Lense of Truth compares KIllzone 3 vs Crysis 2 !!!

And according to Lense of Truth Killzone 3 wins

"Conclusion:Although Crysis 2 looks fantastic on both the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, the graphics crown still belongs toGuerrilla's Killzone 3. Not only does Killzone 3 look graphicallybetter, the performance its more stable throughout. That being said, with serious graphical contenders on the horizon such as Battlefield 3 and RAGE, how long can Killzone 3 hold on to the title? We'll just haveto wait and see!"

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

Looks like PS3 exclusives still reign supreme. Sorry lems.

Lens of Truth is credible again?

Lens of Truth is credible again?

waltefmoney

Lens of Truth is credible again?

waltefmoney

Until a 360 game wins a comparison atleast.

Lens of Truth is credible again?

waltefmoney

[QUOTE="waltefmoney"]

Lens of Truth is credible again?

Franky-the-bat

No, it used to be Lems of Truth.

[QUOTE="waltefmoney"]

Lens of Truth is credible again?

Snugenz

Until a 360 game wins a comparison atleast.

360 games win comparisons all the time and most cases there comparisons are dead on, at least the ones ive seen and got to compare myself. Although they do make huge deals out of screen tearing when at times its nearly non existent. Other then that they do pretty good.

[QUOTE="Franky-the-bat"][QUOTE="waltefmoney"]

Lens of Truth is credible again?

Snugenz

No, it used to be Lems of Truth.

No, it used to be Lems of Truth.

Snugenz

That name is hilarious btw.

This has been posted before, but some may catch it for the first time, now.

While Killzone 3 can be technically more stable and consistent (with more impressive, hardware demanding 3D effects) on consoles, I don't think anyone can be wrong regarding which they think looks better. Both look absolutely stunning! From what I've seen, though, I do prefer Killzone's artstyIe.

The biggest difference, I think, are the respective multi-players. Killzone 3 supports 24 players, with no texture pop-in or jaggies, and minimal / standard lag. While on the other hand, Crysis 2 caps at 12 players. I haven't played the retail build of Crysis 2, but the PS360 demos had plenty of jaggies and texture pop-in.

why dont the cows see how pathetic they are swapping "lens of lies" for "lems of truth" whenever a 360 game is praised on that site, but claiming it as ownage when it goes in their favour.really sad yet funny.

lens of truths methods are not great and tthey base it on "personal opinion" as are all the reviews saying crysis 2 is the best looking game. digital foundry do a real anaylsis, there is never going to be a definitive answer as opinions differ on the subject. however crysis 2 is the best looking game on 360 IMO, i cant speak for the PS3 as i dont have one to compare it to. the thing that matters in here though is that there is a large number of reviews saying its the best looking game on consoles and at least some debate about it in here, which to my mind proves all those cows who said "360 will never come close to UC2 / KZ2" totally wrong, thats all.

sts106mat

I never called them lense of lies and I own both consoels. Hell check my gamertag , TheSterls. And my Crysis 2 acheivments on 360. I just thought it funny lems were gloating about how the 360 version looked so much better then the ps3 version( They look pretty much identical) and then claimed it looked better then any game on any console.( Deffinetly top 5 but not better then KZ3.)

But hell lems post this websites comparisons all day and one big one doesnt go there way and now they suck. Also there anaylsis are some of the best next to digital foundry , far better then IGN's which are pretty much worthless.

This analysis isn't good. If I recall most of the pics shown where in low resolution.

[QUOTE="TheSterls"]

[QUOTE="sts106mat"]

why dont the cows see how pathetic they are swapping "lens of lies" for "lems of truth" whenever a 360 game is praised on that site, but claiming it as ownage when it goes in their favour.really sad yet funny.

lens of truths methods are not great and tthey base it on "personal opinion" as are all the reviews saying crysis 2 is the best looking game. digital foundry do a real anaylsis, there is never going to be a definitive answer as opinions differ on the subject. however crysis 2 is the best looking game on 360 IMO, i cant speak for the PS3 as i dont have one to compare it to. the thing that matters in here though is that there is a large number of reviews saying its the best looking game on consoles and at least some debate about it in here, which to my mind proves all those cows who said "360 will never come close to UC2 / KZ2" totally wrong, thats all.

sts106mat

I never called them lense of lies and I own both consoels. Hell check my gamertag , TheSterls. And my Crysis 2 acheivments on 360. I just thought it funny lems were gloating about how the 360 version looked so much better then the ps3 version( They look pretty much identical) and then claimed it looked better then any game on any console.( Deffinetly top 5 but not better then KZ3.)

