Killzone 2 Vs. Crysis

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]

[QUOTE="lpjazzman220"]

im talkin like 1600p with fsaax16 on all enthusist settings, yeah it takes alot, maybe i was exaggerating, but im talkin comparin a game that takes some of the best computers in the world to run on max and comparing it to a console that cant even run directx10 and kz2 runs in 720p. there is no reasonfor this to be a competition is all im saying. crysis wins in graphics without a doubt. i personally think its more a tech demo than an acutal game cause i really think that the gameplay is mediocre, it was so hard for me to get through it twice, cause i just didnt enjoy it that much. kz2, on the other hand, i find myself playing for hours and not realizing it, plus, the mp is so much better on kz2. maybe it doesnt look nearly as good, but i think it is more fun to play

lpjazzman220

you dont even need AA at that resolution, its redundent. Not to mention that resoltuion is obsenly high, nobody even plays at that resolution.

And I find it kind of ironic that you call Crysis mediocre, considering how generic of a shooter KZ2 is. At least Crysis gives you a fair amount of choice, where as KZ2 is the the same linear shooter we have had for years.

Modern High end GPU's have no issue maxing out Crysis.

im just sayin what game i enjoyed more, you dont have to agree with me, but its my opinion. great that you have yours, but dont knock mine, im not knockin urs

really so its opinion now? cause it wasnt opinion before.

"but if u talk gameplay, then kz2 wins handsdown. if u talk emersiveness, kz2 wins handsdown."

or do you not remember that.

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]

[QUOTE="lpjazzman220"]

im just sayin what game i enjoyed more, you dont have to agree with me, but its my opinion. great that you have yours, but dont knock mine, im not knockin urs

lpjazzman220

really so its opinion now? cause it wasnt opinion before.

"but if u talk gameplay, then kz2 wins handsdown. if u talk emersiveness, kz2 wins handsdown."

or do you not remember that.

i do remember, sorry i guess i need to add imo before everything now, because pricks like you are gonna get poed at me. imo "but if you talk gameplay, then kz2 wins handsdown, if you talk emersiveness, kz2 wins handsdown." is that better?

given the immense stupidity of the rest of that Post,...its pretty hard to take you seriously regarding anything you say anymore.

[QUOTE="lpjazzman220"]

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]

really so its opinion now? cause it wasnt opinion before.

"but if u talk gameplay, then kz2 wins handsdown. if u talk emersiveness, kz2 wins handsdown."

or do you not remember that.

cobrax75

i do remember, sorry i guess i need to add imo before everything now, because pricks like you are gonna get poed at me. imo "but if you talk gameplay, then kz2 wins handsdown, if you talk emersiveness, kz2 wins handsdown." is that better?

given the immense stupidity of the rest of that Post,...its pretty hard to take you seriously regarding anything you say anymore.

okay, i know there are fools out there that have to max everything, hence why there is triple sli and quad crossfire. im just saying, if the game takes that much to max that much, i know u dont need to max it like that for it to look better. i play it at medium-low settings and i think it is on par with kz2. so fine think i am an idiot, i do happen to a know alittle bit about what i speak. my friend gets poed when he cant max a game. he has baught 3 completely new setups in the past 2 years because of this. he can max crysis at 1600p with his triple sli setup, and it takes that much, i promise. it doesnt need to be that high, cause i dont really see that much of a visual boost, its just braggin rights at that point. above say 1200, it think it doesnt matter much anymore. so what i didnt like the way crysis played, i liked the gameplay in killzone better, so what. get over yourselves, its not like its the end of the world if crysis isnt the best game ever, and btw, it dontn think killzone is the best, the best is ut '99

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]

[QUOTE="lpjazzman220"]

i do remember, sorry i guess i need to add imo before everything now, because pricks like you are gonna get poed at me. imo "but if you talk gameplay, then kz2 wins handsdown, if you talk emersiveness, kz2 wins handsdown." is that better?

lpjazzman220

given the immense stupidity of the rest of that Post,...its pretty hard to take you seriously regarding anything you say anymore.

