Killzone 2 = still the Most Technically Advanced Console Game (Crysis 2 who?)

[QUOTE="rich-sac"]

All talk of Crysis 2 on consoles being non linear open world this and that...blah blah. How about try doing quater mile sized Multiplayer maps (Not single player where everything is scripted) with 32 players total, and I'm not even counting the turrets and sentry drones. All gun muzzle lighting creates shadows (list another console game that has this feature?)and all shotgun have an attached flashlight which creates shadows when shined on anything. All @720p (subHD is so last Gen) and even the framerate doesn't choke as bad as the Crysis 2 campaign, none the less the multiplayer. And yes the insane amounts of motion blur, both camera and per object, which is very taxing on hardware, complete with anti aliasing. Still have some of the best explosions/ smoke particles and best character animations. The insane amounts of beautiful lens flare that even Battlefield 3 can't seem to get right. Wow this game was way ahead of it's time. In fact, it pushed the PS3 so far that even the XMB gets laggy. And No Uncharted 2 never beated Killzone 2 graphically. Colors Doesn't = Better graphics.

Bus-A-Bus

Is there a game that has more lens flares than Crysis 2 honestly?Crysis 2 is more impressive game,techincally.KZ2/3 don't have HDR,they have alot of baked lights and shadowss,Crysis 2=100% real time.

[QUOTE="rich-sac"]

All talk of Crysis 2 on consoles being non linear open world this and that...blah blah. How about try doing quater mile sized Multiplayer maps (Not single player where everything is scripted) with 32 players total, and I'm not even counting the turrets and sentry drones. All gun muzzle lighting creates shadows (list another console game that has this feature?)and all shotgun have an attached flashlight which creates shadows when shined on anything. All @720p (subHD is so last Gen) and even the framerate doesn't choke as bad as the Crysis 2 campaign, none the less the multiplayer. And yes the insane amounts of motion blur, both camera and per object, which is very taxing on hardware, complete with anti aliasing. Still have some of the best explosions/ smoke particles and best character animations. The insane amounts of beautiful lens flare that even Battlefield 3 can't seem to get right. Wow this game was way ahead of it's time. In fact, it pushed the PS3 so far that even the XMB gets laggy. And No Uncharted 2 never beated Killzone 2 graphically. Colors Doesn't = Better graphics.

Bus-A-Bus

Is there a game that has more lens flares than Crysis 2 honestly?Crysis 2 is more impressive game,techincally.KZ2/3 don't have HDR,they have alot of baked lights and shadowss,Crysis 2=100% real time.

KZ series is something I always want to like but in reality it is just a mediocre game not worth a full price purchase.

I didn't know people still played Killzone 2, I thought the community moved on to Killzone 3.

[QUOTE="IDoItLikeAboss"][QUOTE="rich-sac"]

2 character on screen in a super linear pathway, compared to 32 players on screen in a quarter mile sized map

You are clearly mega biased in favor of PS3 exclusives. Sorry, but inFamous 2 is not really that impressive. Other open world games such as Red Dead Redemption and Assassin's Creed both look much better. inFamous 2 has low res textures, poor draw distance (for an open world game), and lots of jaggies.

I forgot about the 32 character matches, outside of the lag switchers,I hater cheaters, there really isn't any lag to complain of in that game. If they would have gotten the controls taken care of in the first place then it would have been that much better. Although TC sounds a little off, he's actually... right. I'm going to pop in kz2 tonight.

KZ series is something I always want to like but in reality it is just a mediocre game not worth a full price purchase.

dovberg

[QUOTE="dotWithShoes"][QUOTE="rich-sac"]

All talk of Crysis 2 on consoles being non linear open world this and that...blah blah. How about try doing quater mile sized Multiplayer maps (Not single player where everything is scripted) with 32 players total, and I'm not even counting the turrets and sentry drones. All gun muzzle lighting creates shadows (list another console game that has this feature?)and all shotgun have an attached flashlight which creates shadows when shined on anything. All @720p (subHD is so last Gen) and even the framerate doesn't choke as bad as the Crysis 2 campaign, none the less the multiplayer. And yes the insane amounts of motion blur, both camera and per object, which is very taxing on hardware, complete with anti aliasing. Still have some of the best explosions/ smoke particles and best character animations. The insane amounts of beautiful lens flare that even Battlefield 3 can't seem to get right. Wow this game was way ahead of it's time. In fact, it pushed the PS3 so far that even the XMB gets laggy. And No Uncharted 2 never beated Killzone 2 graphically. Colors Doesn't = Better graphics.

