Clarification on Crysis and Killzone 2

I know the title is lame, and so will be this subject. The reason i am posting this is to differentiate the graphics between Killzone 2 and Crysis. I am a little to sick of pointless comparisons.

Crysis:

1. Runs only on pc, and hence is seldom exhibited at any resolution less than 1600x1200

2. Best outdoor vegetation graphics ever. Indoor graphics are meh.

3. Physics are good. On par with Killzone 2. Hit response system is not as good as Killzone 2.

4. Lighting is a little short compared to Killzone 2. You can stare at the sun, and it is NOT blinding in any way. No spectrum or even flares. Shadows are good due to resolution and hardware capabilities of PC.

Killzone 2:

1. Runs on a native 720p. That's 1366x768 for most LCD TVS. The resolution alone puts it at shame next to Crysis.

2. Best indoor graphics ever. Outdoor graphics involving vegetation is *yuck*. Just pay attention to the weeds on the Suljeva stages.

3. Physics are on par with Crysis. Hit response system grants more satisfaction than any other game (IMO)

4. Lighting is the best ever (IMO). Flares improve realism. Usage of dynamic lighting to bring out contrast in the game is extremely good. Does not rely completely on forced lighting like Gears of War.

If you ask me, Killzone 2's biggest weakness is it's resolution, especially the low res textures at many parts of the game which the devs think we won't pay attention to, but we obviously do. If Killzone 2 had a PC version, running at 1600x1200 and above, with an option for high rex textures, like any other pc game, it could easily surpass Crysis. But to compare Killzone 2 to Crysis based on the hardware difference is just silly. Of course Crysis wins. Even games with average graphics like Fear 2 end up looking good on PC due to resolution and AA.

I know the title is lame, and so will be this subject. The reason i am posting this is to differentiate the graphics between Killzone 2 and Crysis. I am a little to sick of pointless comparisons.

Crysis:

1. Runs only on pc, and hence is seldom exhibited at any resolution less than 1600x1200

2. Best outdoor vegetation graphics ever. Indoor graphics are meh.

3. Physics are good. On par with Killzone 2. Hit response system is not as good as Killzone 2.

4. Lighting is a little short compared to Killzone 2. You can stare at the sun, and it is NOT blinding in any way. No spectrum or even flares. Shadows are good due to resolution and hardware capabilities of PC.

Killzone 2:

1. Runs on a native 720p. That's 1366x768 for most LCD TVS. The resolution alone puts it at shame next to Crysis.

2. Best indoor graphics ever. Outdoor graphics involving vegetation is *yuck*. Just pay attention to the weeds on the Suljeva stages.

3. Physics are on par with Crysis. Hit response system grants more satisfaction than any other game (IMO)

4. Lighting is the best ever (IMO). Flares improve realism. Usage of dynamic lighting to bring out contrast in the game is extremely good. Does not rely completely on forced lighting like Gears of War.

If you ask me, Killzone 2's biggest weakness is it's resolution, especially the low res textures at many parts of the game which the devs think we won't pay attention to, but we obviously do. If Killzone 2 had a PC version, running at 1600x1200 and above, with an option for high rex textures, like any other pc game, it could easily surpass Crysis. But to compare Killzone 2 to Crysis based on the hardware difference is just silly. Of course Crysis wins. Even games with average graphics like Fear 2 end up looking good on PC due to resolution and AA.

jhcho2

I know the title is lame, and so will be this subject. The reason i am posting this is to differentiate the graphics between Killzone 2 and Crysis. I am a little to sick of pointless comparisons.

Crysis:

1. Runs only on pc, and hence is seldom exhibited at any resolution less than 1600x1200

2. Best outdoor vegetation graphics ever. Indoor graphics are meh.

3. Physics are good. On par with Killzone 2. Hit response system is not as good as Killzone 2.

4. Lighting is a little short compared to Killzone 2. You can stare at the sun, and it is NOT blinding in any way. No spectrum or even flares. Shadows are good due to resolution and hardware capabilities of PC.

Killzone 2:

1. Runs on a native 720p. That's 1366x768 for most LCD TVS. The resolution alone puts it at shame next to Crysis.

2. Best indoor graphics ever. Outdoor graphics involving vegetation is *yuck*. Just pay attention to the weeds on the Suljeva stages.