okay, i know there are fools out there that have to max everything, hence why there is triple sli and quad crossfire. im just saying, if the game takes that much to max that much, i know u dont need to max it like that for it to look better. i play it at medium-low settings and i think it is on par with kz2. so fine think i am an idiot, i do happen to a know alittle bit about what i speak. my friend gets poed when he cant max a game. he has baught 3 completely new setups in the past 2 years because of this. he can max crysis at 1600p with his triple sli setup, and it takes that much, i promise. it doesnt need to be that high, cause i dont really see that much of a visual boost, its just braggin rights at that point. above say 1200, it think it doesnt matter much anymore. so what i didnt like the way crysis played, i liked the gameplay in killzone better, so what. get over yourselves, its not like its the end of the world if crysis isnt the best game ever, and btw, it dontn think killzone is the best, the best is ut '99

sounds like your friend is as foolish as you are...considering that Crysis at this point can be maxed out pretty flawlessly by a single GPU. Seriously why are you still even posting? its obvious that you have no idea at all what your talking about.

BTW, tell your made up friend this...No game (including crysis) is optimized for a 3-way SLI. At this point, 3-way SLI is utterly useless, at best its only going to give you a minor performence boast over 2-way SLI.

[QUOTE="lpjazzman220"]

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]

given the immense stupidity of the rest of that Post,...its pretty hard to take you seriously regarding anything you say anymore.

cobrax75

okay, i know there are fools out there that have to max everything, hence why there is triple sli and quad crossfire. im just saying, if the game takes that much to max that much, i know u dont need to max it like that for it to look better. i play it at medium-low settings and i think it is on par with kz2. so fine think i am an idiot, i do happen to a know alittle bit about what i speak. my friend gets poed when he cant max a game. he has baught 3 completely new setups in the past 2 years because of this. he can max crysis at 1600p with his triple sli setup, and it takes that much, i promise. it doesnt need to be that high, cause i dont really see that much of a visual boost, its just braggin rights at that point. above say 1200, it think it doesnt matter much anymore. so what i didnt like the way crysis played, i liked the gameplay in killzone better, so what. get over yourselves, its not like its the end of the world if crysis isnt the best game ever, and btw, it dontn think killzone is the best, the best is ut '99

sounds like your friend is as foolish as you are...considering that Crysis at this point can be maxed out pretty flawlessly by a single GPU. Seriously why are you still even posting? its obvious that you have no idea at all what your talking about.

BTW, tell your made up friend this...No game (including crysis) is optimized for a 3-way SLI. At this point, 3-way SLI is utterly useless, at best its only going to give you a minor performence boast over 2-way SLI.

you know what, nevermind, you guys are just crysis fanboys. i know he is an idiot to do it, ive told him so, but look at my system and tell me what i know about sli, cmon, im just goin on what ive been told and what ive seen okay.

[QUOTE="cobrax75"]

[QUOTE="lpjazzman220"]

okay, i know there are fools out there that have to max everything, hence why there is triple sli and quad crossfire. im just saying, if the game takes that much to max that much, i know u dont need to max it like that for it to look better. i play it at medium-low settings and i think it is on par with kz2. so fine think i am an idiot, i do happen to a know alittle bit about what i speak. my friend gets poed when he cant max a game. he has baught 3 completely new setups in the past 2 years because of this. he can max crysis at 1600p with his triple sli setup, and it takes that much, i promise. it doesnt need to be that high, cause i dont really see that much of a visual boost, its just braggin rights at that point. above say 1200, it think it doesnt matter much anymore. so what i didnt like the way crysis played, i liked the gameplay in killzone better, so what. get over yourselves, its not like its the end of the world if crysis isnt the best game ever, and btw, it dontn think killzone is the best, the best is ut '99

lpjazzman220

sounds like your friend is as foolish as you are...considering that Crysis at this point can be maxed out pretty flawlessly by a single GPU. Seriously why are you still even posting? its obvious that you have no idea at all what your talking about.

BTW, tell your made up friend this...No game (including crysis) is optimized for a 3-way SLI. At this point, 3-way SLI is utterly useless, at best its only going to give you a minor performence boast over 2-way SLI.

you know what, nevermind, you guys are just crysis fanboys. i know he is an idiot to do it, ive told him so, but look at my system and tell me what i know about sli, cmon, im just goin on what ive been told and what ive seen okay.

I would hope so considering nothing youve been told or seen appears to be even remotly accurate.