But hell lems post these comparisons all dayand one bigone doesnt go there way and theyand now they suck. Also there anaylsis are some of the best next to digital foundry , bar better then IGN's which are pretty muchworthless.

There was a debate that Gear of War 2 looked as good if not better then anything on the PS3( only here on SW). Untill the 360 wins a game with best graphcis theres not really much of a debate as the winners for the past 3 years on the majority of websites have all been PS3 exclusives.

But from the looks of it, Crysis 2 is the better game. Killzone seems amazingly generic.

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

Note: a verdict was not given considering the major differences between developers and graphics engines, and our staff choices only reflect our personal preferences.

Graphics: The first thing we need to remember about these two games is that they have two very different ****. Killzone 3 seems to be shooting for a very realistic, yet strong, sci fi feeling with both setting and character models while Crysis 2 tries to capture a more true to life realism. Needless to say, both versions set out to do what they aim for. Everything from character detail to the texture of the terrain is done perfectly. While the difference is so minimal that it will go unnoticed, Killzone 3 seems to have a resolution advantage here. While Killzone 3 runs at full native 720p, Crysis2 runs in very SLIGHT sub HD resolution of 1152 x 720. However Crysis 2 doesn't hesitate to hit back with slightly better HDR lighting throughout.

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. For example, the physics engine handling the water and fluid effects, as well as destructible environments react in a very realistic manner. Although both games had these effects implemented, they both handled them slightly different - let us explain. For starters, environments in Killzone 3 seemed more destructible throughout. In some scenes you can literally make entire buildings collapse if certain support beams were destroyed. In addition, walls, concrete pillars, and even bathroom toilets could be obliterated. On the flip side, Crysis2 had its fair share of destructible objects, but the selection was a much less than those found in Killzone 3. Instead, Crysis 2 focuses on allowing players the option of interaction with a slew of objects. For example, almost any object in a scene can be picked up and used as a weapon, and there were tons of them in every level

note the

"While the difference is so minimal that it will go unnoticed, Killzone 3 seems to have a resolution advantage here. While Killzone 3 runs at full native 720p, Crysis2 runs in very SLIGHT sub HD resolution of 1152 x 720. However Crysis 2 doesn't hesitate to hit back with slightly better HDR lighting throughout."

"Crysis 2 focuses on allowing players the option of interaction with a slew of objects. For example, almost any object in a scene can be picked up and used as a weapon, and there were tons of them in every level"

Actually Lens proves Crysis 2 looks better and i prefer better lighting than anunoticable (their words) difference in resolution

Also real time physics are far better than scripted, so Crysis 2 wins again

In fact Lens actual comparisson proves Crysis 2 looks better and has better physics

why dont the cows see how pathetic they are swapping "lens of lies" for "lems of truth" whenever a 360 game is praised on that site, but claiming it as ownage when it goes in their favour.really sad yet funny.

lens of truths methods are not great and tthey base it on "personal opinion" as are all the reviews saying crysis 2 is the best looking game. digital foundry do a real anaylsis, there is never going to be a definitive answer as opinions differ on the subject. however crysis 2 is the best looking game on 360 IMO, i cant speak for the PS3 as i dont have one to compare it to. the thing that matters in here though is that there is a large number of reviews saying its the best looking game on consoles and at least some debate about it in here, which to my mind proves all those cows who said "360 will never come close to UC2 / KZ2" totally wrong, thats all.

sts106mat

posted awhile back i believe.

Better luck next time lemms, maybe Gears 3 will show some feats, but you know who will take care of that though right:)?gpuking

Show us, don't tell us.

[QUOTE="gpuking"]Better luck next time lemms, maybe Gears 3 will show some feats, but you know who will take care of that though right:)?waltefmoney

Show us, don't tell us.

technically, he did show you something.

then he told you what he believed.

:P

[QUOTE="gpuking"]Better luck next time lemms, maybe Gears 3 will show some feats, but you know who will take care of that though right:)?waltefmoney

Show us, don't tell us.

But from the looks of it, Crysis 2 is the better game. Killzone seems amazingly generic.

MobilechicaneX

says sup.gpuking

Talking about actual gameplay.

