Killzone 2 Vs. Crysis

"Crysis screens from i7 @ 4.2 GHz, 12 GB Corsair Dominator and Tri SLI BFG GTX 280 OC @ 1920x1200 with 16QAA*"

:lol:

K. That's it? Let me see if my techno jargon is up to code. You're saying that those screens come from a "PC" (you built yourself) which has 3 GPU's? And each GPU alone is supposed to be 2-3 times as powerful as a PS3? Hee hee? And A 7 core 4.ghz processor? And 12 gigs of system ram? With the game modded to improve performance?

Seriously? Wow I heard vista is aresource hog but I didn't know it was that bad.

This is Killzone 2 running on any old PS3 right out the box:

and a gif for those who'll no doubt want to scream bullshots:

I dunno, It's gotta be "teh cell". :)

MegajerkNYC

hmm...weird...all i see is some greyish low res blur

"Crysis screens from i7 @ 4.2 GHz, 12 GB Corsair Dominator and Tri SLI BFG GTX 280 OC @ 1920x1200 with 16QAA*"

:lol:

K. That's it? Let me see if my techno jargon is up to code. You're saying that those screens come from a "PC" (you built yourself) which has 3 GPU's? And each GPU alone is supposed to be 2-3 times as powerful as a PS3? Hee hee? And A 7 core 4.ghz processor? And 12 gigs of system ram? With the game modded to improve performance?

Seriously? Wow I heard vista is aresource hog but I didn't know it was that bad.

MegajerkNYC

"Crysis screens from i7 @ 4.2 GHz, 12 GB Corsair Dominator and Tri SLI BFG GTX 280 OC @ 1920x1200 with 16QAA*"

:lol:

*pics*

K. That's it? Let me see if my techno jargon is up to code. You're saying that those screens come from a "PC" (you built yourself) which has 3 GPU's? And each GPU alone is supposed to be 2-3 times as powerful as a PS3? Hee hee? And A 7 core 4.ghz processor? And 12 gigs of system ram? With the game modded to improve performance?

Seriously? Wow I heard vista is aresource hog but I didn't know it was that bad.

This is Killzone 2 running on any old PS3 right out the box:

and a gif for those who'll no doubt want to scream bullshots:

*gif*

I dunno, It's gotta be "teh cell". :)

MegajerkNYC

Do you seriously think that those Killzone pics look better than the Crysis ones?

Crysis is an open world game, day/night cycle, better water, textures have a much better resolution, character models are alot better, detail is alot better, bump mapping , depth of field. Clouds are actual clouds, as in, puffs. They are actual 3d stuff. Water looks amazing. Have you seen Crysis underwater, there are fish and coral reefs. Directx 10 makes it look gorgeous.

This is why cows are the most hated faction on SW. They are by far the most annoying, trying to justify their purchase.

And people say hermits love to show Crysis pics and are the ones that make these threads. :roll:

"Crysis screens from i7 @ 4.2 GHz, 12 GB Corsair Dominator and Tri SLI BFG GTX 280 OC @ 1920x1200 with 16QAA*"

:lol:

K. That's it? Let me see if my techno jargon is up to code. You're saying that those screens come from a "PC" (you built yourself) which has 3 GPU's? And each GPU alone is supposed to be 2-3 times as powerful as a PS3? Hee hee? And A 7 core 4.ghz processor? And 12 gigs of system ram? With the game modded to improve performance?

Seriously? Wow I heard vista is aresource hog but I didn't know it was that bad.

This is Killzone 2 running on any old PS3 right out the box:

and a gif for those who'll no doubt want to scream bullshots:

I dunno, It's gotta be "teh cell". :)

MegajerkNYC

They all look like crap when compared to Crysis, especially the animated gif. Just make it 10 times bigger (like it's supposed to be on a TV)... Oh wait, you won't see anything if you do that, nevermind. Deal with it, you're ignorance about computer hardware won't let you understand or afford a PC that can play Crysis, so you try to bash it with blatantly ridiculous "facts" that even a monkey would know are false. Oh, and for your convenience, I bolded part that is irrefutable proof. I won't even comment on those, especially that "7 core CPU" comment.

Just hang in there mate, maybe one day you'll get a nice job or something!

Let me guess, you're going to respond with something like "Haha hermits are all grafix whorezzz (*cough* TC is a cow *cough*)" or "I don't want to pay 25871395681349560 dollars, so **** off (same old, same old)" or "Get a life, PC no-lifer/geek/nerd! (People should abuse this one more often, but I don't see it happening)" or "I'd rather play the PS3 instead of looking at the Blue screen lulz (same old, same old)" or "Killzone 2 looks good enough, so I'm not paying 345607234690234790 dollars for a PC! (By the way, if you try that, that's changing a subject that you brought up yourself. We all know what that means :) )". I've seen every single mindless claim consolites can bring up, and these quotes pretty much sum them all up. Which will it be? Pick one.

