I've been hearing a lot of people comparing Crysis to Killzone, in terms of graphic quality.

While I'm sure that some certain graphic qualities may be better in Killzone, I have to say, the graphics "overall" are still far superior in Crysis (If comparing to a PC running High graphics settings).

Now that the demo for Killzone has been officially released, I'm wondering what everyone's thoughts are regarding the comparison?

Now that the demo for Killzone has been officially released, I'm wondering what everyone's thoughts are regarding the comparison?

There is no comparison. Nothing beats Crysis yet. I do like the muzzle shadows of the enemies when you shoot them up close behind them. Crysis doesn't have that :) But lets not compare KZ2 to anything, they're different games and developers wanted to achieve different things with KZ2 and I think they succeeded.

There's no game out there that beats Crysis graphically, which is sort of ridiculous considering the game came out like 15 months ago. Killzone 2 is probably the 2nd best looking game out there now though which is pretty high praise.

I did notice that there were some interesting effects when you looked directly into sunlight, in Killzone. It's arguably a "cooler effect" than what you get in crysis, but I'm not sure if it's more graphically demanding - it just looks different.

And that brings me to another point, which has been a petpeeve of mine ever since the ps3 came out. I just don't ever buy into this nonsense that "early games only use 10% of the system's processing power." For example, Resistance 1 looked decent, but Resistance 2 didn't look 5x (500%) better. Maybe it was 20% better, but you'll never convince me that a video game system will improve 1000% over the course of its lifetime.

So while Killzone 2 looks great in comparison to all video games out there (and we're to assume that the ps3 is now at 50% of it's "true power"), then shouldn't we be seeing games on the ps3 that look like Crysis once the system has reached the end of it's lifespan?

There's no game out there that beats Crysis graphically, which is sort of ridiculous considering the game came out like 15 months ago. Killzone 2 is probably the 2nd best looking game out there now though which is pretty high praise.

Not to start arguing or anything, but Half Life 2-Episode 2 at 1080p looks better. On the PC of course.

Never played Crysis, but my little bro has it running on max settings on his self built PC. He's coming over tonight so I'll let you guys know what he thinks. I personally don't think this is a fair comparison because you are comparing an ultra high end PC to a game console. If you compared it to Crysis running on a budget machine, thats a different story.

Never played Crysis, but my little bro has it running on max settings on his self built PC. He's coming over tonight so I'll let you guys know what he thinks. I personally don't think this is a fair comparison because you are comparing an ultra high end PC to a game console. If you compared it to Crysis running on a budget machine, thats a different story.

You'd have to lower Crysis graphics options pretty low to make it look like KZ2.

Not to start arguing or anything, but Half Life 2-Episode 2 at 1080p looks better. On the PC of course.

I played it at 1680x1050 because thats my monitor's resolution but I don't agree with that



And that brings me to another point, which has been a petpeeve of mine ever since the ps3 came out. I just don't ever buy into this nonsense that "early games only use 10% of the system's processing power." For example, Resistance 1 looked decent, but Resistance 2 didn't look 5x (500%) better. Maybe it was 20% better, but you'll never convince me that a video game system will improve 1000% over the course of its lifetime.


The thing is, % numbers are mostly subjective and theoretical. They are meaningless, just shorthand. But saying a game looks X times better than another one is pure nonsense. Later games are way more complex, use way more geometry, use tricks to make things look better than they actually do, etc. You can't quantify that with a number like, "this looks 5.5 times better than .

You'd have to lower Crysis graphics options pretty low to make it look like KZ2.

Crysis doesn't look all that great once you get down to Medium settings.

I played it at 1680x1050 because thats my monitor's resolution but I don't agree with that



The thing is, % numbers are mostly subjective and theoretical. They are meaningless, just shorthand. But saying a game looks X times better than another one is pure nonsense. Later games are way more complex, use way more geometry, use tricks to make things look better than they actually do, etc. You can't quantify that with a number like, "this looks 5.5 times better than .



