By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Its Over. Battlefied 3 is the new console king for graphics.

Aldro said:
CGI-Quality said:
ZaneWane said:
Iveyboi said:
Lol you said the same thing about Crysis 2 and that was not the king. Nearly on par with Killzone but not Uncharted level.

IGN and many like it say different

Although it's not really important, not too many sites said Crysis 2 was the best looking console game (although a good few did say it was the best looking title on consoles). Some of the sites you're speaking of said it was the best looking FPS, one of the best, or possibly the best looking . Many more said Killzone 3 was the best looking console game overall.

(I know im making a lot of replies here xD)
I second this. There were far more who claimed Killzone 3 to have set the new benchmark. Not to mention those who did comparisons between the two claimed Killzone 3 to be superior and vastly polished.

Just check out lens of truth >_>
http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2head-killzone-3-vs-crysis-2-analysis/

Check my sig



Around the Network

I agree with some of the posters,this doesn't look as good as KZ3.



ZaneWane said:
Aldro said:
CGI-Quality said:
ZaneWane said:
Iveyboi said:
Lol you said the same thing about Crysis 2 and that was not the king. Nearly on par with Killzone but not Uncharted level.

IGN and many like it say different

Although it's not really important, not too many sites said Crysis 2 was the best looking console game (although a good few did say it was the best looking title on consoles). Some of the sites you're speaking of said it was the best looking FPS, one of the best, or possibly the best looking . Many more said Killzone 3 was the best looking console game overall.

(I know im making a lot of replies here xD)
I second this. There were far more who claimed Killzone 3 to have set the new benchmark. Not to mention those who did comparisons between the two claimed Killzone 3 to be superior and vastly polished.

Just check out lens of truth >_>
http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2head-killzone-3-vs-crysis-2-analysis/

Check my sig

Graphics: "The first thing we need to remember about these two games is that they have two very different styles.  Killzone 3 seems to be shooting for a very realistic, yet strong, sci-fi feeling with both setting and character models while Crysis 2 tries to capture a more true to life realism.  Needless to say, both versions set out to do what they aim for.  Everything from character detail to the texture of the terrain is done perfectly.  While the difference is so minimal that it will go unnoticed, Killzone 3 seems to have a resolution advantage here.  While Killzone 3 runs at full native 720p, Crysis2 runs in very SLIGHT sub HD resolution of 1152 x 720.  However Crysis 2 doesn’t hesitate to hit back with slightly better HDR lighting throughout.

Finally, what really got our attention, and what sets Killzone 3 apart from the competition are its’ in-game cinematics. Aside from Killzone 3′s opening cut scene, all others used in-game props, and were rendered using Killzone 3′s in-game graphics engine. Let us just say, they look amazing. As for Crysis 2, we were really disappointed with the FMV’s it presented. To be honest, a few of the cut scenes looked down right ugly showing signs of compression and pixelation (reference the image below). This is something we haven’t seen since the 32bit era. Overall, the graphics in Killzone 3 were more polished throughout."

 

"Performance: This category had some noticeable differences.  For the most part Killzone 3 ran a consistent 30 FPS with a few occasional, and very slight, drops with no screen tearing at all.  Crysis 2 on the other hand dropped FPS noticeably more than Killzone 3 however.  The worst of these drops seem to happen in the heavier fire fights more often than anywhere else.  Also there was some very slight screen tearing at the top of the screen in Crysis 2, but it was so slight that it will go mainly unnoticed.  Another problem that Crysis 2 seemed to have that was absent from Killzone 3 is a few random pop-ins.  While the game looks fantastic, pop-ins can take from the beauty of even the best looking games.  Luckily however, they aren’t that bad and you probably won’t notice them in action therefore they won’t take away from the experience overall.  In the end however the differences are there, no matter how small they may be.  Killzone 3 takes the win here with a better average in FPS with little to no pop-ins or tearing."

 

"Loading: The loading is another category with a clear cut winner.  Most of the load times for both Killzone 3 and Crysis 2 were masked by pre rendered cut scenes and make them almost invisible your first time through.  Even when you try to skip the scenes, it isn’t that bad.  Crysis 2  however had some seriously horrific loads when you boot up your save file as you start the game.  We believe the numbers speak for themselves."