[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..

atgamefan274

Just imagine (bear with me everyone!) if Kizone 2 was on PC :shock:. Yeah. That's right. I went there.

I cant believe you actually just went there.

*hurls the book titled "Insults to hurl at people who just went there" at atgamefan274*

MegajerkNYC, what's up with that one screen above the cool looking gif?

facepalm* you know NOTHING do you? the i7 920 i possess is a quad core with hyper-threading (AKA 8 logical cores)

And 12 gigs of system ram? [\QUOTE]

any problem? video rendering i do is hard work without them, crysis only uses 2 gigs tops

With the game modded to improve performance? [\QUOTE]

WRONG. it's modded to improve visuals, not to mention, it's running with a little something the PS3 hasnt heard of called 16Q anti aliasing, turning this off wold almost double the FPS... not to mention, i run nearly 60 FPS most of the time, and alas, KZ2 is always below 30.

Seriously? Wow I heard vista is aresource hog but I didn't know it was that bad.[\QUOTE]

i use a modified Win 7 theme, looks better than vista and cuts the ram usage to just over half of normal.

oh and, when i played KZ2, i thought i needed glasses, there is blur everywhere to disguise the horrible textures and shoddy, pre-rendered, static shadows

[QUOTE="MegajerkNYC"]

"Crysis screens from i7 @ 4.2 GHz, 12 GB Corsair Dominator and Tri SLI BFG GTX 280 OC @ 1920x1200 with 16QAA*"

:lol:

*pics*

K. That's it? Let me see if my techno jargon is up to code. You're saying that those screens come from a "PC" (you built yourself) which has 3 GPU's? And each GPU alone is supposed to be 2-3 times as powerful as a PS3? Hee hee? And A 7 core 4.ghz processor? And 12 gigs of system ram? With the game modded to improve performance?

Seriously? Wow I heard vista is aresource hog but I didn't know it was that bad.

This is Killzone 2 running on any old PS3 right out the box:

and a gif for those who'll no doubt want to scream bullshots:

*gif*

I dunno, It's gotta be "teh cell". :)

darkguy_101

Do you seriously think that those Killzone pics look better than the Crysis ones?

Crysis is an open world game, day/night cycle, better water, textures have a much better resolution, character models are alot better, detail is alot better, bump mapping , depth of field. Clouds are actual clouds, as in, puffs. They are actual 3d stuff. Water looks amazing. Have you seen Crysis underwater, there are fish and coral reefs. Directx 10 makes it look gorgeous.

This is why cows are the most hated faction on SW. They are by far the most annoying, trying to justify their purchase.

And people say hermits love to show Crysis pics and are the ones that make these threads. :roll:

Red: true, but he won't listen to you

Blue: don't make the obvious too obvious

And 12 gigs of system ram?

With the game modded to improve performance?

Seriously? Wow I heard vista is aresource hog but I didn't know it was that bad.

facepalm* you know NOTHING do you? the i7 920 i possess is a quad core with hyper-threading (AKA 8 logical cores)

any problem? video rendering i do is hard work without them, crysis only uses 2 gigs tops

WRONG. it's modded to improve visuals, not to mention, it's running with a little something the PS3 hasnt heard of called 16Q anti aliasing, turning this off wold almost double the FPS... not to mention, i run nearly 60 FPS most of the time, and alas, KZ2 is always below 30.

i use a modified Win 7 theme, looks better than vista and cuts the ram usage to just over half of normal.

oh and, when i played KZ2, i thought i needed glasses, there is blur everywhere to disguise the horrible textures and shoddy, pre-rendered, static shadows

GTR2addict

PLease don't tell me you took him seriously...

MegaJerkNYC has done it now.....

Crysis is way beond KZ2, so is muc on the PC. Some schooling is in order.

It's Clear Sky time Beaches! and if he comes back at me, ill hit him with some ARMAII. This is our department. Your cell can crawl back to the power PC Cave from whence it came!

Clear Sky. For all the Cows.

Oh wow 16XAA that would be impressive if you didn't have 3 gpu's phushing that out. If that's the kind of tech it takes to make games look almost as good as Killzone 2 then this console generation's gonna definately be afound for another 10 years.

Oh wow 16XAA that would be impressive if you didn't have 3 gpu's phushing that out. If that's the kind of tech it takes to make games look almost as good as Killzone 2 then this console generation's gonna definately be afound for another 10 years.

