Crysis 2, Killzone 3 & Crysis 1 Showdown "Video"

:lol: the gunplay on both Crysis 1 and 2 compared to KZ3 is a joke. Seriesly, the sound FX especially the weapons sounds pretty pansy in C1 & 2. During heavy firefights, there seems to be a lot more going on in KZ3 than in C2. C1 still beats them both.Bazooka_4ME

from that video Crysis 1 still blows me away. It looks better than the others. I want that game again.

What really lets down Crysis 2 in comparison to Crysis 1 is the texture resolution. Though there are a lot of awesome effects to distract the player from noticing them, they stand out in some instances.

Crysis 2

Crysis 1

Crysis 2

Crysis 1

Having gone back to the original Crysis to take those screens, I have to say C1 is still graphics king.

Besides K3's poor water (compared to the other two) its really hard to say which has the edge, from still images atleast.

Snugenz

You obviously havent seen Crysis 2 fully maxed out on a high end pc with your own eyes then, Its not close.

lol at water agruments :))

LightGalaxy_07

Alot of artists and programmers worked there tails off on it, and you dont think its worth discussing on a video game forum?

[QUOTE="Snugenz"]

Besides K3's poor water (compared to the other two) its really hard to say which has the edge, from still images atleast.

chrion133

You obviously havent seen Crysis 2 fully maxed out on a high end pc with your own eyes then, Its not close.

Indeed, which is why i said that :P

I couldn't finish the Killzone 3 demo, I really didn't like the gameplay. The graphics didn't impress me either, the textures were poor, way too much blurring and the water was a joke. I played the PC version of the Crysis 2 demo and it looked good. I quite enjoyed it, but I still prefer the first by far.

My opinion:

Crysis 1>>Crysis 2>>>>>>Killzone 3

What really lets down Crysis 2 in comparison to Crysis 1 is the texture resolution. Though there are a lot of awesome effects to distract the player from noticing them, they stand out in some instances.

Having gone back to the original Crysis to take those screens, I have to say C1 is still graphics king.

hypoty

I wouldn't expect a console port like Crysis 2 to excel in textures. Consoles have never been very strong in the memory department, and scaling upward from console textures produces worse results; than textures made specifically for PC.

Compared to Metro 2033 all 3 look pretty poor in my opinion. Maybe Crysis with mods beats it. If you really wanna see jaw dropping graphics why not go play Shogun 2. it's as close to next gen as you will get.Frozzik

Except, just like Crysis 2, Metro 2033 is terribly inconsistent. Lots of horrible character modles and not so great animations.

[QUOTE="hypoty"]

What really lets down Crysis 2 in comparison to Crysis 1 is the texture resolution. Though there are a lot of awesome effects to distract the player from noticing them, they stand out in some instances.

Having gone back to the original Crysis to take those screens, I have to say C1 is still graphics king.

AnnoyedDragon

I wouldn't expect a console port like Crysis 2 to excel in textures. Consoles have never been very strong in the memory department, and scaling upward from console textures produces worse results; than textures made specifically for PC.

Textures are jsut one aspect really. Crytek could have easily implemented proper PC textures without any performance impact whatsoever. The killer IMHO, is all the little compromises that was made to save processing power. byebye physics and individually rendered objects. Hello, scripted car kicking and exploding barrels. "Bubu, so much is going on at once" yeah....

Crysis 2>Crysis 1(vanilla)>Crysis 2 consoles>KZ3

BTW,Crysis 2 has best faces and those KZ3s are from pre rendered cutscenes.

Textures are jsut one aspect really. Crytek could have easily implemented proper PC textures without any performance impact whatsoever.

Filthybastrd

I think performance would be the least of their concerns, as it would be very expensive to remake all those textures just for one version. Instead they just took the console textures and used better versions of them, which as I said; wouldn't be anywhere near as good as if they were built for PC.

Simply copying over anything done on one platform, to another, never really produces the best results. Textures built for consoles aren't just lower res/higher compression versions of the ones used on PC. They are designed differently, than if you started out knowing you had good amounts of memory and higher resolutions.

I expect even if you removed all the blur effects from Crysis 2, the game would still look fuzzy, on account of the console approach to the textures in the game.