Crysis doesn't look all that great once you get down to Medium settings.

ok :D

another Killzone thread

^^^yup, and a comparison thread to boot.

I think most gamers, at least those who've played Crysis know the score. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Killzone 2 and I think it looks absolutely amazing...but it's not Crysis, at least in terms of graphics.

There's no game out there that beats Crysis graphically, which is sort of ridiculous considering the game came out like 15 months ago. Killzone 2 is probably the 2nd best looking game out there now though which is pretty high praise.

To be fair, post PC's below $5K couldn't play crisis with a good framerate when it was released. Affordable computers are just starting to catch up where you can play it maxed out.


That said, yes nothing beats it just yet. Although I do think the realtime ray tracing and multiple dynamic lights in K2 is something the Crissi engine can't do as well if at all yet. That said Crisis on the fly LOD rendering is very impressive, and it's textures are top notch.

Not to start arguing or anything, but Half Life 2-Episode 2 at 1080p looks better. On the PC of course.


Hmmm, not to argue with you, but I'd like to know what weird version of HL you're playing....


We also have to remember artistic intent. Some games are more cartoony, while others strive for photorealistic textures. Not every game is meant to be seen through a looking glass, and many are graphically impressive with a different artistic direction (PoP, Uncharted, Ratchet and Clank).

As far as what you can squeeze out of the console, it's up to the developer. The PS2 is still being dev'ed on and some interesting stuff both gameplaywise and GFX'ly is coming out. You need a good developer willing to push the limit of their engine and find ways to make the tech work best for them. Just take a look how much things changed on the PS2 from launch to today.

Or better yet, PS1 that started with 2d 24bit sprite games like ESPN Extreme, and ended it's life releasing games like RE3.

So while Killzone 2 looks great in comparison to all video games out there (and we're to assume that the ps3 is now at 50% of it's "true power"), then shouldn't we be seeing games on the ps3 that look like Crysis once the system has reached the end of it's lifespan?

If there are still developers concentrating on PS3 exclusives by the end of its lifespan, maybe. Multiplatform releases are becoming the norm, and in those cases it doesn't make sense to optimize the graphics for the PS3 architecture (which is supposedly very different from that of other platforms).

If there are still developers concentrating on PS3 exclusives by the end of its lifespan, maybe. Multiplatform releases are becoming the norm, and in those cases it doesn't make sense to optimize the graphics for the PS3 architecture (which is supposedly very different from that of other platforms).

Well, the norms becoming 1st and 2nd party developers funded by the console divisions as killer apps, with a few 3rd party multi-plats for cheap gaming thrills that run ok.


Sony and MS are both throwing tons of cash for DLC and 1st/2nd party exclusives which take advantaged of collective developing and R&D.

First off this is another f***ing KZ2 thread? Really?

Second this is yet another first person shooter that very subjectively looks better than the last one to come out. Again, really?

Third it's being compared to a game on a PC with hardware that, until recently, costed two to three times more than a PS3 unit.

Fourth.....

http://www.horrordvds.com/reviews/misc/pictures/nerds.jpg

Well, the norms becoming 1st and 2nd party developers funded by the console divisions as killer apps, with a few 3rd party multi-plats for cheap gaming thrills that run ok.

You think so? Apart from Wii games, the bestselling titles last year were franchises like GTA IV, Madden, and Call of Duty, all multiplatform releases. And it seems like more and more developers are going multiplatform.

I hope you're right, though. I'd love it if there continue to be strong, distinctive PS3 exclusives, even if the console remains in third place.

Hmmm, not to argue with you, but I'd like to know what weird version of HL you're playing....


TO ME it looks better. Overall it's better TO ME. Not everybody will share the same opinion. :)

First off this is another f***ing KZ2 thread? Really?