3. Physics are on par with Crysis. Hit response system grants more satisfaction than any other game (IMO)

4. Lighting is the best ever (IMO). Flares improve realism. Usage of dynamic lighting to bring out contrast in the game is extremely good. Does not rely completely on forced lighting like Gears of War.

If you ask me, Killzone 2's biggest weakness is it's resolution, especially the low res textures at many parts of the game which the devs think we won't pay attention to, but we obviously do. If Killzone 2 had a PC version, running at 1600x1200 and above, with an option for high rex textures, like any other pc game, it could easily surpass Crysis. But to compare Killzone 2 to Crysis based on the hardware difference is just silly. Of course Crysis wins. Even games with average graphics like Fear 2 end up looking good on PC due to resolution and AA.

jhcho2

killzone 2 is the only console game that crysis doens't completely own imo. now gow3 could prove even a better competitor

killzone 2 is the only console game that crysis doens't completely own imo. now gow3 could prove even a better competitor

Ragashahs

4. Lighting is the best ever (IMO). Flares improve realism. Usage of dynamic lighting to bring out contrast in the game is extremely good. Does not rely completely on forced lighting like Gears of War.

jhcho2

http://ps3thevolution.com/2009/03/09/killzone-2-smoke-and-mirrors-from-a-cgi-artist/

These two names should should not even be spoken of in the same breath, Crysis is far surperior, FACT.

The indoor graphics in Crysis are "meh"? What on earth are you talking about?

P.S. The physics in Crysis are phenomenal, and KZ2 can't hold a candle to them.

Also,

1) No computer can run Crysis maxed with all settings on. No, I'm not talking about the menu settings. I'm talking about .ini settings. The .ini settings can improve the game IMMENSELY so those screenshots, videos, or whatever you've seen isn't nearly what Crysis in it's current state can do.

2) There are mods out there that take the game past what even the .ini configurations can do. So, Crysis in it's current form is far beyond what PCs are able to do at the moment. Even four GTX 295's struggle with Crysis "maxed".

3) Crytek said they would unlock and improve the engine as new hardware came out. So, what we're seeing now is far from what the engine can do, even when you take into consideration .ini settings and mods.

killzone 2 is the only console game that crysis doens't completely own imo. now gow3 could prove even a better competitor

Ragashahs

Indoor graphics meh? Really? What indoor graphics are there? Huts made out of sheet metal and the carrier at the end? They look great.

.....and btw, Far Cry 2 has better vegetation than crysis.PS3Fanaddict

lol @ 1600x1200 resolution on 12-20 inch moniters, yep, that says all i need to know right there.....and btw, Far Cry 2 has better vegetation than crysis.PS3Fanaddict

[QUOTE="PS3Fanaddict"].....and btw, Far Cry 2 has better vegetation than crysis.Ilikemyname420

1. There are lots of people who play crysis on a monitor with a resolution smaller than 1600x1200. I myself have a 22" Monitor with 1680x1050 res, how is that seldom ?

1. Uhm 720P is 1280x720. Whether the TV has a 1366x768 resolution or not, the game still renders in 720P and not 768P.

[QUOTE="PS3Fanaddict"]lol @ 1600x1200 resolution on 12-20 inch moniters, yep, that says all i need to know right there.....and btw, Far Cry 2 has better vegetation than crysis.mojojojojojojoo

[QUOTE="Ilikemyname420"][QUOTE="PS3Fanaddict"].....and btw, Far Cry 2 has better vegetation than crysis.PS3Fanaddict

No. You haven't played Crysis. STOP ACTING LIKE YOU HAVE!!!

[QUOTE="mojojojojojojoo"][QUOTE="PS3Fanaddict"]lol @ 1600x1200 resolution on 12-20 inch moniters, yep, that says all i need to know right there.....and btw, Far Cry 2 has better vegetation than crysis.PS3Fanaddict

[QUOTE="mojojojojojojoo"][QUOTE="PS3Fanaddict"]lol @ 1600x1200 resolution on 12-20 inch moniters, yep, that says all i need to know right there.....and btw, Far Cry 2 has better vegetation than crysis.PS3Fanaddict

Maybe. But, it's far, far, far inferior to the PC version.