The problem isn't us being "Crysis fanboys" so much as it is you going off topic, and it's no ones fault but your own if people have mistaken your intent becasue of it. This thread exists solely to compare Crysis and Killzone 2 from a graphical standpoint, not to argue which has subjectively better gameplay. If you prefer Killzone 2 for its gameplay, that's all well and good. But no one here cares.

xDimMaK

You could say that no one gives a crap about the visuals either, but we know that is false because of the flood of the Crysis pictures coming from people taking it personaly. The only thing about the graphics comparison is that they can be proven, when gameplay is comepletly subjective.

So yeah, there are obviously a lot of people here who care enough about Crysis to search the internet or do screen grabs from there own PC's enough to post them on a site. And going from the topic title it says, "Killzone 2 Vs Crysis" Now where in the title do you hewre it talking about graphics? Since its not in the title I can see nothing wrong with doing a gameplay comparison either.

You could say that, but it'd be irrelevant since this topic has clearly been about Crysis vs Killzone 2 graphics since the very first post.

xDimMaK

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="Trmpt"]

You are refuring to PC video game sales. Originaly you were implying that most laptops are bought to play games on, which they arnt.

Oh and I only own a 360, not a PS3.

Trmpt

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/54128

"PCs Played More Than Any Console,"

PC's apparently are played more, but to say that most PC's that are sold are used to play games is most likely false.

"For the year, worldwide PC shipments totaled 302.2 million units, a 10.9 percent increase from 2007, with almost all of that coming in the first three quarters of the year. The top five ranking remained unchanged compared to 2007, with HP on top, followed by a resurgent Dell."

Link

That is more tan all console sales combined. do you really think that most of them are used to play games?

If you compared the percentages of the people that buy consoles to play games to the percentage of PC's that are bought to play games the consoles would most likely win.

Intel holds about 50 percent of the PC GPU market i.e. about 150 million PCs.

Why not combine PS2 and PS3 as a single "PlayStation" platform? That is PS3 is backwards compatible with PS2. PS2's graphics is worst than FarCry1 PC edition.

The stats are;

1 ."PCs Played More Than Any Console,"

2. PC is largest single gaming platform i.e. both revenue and annual unit sales.

There's a higher probability that "gaming capable" PCs plays HD games.

Percentage is irrelevant when PC's base number is considerably higher than the entire "Playstation" base number.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/54128

"PCs Played More Than Any Console,"

PC's apparently are played more, but to say that most PC's that are sold are used to play games is most likely false.

"For the year, worldwide PC shipments totaled 302.2 million units, a 10.9 percent increase from 2007, with almost all of that coming in the first three quarters of the year. The top five ranking remained unchanged compared to 2007, with HP on top, followed by a resurgent Dell."

Link

That is more tan all console sales combined. do you really think that most of them are used to play games?

If you compared the percentages of the people that buy consoles to play games to the percentage of PC's that are bought to play games the consoles would most likely win.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="Trmpt"]

PC's apparently are played more, but to say that most PC's that are sold are used to play games is most likely false.

"For the year, worldwide PC shipments totaled 302.2 million units, a 10.9 percent increase from 2007, with almost all of that coming in the first three quarters of the year. The top five ranking remained unchanged compared to 2007, with HP on top, followed by a resurgent Dell."

Link

That is more tan all console sales combined. do you really think that most of them are used to play games?

If you compared the percentages of the people that buy consoles to play games to the percentage of PC's that are bought to play games the consoles would most likely win.

Trmpt

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="Trmpt"]

PC's apparently are played more, but to say that most PC's that are sold are used to play games is most likely false.

"For the year, worldwide PC shipments totaled 302.2 million units, a 10.9 percent increase from 2007, with almost all of that coming in the first three quarters of the year. The top five ranking remained unchanged compared to 2007, with HP on top, followed by a resurgent Dell."

Link

That is more tan all console sales combined. do you really think that most of them are used to play games?

If you compared the percentages of the people that buy consoles to play games to the percentage of PC's that are bought to play games the consoles would most likely win.

Trmpt

Top5 GPUs according to Stream

NVIDIA GeForce 8800 (+0.23%) 18.11%

NVIDIA GeForce 8600 (-0.28%) 11.52%

ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series (+1.17%) 10.71%

NVIDIA GeForce 9800 (+0.56%) 8.84%

NVIDIA GeForce 9600 (-0.13%) 7.11%

==================================

56.29 percent

We could estimate GeForce 8600M (G84M) unit sales based on NVIDIA's $196M for bad GPU replacement.

