Is PS3 version of Crysis 2 the best looking PS3 game? (POLL)

No sir,the best looking PS3 game is Wipeout HD Fury,and incidentally,one of the best as well.Arach666

How can we even tell if one game looks better than another. I mean obviously some games just plain look better. But it's hard to tell when you compare games like killzone and crysis 2. They all have different parts that look good and parts that look not as good. It also makes it hard that they have very different art styles. dkdk999

[QUOTE="KratosTwin"]

[QUOTE="sts106mat"] yeah many reviews etc state that its crysis2 thats the most impressive, but opinions are opinions.sts106mat

You're right...many but not "all". Also I believe on the site we are on and the reviewer agree with the opinion that it is not the best looking on consoles.

Unchartd 2 won best graphics here on Gamespot and pretty much every other website untill Crysis 2 wins that then it has nothing other then about 4 or 5 reivews which state its the best. GOW3 also won best graphics on pretty much every website so both of them can claim that throne

IMO Uncharted 2 looks better, Crysis 2 does have the technological "edge" to it, and it looking more realistic, but I find Uncharted 2's art style VERY pleasing, the cartoony aspect to everything, even the explosions, and the cinematic moments to back it up, art style plays a major role in this comparison IMO.

[QUOTE="2Chalupas"]

I think the difference maker with Crysis 2 is the lighting engine is so much better than anything on consoles before - the more "natural" looking lighting is the one thing that really separates it from Killzone 3 and others. Also impressive given it's a much more "open' shooter than some of the more scripted/linear shooters or a hack and slash like God of War.

theuncharted34

not really. the lighting is dynamic but it's just bloom. it's been done before and is remarkably similar to the lighting in killzone 3. the difference here being, is that everything that should emit light does. that's why it's so impressive, not the actual lighting technology but all the sources of light - weapons, explosions, fire, leds, street lights, everything. but it's definitely not natural looking lol but I really like the stylized look to the lighting :)

It's a helluva lot more natural looking than Killzone 3. If anything Killzone 3 has the more "stylized" look in that some of the environments are based in totally alien worlds with completely imaginary color palettes, the characters are all over-exaggerated muscle men, or over-exaggerated politicians. The characters in KZ3 are almost charactures. It all looks sort of cartoony. Crysis 2 went for a recognizable environment of NYC, and it seems like they strove more for "photorealism" in their manner of presenting that environment. Obviously video games are still a long way off from achieving photorealism, but Crysis 2 did not really seem to be going for any particular "art style" other than to look as convincing as possible.

Both games suffer from being awe inspring at times, and mediocre at others. Killzone 3 clearly "performed" better, but I really though that the lighting in Crysis 2 seemed much, much more advanced and impressive. I hardly think it's been "done before" on consoles. Gran Turismo 5 had some mighty fine lighting in it's few tracks that featured day/night transitions and that's about the only PS3 game off the top of my head that compares, and of course those particular courses featured some HORRENDOUS pop-in, they were clearly pushing the hardware too far for what the game's engine would allow at time of release.

[QUOTE="sts106mat"][QUOTE="KratosTwin"]

You're right...many but not "all". Also I believe on the site we are on and the reviewer agree with the opinion that it is not the best looking on consoles.

Unchartd 2 won best graphics here on Gamespot and pretty much every other website untill Crysis 2 wins that then it has nothing other then about 4 or 5 reivews which state its the best. GOW3 also won best graphics on pretty much every website so both of them can claim that throne

At its best, I'd say it's about tied with KZ3, but KZ3 is far more consistent so I'd say it's better. U2 and GOW III have an edge, as those are the most polished visuals I've seen in games this gen.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="sts106mat"] why would we do that? because it suits your opinion LOL.. cows proclaimed UC2 the graphics king, while the gamespot review merely said "graphics up there with the best the PS3 has to offer" If Kevin V said that the moon landings were fake, does that mean they actually were fake? surely you go by the majority of the opinion. i am still waiting for someone to post a list of reviews for UC2, KZ2/3 or GOW3 which proclaims them graphics king or similar. until then Crysis 2 is the console graphics king (in the real world, not cow cuckoo land of course)cainetao11