MegajerkNYC

Oh wow 16XAA that would be impressive if you didn't have 3 gpu's phushing that out. If that's the kind of tech it takes to make games look almost as good as Killzone 2 then this console generation's gonna definately be afound for another 10 years.

MegajerkNYC

please...there's no need for more screenshots really...the first screens of stalker SoC should be more than enough to own these mad cows for the rest of the generation. Save the other game screens for when they actually have something to compete with...probably on ps4 or 5.codename-R

[QUOTE="GTR2addict"]

*sigh* *goes to pick up modded Crysis screens from i7 @ 4.2 GHz, 12 GB Corsair Dominator and Tri SLI BFG GTX 280 OC @ 1920x1200 with 16QAA*

Silenthps

IM SORRY, DID SOMEONE MENTION KZ2? Seriously, anyone who says KZ2 comes close to this needs an anti fanboy pill or new eyes.

Oh wow 16XAA that would be impressive if you didn't have 3 gpu's phushing that out. If that's the kind of tech it takes to make games look almost as good as Killzone 2 then this console generation's gonna definately be afound for another 10 years.

MegajerkNYC

MegaJerkNYC has done it now.....

Crysis is way beond KZ2, so is muc on the PC. Some schooling is in order.

It's Clear Sky time Beaches! and if he comes back at me, ill hit him with some ARMAII. This is our department. Your cell can crawl back to the power PC Cave from whence it came!

Clear Sky. For all the Cows.

BoloTheGreat

It see makes me mad how people can bash consoles by comparing them to what their upgradable rival is capable of producing over the course of a certain amount of time.

If consoles released every year these discussions would be so much better. But yearly console releases will thankfully never happen.

It wouldn't need three gpu's and an i7 if it were to run on the same pathethic settings your precious killzone runs at. You know...720p with less than 30fps and almost 0x aa that is just covered up by an absurd and riduculously ugly amount of motion blur...oh AND GREY xDcodename-R

http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/12/09/1080p-charted-viewing-distance-to-screen-size/

This is what Crysis looks like on 99.9999% of PC's:

Vs.

on every PS3

This is what Crysis looks like on 99.9999% of PC's:

MegajerkNYC

Jesus, I'm a **** CONSOLITE and you're forcing me to post a Crysis screen. I'm going to need a **** shower after this. This is about what it looked like maxed-out on my machine, but it only ran 30fps at 1200x800, and not a very steady 30fps at that.

This is what Crysis looks like on 99.9999% of PC's:

Vs.

on every PS3

MegajerkNYC

I thought you would've ignore my post... Anyways, I'll just repeat what I said: just because your ignorance/poverty doesn't allow you to get a $600-$700 PC that can max Crysis, doesn't mean that everyone is as ignorant as you and thinks that PS3 is the best. I can't believe you're even trying to play that card...

i thought i'd fiddle around some more to see what kind of cunning and intelligent response i will get.

This is what Crysis looks like on 99.9999% of PC's:

MegajerkNYC

That was true in 2007 but definitly not now.

This is what Crysis looks like on 99.9999% of PC's:

on every PS3

MegajerkNYC

Oh i know this game, this is what KZ2 looks like om my PC.

I see you have switched to Uncharted Bullshots now too

well here is waht Crysis would look like on the PS3

I can play this game too ;)

This is what Crysis looks like on 99.9999% of PC's:

Vs.

on every PS3

MegajerkNYC

Why is it comments of such absolute ignorance like this are tolerated in SW; but pointing out how [censored] they are gets you moderated?

Comments like this should be a moderatable offense, they are practically flame baiting.

"Crysis screens from i7 @ 4.2 GHz, 12 GB Corsair Dominator and Tri SLI BFG GTX 280 OC @ 1920x1200 with 16QAA*"

:lol:

K. That's it? Let me see if my techno jargon is up to code. You're saying that those screens come from a "PC" (you built yourself) which has 3 GPU's? And each GPU alone is supposed to be 2-3 times as powerful as a PS3? Hee hee? And A 7 core 4.ghz processor? And 12 gigs of system ram? With the game modded to improve performance?

Seriously? Wow I heard vista is aresource hog but I didn't know it was that bad.

This is Killzone 2 running on any old PS3 right out the box:

and a gif for those who'll no doubt want to scream bullshots:

I dunno, It's gotta be "teh cell". :)

MegajerkNYC

okay well this was capped on my 300$ dell with a cheap 50$ 9500gt thrown in

how much did you pay for your PS3 again?

You're just a terrible customer who got ripped off by Sony and trying to justify his purchase. You don't need know what a computer is, and you still think that you're right. There are limits to how ignorant a person can be before he/she cannot be taken seriously, and you crossed that line a loooooooooooooooooooooong time ago with your first thread that you made.

