| dane007 said:
Both games have artistic value . Crysis 2 artistic value is showing a destroyed version of new york city. To me teh game depicts it beautifully. Killzone 3 supposed to depict a dark grim world with alot of destruction , a world that is different to earth. That was also depicted verys well. It all comes down to personal taste. You may like killzone 3 artistic styly while others prefer enjoy crysis 2 art style . " but no artistic value to the whole scenery. Its just buldings everywhere" What about killzone 3 . Most of killzone 3 consists of stages filled with desert looking type land filled with tonnes and tonnes of rubble. I don't see how thats any different to the tonnes of buildings in crysis2. Remeber the urban area in crysis 2 is supposed to be new york city and we all know that new york city has plenty of buildings. "If a game relies on sunlight to look good then that game doesn't look that good at all" Most of killzone 3 relies that as it covers up the low res textures . When there is much lighting you can see the visual blemishes in the game.
|
No special effects like the sky in killzone 2 and 3. If you look at salamun bridge in killzone 2 there's no special textures or any light but what's impressive is the clouds and the lightning effect, and yes there's high res textures on the ground as well on KZ2.
Crysis 2 is all buildings, have you looked at how the buildings look at when looked up close? No because you can't reach them.
And AA is obvious, temporal AA is a very inferior AA to MLAA and MSAA, KZ2 especially had 4x QMSAA due to which Aliasing is very hard to find in the game. KZ3, well, lets not go into MLAA because that's like 8x-16x AA and is comparable only to the 8x MSAA on the PC.
So if you had problems in differentiating in AA then its obvious you weren't looking that hard.
KZ is unmatched when it comes to imagination of the scenery. Completely alien world, unlike crysis which is real life just like Uncharted.