Unchartd 2 won best graphics here on Gamespot and pretty much every other website untill Crysis 2 wins that then it has nothing other then about 4 or 5 reivews which state its the best. GOW3 also won best graphics on pretty much every website so both of them can claim that throne

Maybe they do , hell i bought the 360 version because of ign's review. Later seeing the PS3 version and looking at the lense of truth comparison i couldnt even tell the diffrence. So although cows may be upset that Crysis2 is up there with the best( which it is) lemmings are lying to themselves if they think the 360 version has anything on the PS3 version .

Its also hard for me to give it to Crysis 2 when the framerate can drop to about 15fps , you never see anything like that in GOW3, KZ3 or UC2.

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="2Chalupas"]

I think the difference maker with Crysis 2 is the lighting engine is so much better than anything on consoles before - the more "natural" looking lighting is the one thing that really separates it from Killzone 3 and others. Also impressive given it's a much more "open' shooter than some of the more scripted/linear shooters or a hack and slash like God of War.

2Chalupas

not really. the lighting is dynamic but it's just bloom. it's been done before and is remarkably similar to the lighting in killzone 3. the difference here being, is that everything that should emit light does. that's why it's so impressive, not the actual lighting technology but all the sources of light - weapons, explosions, fire, leds, street lights, everything. but it's definitely not natural looking lol but I really like the stylized look to the lighting :)

It's a helluva lot more natural looking than Killzone 3. If anything Killzone 3 has the more "stylized" look in that some of the environments are based in totally alien worlds with completely imaginary color palettes, the characters are all over-exaggerated muscle men, or over-exaggerated politicians. The characters in KZ3 are almost charactures. It all looks sort of cartoony. Crysis 2 went for a recognizable environment of NYC, and it seems like they strove more for "photorealism" in their manner of presenting that environment. Obviously video games are still a long way off from achieving photorealism, but Crysis 2 did not really seem to be going for any particular "art style" other than to look as convincing as possible.

are you complaining about a unique use of style in killzone 3? you're acting like it's a bad thing killzone 3 uses an even more stylistic approach. and no, I just said both use incredibly similar lighting techniques. both use bloom to simulate more advanced techniques... crysis 2 uses it in an even more *exaggerated* but gorgeous way, with having more light sources. I'm not arguing that crysis 2 doesn't have better lighting than killzone 3, because it does.

neither game uses realistic lighting at all, yet crysis 2 manages to capatalize on that and make some really special and awe inspiring lighting.

for a more realistic approach to lighting in a console game... look at alan wake for example.

crysis 2 is obviously not going for realism but a stylistic approach. (it's called stylized realism btw.)

Final Fantasy XIII tops both the PS3 and 360 versions of Crysis 2. And every other game on consoles.

Slashkice

God of War 3

This video doesn't come near to doing it justice. Bad quality. :(

I think it looks better then Crysis but not the best looking PS3 game.

One thing the industry seems to not question about PS3 exclusives is the nature in which they're designed that allows them to look the way they do. They all have a few things in common: they're heavily scripted, extremely linear, very corridor-ish and almost like rail games they push you forward so quickly almost as to not let you look at anything for too long hoping the trickery and smoke and mirrors don't give themselves up. Lots of cutscenes and other fluff to take control away from you. Give me control and open those games up and there's no question they wouldn't look as good as Crysis 2.

What I'm getting at is this: When PS3 exclusives open up like Crysis 2 then still look as good as they do now then I'll finally be impressed. Until then, I'll take anything on 360 over those PS3 exclusives. I have played them all and can't say I've been impressed yet because anyone can take something extremely confined that you have little control over and make you think it looks really good. I would go as far as to say that the better the game looks on PS3, the more shallow and one-dimensional the gameplay usually is because they focused all their dev time coming up with things to trick you with graphically.