Crysis 2>Crysis 1(vanilla)>Crysis 2 consoles>KZ3

BTW,Crysis 2 has best faces and those KZ3s are from pre rendered cutscenes.

Bus-A-Bus

Uncharted 2-3 use pre-rendered cut scenes too and the in game graphics are far behind, all the hype is based on rendered stuff

Crysis 2 is the real deal

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

Crysis 2>Crysis 1(vanilla)>Crysis 2 consoles>KZ3

BTW,Crysis 2 has best faces and those KZ3s are from pre rendered cutscenes.

killzoneded

Uncharted 2-3 use pre-rendered cut scenes too and the in game graphics are far behind, all the hype is based on rendered stuff

Crysis 2 is the real deal

[QUOTE="killzoneded"]

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

Crysis 2>Crysis 1(vanilla)>Crysis 2 consoles>KZ3

BTW,Crysis 2 has best faces and those KZ3s are from pre rendered cutscenes.

Robbazking

Uncharted 2-3 use pre-rendered cut scenes too and the in game graphics are far behind, all the hype is based on rendered stuff

Crysis 2 is the real deal

Killzone wins with its frantic gameplay, better character models, atmosphere, animations and shaders. Crysis games look more realistic and boring.

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

Crysis 2>Crysis 1(vanilla)>Crysis 2 consoles>KZ3

BTW,Crysis 2 has best faces and those KZ3s are from pre rendered cutscenes.

killzoneded

Uncharted 2-3 use pre-rendered cut scenes too and the in game graphics are far behind, all the hype is based on rendered stuff

Crysis 2 is the real deal

Pre-render or not, what matter is the end result, thats what sets apart Uncharted 2 visuals from Crysis 2.

Thank consoles for those Crysis 2 crappy textures.

Thank you cr@pbox 360, thank you piece of S$!& 3.

[QUOTE="killzoneded"]

[QUOTE="Bus-A-Bus"]

Crysis 2>Crysis 1(vanilla)>Crysis 2 consoles>KZ3

BTW,Crysis 2 has best faces and those KZ3s are from pre rendered cutscenes.

fun-da-mental

Uncharted 2-3 use pre-rendered cut scenes too and the in game graphics are far behind, all the hype is based on rendered stuff

Crysis 2 is the real deal

Pre-render or not, what matter is the end result, thats what sets apart Uncharted 2 visuals from Crysis 2.

But who said they are better lol even if pre-rendered, however I think it is just in-engine (which is different I believe). Also, I highly doubt KZ3 has better shaders/faces than C2, however I'll give you animations.

Also what's up with the overdone godrays in Crysis 2. The section just before you escape the flood, if you look up you can't see sky, just GOD RAYS that look like they came from a Crysis 1 custom GDC map. Really lame.

I dont know why everyone thinks KZ 3 water is bad ? IMO it looks as good as Crysis 1 & 2. It's not bad, just diferent art direction.

But the character models of KZ3 easily beats both Crysis games.

Zensword

The only problem with the KZ3 water is that it doesn't have any reflections.

[QUOTE="Zensword"]

I dont know why everyone thinks KZ 3 water is bad ? IMO it looks as good as Crysis 1 & 2. It's not bad, just diferent art direction.

But the character models of KZ3 easily beats both Crysis games.

Epak_

The only problem with the KZ3 water is that it doesn't have any reflections.

And it's animated poorly (the artic waves), and can you swim in it? Crysis 2s water features caustics and god rays. 8)

I just picked up Crysis 2 on the 360 and while it does look great at times, it really is inconsistent. The poor framerate and texture pop ins are very noticeable sometimes and detracts from the overall experience. Although I do believe that at its best Crysis 2 is the prettiest console game, the flaws in the game keep me from having the same overwhelming sense of awe I got when I first played Uncharted 2. And the water in Crysis 2 doesn't always look great. If you look at the fountains in the small plaza in the first 15-20 minutes of the game, they're actually really bad.

[QUOTE="Zensword"]

I dont know why everyone thinks KZ 3 water is bad ? IMO it looks as good as Crysis 1 & 2. It's not bad, just diferent art direction.