Quite obvious xP. Feel free to hold on to them reviews though! If we were to have a graphic award right now, I'm honestly positive (not counting the PC, which so many douche awards seem to do) most of them would go to Killzone 3. Hell basing from the trailer, Crysis 2 looks better than that video of Battlefield 3. It's still like GR said though;
Uncharted 2 and soon to be 3, Killzone 3, God of War 3 being on ONE platform only STILL have the advantage. Is there a huge difference? I'd honestly say yes. Neither Crysis 2 nor Battlefield 3 seem to have character models that impress me on consoles >_>. Lets not even talk about Uncharted and what looks like CGI there... (See Sully above)^.



Oh! I missed that completely? 5 Sites, that's it? Out of.. how many? Conclusion: Although Crysis 2 looks fantastic on both the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, the graphics crown still belongs to Guerrilla’s Killzone 3. Not only does Killzone 3 look graphically better, the performance its more stable throughout. ^Did any of those sites actually make a comparison like that? Hahaha



Nah, it's never 'over'. Just wait a few months...



ZaneWane said:
Aldro said:
CGI-Quality said:
ZaneWane said:
Iveyboi said:
Lol you said the same thing about Crysis 2 and that was not the king. Nearly on par with Killzone but not Uncharted level.

IGN and many like it say different

Although it's not really important, not too many sites said Crysis 2 was the best looking console game (although a good few did say it was the best looking title on consoles). Some of the sites you're speaking of said it was the best looking FPS, one of the best, or possibly the best looking . Many more said Killzone 3 was the best looking console game overall.

(I know im making a lot of replies here xD)
I second this. There were far more who claimed Killzone 3 to have set the new benchmark. Not to mention those who did comparisons between the two claimed Killzone 3 to be superior and vastly polished.

Just check out lens of truth >_>
http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2head-killzone-3-vs-crysis-2-analysis/

Check my sig

http://www.tqcast.com/2011/03/19/crysis-2-graphics-what-killzone-3-still-best-lookign-fps/

"There has been lots of talk around the web regarding the Crysis 2 PS3 and Xbox 360 comparison, some say the Xbox 360 version looks better, while others claim that the PS3 is far superior. While it’s great to have these types of arguments right before the game releases, let’s not forget that the truth is…Killzone 3 wipes the floor with the Crysis 2 console screens and remains the best looking FPS on a console this generation. check out the comparison and screens."

 

Gamereactor making the list of the 10 greatest console graphics after Crysis 2 released:
http://www.gamereactor.se/artiklar/26926/V%E4rldens+10+snyggaste+konsolspel/

:')



Around the Network
Aldro said:
ZaneWane said:
Aldro said:
CGI-Quality said:
ZaneWane said:
Iveyboi said:
Lol you said the same thing about Crysis 2 and that was not the king. Nearly on par with Killzone but not Uncharted level.

IGN and many like it say different

Although it's not really important, not too many sites said Crysis 2 was the best looking console game (although a good few did say it was the best looking title on consoles). Some of the sites you're speaking of said it was the best looking FPS, one of the best, or possibly the best looking . Many more said Killzone 3 was the best looking console game overall.

(I know im making a lot of replies here xD)
I second this. There were far more who claimed Killzone 3 to have set the new benchmark. Not to mention those who did comparisons between the two claimed Killzone 3 to be superior and vastly polished.

Just check out lens of truth >_>
http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2head-killzone-3-vs-crysis-2-analysis/

Check my sig

Graphics: "The first thing we need to remember about these two games is that they have two very different styles.  Killzone 3 seems to be shooting for a very realistic, yet strong, sci-fi feeling with both setting and character models while Crysis 2 tries to capture a more true to life realism.  Needless to say, both versions set out to do what they aim for.  Everything from character detail to the texture of the terrain is done perfectly.  While the difference is so minimal that it will go unnoticed, Killzone 3 seems to have a resolution advantage here.  While Killzone 3 runs at full native 720p, Crysis2 runs in very SLIGHT sub HD resolution of 1152 x 720.  However Crysis 2 doesn’t hesitate to hit back with slightly better HDR lighting throughout.

Finally, what really got our attention, and what sets Killzone 3 apart from the competition are its’ in-game cinematics. Aside from Killzone 3′s opening cut scene, all others used in-game props, and were rendered using Killzone 3′s in-game graphics engine. Let us just say, they look amazing. As for Crysis 2, we were really disappointed with the FMV’s it presented. To be honest, a few of the cut scenes looked down right ugly showing signs of compression and pixelation (reference the image below). This is something we haven’t seen since the 32bit era. Overall, the graphics in Killzone 3 were more polished throughout."