Something like Infamous is open and looks like total crap with more pop-in and vaseline blur than even GTA4's backgrounds. I have a feeling every PS3 exclusive would look like that if not so scripted and linear. And the framerates would be comparaqble or worse than Crysis 2's at that point also.

I would have to say Uncharted 2 is still, undoubtedly, the PS3's graphics king.

As soon as I click no, I Crysis 2 ad popped up on my screen. Crytek is displeased!:P

But Uncharted 2 is still in my opinion the best looking console game. Crysis 2 on BOTH!!!consoles is in the top 5 best looking console games.

I still think the best looking game is Uncharted 2. But I really don't think Crysis 2looks that great.

[QUOTE="2Chalupas"]

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

not really. the lighting is dynamic but it's just bloom. it's been done before and is remarkably similar to the lighting in killzone 3. the difference here being, is that everything that should emit light does. that's why it's so impressive, not the actual lighting technology but all the sources of light - weapons, explosions, fire, leds, street lights, everything. but it's definitely not natural looking lol but I really like the stylized look to the lighting :)

theuncharted34

It's a helluva lot more natural looking than Killzone 3. If anything Killzone 3 has the more "stylized" look in that some of the environments are based in totally alien worlds with completely imaginary color palettes, the characters are all over-exaggerated muscle men, or over-exaggerated politicians. The characters in KZ3 are almost charactures. It all looks sort of cartoony. Crysis 2 went for a recognizable environment of NYC, and it seems like they strove more for "photorealism" in their manner of presenting that environment. Obviously video games are still a long way off from achieving photorealism, but Crysis 2 did not really seem to be going for any particular "art style" other than to look as convincing as possible.

are you complaining about a unique use of style in killzone 3? you're acting like it's a bad thing killzone 3 uses an even more stylistic approach. and no, I just said both use incredibly similar lighting techniques. both use bloom to simulate more advanced techniques... crysis 2 uses it in an even more *exaggerated* but gorgeous way, with having more light sources. I'm not arguing that crysis 2 doesn't have better lighting than killzone 3, because it does.

neither game uses realistic lighting at all, yet crysis 2 manages to capatalize on that and make some really special and awe inspiring lighting.

for a more realistic approach to lighting in a console game... look at alan wake for example.

crysis 2 is obviously not going for realism but a stylistic approach. (it's called stylized realism btw.)

Yes I am complaining about the art style in Killzone 3. It was messy and inconsistent. Just look at the hideous color pallete used in the Helghan "jungle". I'm in no way a professional either in video games nor in art, but the design of those environments came off as sort of amateurish. Seriously... it was bad. "Exploding cacti" and the ugly looking grass and tangled vines you have to crawl through. When I was playing that mission I wasn't immersed, I was thinking "who the hell came up with this?". Why was everything in that level clashing reds and purples and oranges? I wasn't paying attention, but I remember thinking the colors didn't even make any sense (like when I was in a cave I was trying to figure out what the hell was glowing red). Might as well have been something ripped out of Metroid, it just didn't work for me in the killzone universe. Even if they were going for something "exotic" they could have pulled off something alot more convincing than that. Honestly considering the actors in that game are human vs human, they should not have strayed too far away from the type of plantlife we'd find on earth.

Killzone 3 was TECHNICALLY impressive and arguably the more impressive game engine for PS3, but the art style did not do it any additional favors. It was a bit hit or miss for me. Crysis on the other hand I felt like had a much more immersive and "natural" feeling universe, which worked better for the type of game that it was. Crysis 2's flaws were more in the technical areas, such as framerate, AI, bad voice acting, incoherent story, etc...

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="2Chalupas"]

It's a helluva lot more natural looking than Killzone 3. If anything Killzone 3 has the more "stylized" look in that some of the environments are based in totally alien worlds with completely imaginary color palettes, the characters are all over-exaggerated muscle men, or over-exaggerated politicians. The characters in KZ3 are almost charactures. It all looks sort of cartoony. Crysis 2 went for a recognizable environment of NYC, and it seems like they strove more for "photorealism" in their manner of presenting that environment. Obviously video games are still a long way off from achieving photorealism, but Crysis 2 did not really seem to be going for any particular "art style" other than to look as convincing as possible.

