By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Nsanity on 13 March 2011
Edit Thread
anikikim said:
Nsanity said:
anikikim said:
Nsanity said:
anikikim said:
Nsanity said:
CGI-Quality said:
Nsanity said:
CGI-Quality said:
Nsanity said:

Crysis 2 is a sandbox in a city.

I don't care for the back and fourth grpahics 'war", but while Crysis 2 is more open ended, it is not more technically advanced than Killzone 3.

What's Killzone doing that Crysis isn't?

If you've played the game (or listened to feedback), you'd know that there's far more happening on screen in Killzone 3 (and I mean a lot). It also uses parts of the SPUs Crysis 2 just can't/won't, because it's engine was nurtured by an in-house dev who's truly taking advantage of the console.

Particle effects, textures, & amount on screen are all ahead in Killzone 3.

Halo Reach has all that so what makes you think any of those won't be in Crysis 2?


hahah Halo reach doesnt even come close to killzone 3 or crysis 2....

In what way?

well this is a graphics thread. What you think? Of course the graphics.

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/7493/killzone3vshaloreach.jpg

Honestly have you played killzone 3? I played Halo reach and it comes no where close to killzone 3. Halo reach correct me if I'm wrong runs at SUB-HD. Yes explosions look better but you'll hardly notice when playing the game. The amount of things happening on screen amazes me in Killzone 3.

Explosions, AI or both?