But the character models of KZ3 easily beats both Crysis games.

Epak_

The only problem with the KZ3 water is that it doesn't have any reflections.

and it's made out of freakin' polygons and a texture and animates like crap and you can't interact with it. :P

looks pretty though.

[QUOTE="fun-da-mental"]

[QUOTE="killzoneded"]

Uncharted 2-3 use pre-rendered cut scenes too and the in game graphics are far behind, all the hype is based on rendered stuff

Crysis 2 is the real deal

MC3887

Pre-render or not, what matter is the end result, thats what sets apart Uncharted 2 visuals from Crysis 2.

But who said they are better lol even if pre-rendered, however I think it is just in-engine (which is different I believe). Also, I highly doubt KZ3 has better shaders/faces than C2, however I'll give you animations.

Well my experience is from a demos of both games. I liked the snow and weather effects of Killzone 3. It also felt like Killzone 3 has lot more going on on any given fight scene, more blood particles, lighting, smoke etc, which makes a big difference in immersion in IMO. Crysis 2 has better textures but lacks the grittiness and gore that Killzone 3 has.

[QUOTE="MC3887"]

[QUOTE="fun-da-mental"]

Pre-render or not, what matter is the end result, thats what sets apart Uncharted 2 visuals from Crysis 2.

fun-da-mental

But who said they are better lol even if pre-rendered, however I think it is just in-engine (which is different I believe). Also, I highly doubt KZ3 has better shaders/faces than C2, however I'll give you animations.

Well my experience is from a demos of both games. I liked the snow and weather effects of Killzone 3. It also felt like Killzone 3 has lot more going on on any given fight scene, more blood particles, lighting, smoke etc, which makes a big difference in immersion in IMO. Crysis 2 has better textures but lacks the grittiness and gore that Killzone 3 has.

Many people bashed teh C2 demo. Yet changed there minds w/ retail. There is probably more blood in KZ3, but the lighting/smoke is superior in C2 due to real-time G.I and full res particle buffers while KZ3 uses quarter res and upscales. Also there may be more going on (not even sure of that.), but C2 has larger areas.

What really lets down Crysis 2 in comparison to Crysis 1 is the texture resolution. Though there are a lot of awesome effects to distract the player from noticing them, they stand out in some instances.

Having gone back to the original Crysis to take those screens, I have to say C1 is still graphics king.

hypoty

Crysis 1 is incredibly inconsistant.

Those rocks belong in a ps2 game.

Crysis 1 is incredibly inconsistant.

Those rocks belong in a ps2 game.

topgunmv

The rocks, the rocks, always with the rocks.

People have to remember, Crysis 1 operates on a scale greater than almost any other game out this gen. There are a lot of games that give the impression of scale, while really you are running around in a bubble. But Crysis 1 is the real thing, it's all in there.

Given that Crysis 2 operates on a tiny fraction of the scale Crysis 1 does, it has no excuse. Its resources are concentrated within a much smaller area, it should be able to afford much better assets than Crysis.

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

Crysis 1 is incredibly inconsistant.

Those rocks belong in a ps2 game.

AnnoyedDragon

The rocks, the rocks, always with the rocks.

People have to remember, Crysis 1 operates on a scale greater than almost any other game out this gen. There are a lot of games that give the impression of scale, while really you are running around in a bubble. But Crysis 1 is the real thing, it's all in there.

Given that Crysis 2 operates on a tiny fraction of the scale Crysis 1 does, it has no excuse. Its resources are concentrated within a much smaller area, it should be able to afford much better assets than Crysis.

You guys were the ones that brought up textures.

Now you're talking about scale.

You guys were the ones that brought up textures.

Now you're talking about scale.

topgunmv

Because Crysis's textures are great, given the scale the game is being rendered at.

The bigger the scale, the less resources you can concentrate into the quality of individual assets. So Crysis getting the quality it has is a achievement, nit picking about rock textures isn't going to change that.

So what is Crysis 2's excuse? It doesn't operate on anywhere near the scale Crysis 1 does, yet its textures are nothing to write home about.

