LoT: Killzone 2 vs Crysis 2. Killzone 2 wins

Atleast Crysis 2 Looks better. I was expecting an awesome jungle in KZ3 but what I got was something out of Techmo's lame as cover shooter Quantam Theory.

[QUOTE="psn8214"]

Crysis 2 is a simple mismatch. The engine is not a great fit on consoles. I'm looking forward to playing the definitive version on my PC.

MIYAMOTOnext007

yes its built for higher end hardware. They didn't need all those effects on consoles, they should have used some of the power for textures instead of just post-processing and lighting... It will look great on a PC if they put in better textures though.

The lower res makes many of those effects tough to appreciate too. Shame really, it does look nice in spots, but there's far too much inconsistency, and it's distracting when the textures/shadows are drawing/popping in ~6 feet from your character. Plus their AA solution is just ... er, bad. Can't wait for 16X AF and 8X MSAA on my PC. :D

OMG are there actually people who take LOT serious?Those guys are clueless bunch of idiots and I mean really they are.KZ2 does look blurry because it uses alot of motion blur but also most important QAA which makes EVERYTHING look blurred.I don't mind comparison but those should be done by DF cus those guys actually have knowlage on matter.

Bus-A-Bus

Regardless, its a close match (in raw graphics) between crysis and KZ2. so close, in fact, that its pretty irrelevant.

there is more to visuals than raw graphics alone. visual diversity, level design, sty|e, scale, varying environments, and cinematic merit are far more important than nitpicking textures and resolutions.

With these factors in mind, KZ2 utterly destroys crysis in visuals. unfortunately, many people are forever incapable of understanding the reasons why. They are always going to have the most vapid and shallow understanding of visual merit.

there is more to visuals than raw graphics alone. visual diversity, level design, sty|e, scale, varying environments, and cinematic merit are far more important than nitpicking textures and resolutions.

With these factors in mind, KZ2 utterly destroys crysis in visuals. unfortunately, many people are forever incapable of understanding the reasons why. They are always going to have the most vapid and shallow understanding of visual merit.

arbitor365

yeh because you have studied every Crysis 2 level/map and know all about its "visual diversity, level design, sty|e, scale, varying environments, and cinematic merit" right? :roll: my guess is you've seen 2 small multiplayer maps and a couple pieces of footage from unfinished singleplayer sections :roll:

lol Crysis 2 loss to a 2year old game its going to be a shame what KZ3 is going to do to itImpress3

The entire PS3/360 lineup gets destroyed by Crysis which is a four year old game and neither console will ever compete with that four year old game.

Regardless, its a close match (in raw graphics) between crysis and KZ2. so close, in fact, that its pretty irrelevant.

there is more to visuals than raw graphics alone. visual diversity, level design, sty|e, scale, varying environments, and cinematic merit are far more important than nitpicking textures and resolutions.

With these factors in mind, KZ2 utterly destroys crysis in visuals. unfortunately, many people are forever incapable of understanding the reasons why. They are always going to have the most vapid and shallow understanding of visual merit.

arbitor365

Crysis WILL be dethroned when Killzone 3 comes out......Crysis is just too repetitive compared to Killzone. Nothing but jungle after jungle after jungle, gets real old, real fast, and the graphic mods make the textures look waxy/oily and very unrealistic:(

Crysis WILL be dethroned when Killzone 3 comes out......Crysis is just too repetitive compared to Killzone. Nothing but jungle after jungle after jungle, gets real old, real fast, and the graphic mods make the textures look waxy/oily and very unrealistic:(

Adamantium4k2

Crysis WILL be dethroned when Killzone 3 comes out......Crysis is just too repetitive compared to Killzone. Nothing but jungle after jungle after jungle, gets real old, real fast, and the graphic mods make the textures look waxy/oily and very unrealistic:(

Adamantium4k2

[QUOTE="Adamantium4k2"]

Crysis WILL be dethroned when Killzone 3 comes out......Crysis is just too repetitive compared to Killzone. Nothing but jungle after jungle after jungle, gets real old, real fast, and the graphic mods make the textures look waxy/oily and very unrealistic:(

ferret-gamer

Clearly not, although I think Killzone 3 may end up being the better looking title on consoles. On PC... well, it's not even really worth mentioning.

Crysis WILL be dethroned when Killzone 3 comes out......Crysis is just too repetitive compared to Killzone. Nothing but jungle after jungle after jungle, gets real old, real fast, and the graphic mods make the textures look waxy/oily and very unrealistic:(

Adamantium4k2

killzone 3 won't even look as good as stalker shadow of chernobyl technically.

[QUOTE="Fizzman"]

[QUOTE="Impress3"]lol Crysis 2 loss to a 2year old game its going to be a shame what KZ3 is going to do to itxYamatox

The entire PS3/360 lineup gets destroyed by Crysis which is a four year old game and neither console will ever compete with that four year old game.