rich-sac

7,000+ players on week days. 10,000+ on weekends

Where does one come by these numbers?Hexagon_777

lol, crysis 2 is easily better looking than kz2

I thought KZ3 looked better, but I guess a lot of you were fans of all that motion blur in KZ2. And yeah it does look better than Crysis 2, at least the console version.

[QUOTE="dotWithShoes"][QUOTE="rich-sac"]

All talk of Crysis 2 on consoles being non linear open world this and that...blah blah. How about try doing quater mile sized Multiplayer maps (Not single player where everything is scripted) with 32 players total, and I'm not even counting the turrets and sentry drones. All gun muzzle lighting creates shadows (list another console game that has this feature?)and all shotgun have an attached flashlight which creates shadows when shined on anything. All @720p (subHD is so last Gen) and even the framerate doesn't choke as bad as the Crysis 2 campaign, none the less the multiplayer. And yes the insane amounts of motion blur, both camera and per object, which is very taxing on hardware, complete with anti aliasing. Still have some of the best explosions/ smoke particles and best character animations. The insane amounts of beautiful lens flare that even Battlefield 3 can't seem to get right. Wow this game was way ahead of it's time. In fact, it pushed the PS3 so far that even the XMB gets laggy. And No Uncharted 2 never beated Killzone 2 graphically. Colors Doesn't = Better graphics.

rich-sac

7,000+ players on week days. 10,000+ on weekends

that's roughly Halo Wars' numbers

[QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]

I don't know what game is technically the most advanced console game, but I do know it isn't Crysis 2. The reason is because the game can't keep a steady framerate, so it's obvious the engine isn't capable of doing what it's trying to do. If the game ran smoothly, the situation may be different, but as it is it just isn't in the running because it doesn't perform properly while attempting to do "everything" in real time, which is a bunch of crap anyway.

kalipekona

People just pick and choose what is important. It's like me saying "Uncharted Drake's Fortune can't be considered a graphically impressive game because it has screen tearing".

Crysis 2 is undoubtedly more technically advanced than Killzone 2. On the other hand Killzone 2 runs a little better. Then again, Super Mario 64 also runs better than Crysis 2, but that doesn't mean that Crysis 2 doesn't look vastly better.

Not really. Screen tearing bothers some people more than others, but everyone dislikes choppy performance.

Crysis 2 simply doesn't work at the level it's trying to perform at. We don't play pictures, we play games in motion, and that's the only way we an judge the games we play.

[QUOTE="kalipekona"]

[QUOTE="Pug-Nasty"]

I don't know what game is technically the most advanced console game, but I do know it isn't Crysis 2. The reason is because the game can't keep a steady framerate, so it's obvious the engine isn't capable of doing what it's trying to do. If the game ran smoothly, the situation may be different, but as it is it just isn't in the running because it doesn't perform properly while attempting to do "everything" in real time, which is a bunch of crap anyway.

Pug-Nasty

People just pick and choose what is important. It's like me saying "Uncharted Drake's Fortune can't be considered a graphically impressive game because it has screen tearing".

Crysis 2 is undoubtedly more technically advanced than Killzone 2. On the other hand Killzone 2 runs a little better. Then again, Super Mario 64 also runs better than Crysis 2, but that doesn't mean that Crysis 2 doesn't look vastly better.

Not really. Screen tearing bothers some people more than others, but everyone dislikes choppy performance.

Crysis 2 simply doesn't work at the level it's trying to perform at. We don't play pictures, we play games in motion, and that's the only way we an judge the games we play.

and in the end all you said was your oppinion

Nope. technically, UC2 = GOW 3 > Killzone 2 = Killzone 3 = Crysis 2

Of course, Killzone 2 is breathtaking visually. It had poor textures, but the film grain and quincunx AA covered that nicely. So you didn't really notice the poor textures, and just saw Killzone 2 for all of its amazing volumetric lighting and effects, and its excellent visual style.