What Im trying to say is that there are tons of more computers sold, so it is going to be used to do a variety of things, games being one of them. And when they get the statistics of people that do use it to play games, that poll should be diverse. This would let us know if they said yes that they do play games because they play some solitaire every now and then, or yes because they play games that nearly make their computer explode. I think the results would surprise you.

Console Graphic King For sure, not better then crysis tho. but not that far from it

[QUOTE="Hanass"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"] To make matters worse, he posts MGS4 screens that look great and not very good Crysis screens, LOL. To make matters worse, MGS4 only uses AA and isn't in 720p, it's less, LOL.

Ribnarak

You shouldn't say that because all he'll do is say "99.9999999% of PC's can't run Crysis above very low" proving once again that he probably can't use a calculator at school.

i think the guy was being sarcastic. Hes actually kinda right, most people will not be able to run crysis at a desirable rate. And from what ive seen, the crysis pics look better (however some look horrible, pixelated trees, etc) but with only crazy pcs that most, and i quote "MOST" people will not have.

Most people dont have a PS3! Whats your point?

Console Graphic King For sure, not better then crysis tho. but not that far from it

YekDastan316

Well it can start by having real colors, not just grays...

Killzone 2 has about 340+ MORE dynamic lights than Crysis. Killzone 2 has higher detailed gun models than Crysis. Killzone 2 has discrete 7.1 LPCM audio that Crysis doesn't. Killzone 2 has physics based WEATHER that Crysis doesn't have. Killzone 2 has ray-tracing on EVERY bullet hole and Crysis does not. Killzone 2 has PER PIXEL BLUR and physics on particles from gun fire...Crysis does NOT..

acemasta21

[QUOTE="acemasta21"]

Killzone 2 has about 340+ MORE dynamic lights than Crysis. Killzone 2 has higher detailed gun models than Crysis. Killzone 2 has discrete 7.1 LPCM audio that Crysis doesn't. Killzone 2 has physics based WEATHER that Crysis doesn't have. Killzone 2 has ray-tracing on EVERY bullet hole and Crysis does not. Killzone 2 has PER PIXEL BLUR and physics on particles from gun fire...Crysis does NOT..

tylergamereview

No, Crysis does have everything he said. In fact, all of these are pretty standard for today's game. He's just copy/pasting the techno jargon of the devs to sound smart.

[QUOTE="YekDastan316"]

Console Graphic King For sure, not better then crysis tho. but not that far from it

Hanass

Well it can start by having real colors, not just grays...

[QUOTE="Hanass"]

[QUOTE="YekDastan316"]

Console Graphic King For sure, not better then crysis tho. but not that far from it

YekDastan316

Well it can start by having real colors, not just grays...

No green = no plants. No plants = where the hell does the oxygen come from? Plancton alone won't be enough...

[QUOTE="tylergamereview"][QUOTE="acemasta21"]

Killzone 2 has about 340+ MORE dynamic lights than Crysis. Killzone 2 has higher detailed gun models than Crysis. Killzone 2 has discrete 7.1 LPCM audio that Crysis doesn't. Killzone 2 has physics based WEATHER that Crysis doesn't have. Killzone 2 has ray-tracing on EVERY bullet hole and Crysis does not. Killzone 2 has PER PIXEL BLUR and physics on particles from gun fire...Crysis does NOT..

No, Crysis does have everything he said. In fact, all of these are pretty standard for today's game. He's just copy/pasting the techno jargon of the devs to sound smart.

KZ2 or UC2 dont come close to Crysis at all. This has been proven like 999999 times. Why is this thread still going on?

[QUOTE="YekDastan316"]

[QUOTE="Hanass"]

Well it can start by having real colors, not just grays...

Hanass

No green = no plants. No plants = where the hell does the oxygen come from? Plancton alone won't be enough...

Said it before, and I'll say it again... next-gen console games wont come close to Crysis (you know, the game that was released 2007). Not only graphics-wise, but also resolution-wise, physics-wise, everything-wise. Capiche? Capiche...

[QUOTE="Hanass"]

[QUOTE="YekDastan316"]but thats how the world of killzone is...thats how the planet that ther on is. just becasue it doesnt have lush green doesnt mean anything. just not ur taste

mitu123

No green = no plants. No plants = where the hell does the oxygen come from? Plancton alone won't be enough...

