis 2 looks better than KZ3. Also the performance differences are so miniscule that it really doesn’t matter.
KZ3 Global average FPS: 29.89
Crysis 2: Global average FPS: 28.86
KZ3 Global percent of torn frames: 0.00
Crysis 2 Global percent of torn frames: 1.93
Not even worth discussing. Furthermore that screen tearing is at the top of the screen and you will NOT see it. And as far as frames per second? Yeah when KZ3 cutscenes are pre-rendered while Crysis 2 is mostly doing things in REAL TIME then of course the FPS won’t dip.
Plus when you factor in that Crysis 2 is much more open and is operating in much larger environments while KZ3 is a linear corridor shooter sprinkled with “on-rails” situations then Crysis 2 is technically and graphically more impressive.
Crysis 2 is using HDR with all in-game dynamic lighting and shadows while KZ3 doesn’t. Crysis 2 also has superb post processing effects like motion blur,volumetric sun shafts,lens flares and SSAO. These technological features with dynamic lighting, shadows and HDR etc.. makes Crysis 2 a graphical beast.
Also this is one site while many others say that Crysis 2 is the new king graphically across all consoles. 10+ sites>>> than 1. Not to mention the fact that you still even have one Lens of Truth staff member here whose opinion falls in line with the majority in the media which says that Crysis 2 is the best looking game on consoles.
….and before any of you say that those sites were not technical just remember that the LoT staff say this at the end of this article:
Note: “A verdict was not given considering the major differences between developers and graphics engines, and our staff choices only reflect our PERSONAL PREFERENCES.”
You can have all the technical numbers but at the end of the day it doesn’t stop someone from forming an opinion or preference based on said results and to me the performance results are not worth talking about because their is hardly any difference.
So basically if you can’t notice any hampers in performance then what’s left? The raw graphics and visuals of the game which most of the media agrees that Crysis 2 is the best looking game on consoles.
….and this is what Digital Foundry said about Crysis 2:
“The crucial thing is that Crysis 2 is a phenomenally attractive game, producing effects quite different and in many ways MORE ADVANCED THAN ANYTHING WE’VE SEEN ELSEWHERE ON CONSOLE. We all wanted Crysis on console to be an event, a showcase release: by and large, Crytek has delivered, and those cutting edge visuals are backed by a truly impressive game design.”
….and no disrespect to Lens of Truth but to me Digital Foundry is the more respected site of the two. The funny thing is that people for the longest time questioned this site’s credibility believing they favored the 360 and now all of a sudden their word is godly.
Bottom Line is that opinions and preferences can still be performed based off technical results and the miniscule technical numbers evaporate once you play the game because gameplay is UNAFFECTED!
While I played Crysis 2 I thought it played perfectly and didn’t notice any framerate drops. The fact of the matter is that there are people blowing the differences in performance numbers way out of proportion to fuel their own FANBOYISH needs.
So to conclude: The difference in performance numbers are negligible which basically leaves the raw graphics and visuals of the game which I believe as does most of the media are the best on consoles right now.
Traxx
No offence ment here but in my few dealings with you on LOT im left with little doubt that your biased towards the 360.
As for what you have to say regarding this comparision im afraid your comments are selectively picked from the digital foundary articles. Theres just as many that could be plucked out showing crysis 2 in a negative light. Also if you look at the Digital foundary versus Killzone 3 article you could pluck 15 comments from that bigging up killzone 3.
You make mention off many graphical feature that crysis 2 is performing but forget that Killzone is performing nearly all the same features with better implementation of AA and at a higher resolution. Now im the first to say that resolution is not the most important factor when it comes to visuals but you my friend proclaimed repeatedly that crysis 2 on 360 was better looking than the ps3 crysis 2 because of the slight resolution increase, incidently killzone 3 enjoys the same advantage over 360 crysis 2 as 360 crysis 2 does over ps3 crysis 2.
So why make no mention of the resolution difference? Its certainly a contradiction compared to what you said on the crysis 2 H2H.
This brings me on to another contradiction from you regarding frame rates. Again you proclaimed repeaetedly that crysis2 on 360 was much better than ps3 crysis2 because it enjoyed a global fps average of 0.5 advantage yet when killzone 3 enjoys a 1.1 fps advantage its to small to notice!!!!!! I agree with you that the framerate dips in crysis 2 were blown out off proportion and didnt really impact gameplay but at the same time the 360 version has been recorded as dipping as low as 12 fps.
It seems to me when the version you like holds an advantage ie crysis 2 H2H issues like resolution and very slight Fps difference matter but when its the version you prefer that loses out in these regards its not mentioned or too small to matter.
Im sorry my friend but with these contradictions its hard to take your point of view seriously and hard not to believe that your just a fanboy like the ones you bashed in your post.