Killzone 3 on the other hand... you actually notice the **** textures, and it's no where near Kz2 visually. Of course, technically it's a different story but that doesn't matter.

1. Crysis 2

|

|

2. Uncharted 2

|

|

|

|

3. God of War 3

|

4. Killzone 3

|

5. Killzone 2

I going to go with what really matters here. The gameplay. In that respect I think Killzone 2 has a SLIGHT edge. Yes the controls were quite heavy but still worked when you got used to them BUT Killzone 2 has some fantastic AI. Crysis 2 AI has got to be some of the stupidest enemies I've ever seen Should be called "man in suit vs mentally handicapped alien race".

ALso Crysis 2 is VERY blurry. To the point of annoyance and I some times find it difficult to distinguish between the enemy and the background. But I guess that's mostly because the enemy is just a poorly programmed aimbot that can see you and hit you spot on with a pistol from 100 miles away.

Nope. technically, UC2 = GOW 3 > Killzone 2 = Killzone 3 = Crysis 2

Of course, Killzone 2 is breathtaking visually. It had poor textures, but the film grain and quincunx AA covered that nicely. So you didn't really notice the poor textures, and just saw Killzone 2 for all of its amazing volumetric lighting and effects, and its excellent visual style.

Killzone 3 on the other hand... you actually notice the **** textures, and it's no where near Kz2 visually. Of course, technically it's a different story but that doesn't matter.

theuncharted34

KZ3 has some of the best textures on consoles, almost borderline PC. even PC gamers agree that it looks great.....so people calling KZ3 sh*t textures are obvious mad fanboys. and NO way in hell is GOW3 more technical than the shooters. you have a fixed camera that cannot be rotated at all.

Crysis 2 is more technically advanced, but the overall picture and performance is better in KZ2/3. There's no need to do everything real-time with the limited console tech. And with KZ's hundreds of dynamic lights and awesome ambient occlusion you don't care if it was pre-baked or not unless you're hardcore hater.

Anyway, I really like the visual style of KZ2/3, it looks like a painting in motion with so many little details and stuff. KZ2 motion blur and QAA made it look very cinematic. KZ3 got sharper (a the cost of some jaggies) but still looks awesome anyway. Don't forget awesome environmental particle effects, some of the best animations in the genre, and teh juicy blood splashes.

Crysis 2 looks boring in comparison - same old fake plastic CG that I hate since the first Toy Story movie.

[QUOTE="dotWithShoes"][QUOTE="rich-sac"]

All talk of Crysis 2 on consoles being non linear open world this and that...blah blah. How about try doing quater mile sized Multiplayer maps (Not single player where everything is scripted) with 32 players total, and I'm not even counting the turrets and sentry drones. All gun muzzle lighting creates shadows (list another console game that has this feature?)and all shotgun have an attached flashlight which creates shadows when shined on anything. All @720p (subHD is so last Gen) and even the framerate doesn't choke as bad as the Crysis 2 campaign, none the less the multiplayer. And yes the insane amounts of motion blur, both camera and per object, which is very taxing on hardware, complete with anti aliasing. Still have some of the best explosions/ smoke particles and best character animations. The insane amounts of beautiful lens flare that even Battlefield 3 can't seem to get right. Wow this game was way ahead of it's time. In fact, it pushed the PS3 so far that even the XMB gets laggy. And No Uncharted 2 never beated Killzone 2 graphically. Colors Doesn't = Better graphics.

rich-sac

7,000+ players on week days. 10,000+ on weekends

So more people have played my inFamous 2 mission than are online at the same time in a multimillion dollar Sony blockbuster. Man I'm good!

And I thought it was Uncharted 2... And wouldn't KZ3 be more technically impressive than KZ2....

Im not getting into this argument but I will say other then player count in MP KZ3 romps KZ2 in every area. And I own both.

Crysis 2 is more technically advanced, but the overall picture and performance is better in KZ2/3. There's no need to do everything real-time with the limited console tech. And with KZ's hundreds of dynamic lights and awesome ambient occlusion you don't care if it was pre-baked or not unless you're hardcore hater.