 

"Performance: This category had some noticeable differences.  For the most part Killzone 3 ran a consistent 30 FPS with a few occasional, and very slight, drops with no screen tearing at all.  Crysis 2 on the other hand dropped FPS noticeably more than Killzone 3 however.  The worst of these drops seem to happen in the heavier fire fights more often than anywhere else.  Also there was some very slight screen tearing at the top of the screen in Crysis 2, but it was so slight that it will go mainly unnoticed.  Another problem that Crysis 2 seemed to have that was absent from Killzone 3 is a few random pop-ins.  While the game looks fantastic, pop-ins can take from the beauty of even the best looking games.  Luckily however, they aren’t that bad and you probably won’t notice them in action therefore they won’t take away from the experience overall.  In the end however the differences are there, no matter how small they may be.  Killzone 3 takes the win here with a better average in FPS with little to no pop-ins or tearing."

 

"Loading: The loading is another category with a clear cut winner.  Most of the load times for both Killzone 3 and Crysis 2 were masked by pre rendered cut scenes and make them almost invisible your first time through.  Even when you try to skip the scenes, it isn’t that bad.  Crysis 2  however had some seriously horrific loads when you boot up your save file as you start the game.  We believe the numbers speak for themselves."


Quite obvious xP. Feel free to hold on to them reviews though! If we were to have a graphic award right now, I'm honestly positive (not counting the PC, which so many douche awards seem to do) most of them would go to Killzone 3. Hell basing from the trailer, Crysis 2 looks better than that video of Battlefield 3. It's still like GR said though;
Uncharted 2 and soon to be 3, Killzone 3, God of War 3 being on ONE platform only STILL have the advantage. Is there a huge difference? I'd honestly say yes. Neither Crysis 2 nor Battlefield 3 seem to have character models that impress me on consoles >_>. Lets not even talk about Uncharted and what looks like CGI there... (See Sully above)^.



Oh! I missed that completely? 5 Sites, that's it? Out of.. how many? Conclusion: Although Crysis 2 looks fantastic on both the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, the graphics crown still belongs to Guerrilla’s Killzone 3. Not only does Killzone 3 look graphically better, the performance its more stable throughout. ^Did any of those sites actually make a comparison like that? Hahaha

IGN and many like it have spoken



ZaneWane said:
Aldro said:
ZaneWane said:
Aldro said:
CGI-Quality said:
ZaneWane said:
Iveyboi said:
Lol you said the same thing about Crysis 2 and that was not the king. Nearly on par with Killzone but not Uncharted level.

IGN and many like it say different

Although it's not really important, not too many sites said Crysis 2 was the best looking console game (although a good few did say it was the best looking title on consoles). Some of the sites you're speaking of said it was the best looking FPS, one of the best, or possibly the best looking . Many more said Killzone 3 was the best looking console game overall.

(I know im making a lot of replies here xD)
I second this. There were far more who claimed Killzone 3 to have set the new benchmark. Not to mention those who did comparisons between the two claimed Killzone 3 to be superior and vastly polished.

Just check out lens of truth >_>
http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2head-killzone-3-vs-crysis-2-analysis/

Check my sig

Graphics: "The first thing we need to remember about these two games is that they have two very different styles.  Killzone 3 seems to be shooting for a very realistic, yet strong, sci-fi feeling with both setting and character models while Crysis 2 tries to capture a more true to life realism.  Needless to say, both versions set out to do what they aim for.  Everything from character detail to the texture of the terrain is done perfectly.  While the difference is so minimal that it will go unnoticed, Killzone 3 seems to have a resolution advantage here.  While Killzone 3 runs at full native 720p, Crysis2 runs in very SLIGHT sub HD resolution of 1152 x 720.  However Crysis 2 doesn’t hesitate to hit back with slightly better HDR lighting throughout.

Finally, what really got our attention, and what sets Killzone 3 apart from the competition are its’ in-game cinematics. Aside from Killzone 3′s opening cut scene, all others used in-game props, and were rendered using Killzone 3′s in-game graphics engine. Let us just say, they look amazing. As for Crysis 2, we were really disappointed with the FMV’s it presented. To be honest, a few of the cut scenes looked down right ugly showing signs of compression and pixelation (reference the image below). This is something we haven’t seen since the 32bit era. Overall, the graphics in Killzone 3 were more polished throughout."