[QUOTE="MobilechicaneX"]

But from the looks of it, Crysis 2 is the better game. Killzone seems amazingly generic.

NWA90s

[QUOTE="gpuking"]

says sup.waltefmoney

Talking about actual gameplay.

E3 gameplay will blow you away.gpuking

Can't wait.

[QUOTE="NWA90s"][QUOTE="MobilechicaneX"]

But from the looks of it, Crysis 2 is the better game. Killzone seems amazingly generic.

DragonfireXZ95

in Killzone 2 you aren't playing as a character in a nanosuit.

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

Note: a verdict was not given considering the major differences between developers and graphics engines, and our staff choices only reflect our personal preferences.

Graphics: The first thing we need to remember about these two games is that they have two very different ****. Killzone 3 seems to be shooting for a very realistic, yet strong, sci fi feeling with both setting and character models while Crysis 2 tries to capture a more true to life realism. Needless to say, both versions set out to do what they aim for. Everything from character detail to the texture of the terrain is done perfectly. While the difference is so minimal that it will go unnoticed, Killzone 3 seems to have a resolution advantage here. While Killzone 3 runs at full native 720p, Crysis2 runs in very SLIGHT sub HD resolution of 1152 x 720. However Crysis 2 doesn't hesitate to hit back with slightly better HDR lighting throughout.

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. For example, the physics engine handling the water and fluid effects, as well as destructible environments react in a very realistic manner. Although both games had these effects implemented, they both handled them slightly different - let us explain. For starters, environments in Killzone 3 seemed more destructible throughout. In some scenes you can literally make entire buildings collapse if certain support beams were destroyed. In addition, walls, concrete pillars, and even bathroom toilets could be obliterated. On the flip side, Crysis2 had its fair share of destructible objects, but the selection was a much less than those found in Killzone 3. Instead, Crysis 2 focuses on allowing players the option of interaction with a slew of objects. For example, almost any object in a scene can be picked up and used as a weapon, and there were tons of them in every level

note the

"While the difference is so minimal that it will go unnoticed, Killzone 3 seems to have a resolution advantage here. While Killzone 3 runs at full native 720p, Crysis2 runs in very SLIGHT sub HD resolution of 1152 x 720. However Crysis 2 doesn't hesitate to hit back with slightly better HDR lighting throughout."

"Crysis 2 focuses on allowing players the option of interaction with a slew of objects. For example, almost any object in a scene can be picked up and used as a weapon, and there were tons of them in every level"

Actually Lens proves Crysis 2 looks better and i prefer better lighting than anunoticable (their words) difference in resolution

Also real time physics are far better than scripted, so Crysis 2 wins again

In fact Lens actual comparisson proves Crysis 2 looks better and has better physics

killzoneded

Oh my...again LOT with their stupid,unprofessional stuff...Better HDR ligthing?KZ3 doesn't even have HDR.Thats how little they know...:roll:

ill probably get modded by the COWS that mod this site. but you cows need to watch this video AGAIN!

bryn8150

Cows aren't mods.

Once again, Killzone 3 is still the console graphics king. Not like I haven't tried telling people this. Oh well...

Killzone 3 > God of War 3 > Uncharted 2 > Killzone 2 > Crysis 2.

Crysis > Metro 2033 > Shogun II: Total War > Arma II > Crysis 2.

Funny how it ranks 5th no matter what.

Once again, Killzone 3 is still the console graphics king. Not like I haven't tried telling people this. Oh well...

Killzone 3 > God of War 3 > Uncharted 2 > Killzone 2 > Crysis 2.

Crysis > Metro 2033 > Shogun II: Total War > Arma II > Crysis 2.

Funny how it ranks 5th no matter what.

Mozelleple112

How is it funny, that you would rank it 5th no matter what?.

[QUOTE="Mozelleple112"]

Once again, Killzone 3 is still the console graphics king. Not like I haven't tried telling people this. Oh well...

Killzone 3 > God of War 3 > Uncharted 2 > Killzone 2 > Crysis 2.

Crysis > Metro 2033 > Shogun II: Total War > Arma II > Crysis 2.

Funny how it ranks 5th no matter what.

Snugenz

How is it funny, that would rank it 5th no matter what?.

[QUOTE="Snugenz"]

[QUOTE="Mozelleple112"]

Once again, Killzone 3 is still the console graphics king. Not like I haven't tried telling people this. Oh well...

Killzone 3 > God of War 3 > Uncharted 2 > Killzone 2 > Crysis 2.