Well, can you blame us? I've had my ps3 for 2 years now and FINALLY there is a game worth talking about :)

another Killzone thread

Exactly... :mad:

Graphics wise, Crysis is in a league of it's own. Let's not get delusional.

Well, can you blame us? I've had my ps3 for 2 years now and FINALLY there is a game worth talking about :)

How do you power your system in a cave?

How do you power your system in a cave?

Well played, sir.

Maybe it was 20% better, but you'll never convince me that a video game system will improve 1000% over the course of its lifetime.

From my experience you can expect a 100% increase in visual quality from a first gen title to a 3rd - 4th gen title. At best you may see a 200% increase if the first gen had issues.

That said, yes nothing beats it just yet. Although I do think the realtime ray tracing and multiple dynamic lights in K2 is something the Crissi engine can't do as well if at all yet. That said Crisis on the fly LOD rendering is very impressive, and it's textures are top notch.

Are you sure KZ2 has real time ray tracing?

this thread is pointless

Graphics wise, Crysis is in a league of it's own. Let's not get delusional.

QFT. I've seen em both and Crysis is still the reigning King, hands down.

this thread is pointless

You ain't kiddin'. But, I'm guessing you aren't surprised. I know I'm not.

I play crysis on a dell studio xps with a quad core 9550, 8 gigs of ram and an nvidia 9800 GT w/512 ram and it looks awesome, nothing compares. I would love to have seen what these developers could have done with a PC version, that didn't have to be reigned in by the closed system specs of the PS3(albeit very powerful console specs).

So, now this can move into a "How much better Killzone 2 would be on a PC?" thread. Cool. We haven't had that one yet. :|

So, now this can move into a "How much better Killzone 2 would be on a PC?" thread. Cool. We haven't had that one yet. :|

Or even better...."How much worse Killzone 2 would look on a PC?" thread

Crysis is known for its cutting edge graphics on super high end systems which have to be tweaked, geeked and overclocked, and then cooled with liquid nitrogen and dressed up with blue neon lights... but isn't it a crappy game? I mean, that's what I heard anyway.

*quickly dips out of thread with no intention of returning*

Crysis is better graphically but Killzone 2 clearly has the better production values, 10s of millions went into this game. I think KZ2 also has far better artistic designs too, but ya, Crysis in high-res on a good PC can't be beaten on console.

So, now this can move into a "How much better Killzone 2 would be on a PC?" thread. Cool. We haven't had that one yet. :|

or it can turn into a see how many sarcastic useless posts that bassmonkee can have................

The fact that KZ2 is being compared with Crysis, and it's almost being taken seriously, says alot about KZ2's graphical qualities. One thing we can agree upon is that KZ2 is easily one of the 3 or 4 best looking PS3 games. Right there with Uncharted and MGS4.

or it can turn into a see how many sarcastic useless posts that bassmonkee can have................

His posts are no more useless than this thread; but at least they're funny ;)

This comparison is about as useful as comparing the straight line speed of a Dodge Viper to that of a Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution. Of course the Viper is faster, but it has a massive V10 and costs $90k while the Evo only has a turbocharged 4 cylinder and costs below $40k. They're both fast, but the Viper is going to pull better 1/4 mile times.

His posts are no more useless than this thread; but at least they're funny ;)

I will second that notion...

or it can turn into a see how many sarcastic useless posts that bassmonkee can have................

That's easy. All of them.

His posts are no more useless than this thread; but at least they're funny ;)

yeah, but i was making a post that was relevant to the thread title. I have never gotten why people on here that think a particular thread is stupid or "useless" post in it just to prolong it. I guess they are the natural complainers.They can't have any time for gaming or their AV gear because all they do is live on this forum,which is obvious by the amount of posts they rack up.

yeah, but i was making a post that was relevant to the thread title. I have never gotten why people on here that think a particular thread is stupid or "useless" post in it just to prolong it. I guess they are the natural complainers.They can't have any time for gaming or their AV gear because all they do is live on this forum,which is obvious by the amount of posts they rack up.