 

"Performance: This category had some noticeable differences.  For the most part Killzone 3 ran a consistent 30 FPS with a few occasional, and very slight, drops with no screen tearing at all.  Crysis 2 on the other hand dropped FPS noticeably more than Killzone 3 however.  The worst of these drops seem to happen in the heavier fire fights more often than anywhere else.  Also there was some very slight screen tearing at the top of the screen in Crysis 2, but it was so slight that it will go mainly unnoticed.  Another problem that Crysis 2 seemed to have that was absent from Killzone 3 is a few random pop-ins.  While the game looks fantastic, pop-ins can take from the beauty of even the best looking games.  Luckily however, they aren’t that bad and you probably won’t notice them in action therefore they won’t take away from the experience overall.  In the end however the differences are there, no matter how small they may be.  Killzone 3 takes the win here with a better average in FPS with little to no pop-ins or tearing."

 

"Loading: The loading is another category with a clear cut winner.  Most of the load times for both Killzone 3 and Crysis 2 were masked by pre rendered cut scenes and make them almost invisible your first time through.  Even when you try to skip the scenes, it isn’t that bad.  Crysis 2  however had some seriously horrific loads when you boot up your save file as you start the game.  We believe the numbers speak for themselves."


Quite obvious xP. Feel free to hold on to them reviews though! If we were to have a graphic award right now, I'm honestly positive (not counting the PC, which so many douche awards seem to do) most of them would go to Killzone 3. Hell basing from the trailer, Crysis 2 looks better than that video of Battlefield 3. It's still like GR said though;
Uncharted 2 and soon to be 3, Killzone 3, God of War 3 being on ONE platform only STILL have the advantage. Is there a huge difference? I'd honestly say yes. Neither Crysis 2 nor Battlefield 3 seem to have character models that impress me on consoles >_>. Lets not even talk about Uncharted and what looks like CGI there... (See Sully above)^.



Oh! I missed that completely? 5 Sites, that's it? Out of.. how many? Conclusion: Although Crysis 2 looks fantastic on both the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, the graphics crown still belongs to Guerrilla’s Killzone 3. Not only does Killzone 3 look graphically better, the performance its more stable throughout. ^Did any of those sites actually make a comparison like that? Hahaha

IGN and many like it have spoken

IGN :'D, check out MGS4 beating Crysis Warhead in graphic awards
http://bestof.ign.com/2008/overall/11.html

Damn bro! Considering Crysis Warhead being on the PC and without DX 11 -> is far better than Crysis 2..
MGS4 IS GRAPHICALLY BETTER THAN CRYSIS 2!

Ign confirms and so did 30 other sites if my memory serves me right!



Aldro said:
ZaneWane said:
Aldro said:
ZaneWane said:
Aldro said:
CGI-Quality said:
ZaneWane said:
Iveyboi said:
Lol you said the same thing about Crysis 2 and that was not the king. Nearly on par with Killzone but not Uncharted level.

IGN and many like it say different

Although it's not really important, not too many sites said Crysis 2 was the best looking console game (although a good few did say it was the best looking title on consoles). Some of the sites you're speaking of said it was the best looking FPS, one of the best, or possibly the best looking . Many more said Killzone 3 was the best looking console game overall.

(I know im making a lot of replies here xD)
I second this. There were far more who claimed Killzone 3 to have set the new benchmark. Not to mention those who did comparisons between the two claimed Killzone 3 to be superior and vastly polished.

Just check out lens of truth >_>
http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2head-killzone-3-vs-crysis-2-analysis/

Check my sig

Graphics: "The first thing we need to remember about these two games is that they have two very different styles.  Killzone 3 seems to be shooting for a very realistic, yet strong, sci-fi feeling with both setting and character models while Crysis 2 tries to capture a more true to life realism.  Needless to say, both versions set out to do what they aim for.  Everything from character detail to the texture of the terrain is done perfectly.  While the difference is so minimal that it will go unnoticed, Killzone 3 seems to have a resolution advantage here.  While Killzone 3 runs at full native 720p, Crysis2 runs in very SLIGHT sub HD resolution of 1152 x 720.  However Crysis 2 doesn’t hesitate to hit back with slightly better HDR lighting throughout.