Anyway, I really like the visual style of KZ2/3, it looks like a painting in motion with so many little details and stuff. KZ2 motion blur and QAA made it look very cinematic. KZ3 got sharper (a the cost of some jaggies) but still looks awesome anyway. Don't forget awesome environmental particle effects, some of the best animations in the genre, and teh juicy blood splashes.

Crysis 2 looks boring in comparison - same old fake plastic CG that I hate since the first Toy Story movie.

Orchid87

Crysis 2 isnt techniclay more advanced it runs at about 15 fps in some parts on the 360. KZ3 never seems to drop below 30.

Crysis 2 isnt techniclay more advanced it runs at about 15 fps in some parts on the 360. KZ3 never seems to drop below 30.

DevilAtrix

C2 has more "techy" features. Consoles just lack enough power for them. On the onther hand, KZ games are thoroughly console-optimised and happen to look better than console versions of C2.

I going to go with what really matters here. The gameplay. In that respect I think Killzone 2 has a SLIGHT edge. Yes the controls were quite heavy but still worked when you got used to them BUT Killzone 2 has some fantastic AI. Crysis 2 AI has got to be some of the stupidest enemies I've ever seen Should be called "man in suit vs mentally handicapped alien race".

ALso Crysis 2 is VERY blurry. To the point of annoyance and I some times find it difficult to distinguish between the enemy and the background. But I guess that's mostly because the enemy is just a poorly programmed aimbot that can see you and hit you spot on with a pistol from 100 miles away.

F1ame_Shie1d

I kind of feel bad for Crysis 2, because they have a ton to work on their hands as far as AI goes, arguably the most than any other game, and to have to pull that off with the high technical performance, I am glad that the AI were just challeging. I still remember the feeling I felt when I first saw a military truck circle around and get out of the car to search for me I was amazed at how cool a game it was. Besides the bugs in AI, they really did some pretty good work with the AI.

NO way in hell is GOW3 more technical than the shooters. you have a fixed camera that cannot be rotated at all.

rich-sac

I would agree, but the boss missions in GOW3 are really well done and really makes the game among those tier of shooters.

[QUOTE="soulitane"]I thought UC2 and Crysis 2 looked better than it.rich-sac

no. uc2 grafix are overrated cartoony, no AA, piss poor draw distance, 1mm thick texture crap with very over the top saturated colors to trick the eyes

Killzone 2 is a horrible game. SAGE_OF_FIRE

guessing you were playing a different game OR playing with fanboy goggles on..

Crysis 2 may have HDR and SSGI "a very gimped one at that on consoles", but sacrificed a ton in resolution, frame rate, image quality and pop ins. To me it goes like this: KZ3>Gow3>UC2=KZ2>Crysis 2 in overall technical prowess. gpuking

[QUOTE="Orchid87"]

Crysis 2 is more technically advanced, but the overall picture and performance is better in KZ2/3. There's no need to do everything real-time with the limited console tech. And with KZ's hundreds of dynamic lights and awesome ambient occlusion you don't care if it was pre-baked or not unless you're hardcore hater.

Anyway, I really like the visual style of KZ2/3, it looks like a painting in motion with so many little details and stuff. KZ2 motion blur and QAA made it look very cinematic. KZ3 got sharper (a the cost of some jaggies) but still looks awesome anyway. Don't forget awesome environmental particle effects, some of the best animations in the genre, and teh juicy blood splashes.

Crysis 2 looks boring in comparison - same old fake plastic CG that I hate since the first Toy Story movie.

Crysis 2 isnt techniclay more advanced it runs at about 15 fps in some parts on the 360. KZ3 never seems to drop below 30.

[QUOTE="IDoItLikeAboss"][QUOTE="rich-sac"]

no. uc2 grafix are overrated cartoony, no AA, piss poor draw distance, 1mm thick texture crap with very over the top saturated colors to trick the eyes

rich-sac

2 character on screen in a super linear pathway, compared to 32 players on screen in a quarter mile sized map

Twisted MEtal on PSX had quarter mile maps. Big deal. I want to say that there was a max player size of eight in that game though, but they were cars and had to move fast, so I think it is fair to say they are even. Let us not bring up Minion as he was more advanced than any game you like.