Actually, I spend most of my time on the forum when I'm slacking off at work. So, nyah.

Oh, and I can also multi-task.

Considering Crysis runs like sh!t on 95% of computers, Killzone 2 will probably look better for 95% of people who own a PC/PS3. :)

Considering Crysis runs like sh!t on 95% of computers, Killzone 2 will probably look better for 95% of people who own a PC/PS3. :)


Yeah, but it's because it'll only be seen on computers in movie clips and screen caps.

I have never gotten why people on here that think a particular thread is stupid or "useless" post in it just to prolong it. I guess they are the natural complainers.They can't have any time for gaming or their AV gear because all they do is live on this forum,which is obvious by the amount of posts they rack up.

I'm playing the world's tiniest violin...

I'm playing the world's tiniest violin...

Perfect example of who I speak.Thank you for proving me right.

Can someone explain to me the difference in what someone thinks of as a useless post and a post complaining about said useless post?

Is there a special way you hold your pinky when you type, or is it simply the implied righteous indignation?

It seems to me that any Crysis vs Killzone 2 discussion is moot in the PS section. They aren't available on the same system specs. Any discussion of what Killzone 2 would look like on a PC belongs in the HTPC Gaming section since that is obviously where you would discuss PC Hardware and what effect it would have on software.

At the very least, can someone explain the criteria for comparing the graphics in a one level demo swathed in muted tans and dust and a game set in a lush jungle with a different artistic style?

And, I'm sorry--but the character and gun models in KZ2 look better than this:

http://ve3dmedia.ign.com/ve3d/image/article/745/745255/new-crysis-dx10-screenshot-20061110001326035.jpg

Oh, and Avarice? You violin skills are weak. But, I guess you are probably used to playing with tiny things. Boom Roasted.

The picture is extremely old, and the actual game looks a lot better.

well... the problem is that everyone agrees that Crysis does, in fact, look better. Now, if someone came in and gave a good justification as to why KZ2 looks better, then we'd probably have something interesting to talk about/argue.

well... the problem is that everyone agrees that Crysis does, in fact, look better. Now, if someone came in and gave a good justification as to why KZ2 looks better, then we'd probably have something interesting to talk about/argue.

Nobody is arguing. That's why this is pointless. Most people have consoles because they don't feel like geeking out their pc's just to play games that look good on their 24" LCD's. They want to turn on the PS3/360 and just play on their couch.

Now somebody bring up a console game and explain why it looks better than KZ2, then we'd probably have something interesting to talk about.

Now somebody bring up a console game and explain why it looks better than KZ2, then we'd probably have something interesting to talk about.

How about Gears of War 2? I think KZ2 is only marginally better than GOW. Same thing with MGS4. In fact, despite all of the things people say about how pretty KZ2 is, i still think Warhawk and Wipeout HD have the cleanest graphics on the system.

Gears of War's character models/lighting still makes everything look too plastic for me (example (http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/884/884154/gears-of-war-2-20080625074315142.jpg)) Gears has some great textures and bump mapping, but I think the detail in the physics, smoke, light, etc., push KZ2 over the edge.

Another big thing I think is animation/AI. The way NPCs interact with each other and use the environment can create a much better 'looking' experience.

The awesome attention to character modeling and lighting effects (on characters) in Gears/Gears 2 is impressive and reminds me of some of the great moments in Fight Night R3 where I felt like I was seeing claymation.

Anyway, this whole "comparison" business just shows how subjective a thing "graphics" is. Art design? Polygon count? Textures? Lighting effects? Animation? Resolution? Mo-cap? Screen filtering effects? Particle effects? Etc.

There are just too many things possible, in too many different ways to ever be technically certain of a game's graphical superiority. All I can say is: Killzone 2 looks ****ing brilliant.