Finally, what really got our attention, and what sets Killzone 3 apart from the competition are its’ in-game cinematics. Aside from Killzone 3′s opening cut scene, all others used in-game props, and were rendered using Killzone 3′s in-game graphics engine. Let us just say, they look amazing. As for Crysis 2, we were really disappointed with the FMV’s it presented. To be honest, a few of the cut scenes looked down right ugly showing signs of compression and pixelation (reference the image below). This is something we haven’t seen since the 32bit era. Overall, the graphics in Killzone 3 were more polished throughout."

 

"Performance: This category had some noticeable differences.  For the most part Killzone 3 ran a consistent 30 FPS with a few occasional, and very slight, drops with no screen tearing at all.  Crysis 2 on the other hand dropped FPS noticeably more than Killzone 3 however.  The worst of these drops seem to happen in the heavier fire fights more often than anywhere else.  Also there was some very slight screen tearing at the top of the screen in Crysis 2, but it was so slight that it will go mainly unnoticed.  Another problem that Crysis 2 seemed to have that was absent from Killzone 3 is a few random pop-ins.  While the game looks fantastic, pop-ins can take from the beauty of even the best looking games.  Luckily however, they aren’t that bad and you probably won’t notice them in action therefore they won’t take away from the experience overall.  In the end however the differences are there, no matter how small they may be.  Killzone 3 takes the win here with a better average in FPS with little to no pop-ins or tearing."

 

"Loading: The loading is another category with a clear cut winner.  Most of the load times for both Killzone 3 and Crysis 2 were masked by pre rendered cut scenes and make them almost invisible your first time through.  Even when you try to skip the scenes, it isn’t that bad.  Crysis 2  however had some seriously horrific loads when you boot up your save file as you start the game.  We believe the numbers speak for themselves."


Quite obvious xP. Feel free to hold on to them reviews though! If we were to have a graphic award right now, I'm honestly positive (not counting the PC, which so many douche awards seem to do) most of them would go to Killzone 3. Hell basing from the trailer, Crysis 2 looks better than that video of Battlefield 3. It's still like GR said though;
Uncharted 2 and soon to be 3, Killzone 3, God of War 3 being on ONE platform only STILL have the advantage. Is there a huge difference? I'd honestly say yes. Neither Crysis 2 nor Battlefield 3 seem to have character models that impress me on consoles >_>. Lets not even talk about Uncharted and what looks like CGI there... (See Sully above)^.



Oh! I missed that completely? 5 Sites, that's it? Out of.. how many? Conclusion: Although Crysis 2 looks fantastic on both the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, the graphics crown still belongs to Guerrilla’s Killzone 3. Not only does Killzone 3 look graphically better, the performance its more stable throughout. ^Did any of those sites actually make a comparison like that? Hahaha

IGN and many like it have spoken

IGN :'D, check out MGS4 beating Crysis Warhead in graphic awards
http://bestof.ign.com/2008/overall/11.html

Damn bro! Considering Crysis Warhead being on the PC and without DX 11 -> is far better than Crysis 2..
MGS4 IS GRAPHICALLY BETTER THAN CRYSIS 2!

Ign confirms and so did 30 other sites if my memory serves me right!

My sig does not lie



ZaneWane said:
Aldro said:
ZaneWane said:
Aldro said:
ZaneWane said:
Aldro said:
CGI-Quality said:
ZaneWane said:
Iveyboi said:
Lol you said the same thing about Crysis 2 and that was not the king. Nearly on par with Killzone but not Uncharted level.

IGN and many like it say different

Although it's not really important, not too many sites said Crysis 2 was the best looking console game (although a good few did say it was the best looking title on consoles). Some of the sites you're speaking of said it was the best looking FPS, one of the best, or possibly the best looking . Many more said Killzone 3 was the best looking console game overall.

(I know im making a lot of replies here xD)
I second this. There were far more who claimed Killzone 3 to have set the new benchmark. Not to mention those who did comparisons between the two claimed Killzone 3 to be superior and vastly polished.