Lastly when someone makes mention off killzone 3 being “linear” as a critism to prove crysis 2 is better it to my mind exposes the fact that you probably havent played killzone 3. If you had then you would note that the game has at least 5-6 sections where battles are set in massive areas where you can choose how to go about tackling them. Theres 2 section early on in the mechs, the battle to take out the aa gun on the rig(iv now found 4 different routes to that) The battle against the turrets in icy excursions is set over a massive fully playable landscape. Crysis 2 certainly does this more often but not any larger in scale that what killzone 3 does in icy excursions.
I am done with the graphics comparison because it looks like this argument is never going to be resolved, but please don’t get me started on the linearity of Killzone 3.
Killzone 3 for the most part is as linear as they come. You can mentioned the mech level and the icy level as the only open stages. But, please jumping on one ice berg instead of the other is no way to call it non-linear. 90% of the game is straight forward.
As for Crysis 2 there are plenty of stages where you can scale multi-level buildings to take advantage of a sniping position or if you like go into the offices of the building, then go into an underground garage or take it to the streets for a straight forward fight and that’s just one stage. The game is freaky huge.
And for the third time I played and finished both games.
If killzone 3 is 90 percent linear then so is crysis 2. I just mentioned that killzone 3 is linear by choice but has its share off vast open areas that are non linear and are an equal of anything in crysis 2. Just for the record i never mentioned jumping from iceberg to iceberg as being non linear, i was talking about the battle against the turrets and armour long after that but you probably havent played or seen that bit because it wasnt in the demo or trailer video!!!!!!!!!
@pantherjag…
Lets just agree to disagree then. I can actually accept if someone says KZ3 looks better as that will be their opinion.
What irks me more than anything else is when I hear people try to inflate the performance differences when they are more or less negligible.
If it seemed that I was guilty of this in the 360/ps3 face-off that was only to counter people continuously talking about and exacerbating the effects of those isolated instances of frame dips which DF already said don’t affect gameplay.
About the resolution? Well yes KZ3 has a higher resolution but C2 (360) is not at 1024×720. I spoke about the resolution regarding the 360/ps3 versions because there was a difference in numbers AND I could SEE the difference. You could actually see that the ps3 version was slightly softer/blurrier while the 360 looks sharper. Yes small differences but you can still see it. DF mentions this as well.
With respect to the present discussion. Yes KZ3 has a higher resolution but to me I see no difference in sharpness between the two and dare I say that in some moments C2 actually looks a tad sharper. So yes going by numbers the KZ3 resolution is slightly better but I don’t see the difference here as I did in the 360/ps3 versions of C2.
At the end of the day 1024×720 is 1024×720. You will start to see the numbers play out on screen when you get this low especially if you compare it to other versions with slightly higher resolutions. I’m also willing to guess that the asymmetrical nature of the ps3 hardware didn’t help with the resolution either but then again 1024×720 was probably used to help the ps3 run the game the best it could.
….and while KZ3 has slightly higher resolution than C2 (360) 1152×720 is nothing to sneeze at. It was actually best for Crytek to go this route to utilize the 360 at its best with the edram in the 360 architecture.
The numbers,screenshots and the facts disagree with you so it seems you’re deluding yourself.
Stop licking Crytek’s arsehole ya hear?
Crysis has so many bugs and glitches it really for me made the game that much harder to get into,next to the fact the framrate was all over the damn place.If crysis 2 had a lil more time to zap the bugs and glitches it might had a chance but Kz3 is a better overall game.Kz3 runs 720p hardly any framerate drops no screen tear.The textures in Kz3 are better,the only thing i liked in Crysis 2 graphic wise was the HDR,water effects and the spark effects.Other then that Kz3 has it aced.
Just cause the resoultion is close to HD just doesn’t matter.Everything from the AI to the gliches and bugs the lack of polish on the textures fked up framerate made crysis 2 a bitch to play.I wasn’t even impressed with the Pc version,my Pc runs it on ultra even still it’s ehh because i think crysis 1 looks better.
Crysis 2 was linear it was nothing like the first crysis.You had to go on a path to get to point A to point B.Should stop sucking Crytek’s nuts.LOT can be Xbots kinda like Ign,very sad indeed i don’t know who said the 360 version is better then the Ps3 version.The fact that the Ps3 version runs better in combat and has better texture filtering overweighs the slight resoultion diffrence.
“Xbots” is such an immature insult. Quit claiming the LoT staff to be fanboys, it just makes you one yourself.
Killzone obv. wins by a mile (:
Ive been itching to say this”i have crysis 2 on 360 and i got killzone 3.and crytek i do like your game crysis2′i like the lenghty campain mode but after all your hype for how this is gona be the best looking console game i would like to say it gets completely owned by killzon 2 and 3″you been outdone by a Guerrilla’lol
Hey LoT staff why did you remove the performance numbers from this H2H?
Hmmmmmm…..
Hi TRAXX XD
Yes indeed is strange..