Perfect example of who I speak.Thank you for proving me right.

You're welcome. How's your bottle?

The picture is extremely old, and the actual game looks a lot better.

And, this is a 6 minute downloadable demo.


The awesome attention to character modeling and lighting effects (on characters) in Gears/Gears 2 is impressive and reminds me of some of the great moments in Fight Night R3 where I felt like I was seeing claymation.

Anyway, this whole "comparison" business just shows how subjective a thing "graphics" is. Art design? Polygon count? Textures? Lighting effects? Animation? Resolution? Mo-cap? Screen filtering effects? Particle effects? Etc.

There are just too many things possible, in too many different ways to ever be technically certain of a game's graphical superiority. All I can say is: Killzone 2 looks ****ing brilliant.


Indeed. This thread is the internet equivalent of "Best Rock Drummer of 1986" in Kerrang.

Indeed. This thread is the internet equivalent of "Best Rock Drummer of 1986" in Kerrang.But that has an easy answer: Dave Lombardo. This thread, not so much.

Crysis doesn't really look anything like that pic at all. That must be from a very early build, and running on a commodore 64 :p

The awesome attention to character modeling and lighting effects (on characters) in Gears/Gears 2 is impressive and reminds me of some of the great moments in Fight Night R3 where I felt like I was seeing claymation.

Anyway, this whole "comparison" business just shows how subjective a thing "graphics" is. Art design? Polygon count? Textures? Lighting effects? Animation? Resolution? Mo-cap? Screen filtering effects? Particle effects? Etc.

There are just too many things possible, in too many different ways to ever be technically certain of a game's graphical superiority. All I can say is: Killzone 2 looks ****ing brilliant.

Exactly,

Some people bitched about GTA4 for example, saying it was muddy and that the GFX wern't as good as some people claimed.

All I could do is laugh when you see that the game renders abut 10 miles to the horizon in all three dimensions. I don't think I've ever seen a 3d world as detailed while maintaining a good frame rate. For what the game called for, and what Rockstar delivered, the games engine was a beast.

Still wouldn't stop people that had a problem that every texture wasn't 2Kx2K resolution

yeah, but i was making a post that was relevant to the thread title. I have never gotten why people on here that think a particular thread is stupid or "useless" post in it just to prolong it. I guess they are the natural complainers.They can't have any time for gaming or their AV gear because all they do is live on this forum,which is obvious by the amount of posts they rack up.

what would be your threshold of "useless posts" be? or rather who draws the line between extremely helpful/resourceful AND "useless"?

I do agree that if you consider a post useless then by posting in it further just counters your opinion....but then again the first 3 pages of threads are all fluff anyway, all the good stuff happens in page 4 and beyond

but then again the first 3 pages of threads are all fluff anyway, all the good stuff happens in page 4 and beyond

Like this?

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/coreimages/digital+art/13707_6102_by_kriegs.jpg

^^^yup, and a comparison thread to boot.

I think most gamers, at least those who've played Crysis know the score. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Killzone 2 and I think it looks absolutely amazing...but it's not Crysis, at least in terms of graphics.

dont forget halo killer.....:rolleyes:

Crysis is known for its cutting edge graphics on super high end systems which have to be tweaked, geeked and overclocked, and then cooled with liquid nitrogen and dressed up with blue neon lights... but isn't it a crappy game? I mean, that's what I heard anyway.


It was like that when the game came out, now pretty much any decent gaming PC can run the game pretty well. And Crysis is not a crappy game at all, its easily a better singleplayer game than Call of Duty 4 or World of War for example.

dont forget halo killer.....:rolleyes:


Oh, good. This thread is now complete.

People that r here just here to prove that KZ2 is not better then crysis r just plain "xbot" haters, KZ2 is just the best FPS loaded with a visuals, story, and according to MANY reviews "Online Multiplayer" experience period.! so keep hating cause PS3 is about "QUALITY PROGRAMING" not that half ass PC programing that the xbox is FULL of.

