I know the title is lame, and so will be this subject. The reason i am posting this is to differentiate the graphics between Killzone 2 and Crysis. I am a little to sick of pointless comparisons.
Crysis:
1. Runs only on pc, and hence is seldom exhibited at any resolution less than 1600x1200
2. Best outdoor vegetation graphics ever. Indoor graphics are meh.
3. Physics are good. On par with Killzone 2. Hit response system is not as good as Killzone 2.
4. Lighting is a little short compared to Killzone 2. You can stare at the sun, and it is NOT blinding in any way. No spectrum or even flares. Shadows are good due to resolution and hardware capabilities of PC.
Killzone 2:
1. Runs on a native 720p. That's 1366x768 for most LCD TVS. The resolution alone puts it at shame next to Crysis.
2. Best indoor graphics ever. Outdoor graphics involving vegetation is *yuck*. Just pay attention to the weeds on the Suljeva stages.
3. Physics are on par with Crysis. Hit response system grants more satisfaction than any other game (IMO)
4. Lighting is the best ever (IMO). Flares improve realism. Usage of dynamic lighting to bring out contrast in the game is extremely good. Does not rely completely on forced lighting like Gears of War.
If you ask me, Killzone 2's biggest weakness is it's resolution, especially the low res textures at many parts of the game which the devs think we won't pay attention to, but we obviously do. If Killzone 2 had a PC version, running at 1600x1200 and above, with an option for high rex textures, like any other pc game, it could easily surpass Crysis. But to compare Killzone 2 to Crysis based on the hardware difference is just silly. Of course Crysis wins. Even games with average graphics like Fear 2 end up looking good on PC due to resolution and AA.
jhcho2
no comparisons killzone2 sucks compared to crysis 
Log in to comment