The Skyline demo map doesn't really impress but the Pier 17 map really shows what the Crytek engine can do and it does like very good.  There is a lot of detail going on in the Pier 17 map and the lighting is top notch.  IMHO, the lighting in Crysis 2 looks better than Killzone 3 and the level of detail and textures do look like a step beyond as well.

For reference, here is the pier 17 map from cysis 2 by digitalfoundry:

http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/secret-level-in-crysis-2-demo?size=hd

@OP Thanks that was a good read!

So PLEASE somebody tell me why Killzone doesn't get 10's for graphics from everyone!? It seems that most reviews tried to downplay the tremendous visual flair. Sigh. TELL ME HOW BEAUTIFUL IT IS YOU ASSHOLES!

I saw some sites give 8.5 for presentation. WTF.

Crysis one for Pc looks better than KZ3, Crysis ONE. I know i know, you compare it with the 360 version of the game which btw does not have screen tearing on 720p as far as i can tell. But you clearly states that KZ3 is the best looking FPS ever, that simply is not true, it might be the best looking console FPS (although from what i seen of Rage it will look better). But a PC game from 2007 looks better...

Yeah, we know that. We also know that many PCs in 2007 couldn't run Crysis at the settings in which they look better than KZ2 or KZ3.

Right now, KZ3 and KZ2, both look better than Crysis 2 demo on the 360. If it wasn't for the real time global illumination, Crysis 2 would look exactly like MW2 with a little better textures. And a capped 30 fps.

For me the clunky controls in the Crysis beta make it much worse then KZ3.  Also the Crysis 2 beta is very laggy and pretty screwed for hit detection.

Let's be honest here, the difference is very small.

lol at cleeshay. You're way off on the spelling