[QUOTE="PS3Fanaddict"][QUOTE="mojojojojojojoo"] 1600x1200 is fine my moniters max resolution 17'' inch crt i have a 19 inch that does 1792x1344 though. far cry 2 has nothing better than crysis, that game sucked so bad, i deleted it and broke the game.DeckardLee

Maybe. But, it's far, far, far inferior to the PC version.

[QUOTE="Ilikemyname420"][QUOTE="PS3Fanaddict"].....and btw, Far Cry 2 has better vegetation than crysis.PS3Fanaddict

Then plug your computer into your TV?

Then plug your computer into your TV?

DeckardLee

What settings are you using if you made that shot?

They should have a tech demo of Crysis playing on repeat right at the top of these forums just to avoid these silly topics :P .

I know the title is lame, and so will be this subject. The reason i am posting this is to differentiate the graphics between Killzone 2 and Crysis. I am a little to sick of pointless comparisons.

Crysis:

1. Runs only on pc, and hence is seldom exhibited at any resolution less than 1600x1200

2. Best outdoor vegetation graphics ever. Indoor graphics are meh.

3. Physics are good. On par with Killzone 2. Hit response system is not as good as Killzone 2.

4. Lighting is a little short compared to Killzone 2. You can stare at the sun, and it is NOT blinding in any way. No spectrum or even flares. Shadows are good due to resolution and hardware capabilities of PC.

Killzone 2:

1. Runs on a native 720p. That's 1366x768 for most LCD TVS. The resolution alone puts it at shame next to Crysis.

2. Best indoor graphics ever. Outdoor graphics involving vegetation is *yuck*. Just pay attention to the weeds on the Suljeva stages.

3. Physics are on par with Crysis. Hit response system grants more satisfaction than any other game (IMO)

4. Lighting is the best ever (IMO). Flares improve realism. Usage of dynamic lighting to bring out contrast in the game is extremely good. Does not rely completely on forced lighting like Gears of War.

If you ask me, Killzone 2's biggest weakness is it's resolution, especially the low res textures at many parts of the game which the devs think we won't pay attention to, but we obviously do. If Killzone 2 had a PC version, running at 1600x1200 and above, with an option for high rex textures, like any other pc game, it could easily surpass Crysis. But to compare Killzone 2 to Crysis based on the hardware difference is just silly. Of course Crysis wins. Even games with average graphics like Fear 2 end up looking good on PC due to resolution and AA.

jhcho2

I love how the OP thinks hes qualified to even make those calls. Your just another sony fanboy trying to over hype your game once again. KZ2 looks great but it's still hasn't got anything that takes your breath away. It's not a big leap like crysis. And the lighting in gears? That was design choice, they did that on purpose.

I know the title is lame, and so will be this subject. The reason i am posting this is to differentiate the graphics between Killzone 2 and Crysis. I am a little to sick of pointless comparisons.

Crysis:

1. Runs only on pc, and hence is seldom exhibited at any resolution less than 1600x1200

2. Best outdoor vegetation graphics ever. Indoor graphics are meh.

3. Physics are good. On par with Killzone 2. Hit response system is not as good as Killzone 2.

4. Lighting is a little short compared to Killzone 2. You can stare at the sun, and it is NOT blinding in any way. No spectrum or even flares. Shadows are good due to resolution and hardware capabilities of PC.

Killzone 2:

1. Runs on a native 720p. That's 1366x768 for most LCD TVS. The resolution alone puts it at shame next to Crysis.

2. Best indoor graphics ever. Outdoor graphics involving vegetation is *yuck*. Just pay attention to the weeds on the Suljeva stages.

3. Physics are on par with Crysis. Hit response system grants more satisfaction than any other game (IMO)

4. Lighting is the best ever (IMO). Flares improve realism. Usage of dynamic lighting to bring out contrast in the game is extremely good. Does not rely completely on forced lighting like Gears of War.