This is what Crysis looks like on 99.9999% of PC's:

Vs.

on every PS3

MegajerkNYC

You are wrong.

this is what crysis looks like on my secondary rig (sig rig, Q6600 at 3.2, 4 gigs of DDr2 and radeon HD 4850, 1680x1050, all high, no AA)

mind you, unmodded, and, with that PC being worth less than 700$

PC owners usually dont bash consoles. It's the other way around actually. Im fine with consoles, hell i love them, but they just can't compare to what pc can produce graphically and that should be accepted by every reasonable console owner. Upgradeability can be both a pro and a con in pc gaming depending on how easily you can keep up with technology. This also applies to consoles sadly for cows. With consoles you dont need to(or can't) upgrade your system to play the latest games, but you also cant play them in their full potential and glory and gameplay and graphics gets compromised because of that. PD:Does anyone else here think that pc and wii owners are usually the most mature and level headed group of SW. The irony is that they are also the minoritycodename-R

True, but you have to admit that what the consoles are pulling off with the hardware they have is just amazing.

Crysis: Infinitely better graphics

KZ2: Infinitely better multiplayer.

[QUOTE="MegajerkNYC"]

This is what Crysis looks like on 99.9999% of PC's:

Trmpt

That was true in 2007 but definitly not now.

[QUOTE="Trmpt"]

[QUOTE="MegajerkNYC"]

This is what Crysis looks like on 99.9999% of PC's:

BoloTheGreat

That was true in 2007 but definitly not now.

It wasnt 99.99% but it was most likely in the 90s.

It's when this specific fanboy group tries to claim ownage over a more powerfull system that the crysis screens start flooding the forums, make no mistake sw posterscodename-R

[QUOTE="BoloTheGreat"]

[QUOTE="Trmpt"]

That was true in 2007 but definitly not now.

Trmpt

It wasnt 99.99% but it was most likely in the 90s.

[QUOTE="BoloTheGreat"]

[QUOTE="Trmpt"]

That was true in 2007 but definitly not now.

Trmpt

It wasnt 99.99% but it was most likely in the 90s.

Yea that's Bs. That picture is 100% on low. Not medium. Medium looks better then 99% of next gen games on consoles. I can tell it's on low because the water on medium still looks 3d and my 7900Gt ran it at 25 fps.

@Trmpt

For running on 3-4 year old tech, yes KZ2 is impressive. But you can't demand that console vs PC graphics comparisons take place on 3-4 year old hardware. Upgradability is one of the PC's greatest strengths and it's not going to be denied just so console users can "win" by posting screenshots of Crysis on the lowest settings possible and comparing it to the best the PS3 has to offer.

PCs are technologically superior to consoles, and Crysis looks better than KZ2. Facts.

xDimMaK

I agree with you on almost everything in your post, but I never said that they should be compared with similar hardware specs.I know that after a certain amount of time PC games look superior.

Read my previous posts.

[QUOTE="Trmpt"]

[QUOTE="BoloTheGreat"] Was NOT true even in 2007, the 8800GT had gone down to around £100 in the UK by then, med/high was possible at good framerates. Hell even the £80 8600GTS/GT would do it on Med.

bigblunt537

It wasnt 99.99% but it was most likely in the 90s.

Yea that's Bs. That picture is 100% on low. Not medium. Medium looks better then 99% of next gen games on consoles. I can tell it's on low because the water on medium still looks 3d and my 7900Gt ran it at 25 fps.

True, but you have to admit that what the consoles are pulling off with the hardware they have is just amazing.

Trmpt

That's fixed hardware for you, but I do think people overestimate what consoles can actually do.

Due to their fixed nature allot of tricks are employed to improve performance, Killzone 2s lighting system that doesn't use HDR for example. Another example is many console optimized engines employ deferred lighting, which impacts transparency and AA support in exchange for higher performance. I've seen many games use pre created shadows as opposed to dynamic real time, fix the camera distance to prevent you from getting a closer look at textures and so on. Resident Evil 5 for example placed a blur effect around characters, reducing the need for AA but putting a visible haze around everyone.

Faking and working around tech is more common on consoles than PC to give the impression of advancement, people forget that when comparing games.

Something that stood out to me in the KZ2 demo was the distance that environmental objects disappeared, stuff like garbage on the floor would disappear right in front of you while you are still in the same "small" room it exists in. KZ2 has many optimizations like that to improve performance, they got away with low environmental textures like walls by making it difficult to focus on, but no one will admit to stuff like that in threads like this.

crysis takes place on a highly destructible open environment - killzone 2 does NOT. corridor shooter vs. open world shooter and you compare things like this? you're really grasping for anything.paullywog