Crysis 2 consoles is not 100% realtime, only PC is. It is just as pre baked as kZ2 if not a little less. Lensoftruth and Crytek themselves confirmed thisrich-sac

Where's your link for Lenoftruth's "not 100% realtime" statement? I looked for Crysis 2, pre-baked, bake, baked in, Lensoftruth in google i.e. I waste my time proving peaple's claims.

Anyway, from http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2head-killzone-3-vs-crysis-2-analysis/

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.

The above Lensoftruth's statement is laughable since I run Crysis 2 just fine on non-SLI/non-CrossFire AMD Radeon HD 5730M(renamed to 6570M) beyond high settings.

Crysis 2 on AMD Radeon HD 5730M (26 watts)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOglL7kUwuk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5TcCkURFdg

Crysis 2 may have HDR and SSGI "a very gimped one at that on consoles", but sacrificed a ton in resolution, frame rate, image quality and pop ins. To me it goes like this: KZ3>Gow3>UC2=KZ2>Crysis 2 in overall technical prowess. gpuking

KZ2 and KZ3 are similar, all the things I mentioned are still done worse by KZ2. GG might have switched AA methods and optimized particle effects but the same things apply.ocstew

[QUOTE="ocstew"][QUOTE="gpuking"]Crysis 2 may have HDR and SSGI "a very gimped one at that on consoles", but sacrificed a ton in resolution, frame rate, image quality and pop ins. To me it goes like this: KZ3>Gow3>UC2=KZ2>Crysis 2 in overall technical prowess. gpuking

It is a HUGE part of it. I CANNOT STAND when developers choose box/magazine shots over framerate.

[QUOTE="rich-sac"]

[QUOTE="dotWithShoes"] People still play KZ2?dotWithShoes

7,000+ players on week days. 10,000+ on weekends

[QUOTE="dotWithShoes"][QUOTE="rich-sac"]

7,000+ players on week days. 10,000+ on weekends

campzor

The topic is which the most technically advanced game is. I wouldn't know really. All I know is that Killzone 3 has the most immersive graphical styleof all games I played. More so than KZ2 which is also an awsome game.

All I know is that Killzone 3 has the most immersive graphical styleof all games I played. More so than KZ2 which is also an awsome game.bostadskontrakt

true dat

...but if your system can't handle it or it doesn't balance out then it's as good as dead. gpuking

Are there frame dips? Yes. Are they impactful? Yes.

The frame dips that occur are impactful BUT THEIR EFFECTS ON THE OVERALL GAME IS NOT. Lol why is this so hard to understand? Digital Foundry has already explained this.

I don't see how all of that translates to using phrases like "it's as good as dead" LOL :lol: Exaggeration at its finest.

It's one thing to say that a personal pet-peeve may be that you can't stand frame dips and want your game to run flawlessly; but it's another story altogether when you seem to be erroneously trying to convey the message that the game as a whole is unplayable which is false.

Again...

Kz3 running better than Crysis 2 does not equate to Crysis 2 running in mud. The game even with those unoptimized areas still runs relatively smooth. You're trying to make the gaps in performance bigger than they actually are. I really have to wonder if you've truly played the game.

Meanwhile to me I think from a raw visual standpoint that Crysis 2 separates itself much farther from kz3 than from how much kz3 is seperating itself from Crysis 2 in terms of performance. Yes kz3 runs better but even then Crysis 2 is still running relatively smooth despite those unoptimized sections.

The performance argument would only hold water if the majority of the game was running in mud and truly unplayable. Obviously it doesn't matter how great a game looks if it averages 10FPS. But this isn't the case with Crysis 2 and you know it....especially if you've played the game. FAR from it.

....by the way in regards to the topic at hand here is what Digital Foundry had to say about Crysis 2 on the consoles....

"The crucial thing is that both are phenomenally attractive games,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."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CBd6QX8npsIDoItLikeAboss

Wow! I never realized how MUCH better Killzone 3 actually looks. The effect of granade exploding under water really showed huge difference between PS3 and 360 real potential.