[QUOTE="Epak_"]

[QUOTE="Zensword"]

I dont know why everyone thinks KZ 3 water is bad ? IMO it looks as good as Crysis 1 & 2. It's not bad, just diferent art direction.

But the character models of KZ3 easily beats both Crysis games.

theuncharted34

The only problem with the KZ3 water is that it doesn't have any reflections.

and it's made out of freakin' polygons and a texture and animates like crap and you can't interact with it. :P

looks pretty though.

Are there any other ways to make it (large masses of water)?

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

Crysis 1 is incredibly inconsistant.

Those rocks belong in a ps2 game.

AnnoyedDragon

The rocks, the rocks, always with the rocks.

I got plenty more pics where it has bad textures in areas that aren't rocks. It's still an impressive game for it's scale though.:D

I found more than rocks...

I got plenty more pics where it has bad textures in areas that aren't rocks. It's still an impressive game for it's scale though.:D

mitu123

Rocks are one of those things people like to constantly nit pick on. There are other areas, but overall; it's a technically impressive game. If you go out to specifically hunt for problem areas, you are going to find them in any game.

Crysis is one of the most technically advanced games on the market, a few problem areas aren't going to change that.

And topgunmv, I've just noticed, please refrain from using Warhead images when talking about Crysis 1.

Yup, Crysis 1 has quite a few really ugly textures.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

I found more than rocks...

I got plenty more pics where it has bad textures in areas that aren't rocks. It's still an impressive game for it's scale though.:D

AnnoyedDragon

Rocks are one of those things people like to constantly nit pick on. There are other areas, but overall; it's a technically impressive game. If you go out to specifically hunt for problem areas, you are going to find them in any game.

Crysis is one of the most technically advanced game on the market, a few problem areas aren't going to change that.

And topgunmv, I've just noticed, please refrain from using Warhead images when talking about Crysis 1.

Why? Warhead looks better than crysis 1.

I didn't take the screenshot looking for bad textures, I actually took it to demonstrate why edge aa was better than using standard aa for overall image quality in the pc forums, and other people pointed out how bad the rocks looked.

Why? Warhead looks better than crysis 1.

I didn't take the screenshot looking for bad textures, I actually took it to demonstrate why edge aa was better than using standard aa for overall image quality in the pc forums, and other people pointed out how bad the rocks looked.

topgunmv

What you think about Warhead isn't relevant, the thread is discussing Crysis 1, not Warhead.

You can hardly use Warhead rock textures to criticise Crysis 1 rock textures, because the screenshot isn't Crysis 1.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

I found more than rocks...

I got plenty more pics where it has bad textures in areas that aren't rocks. It's still an impressive game for it's scale though.:D

AnnoyedDragon

Rocks are one of those things people like to constantly nit pick on. There are other areas, but overall; it's a technically impressive game. If you go out to specifically hunt for problem areas, you are going to find them in any game.

Crysis is one of the most technically advanced games on the market, a few problem areas aren't going to change that.

Yes, I do know that, but there are people who think it has only good textures all around which is the problem. It's still the best out there so I agree with that. And I've put way too many hours into Crysis exploring as much as I could so I was bound to find those flaws.:P

mitu123

The problem I see is people are using those problem areas in Crysis as a counter argument to claims regarding the games textures.

Hypoty posted comparison examples, those don't disappear/stop being relevant because someone decided to find some bad rocks in Crysis 1 (a different game even, how bizarre is that).

A fair few people are ignoring the varying factors, such as the significant difference in scale, when criticising Crysis 1; to make Crysis 2 look better. If you completely ignore the scale Crysis 1 is operating at, then there are lots of games that have better textures, because they have to render far less. which of course brings to question, why is Crysis 2 so fuzzy; when it has to render less?

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

Yes, I do know that, but there are people who think it has only good textures all around which is the problem. It's still the best out there so I agree with that. And I've put way too many hours into Crysis exploring as much as I could so I was bound to find those flaws.:P

AnnoyedDragon

The problem I see is people are using those problem areas in Crysis as a counter argument to claims regarding the games textures.

Hypoty posted comparison examples, those don't disappear/stop being relevant because someone decided to find some bad rocks in Crysis 1 (a different game even, how bizarre is that).