2Chalupas

are you complaining about a unique use of style in killzone 3? you're acting like it's a bad thing killzone 3 uses an even more stylistic approach. and no, I just said both use incredibly similar lighting techniques. both use bloom to simulate more advanced techniques... crysis 2 uses it in an even more *exaggerated* but gorgeous way, with having more light sources. I'm not arguing that crysis 2 doesn't have better lighting than killzone 3, because it does.

neither game uses realistic lighting at all, yet crysis 2 manages to capatalize on that and make some really special and awe inspiring lighting.

for a more realistic approach to lighting in a console game... look at alan wake for example.

crysis 2 is obviously not going for realism but a stylistic approach. (it's called stylized realism btw.)

Yes I am complaining about the art style in Killzone 3. It was messy and inconsistent. Just look at the hideous color pallete used in the Helghan "jungle". I'm in no way a professional either in video games nor in art, but the design of those environments came off as sort of amateurish. Seriously... it was bad. "Exploding cacti" and the ugly looking grass and tangled vines you have to crawl through. When I was playing that mission I wasn't immersed, I was thinking "who the hell came up with this?". Why was everything in that level clashing reds and purples and oranges? I wasn't paying attention, but I remember thinking the colors didn't even make any sense (like when I was in a cave I was trying to figure out what the hell was glowing red). Might as well have been something ripped out of Metroid, it just didn't work for me in the killzone universe. Even if they were going for something "exotic" they could have pulled off something alot more convincing than that. Honestly considering the actors in that game are human vs human, they should not have strayed too far away from the type of plantlife we'd find on earth.

Killzone 3 was TECHNICALLY impressive and arguably the more impressive game engine for PS3, but the art style did not do it any additional favors. It was a bit hit or miss for me. Crysis on the other hand I felt like had a much more immersive and "natural" feeling universe, which worked better for the type of game that it was. Crysis 2's flaws were more in the technical areas, such as framerate, AI, bad voice acting, incoherent story, etc...

well, I really don't know what to say to that.

Heh, people are so obsessed over teh console graphics king title that they'll do anything to back up Crysis 2.

Just from the graphical inconsistencies I've heard of Crysis 2 alone means it's a no.

Killzone 3 looks better than Crysis 2 imo.

Killzone 3 looks better than Crysis 2 imo.

Vesica_Prime

Thats exactly what I think. And considering the POLL in this thread, there are many ppl with similar opinion. Its good to see that not everyone has fanboy goggles on all the time :-)

[QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]

Killzone 3 looks better than Crysis 2 imo.

BlbecekBobecek

Thats exactly what I think. And considering the POLL in this thread, there are many ppl with similar opinion. Its good to see that not everyone has fanboy goggles on all the time :-)

No. Its just 360 fans who thinks so, so they think the 360 has just as good graphics.

Definitely as good as Killzone 3 imo

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="2Chalupas"]

It's a helluva lot more natural looking than Killzone 3. If anything Killzone 3 has the more "stylized" look in that some of the environments are based in totally alien worlds with completely imaginary color palettes, the characters are all over-exaggerated muscle men, or over-exaggerated politicians. The characters in KZ3 are almost charactures. It all looks sort of cartoony. Crysis 2 went for a recognizable environment of NYC, and it seems like they strove more for "photorealism" in their manner of presenting that environment. Obviously video games are still a long way off from achieving photorealism, but Crysis 2 did not really seem to be going for any particular "art ****" other than to look as convincing as possible.

2Chalupas

are you complaining about a unique use of ****in killzone 3? you're acting like it's a bad thing killzone 3 uses an even more stylistic approach. and no, I just said both use incredibly similar lighting techniques. both use bloom to simulate more advanced techniques... crysis 2 uses it in an even more *exaggerated* but gorgeous way, with having more light sources. I'm not arguing that crysis 2 doesn't have better lighting than killzone 3, because it does.

neither game uses realistic lighting at all, yet crysis 2 manages to capatalize on that and make some really special and awe inspiring lighting.

for a more realistic approach to lighting in a console game... look at alan wake for example.

crysis 2 is obviously not going for realism but a stylistic approach. (it's called stylized realism btw.)