Just check out lens of truth >_>
http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2head-killzone-3-vs-crysis-2-analysis/

Check my sig

Graphics: "The first thing we need to remember about these two games is that they have two very different styles.  Killzone 3 seems to be shooting for a very realistic, yet strong, sci-fi feeling with both setting and character models while Crysis 2 tries to capture a more true to life realism.  Needless to say, both versions set out to do what they aim for.  Everything from character detail to the texture of the terrain is done perfectly.  While the difference is so minimal that it will go unnoticed, Killzone 3 seems to have a resolution advantage here.  While Killzone 3 runs at full native 720p, Crysis2 runs in very SLIGHT sub HD resolution of 1152 x 720.  However Crysis 2 doesn’t hesitate to hit back with slightly better HDR lighting throughout.

Finally, what really got our attention, and what sets Killzone 3 apart from the competition are its’ in-game cinematics. Aside from Killzone 3′s opening cut scene, all others used in-game props, and were rendered using Killzone 3′s in-game graphics engine. Let us just say, they look amazing. As for Crysis 2, we were really disappointed with the FMV’s it presented. To be honest, a few of the cut scenes looked down right ugly showing signs of compression and pixelation (reference the image below). This is something we haven’t seen since the 32bit era. Overall, the graphics in Killzone 3 were more polished throughout."

 

"Performance: This category had some noticeable differences.  For the most part Killzone 3 ran a consistent 30 FPS with a few occasional, and very slight, drops with no screen tearing at all.  Crysis 2 on the other hand dropped FPS noticeably more than Killzone 3 however.  The worst of these drops seem to happen in the heavier fire fights more often than anywhere else.  Also there was some very slight screen tearing at the top of the screen in Crysis 2, but it was so slight that it will go mainly unnoticed.  Another problem that Crysis 2 seemed to have that was absent from Killzone 3 is a few random pop-ins.  While the game looks fantastic, pop-ins can take from the beauty of even the best looking games.  Luckily however, they aren’t that bad and you probably won’t notice them in action therefore they won’t take away from the experience overall.  In the end however the differences are there, no matter how small they may be.  Killzone 3 takes the win here with a better average in FPS with little to no pop-ins or tearing."

 

"Loading: The loading is another category with a clear cut winner.  Most of the load times for both Killzone 3 and Crysis 2 were masked by pre rendered cut scenes and make them almost invisible your first time through.  Even when you try to skip the scenes, it isn’t that bad.  Crysis 2  however had some seriously horrific loads when you boot up your save file as you start the game.  We believe the numbers speak for themselves."


Quite obvious xP. Feel free to hold on to them reviews though! If we were to have a graphic award right now, I'm honestly positive (not counting the PC, which so many douche awards seem to do) most of them would go to Killzone 3. Hell basing from the trailer, Crysis 2 looks better than that video of Battlefield 3. It's still like GR said though;
Uncharted 2 and soon to be 3, Killzone 3, God of War 3 being on ONE platform only STILL have the advantage. Is there a huge difference? I'd honestly say yes. Neither Crysis 2 nor Battlefield 3 seem to have character models that impress me on consoles >_>. Lets not even talk about Uncharted and what looks like CGI there... (See Sully above)^.



Oh! I missed that completely? 5 Sites, that's it? Out of.. how many? Conclusion: Although Crysis 2 looks fantastic on both the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, the graphics crown still belongs to Guerrilla’s Killzone 3. Not only does Killzone 3 look graphically better, the performance its more stable throughout. ^Did any of those sites actually make a comparison like that? Hahaha

IGN and many like it have spoken

IGN :'D, check out MGS4 beating Crysis Warhead in graphic awards
http://bestof.ign.com/2008/overall/11.html

Damn bro! Considering Crysis Warhead being on the PC and without DX 11 -> is far better than Crysis 2..
MGS4 IS GRAPHICALLY BETTER THAN CRYSIS 2!

Ign confirms and so did 30 other sites if my memory serves me right!

My sig does not lie

 

(8, 6, 13, 14, 17, 0, 13, 2, 4)    (8, 18)    (1, 11, 8, 18, 18)



Your sig is full of reviewers opinions my friend. Its just for hype, and when it comes down to real comparison, the differences is very noticeable.

BF3 is no exception. It looks great for a multiplat for sure. I think most of it is CGI with that flash in the middle of the screen every 3sec imo.



CPU: Ryzen 7950X
GPU: MSI 4090 SUPRIM X 24G
Motherboard: MSI MEG X670E GODLIKE
RAM: CORSAIR DOMINATOR PLATINUM 32GB DDR5
SSD: Kingston FURY Renegade 4TB
Gaming Console: PLAYSTATION 5