They say that the 360 version hits the 30 fps mark more often than the PS3 version, but that the 360 version also dips down to 20 as well.

DF says that PS3 framerate is more steady.

IGN claimed that PS3 had big drops while making zero mention of the 360 version, meanwhile according to DF it is the 360 that may in fact have the bigger drops.

Point is, IGN has been flat out lying about the PS3 version of this game the entire time. I am glad Geis (However it is spelled) has been as exposed as he has, especially since he kept on going with the bullshit even after Crytek called him out on it.

This is the section I found to hurt Geis integrity the most.

"The increased performance and resolution indicates that the Xbox 360 is the preferred platform for Crysis 2, but in the heat of actual gameplay, this difference appears to evaporate. Put simply, on certain stages, frame-rate varies rather drastically to the point where the game can feel almost unplayable. Thankfully these areas don't account for the majority of the gameplay by any stretch of the imagination, but it does ask serious questions about the stability of the engine - or Crytek's own optimisation procedures.

While the engine analysis based on like-for-like footage suggests an advantage to the Xbox 360 version of Crysis 2, as we can see in these extensive tests, performance can be very, very variable and the small variations in frame-rate we see previously give way to some much bigger differences, depending on the level of action on-screen. The unavoidable conclusion we came to is that when frame-rate does crash in those affected areas, it's actually Crysis 2 on PS3 that holds up better. "

Much different from what Gies claimed.

well IGN didn't said big drop,they said "worse framerate",overall is 360 litte better,but maybe some patch can fix this(both consoles,not only 360 or PS3)

and i don't think we need to care IGN anymore right?so clam down,it's very close for both version,no winner here(i always said that)

just get your favorite version

Of course it can't be the King, it can barely maintain itself. DF says that it sometimes gets to the point of unplayable.

Killzone 3 at least maintains a steady 30FPS regardless of what is going on, whether it be little to nothing or huge gun fights and explosions.

Does it really matter if its the graphics king or not, if its performance isn't on par with the previous king(s)?

oh great! i was so happy about the PS3 version being inferior! Finally a excuse for not getting a game his year, i thought!

Now it turns out to be great! i will have to visit a loan shark soon!

THANK'S A LOT DIGITAL FOUNDRY! I am very dissapointed!

*goes to see Sky Finance*

*edit*

Nevermind!

3D for this game is a great achievement as it runs in 720p per eye. That is double than what killzone 3 and Motostorm or any 360 game have done so far.

Too bad that the effect it self isn't as impressiove using this Crytek approach on any platform, PC included.

Oh well, it was worth a shot. Back to the world of dual video cards and 3D vision I go...

Who says I am not calm? Is it wrong to call out a site for it's ever continuing bullshit?

I agree to get the one you want. I am not trying to say otherwise.

I also believe that this game, it's graphics, engine, etc... are being very overhyped.

I think I may rent it now instead of buying it.

When they say frams drop to the point of almost being unplayable it raises one hell of a red flag.

Motorstorm has true 3D in 720p since it runs at 1280x1080p resolution according to Digital Foundry.

Killzone 3 runs at a lower resolution, but has better effects.

EDIT: Now I am not so sure about 720p, but it will definitely run at 540 per eye. But GT 5 runs at 720p so its possible.