Yes I am complaining about the art ****in Killzone 3. It was messy and inconsistent. Just look at the hideous color pallete used in the Helghan "jungle". I'm in no way a professional either in video games nor in art, but the design of those environments came off as sort of amateurish. Seriously... it was bad. "Exploding cacti" and the ugly looking grass and tangled vines you have to crawl through. When I was playing that mission I wasn't immersed, I was thinking "who the hell came up with this?". Why was everything in that level clashing reds and purples and oranges? I wasn't paying attention, but I remember thinking the colors didn't even make any sense (like when I was in a cave I was trying to figure out what the hell was glowing red). Might as well have been something ripped out of Metroid, it just didn't work for me in the killzone universe. Even if they were going for something "exotic" they could have pulled off something alot more convincing than that. Honestly considering the actors in that game are human vs human, they should not have strayed too far away from the type of plantlife we'd find on earth.

Killzone 3 was TECHNICALLY impressive and arguably the more impressive game engine for PS3, but the art ****did not do it any additional favors. It was a bit hit or miss for me. Crysis on the other hand I felt like had a much more immersive and "natural" feeling universe, which worked better for the type of game that it was. Crysis 2's flaws were more in the technical areas, such as framerate, AI, bad voice acting, incoherent story, etc...

[QUOTE="2Chalupas"]

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

are you complaining about a unique use of ****in killzone 3? you're acting like it's a bad thing killzone 3 uses an even more stylistic approach. and no, I just said both use incredibly similar lighting techniques. both use bloom to simulate more advanced techniques... crysis 2 uses it in an even more *exaggerated* but gorgeous way, with having more light sources. I'm not arguing that crysis 2 doesn't have better lighting than killzone 3, because it does.

neither game uses realistic lighting at all, yet crysis 2 manages to capatalize on that and make some really special and awe inspiring lighting.

for a more realistic approach to lighting in a console game... look at alan wake for example.

crysis 2 is obviously not going for realism but a stylistic approach. (it's called stylized realism btw.)

GreyFoXX4

Yes I am complaining about the art ****in Killzone 3. It was messy and inconsistent. Just look at the hideous color pallete used in the Helghan "jungle". I'm in no way a professional either in video games nor in art, but the design of those environments came off as sort of amateurish. Seriously... it was bad. "Exploding cacti" and the ugly looking grass and tangled vines you have to crawl through. When I was playing that mission I wasn't immersed, I was thinking "who the hell came up with this?". Why was everything in that level clashing reds and purples and oranges? I wasn't paying attention, but I remember thinking the colors didn't even make any sense (like when I was in a cave I was trying to figure out what the hell was glowing red). Might as well have been something ripped out of Metroid, it just didn't work for me in the killzone universe. Even if they were going for something "exotic" they could have pulled off something alot more convincing than that. Honestly considering the actors in that game are human vs human, they should not have strayed too far away from the type of plantlife we'd find on earth.

Killzone 3 was TECHNICALLY impressive and arguably the more impressive game engine for PS3, but the art ****did not do it any additional favors. It was a bit hit or miss for me. Crysis on the other hand I felt like had a much more immersive and "natural" feeling universe, which worked better for the type of game that it was. Crysis 2's flaws were more in the technical areas, such as framerate, AI, bad voice acting, incoherent story, etc...

[QUOTE="Vesica_Prime"]

Killzone 3 looks better than Crysis 2 imo.