Keep playing ur "PC" exclusives, thats where "microsoft quality programing" belongs, in the soon to b PATCH pile.

People that r here just here to prove that KZ2 is not better then crysis r just plain "xbot" haters, KZ2 is just the best FPS loaded with a visuals, story, and according to MANY reviews "Online Multiplayer" experience period.! so keep hating cause PS3 is about "QUALITY PROGRAMING" not that half ass PC programing that the xbox is FULL of.

Keep playing ur "PC" exclusives, thats where "microsoft quality programing" belongs, in the soon to b PATCH pile.

BRUTAL MELTDOWN :p

People that r here just here to prove that KZ2 is not better then crysis r just plain "xbot" haters, KZ2 is just the best FPS loaded with a visuals, story, and according to MANY reviews "Online Multiplayer" experience period.! so keep hating cause PS3 is about "QUALITY PROGRAMING" not that half ass PC programing that the xbox is FULL of.

Keep playing ur "PC" exclusives, thats where "microsoft quality programing" belongs, in the soon to b PATCH pile.Time to play everyone's favorite gameshow:

Real or Not Real?

I think the only word I understood in that post was "r."

Time to play everyone's favorite gameshow:

Real or Not Real?

I think the only word I understood in that post was "r."

I vote not real. If that was real then I've lost all faith in the world. lol

People that r here just here to prove that KZ2 is not better then crysis r just plain "xbot" haters, KZ2 is just the best FPS loaded with a visuals, story, and according to MANY reviews "Online Multiplayer" experience period.! so keep hating cause PS3 is about "QUALITY PROGRAMING" not that half ass PC programing that the xbox is FULL of.

Keep playing ur "PC" exclusives, thats where "microsoft quality programing" belongs, in the soon to b PATCH pile.

Beautiful meltdown! btw Edge game Killzone 2 a 7/10 :(

People that r here just here to prove that KZ2 is not better then crysis r just plain "xbot" haters, KZ2 is just the best FPS loaded with a visuals, story, and according to MANY reviews "Online Multiplayer" experience period.! so keep hating cause PS3 is about "QUALITY PROGRAMING" not that half ass PC programing that the xbox is FULL of.

Keep playing ur "PC" exclusives, thats where "microsoft quality programing" belongs, in the soon to b PATCH pile.

(sung to Europe's Final Countdown)
"Its the Fi-nal Melt-downnnnn, da da da, da da da da......."

Beautiful meltdown! btw Edge game Killzone 2 a 7/10 :(

got a link, or better yet a copy of it to post? Thats sad, but they're one of the better publications. Would be interested in what they seem to find fault with.

http://www.edge-online.com/magazine/killzone-2-the-edge-verdict

http://www.edge-online.com/magazine/killzone-2-the-edge-verdict

I'd agree with it, if only the reviewer hadn't mentioned 'tight' controls. That's an outright lie.

I'd agree with it, if only the reviewer hadn't mentioned 'tight' controls. That's an outright lie.

I'm a pretty hardcore Halo3 and COD5 player, and it's already tough adapting to the two different control schemes when switching between the two games. When I say "control scheme" I'm not just talking about the button layout, but also the speed, sensitivity and looseness of the aiming and movement controls.

After playing through this KZ2 demo, the controls seem incredibly far removed from the typical COD/Halo scheme. Yeah, they feel more realistic, but when it comes to playing online, I don't know if I can take on 3 totally separate control schemes... This KZ2 game is going to have to be really good for me to play it online to the same extent that I do with Halo and COD.

I don't have a problem with the different control scheme options as much as I have a problem with the feel of the control to character itself. Though I've already discussed this a lot on the KZ2 thread.

Try playing Battlefield 2 on the 360 and jump into COD or Halo 3 right after. It will screw up your game, guranteed. :D It's so different from those games. XD

op, seriously?