Heh, but the human soldiers don't use masks while fighting on the planet... and they sure as hell need oxygen.

No green = no plants. No plants = where the hell does the oxygen come from? Plancton alone won't be enough...

Hanass

Heh, but the human soldiers don't use masks while fighting on the planet... and they sure as hell need oxygen.

wapahala

[QUOTE="mitu123"][QUOTE="Hanass"]

No green = no plants. No plants = where the hell does the oxygen come from? Plancton alone won't be enough...

wapahala

Heh, but the human soldiers don't use masks while fighting on the planet... and they sure as hell need oxygen.

[QUOTE="wapahala"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"] It's strange, but it's on Helghan and the Helghast are basically mutated soldiers, plus they use masks to breathe as well, it's hard to explain.mitu123

Heh, but the human soldiers don't use masks while fighting on the planet... and they sure as hell need oxygen.

They probably have some kind of explanation... But I guarantee you that it doesn't really make any sense.

[QUOTE="mitu123"][QUOTE="wapahala"]

Heh, but the human soldiers don't use masks while fighting on the planet... and they sure as hell need oxygen.

wapahala

They probably have some kind of explanation... But I guarantee you that it doesn't really make any sense.

no wonder i lose faith on the ps3 "fans" daily Dante2710

You said it.

[QUOTE="acemasta21"][QUOTE="Dante2710"]no wonder i lose faith on the ps3 "fans" daily BoloTheGreat

Yeah, fosho. and BTW, Crysis has Perpixel motion blur.

Crysis > KZ2 graphically.

Fact.

Accept it.

Crysis all the way man.

[QUOTE="acemasta21"]

Killzone 2 has about 340+ MORE dynamic lights than Crysis. Killzone 2 has higher detailed gun models than Crysis. Killzone 2 has discrete 7.1 LPCM audio that Crysis doesn't. Killzone 2 has physics based WEATHER that Crysis doesn't have. Killzone 2 has ray-tracing on EVERY bullet hole and Crysis does not. Killzone 2 has PER PIXEL BLUR and physics on particles from gun fire...Crysis does NOT..

biggest_loser

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"][QUOTE="acemasta21"]

Killzone 2 has about 340+ MORE dynamic lights than Crysis. Killzone 2 has higher detailed gun models than Crysis. Killzone 2 has discrete 7.1 LPCM audio that Crysis doesn't. Killzone 2 has physics based WEATHER that Crysis doesn't have. Killzone 2 has ray-tracing on EVERY bullet hole and Crysis does not. Killzone 2 has PER PIXEL BLUR and physics on particles from gun fire...Crysis does NOT..

imprezawrx500

[QUOTE="imprezawrx500"][QUOTE="biggest_loser"] I'm just wondering: I haven't played KZ2 but is it a massive open world environment with vehicles? I'm just wondering. I don't have a PS3. BoloTheGreat

i agree with you. it was okay. not as good as crysis, but kz2 doesnt deserve all the hate it gets. You have to understand though, when people come in violently yelling about how KZ2 looks and plays better than crysis when its not true, they deserve to get yelled back at and have there topics flooded with crysis screenshots.

[QUOTE="YekDastan316"]

[QUOTE="Hanass"]

Well it can start by having real colors, not just grays...

Hanass

No green = no plants. No plants = where the hell does the oxygen come from? Plancton alone won't be enough...

Actually, you could. Phytoplankton provide quite a large proportion of the Earth's oxygen. Here on earth, if there were no trees, plants and other life that rely on photosynthesis CO2 would become much more abundant in the atmosphere and O2 levels would drop. Thats because there is already a large proportion of aerobic life. Basically, the balance would shift to life that breaths in oxygen and exhales CO2.

Take phytoplankton to a new ecosytem with a much smaller biosphere, where there is a much smaller volume of oxygen breathing life forms then in theory it could balance.

Killzone 2 has about 340+ MORE dynamic lights than Crysis. Killzone 2 has higher detailed gun models than Crysis. Killzone 2 has discrete 7.1 LPCM audio that Crysis doesn't. Killzone 2 has physics based WEATHER that Crysis doesn't have. Killzone 2 has ray-tracing on EVERY bullet hole and Crysis does not. Killzone 2 has PER PIXEL BLUR and physics on particles from gun fire...Crysis does NOT..

acemasta21