BlbecekBobecek

Thats exactly what I think. And considering the POLL in this thread, there are many ppl with similar opinion. Its good to see that not everyone has fanboy goggles on all the time :-)

Lol remember when Cows were like " :o a jungle! Now we'll prove Killzone 3 will look better than Crysis 1", then all they got was some bloomified, low resolution Metroid Prime rip off. :lol:

Lol remember when Cows were like " :o a jungle! Now we'll prove Killzone 3 will look better than Crysis 1", then all they got was some bloomified, low resolution Metroid Prime rip off. :lol:

DreamCryotank

Definitely as good as Killzone 3 imo

DreamCryotank

that is the worst quality killzone 3 gif i've ever seen.

Lol remember when Cows were like " :o a jungle! Now we'll prove Killzone 3 will look better than Crysis 1", then all they got was some bloomified, low resolution Metroid Prime rip off. :lol:

DreamCryotank

I actually think the jungle looked quite nice actually. also it looked nothing like metroid prime :P

you do know that crysis 2 uses bloom as well right?

I thought Crysis 2 was going to catch up to KZ3's visual until I saw the Steel Rain DLC

Wow it isn't even close to Uncharted 2 or killzone 3. Now after all I heard about it I thought it was gonna beat both those games but now I just got both Crysis 2 & Killzone3 and Killzone looks lightyears better! I mean really there's no competition. Better textures, draw distance, framerate, less jaggies and everything is just much sharper & clearer. The explosions on Crysis looks good though. Crysis 2 = xplosion king lol.

Wow it isn't even close to Uncharted 2 or killzone 3. Now after all I heard about it I thought it was gonna beat those games but now I just got both Crysis & Killzone & Killzone looks lightyears better! I mean really there's no competition. Better textures, draw distance, framerate, less jaggiesand everything is just much sharper & clearer. The explosions on Crysis looks good though. Crysis 2 = xplosion king lol.

charlesdarwin55

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]No, KZ3 and UC2 look better that's why they are still console graphic kings.[QUOTE="sts106mat"] why would we do that? because it suits your opinion LOL.. cows proclaimed UC2 the graphics king, while the gamespot review merely said "graphics up there with the best the PS3 has to offer" If Kevin V said that the moon landings were fake, does that mean they actually were fake? surely you go by the majority of the opinion. i am still waiting for someone to post a list of reviews for UC2, KZ2/3 or GOW3 which proclaims them graphics king or similar. until then Crysis 2 is the console graphics king (in the real world, not cow cuckoo land of course)sts106mat

yeah, but i bet the cows count the awards IGN gave to UC2 dont they? IGN awarded it "Overall award for visual excellence" & "PS3 award for Visual excellence" amongst many others. Recently cows have started saying "IGN, oh, they're not credible" when IGN said the 360 version of crysis 2 sets the bar for graphics on console. but they were credible when they praised UC2 and MGS4 LOL, i dont get why cows cant accept it and move on, like the lems had to.

Interesting article at IGN where the reviewer has actually taken time out to respond to some posters about the crysis 2 review from the message boards there, check it out. http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/115/1159830p1.html

[QUOTE="charlesdarwin55"]

Wow it isn't even close to Uncharted 2 or killzone 3. Now after all I heard about it I thought it was gonna beat those games but now I just got both Crysis & Killzone & Killzone looks lightyears better! I mean really there's no competition. Better textures, draw distance, framerate, less jaggiesand everything is just much sharper & clearer. The explosions on Crysis looks good though. Crysis 2 = xplosion king lol.

cainetao11

Definatly and by far

killzoneded

[QUOTE="DreamCryotank"]

Lol remember when Cows were like " :o a jungle! Now we'll prove Killzone 3 will look better than Crysis 1", then all they got was some bloomified, low resolution Metroid Prime rip off. :lol:

theuncharted34

I actually think the jungle looked quite nice actually. also it looked nothing like metroid prime :P

you do know that crysis 2 uses bloom as well right?

[QUOTE="DreamCryotank"]

Lol remember when Cows were like " :o a jungle! Now we'll prove Killzone 3 will look better than Crysis 1", then all they got was some bloomified, low resolution Metroid Prime rip off. :lol:

theuncharted34

I actually think the jungle looked quite nice actually. also it looked nothing like metroid prime :P

you do know that crysis 2 uses bloom as well right?