If you ask me, Killzone 2's biggest weakness is it's resolution, especially the low res textures at many parts of the game which the devs think we won't pay attention to, but we obviously do. If Killzone 2 had a PC version, running at 1600x1200 and above, with an option for high rex textures, like any other pc game, it could easily surpass Crysis. But to compare Killzone 2 to Crysis based on the hardware difference is just silly. Of course Crysis wins. Even games with average graphics like Fear 2 end up looking good on PC due to resolution and AA.

I know the title is lame, and so will be this subject. The reason i am posting this is to differentiate the graphics between Killzone 2 and Crysis. I am a little to sick of pointless comparisons.

Crysis:

1. Runs only on pc, and hence is seldom exhibited at any resolution less than 1600x1200

2. Best outdoor vegetation graphics ever. Indoor graphics are meh.

3. Physics are good. On par with Killzone 2. Hit response system is not as good as Killzone 2.

4. Lighting is a little short compared to Killzone 2. You can stare at the sun, and it is NOT blinding in any way. No spectrum or even flares. Shadows are good due to resolution and hardware capabilities of PC.

Killzone 2:

1. Runs on a native 720p. That's 1366x768 for most LCD TVS. The resolution alone puts it at shame next to Crysis.

2. Best indoor graphics ever. Outdoor graphics involving vegetation is *yuck*. Just pay attention to the weeds on the Suljeva stages.

3. Physics are on par with Crysis. Hit response system grants more satisfaction than any other game (IMO)

4. Lighting is the best ever (IMO). Flares improve realism. Usage of dynamic lighting to bring out contrast in the game is extremely good. Does not rely completely on forced lighting like Gears of War.

If you ask me, Killzone 2's biggest weakness is it's resolution, especially the low res textures at many parts of the game which the devs think we won't pay attention to, but we obviously do. If Killzone 2 had a PC version, running at 1600x1200 and above, with an option for high rex textures, like any other pc game, it could easily surpass Crysis. But to compare Killzone 2 to Crysis based on the hardware difference is just silly. Of course Crysis wins. Even games with average graphics like Fear 2 end up looking good on PC due to resolution and AA.

I know the title is lame, and so will be this subject. The reason i am posting this is to differentiate the graphics between Killzone 2 and Crysis. I am a little to sick of pointless comparisons.

Crysis:

1. Runs only on pc, and hence is seldom exhibited at any resolution less than 1600x1200

2. Best outdoor vegetation graphics ever. Indoor graphics are meh.

3. Physics are good. On par with Killzone 2. Hit response system is not as good as Killzone 2.

4. Lighting is a little short compared to Killzone 2. You can stare at the sun, and it is NOT blinding in any way. No spectrum or even flares. Shadows are good due to resolution and hardware capabilities of PC.

Killzone 2:

1. Runs on a native 720p. That's 1366x768 for most LCD TVS. The resolution alone puts it at shame next to Crysis.

2. Best indoor graphics ever. Outdoor graphics involving vegetation is *yuck*. Just pay attention to the weeds on the Suljeva stages.

3. Physics are on par with Crysis. Hit response system grants more satisfaction than any other game (IMO)

4. Lighting is the best ever (IMO). Flares improve realism. Usage of dynamic lighting to bring out contrast in the game is extremely good. Does not rely completely on forced lighting like Gears of War.

If you ask me, Killzone 2's biggest weakness is it's resolution, especially the low res textures at many parts of the game which the devs think we won't pay attention to, but we obviously do. If Killzone 2 had a PC version, running at 1600x1200 and above, with an option for high rex textures, like any other pc game, it could easily surpass Crysis. But to compare Killzone 2 to Crysis based on the hardware difference is just silly. Of course Crysis wins. Even games with average graphics like Fear 2 end up looking good on PC due to resolution and AA.

See that's what kinda pisses me off about unreal engine 3 they can mix and match prerendered lighting or realtime dynamic lighting. they could of made gear1 fully dynamic, but they use dynamic for some lights and prerendered lightmaps for other parts.mojojojojojojoo

the unreal engine's ability to mix and match prerendered lightmaps and dynamic lights let's dev's cut corners by not making game fully dynamic. if you would try to make it fully dynamic, you would run into more problems with getting performance right.mojojojojojojoo