A fair few people are ignoring the varying factors, such as the significant difference in scale, when criticising Crysis 1; to make Crysis 2 look better. If you completely ignore the scale Crysis 1 is operating at, then there are lots of games that have better textures, because they have to render far less. which of course brings to question, why is Crysis 2 so fuzzy; when it has to render less?

Crysis 2 might be a little more linear, but that doesnt mean that it has a significantly lesser game world. Crysis 1 is more open than it is about scale when comparing to Crysis 2.

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

Why? Warhead looks better than crysis 1.

I didn't take the screenshot looking for bad textures, I actually took it to demonstrate why edge aa was better than using standard aa for overall image quality in the pc forums, and other people pointed out how bad the rocks looked.

AnnoyedDragon

What you think about Warhead isn't relevant, the thread is discussing Crysis 1, not Warhead.

You can hardly use Warhead rock textures to criticise Crysis 1 rock textures, because the screenshot isn't Crysis 1.

99% of the time people group crysis and warhead as one entity when talking about what crysis looks like.

That picture you posted looks even worse anyways. The big rock looks like it has a data matrix code in the middle.

Also, people are saying crysis 2 levels are about as big as warhead. So there goes the scale argument.

Crysis 2 might be a little more linear, but that doesnt mean that it has a significantly lesser game world. Crysis 1 is more open than it is about scale when comparing to Crysis 2.

gaming25

Crysis 2's game design, its interactive scale, has been pulled back to fit within consoles memory.

It's not really something you can judge visually, as developers apply a variety a illusions to hide the scale of the game.

99% of the time people group crysis and warhead as one entity when talking about what crysis looks like.

topgunmv

Maybe 99% of the people trying to downplay the changes made in Crysis 2, so keep using Warhead (a stepping stone towards Crysis 2) for comparison; rather than Crysis 1 (the game we are actually supposed to be comparing with).

I don't accept, nor am I interested, in any rationalizations on your part. Refrain from posting Warhead screenshots in a discussion on Crysis 1.

Also, people are saying crysis 2 levels are about as big as warhead. So there goes the scale argument.

topgunmv

Do you have any idea how many times I have had to explain the difference between level loading and cell streaming, even prior to Crysis 2's announcement? Even going as far as to have to put together diagrams at times. Only for them to ignore them, and continue to post the same old flawed arguments at later dates.

I have minimal faith in people's ability to understand the basic concept, that consoles do not have enough memory to store Crysis 1 scale levels.

Given that even a video of the head of Crytek himself explaining this won't shift some people's views, I think it is more down to what they want to be true; than what is.

Do you have any idea how many times I have had to explain the difference between level loading and cell streaming, even prior to Crysis 2's announcement? Even going as far as to have to put together diagrams at times. Only for them to ignore them, and continue to post the same old flawed arguments at later dates.

I have minimal faith in people's ability to understand the basic concept, that consoles do not have enough memory to store Crysis 1 scale levels.

Given that even a video of the head of Crytek himself explaining this won't shift some people's views, I think it is more down to what they want to be true; than what is.

AnnoyedDragon

What does that have to do with textures? We're not talking about range of interactivity.

[QUOTE="TheAcountantMan"]Yeah but Killzone 3 is on another planet, their water is different from our earth water.DarkLink77

Best excuse ever? Best excuse ever. :lol:

What does that have to do with textures? We're not talking about range of interactivity.

topgunmv

Scale and texture quality is related, because there is a lot more to render on screen when a larger area is within the range of the game play.

Clearly, a corridor shooter can concentrate resources more than a large open environment.

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

What does that have to do with textures? We're not talking about range of interactivity.

AnnoyedDragon

Scale and texture quality is related, because there is a lot more to render on screen when a larger area is within the range of the game play.

Clearly, a corridor shooter can concentrate resources more than a large open environment.

They're not going to load the largest resolution textures into memory unless you're close to them are they? At least they shouldn't.

They're not going to load the largest resolution textures into memory unless you're close to them are they? At least they shouldn't.

topgunmv

No, they don't. But there is a lot more being rendered on screen when you can see enemies patrolling far off in the distance, compared to a much more confined environment like Crysis 2.