People like you need to stop posting. We are talking about CONSOLES, not PCs. The LOT comparison was from the 360 Demo of Crysis 2, and we are talking about comparing a console game to a console game. We know Crysis 1 is the best looking game to date, and we know the PC version of Crysis 2 will look better than any console game released. It's irrelevant to keep saying it, especially when it is in fact OFF TOPIC to bring it up.

Let's use a little more common sense here, people... I know you guys want the PC to feel included in these discussions, but you guys come off as almost needy when you do it in a topic that has nothing to do with PCs to begin with...

we are talking about systems, not just consoles.

The Cryengine 3 is a far more advanced engine than what Guerrilla is using for KZ2 & 3 and that is not up for debate.

We are talking about real time vs. scripted physics, pre baked lightning (to some degree), pre rendered animations.

Why did Crytek go with the most taxing solution possible and make everything calculated in real time you ask.

With everything being real time you vastly increase the players ability to interact with objects and the games atmosphere in general. The keyword here is "presence". You want to play a movie? Fine Killzone is good for you. If you want to think outside the box and make your own decisions how to progress making YOU a part of what goes on on the screen, "realtime based engines"are the future of gaming.

Thus, Hermits saying console games are shallow have a point. Console games are struggling too hard to be a one way block buster movie. Kind of reminds me of the old CDI/3DO game, Mad Dog Mcree that game according to how some of you reason has better graphics than Killzone the problem is that in Mad Dog nothing is realtime.

So will the 360 version of C2 end up being a better looking game than KZ3, I don't know. Let's all wait for the final product before jumping the gun.

The Cryengine 3 is a far more advanced engine than what Guerrilla is using for KZ2 & 3 and that is not up for debate.

We are talking about real time vs. scripted physics, pre baked lightning (to some degree), pre rendered animations.

Why did Crytek go with the most taxing solution possible and make everything calculated in real time you ask.

With everything being real time you vastly increase the players ability to interact with objects and the games atmosphere in general. The keyword here is "presence". You want to play a movie? Fine Killzone is good for you. If you want to think outside the box and make your own decisions how to progress making YOU a part of what goes on on the screen, "realtime based engines"are the future of gaming.

Thus, Hermits saying console games are shallow have a point. Console games are struggling too hard to be a one way block buster movie. Kind of reminds me of the old CDI/3DO game, Mad Dog Mcree that game according to how some of you reason has better graphics than Killzone the problem is that in Mad Dog nothing is realtime.

So will the 360 version of C2 end up being a better looking game than KZ3, I don't know. Let's all wait for the final product before jumping the gun.

fireballonfire

[QUOTE="arbitor365"]

Regardless, its a close match (in raw graphics) between crysis and KZ2. so close, in fact, that its pretty irrelevant.

there is more to visuals than raw graphics alone. visual diversity, level design, sty|e, scale, varying environments, and cinematic merit are far more important than nitpicking textures and resolutions.

With these factors in mind, KZ2 utterly destroys crysis in visuals. unfortunately, many people are forever incapable of understanding the reasons why. They are always going to have the most vapid and shallow understanding of visual merit.

[QUOTE="fireballonfire"]

The Cryengine 3 is a far more advanced engine than what Guerrilla is using for KZ2 & 3 and that is not up for debate.

We are talking about real time vs. scripted physics, pre baked lightning (to some degree), pre rendered animations.

Why did Crytek go with the most taxing solution possible and make everything calculated in real time you ask.

With everything being real time you vastly increase the players ability to interact with objects and the games atmosphere in general. The keyword here is "presence". You want to play a movie? Fine Killzone is good for you. If you want to think outside the box and make your own decisions how to progress making YOU a part of what goes on on the screen, "realtime based engines"are the future of gaming.

Thus, Hermits saying console games are shallow have a point. Console games are struggling too hard to be a one way block buster movie. Kind of reminds me of the old CDI/3DO game, Mad Dog Mcree that game according to how some of you reason has better graphics than Killzone the problem is that in Mad Dog nothing is realtime.

So will the 360 version of C2 end up being a better looking game than KZ3, I don't know. Let's all wait for the final product before jumping the gun.

ferret-gamer

A while ago somebody posted images of KZ3 with an ocean displayed in the background. That ocean was not real time it was just a pre rendered animation played in the background.

And if you think KZ3 physics are comparable as what the Cryengine 3 is capable of then you are not being very realistic.

Look there are no two ways about this. Crytek games have always been based on engines relying on real time calculations. The more "pre baked" elements you put in the game the easier it is for the hardware to calculate and render it, but at the loss of interaction.