Crysis > Metro 2033 > Shogun II: Total War > Arma II > Crysis 2.

Funny how it ranks 5th no matter what.

Mozelleple112

How is it funny, that would rank it 5th no matter what?.

In your opinion, so you find your opinion odd/funny?

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

Note: a verdict was not given considering the major differences between developers and graphics engines, and our staff choices only reflect our personal preferences.

Graphics: The first thing we need to remember about these two games is that they have two very different ****. Killzone 3 seems to be shooting for a very realistic, yet strong, sci fi feeling with both setting and character models while Crysis 2 tries to capture a more true to life realism. Needless to say, both versions set out to do what they aim for. Everything from character detail to the texture of the terrain is done perfectly. While the difference is so minimal that it will go unnoticed, Killzone 3 seems to have a resolution advantage here. While Killzone 3 runs at full native 720p, Crysis2 runs in very SLIGHT sub HD resolution of 1152 x 720. However Crysis 2 doesn't hesitate to hit back with slightly better HDR lighting throughout.

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. For example, the physics engine handling the water and fluid effects, as well as destructible environments react in a very realistic manner. Although both games had these effects implemented, they both handled them slightly different - let us explain. For starters, environments in Killzone 3 seemed more destructible throughout. In some scenes you can literally make entire buildings collapse if certain support beams were destroyed. In addition, walls, concrete pillars, and even bathroom toilets could be obliterated. On the flip side, Crysis2 had its fair share of destructible objects, but the selection was a much less than those found in Killzone 3. Instead, Crysis 2 focuses on allowing players the option of interaction with a slew of objects. For example, almost any object in a scene can be picked up and used as a weapon, and there were tons of them in every level

note the

"While the difference is so minimal that it will go unnoticed, Killzone 3 seems to have a resolution advantage here. While Killzone 3 runs at full native 720p, Crysis2 runs in very SLIGHT sub HD resolution of 1152 x 720. However Crysis 2 doesn't hesitate to hit back with slightly better HDR lighting throughout."

"Crysis 2 focuses on allowing players the option of interaction with a slew of objects. For example, almost any object in a scene can be picked up and used as a weapon, and there were tons of them in every level"

Actually Lens proves Crysis 2 looks better and i prefer better lighting than anunoticable (their words) difference in resolution

Also real time physics are far better than scripted, so Crysis 2 wins again

In fact Lens actual comparisson proves Crysis 2 looks better and has better physics

killzoneded

Selective reading much? That doesn't really prove anything, if you want their final thoughts then go to the conclusion:

Conclusion:Although Crysis 2 looks fantastic on both the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, the graphics crown still belongs toGuerrilla's Killzone 3. Not only does Killzone 3 look graphicallybetter, the performance its more stable throughout. That being said, with serious graphical contenders on the horizon such as Battlefield 3 and RAGE, how long can Killzone 3 hold on to the title? We'll just haveto wait and see!Lens Of Truth

That is from the conclusion.

But from the looks of it, Crysis 2 is the better game. Killzone seems amazingly generic.

MobilechicaneX

[QUOTE="MobilechicaneX"]

But from the looks of it, Crysis 2 is the better game. Killzone seems amazingly generic.

incuensuocha

Crysis 2 has a higher metascore.

[QUOTE="incuensuocha"][QUOTE="MobilechicaneX"]

But from the looks of it, Crysis 2 is the better game. Killzone seems amazingly generic.

waltefmoney

Crysis 2 has a higher metascore.

The comparison is terrible imo.

They didn't compare similar locations.

Did you miss where I said "which is what matters around here." Officially, only Gamespot scores count on SW.incuensuocha

Metascores are used to claim ownage almost as much(Uncharted 2 for example). The metagame only uses Gamespot scores, but the metagame also only counts exclusives.

[QUOTE="incuensuocha"]Did you miss where I said "which is what matters around here." Officially, only Gamespot scores count on SW.waltefmoney

Metascores are used to claim ownage almost as much(Uncharted 2 for example). The metagame only uses Gamespot scores, but the metagame also only counts exclusives.

Ok, now I'm confused. What do you mean "the metagame only uses Gamespot scores"? Doesn't the term metascore imply it uses all of Metacritic?incuensuocha

The system wars metagame.

This site drives me crazy with its doctored screenshots. They always fiddle with the brightness/contrast. It's ridiculous as to what they think looks better.