Quantcast
Killzone vs. Crysis

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Killzone vs. Crysis

homicidaIpanda said:
leo-j i really hope ur not saying killzone 2 looks better...i own them both and crysis looks better and the physics blow it out of the water. consoles games will always be inferior, I just moved to pc 2 months ago after like 16 years of console gaming and I will never go back. best money i have ever spent.

I don't think he's being serious...



 

Around the Network

There are PC gamers that I personally know that are fortunate enough to have such an amazing gaming rig, that tell me "KZ2 looks better at times*then crysis at very high settings*, don't listen to the people on forums, they think consoles are ancient that can only run marginally good looking games"



 

mM
disolitude said:
To me Metro 2033 on very high looks better than Crysis... Its a 2+ year old game guys. It was amazing back then but games have caught up.

The majority of Metro 2033 takes place in enclosed, indoor environments, and it still is not quite as good looking as crysis. I really think people are underestimating how good crysis looks.



RiksK15 said:

Ok I have played Crysis, but not Killzone 2, altough I have seen it in videos... (I was not that impreased about Crysis)

 

So since everyone says that Crysis has better graphics can someone explain me in what way does it have better graphics? Or show an side to side coparison! I think that Killzone has better graphics... proove if I am wrong...

 

EDIT: I did not play Crysis on very max, but close to it... so it might be hard to compare for me!

 

Okay Crysis is in a resolution up to 1080p and higher, and has higher AA.

There you are. Proof.


Really when are PC vs console graphics topics going to stop? A top end PC is far more powerful graphically then any console out there. There's a reason the graphics cards cost more than the price of eithe console.



@ leo-j

I've already responded to you in 2 different threads with no response back. What's visually appealing is different from what's technically impressive. Crysis reigns as the unprecedented technical showcase due to its engine's capabilities and what can be observed on higher end PC's. I'm not saying that the Killzone 2 engine, God of War 3 engine or Uncharted 2 engine don't have these capabilities. Simply that these engines can't showcase the extents of their abilities on consoles.

Crysis is technically impressive because everything it does is calculated in real time. Everything is calculated on the spot rather than utilizing pre-baked animations or visual effects.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neqAaSb9gNQ&feature=related

There's an example of what I mean. Most console games with a big nuke scene are either rendered beforehand with post-processing or and heavily heavily scripted to go in only one particular manner. That video shows CryEngine 2 doing it on the spot and buildings and trees around it reacting in response to it by breaking apart, being blown away, etc. If the same situation were performed with the explosives set differently, the result would also be different.

I've had many people claim to me that Killzone 2 has real time wind effects as well. However this is harder to test as the environments are very static with not many items that will react to wind. Having the appearance of wind blow across the screen (such as the day time level in Killzone) or having a flag blowing doesn't mean the wind is being calculated in real time. Throw a grenade up at one of those flags and see if the direction of the waving flag is affected. It doesn't - because the wind blowing through the flag is not being done in real time.

Another example of CryEngine 2 tech that's pretty insane is the lighting. I'll discuss why it's impressive beyond any console game more when I get a response.

Killzone 2 is a looker visually and may very well be many people's favourite looking game due to its very cohesive aesthetic. But from a technical standpoint it isn't at CryEngine 2 level.



Around the Network
gwrath said:
disolitude said:
To me Metro 2033 on very high looks better than Crysis... Its a 2+ year old game guys. It was amazing back then but games have caught up.

The majority of Metro 2033 takes place in enclosed, indoor environments, and it still is not quite as good looking as crysis. I really think people are underestimating how good crysis looks.

I think Crysis is definetly a more of a technical game when it comes to visuals.

I know Metro is mostly in coridors and hence isn't as technical but to me it just looks more pleasing to the eye...with all the particle effects and amazing lighting. Pop it in Nvidia 3D Vision and the game almost justifies spending all that cash for the 3D glasses.

I do agree that Killzone 2 does not look as good as either of those two games though...or other select few games running on PC at very high detail.

The only way Killzone 2 would have looked as good as PC FPS games is if Sony didn't include a bluray drive, wifi and all that other stuff...and instead paid Nvidia for a real video card. the 7800GTX that is in the PS3 was mediocre when PS3 came out and is complete garbage today. If Sony paid for a 8800GTX...now then PS3 would have been the visual powerhouse it was promissed to be.



@disolitude

How would you know?

You have never played KILLZONE 2..

you people UNDERESTIMATE the PS3 GREATLY. I know FOR A FACT none of you have played UNCHARTED 2, KILLZONE 2, or GOD OF WAR III (which kills your argument on scale) all which are almost a generation ahead of ANYTHING released on the closest HD competitor, and I joke you not.

Were is spartan's sig when you need it..



 

mM
disolitude said:
gwrath said:
disolitude said:
To me Metro 2033 on very high looks better than Crysis... Its a 2+ year old game guys. It was amazing back then but games have caught up.

The majority of Metro 2033 takes place in enclosed, indoor environments, and it still is not quite as good looking as crysis. I really think people are underestimating how good crysis looks.

I think Crysis is definetly a more of a technical game when it comes to visuals.

I know Metro is mostly in coridors and hence isn't as technical but to me it just looks more pleasing to the eye...with all the particle effects and amazing lighting. Pop it in Nvidia 3D Vision and the game almost justifies spending all that cash for the 3D glasses.

I do agree that Killzone 2 does not look as good as either of those two games though...or other select few games running on PC at very high detail.

The only way Killzone 2 would have looked as good as PC FPS games is if Sony didn't include a bluray drive, wifi and all that other stuff...and instead paid Nvidia for a real video card. the 7800GTX that is in the PS3 was mediocre when PS3 came out and is complete garbage today. If Sony paid for a 8800GTX...now then PS3 would have been the visual powerhouse it was promissed to be.

I think Crysis does exteriors better while Metro does interiors better. Both are amongst the most technical showpieces of gaming but I agree that Crysis is definitely the more technical game.



any game released on pc since 2004/2005 looks better than killzone 2 when maxed out. any pc game released since 2008 looks way better than killzone 2 even on High/Very High settings. even Half Life 2 and first Far Cry look way better than killzone 2 if you max them out.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=45986

there won't be any console game that will beat even first Crysis or Stalker, not in this gen.
did i win?



leo-j

@disolitude

How would you know?

You have never played KILLZONE 2..

you people UNDERESTIMATE the PS3 GREATLY. I know FOR A FACT none of you have played UNCHARTED 2, KILLZONE 2, or GOD OF WAR III (which kills your argument on scale) all which are almost a generation ahead of ANYTHING released on the closest HD competitor, and I joke you not.

Were is spartan's sig when you need it..

I've played both Uncharted 2 and Killzone 2 and will be getting GoW3 once my finals are done on April 21. Check out my PSN ID (PS_MO_D for offline and IIXI Mo D IXII for online). Thanks for showing everyone how deluded you are. It just makes everything you say less credible and everything everyone else says against you seem more credible in comparison.