This gen of consoles are not powerful enough to have both. You can have "fake" graphics looking good. Or you can have everything in real time looking less good. I bet Crytek is having one hell of a time getting this game to work on the consoles.

But all this being said. To be honest C2 on the consoles is actually turning out better than I thought.

Pre-rendered Physics/ Water/ Lighting, etc

Do you guys realize that the world don't give a rats about Pre-rendered this & that Because in the End, the Best looking game award will go to the Best looking game.

Pre-rendered lighting/ physics/ water wont matter to the world if it doesn't look good.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="fireballonfire"]

The Cryengine 3 is a far more advanced engine than what Guerrilla is using for KZ2 & 3 and that is not up for debate.

We are talking about real time vs. scripted physics, pre baked lightning (to some degree), pre rendered animations.

Why did Crytek go with the most taxing solution possible and make everything calculated in real time you ask.

With everything being real time you vastly increase the players ability to interact with objects and the games atmosphere in general. The keyword here is "presence". You want to play a movie? Fine Killzone is good for you. If you want to think outside the box and make your own decisions how to progress making YOU a part of what goes on on the screen, "realtime based engines"are the future of gaming.

Thus, Hermits saying console games are shallow have a point. Console games are struggling too hard to be a one way block buster movie. Kind of reminds me of the old CDI/3DO game, Mad Dog Mcree that game according to how some of you reason has better graphics than Killzone the problem is that in Mad Dog nothing is realtime.

So will the 360 version of C2 end up being a better looking game than KZ3, I don't know. Let's all wait for the final product before jumping the gun.

fireballonfire

A while ago somebody posted images of KZ3 with an ocean displayed in the background. That ocean was not real time it was just a pre rendered animation played in the background.

And if you think KZ3 physics are comparable as what the Cryengine 3 is capable of then you are not being very realistic.

Look there are no two ways about this. Crytek games have always been based on engines relying on real time calculations. The more "pre baked" elements you put in the game the easier it is for the hardware to calculate and render it, but at the loss of interaction.

This gen of consoles are not powerful enough to have both. You can have "fake" graphics looking good. Or you can have everything in real time looking less good. I bet Crytek is having one hell of a time getting this game to work on the consoles.

But all this being said. To be honest C2 on the consoles is actually turning out better than I thought.

[QUOTE="fireballonfire"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] what do you mean by "pre rendered animations"? And both games use a good deal of scripted and real time physics.ferret-gamer

A while ago somebody posted images of KZ3 with an ocean displayed in the background. That ocean was not real time it was just a pre rendered animation played in the background.

And if you think KZ3 physics are comparable as what the Cryengine 3 is capable of then you are not being very realistic.

Look there are no two ways about this. Crytek games have always been based on engines relying on real time calculations. The more "pre baked" elements you put in the game the easier it is for the hardware to calculate and render it, but at the loss of interaction.

This gen of consoles are not powerful enough to have both. You can have "fake" graphics looking good. Or you can have everything in real time looking less good. I bet Crytek is having one hell of a time getting this game to work on the consoles.

But all this being said. To be honest C2 on the consoles is actually turning out better than I thought.

The true beauty of the Cryengine 3 will be at display as soon as we get some genuine footage from the maxed out PC version of C2. I think the water will look just as good as it did in the first game.

Impossible, that goes against everything I've learned on System Wars.

Regardless, its a close match (in raw graphics) between crysis and KZ2. so close, in fact, that its pretty irrelevant.

there is more to visuals than raw graphics alone. visual diversity, level design, sty|e, scale, varying environments, and cinematic merit are far more important than nitpicking textures and resolutions.

With these factors in mind, KZ2 utterly destroys crysis in visuals. unfortunately, many people are forever incapable of understanding the reasons why. They are always going to have the most vapid and shallow understanding of visual merit.

arbitor365

Killzone 2 does NOT have a larger scale than Crysis (in fact, unless the playable map is miles-wide, it's going to be comparatively tiny) and nothing I've seen suggests an increased "visual diversity" considering that Crysis's colour palette isn't anywhere near as monochrome as Killzone 2's. Their style is also essentially identical, attempting to follow photorealistic modelling - the only difference is that Killzone 2 has a crappy colour palette, so I don't see how it beats Crysis in that category either. Also, prove that Killzone 2's environments are more varied than Crysis's - I haven't played the game, but EVERYTHING I've seen from there is basically "dirty, ashen urban ruins", wheras Crysis basically squeezes in as many environments as you can find in its story. Cinematic merit is far less important than interactivity, as these are video games rather than movies, and I don't think Killzone 2 allows you to demolish houses or ram cars into gas tankers to take out entire infantry platoons.

It's funny how you insinuate that people who don't have your opinion are less intellectually capable than yourself. I thought the only snobbish elitists here were hermits?