Crysis 2s bloom isn't no where near as bad as Killzone 3s. Atleast you can see the sky in Crysis 2.

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="DreamCryotank"]

Lol remember when Cows were like " :o a jungle! Now we'll prove Killzone 3 will look better than Crysis 1", then all they got was some bloomified, low resolution Metroid Prime rip off. :lol:

ocstew

I actually think the jungle looked quite nice actually. also it looked nothing like metroid prime :P

you do know that crysis 2 uses bloom as well right?

which produces a very bloomlike effect. albeit an awesome looking one.

I thought Crysis 2 was going to catch up to KZ3's visual until I saw the Steel Rain DLC

Bazooka_4ME

Ok, genuine question, wtf am I looking at? Those are some of the worst textures I've seen this gen. It looks like Fallout 3

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="DreamCryotank"]

Lol remember when Cows were like " :o a jungle! Now we'll prove Killzone 3 will look better than Crysis 1", then all they got was some bloomified, low resolution Metroid Prime rip off. :lol:

DreamCryotank

I actually think the jungle looked quite nice actually. also it looked nothing like metroid prime :P

you do know that crysis 2 uses bloom as well right?

Crysis 2s bloom isn't no where near as bad as Killzone 3s. Atleast you can see the sky in Crysis 2.

depending on which area in killzone 3 you're talking about of course. it uses bloom very nicely alot of the time. killzone 3 also uses volumetric lighting in spots.

there are times when crysis 2's lighting gets very overbearing and bad as well.

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="ocstew"] Nah, it uses glow, a much more subtle and realistic effect. Instead of just smearing the pixels around something bright, Crytek combined real-time lens flare, glow that shifts the colour up the spectrum, and HDR. sts106mat

which produces a very bloomlike effect. albeit an awesome looking one.

yeah, i love how there are so many different colors to the lighting in the game as well :)

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="sts106mat"]

yeah, but i bet the cows count the awards IGN gave to UC2 dont they? IGN awarded it "Overall award for visual excellence" & "PS3 award for Visual excellence" amongst many others. Recently cows have started saying "IGN, oh, they're not credible" when IGN said the 360 version of crysis 2 sets the bar for graphics on console. but they were credible when they praised UC2 and MGS4 LOL, i dont get why cows cant accept it and move on, like the lems had to.

Interesting article at IGN where the reviewer has actually taken time out to respond to some posters about the crysis 2 review from the message boards there, check it out. http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/115/1159830p1.html

sts106mat

i dont have to wait for the end of the year LOL. what if Rage takes it or UC3 or Gears 3?, does that mean crysis 2 wasn't graphics king up until then LOL.

according to popular opinion and reputable review sources (outside of SW) crysis 2 is the best looking console game to date.of course people will disagree, the cows couldn't even decide if KZ2/3 or UC2 or GOW3 was graphics king LOL.

why do you they the need to hang on to "CGK" , at the end of the day its meaningless. all i am happy about is that all those crazy cow comments like "360 is such a piece of ****, it could never run graphics on UC2 level" the fact that there is even a debate about it still, proves all those fanboys wrong. they have been forced to eat their words and they dont like admitting it because they look like bozos. while some PS3 owners have said Crysis 2 looks the best, some haven't not and are still in denial. its really sad, yet fascinating to me LOL.

[QUOTE="DreamCryotank"]

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

I actually think the jungle looked quite nice actually. also it looked nothing like metroid prime :P

you do know that crysis 2 uses bloom as well right?

theuncharted34

Crysis 2s bloom isn't no where near as bad as Killzone 3s. Atleast you can see the sky in Crysis 2.

depending on which area in killzone 3 you're talking about of course. it uses bloom very nicely alot of the time. killzone 3 also uses volumetric lighting in spots.

there are times when crysis 2's lighting gets very overbearing and bad as well.

Agreed. Some times the sunshafts are ridiculous (first time you visit one of those "spikes"). But the jungle in Killzone 3 has the worst bloom I've ever seen.