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

Forums - Gaming - CVG: Crysis 2 is "THE BEST LOOKING GAME ON CONSOLE"

Nsanity on 13 March 2011
CGI-Quality said:
tuscaniman said:


You seem to always try to push your opinion over as fact and you are the final word on what is the best looking game. Please tell me how Killzone is pushing more textures than other games? Do you even know what textures are? Every object in every game is a textured model. Killzone isn't pushing anymore textures than any game out there. And please dont try to say it has higher res textures because it doesn't. In fact Crysis 2 has some of the highest quality textures I've seen in a console game. Do a quick test and you'll see I'm correct. Next time you pop in Uncharted 2 and Killzone 3 walk up to multiple walls or objects and get as close as possible. Now see how they become pixelated and lose their quality? I don't know if you plan on getting Crysis 2 or not but zoom in on the ground you walk on, or the bricks on the walls. Crysis 2 textures don't lose much quality at all if any. There are a few sections that do obviously but Crysis 2 wins techincally in the texture department. Its the art style and overall choice of colors that lets Crysis 2 down. Technically it is a more advanced game than Killzone 3. Much better lighting engine as well.

I've beaten Killzone 3. There isn't one section in that game where I thought a lot was happening at the same time. In face the space combat scene was even on rails. The only thing you control is the shooting. Every vehicle section in that game was on rails. Not too impressive if you ask me.

I also love how everyone throws in the "Its using all the SPUs" arguments. Its getting old really.

Nah, I haven't pushed an opinion about other games being better/worse than Killzone 3 other than Crysis 2, in which I said from what I've seen (and heard), it isn't doing as much as Killzone 3 and the bump mapping (textures), particle effects, and amount on-screen is above Crysis 2.

Again, don't take my word for it, go to the Killzone 3 review thread and read up. And btw, I'm still waiting on the Crysis 2 footage that proves me wrong.

If i do come by some footage, i'll be sure to send it your way.



Around the Network
MonstaMack on 13 March 2011

I'd wait for the full Crysis 2 game to be out on consoles before jumping the gun. It's just a opnion either way, I think the general feeling even for 360 fans is Killzone 3 is the best looking game to date.



It's just that simple.

youarebadatgames on 13 March 2011
CGI-Quality said:
Mad55 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.

theres far more happening in killzone3 than crysis or theres alot happening. because how could you know how impressive cyrsis is until it releases or gets more reviews.

I haven't said that Crysis 2 isn't impressive, I said it's not doing as much on-screen as Killzone 3. But as I said to Nsanity, if I'm wrong, show me a video/footage/gameplay to the contrary.

You can't prove that, there are too many variables involved.  That's why comparison of 2 different games on 2 different platforms is the retarded stuff console people argue over all day.  Not even multiplatform titles are exactly the same.

The only way to really settle this is if somebody decided to port over 3dmark or other benchmarking software to the consoles, or if a game benchmark ran at the same resolution/AA/AF on both consoles because in the end the only thing that matters isn't potential or SPU usage or other dumb crap console fans make up, it's frames/sec.



tuscaniman on 13 March 2011
ethomaz said:
trasharmdsister12 said:
1. Uncharted to Uncharted 2 also occurred earlier in the consoles lifetime when there's more unexplored headroom. If you expect a similar graphics jump from U2 to U3 you'll be disappointed. U3 will clean up things like shadows and put a lot more action on screen.

2. Splinter Cell Conviction uses a heavily modified UE2.5. I don't really see how this is relevant to what we were discussing though. Please clarify

3. I think you meant to say Gears 2 already uses UE3.5. I believe it did. They added some water and material density stuff and made good use of it in the Gears 2 SP. Now they've added some jungle rendering stuff. Maybe the change of setting will appeal to more people. That with the new lighting engine should make for some neat set-pieces.

4. Using the same engine doesn't mean that the same features and techniques are used. Mass Effect 2 used the same engine as Gears 2 but Gears 2 used things like the water physics well while it was nowhere to be seen in ME2. So despite using the same engine, graphics can vary quite heavily in games that employ that same engine based on which features and how the features are applied.

1. I really don't expected U3 so better in graphics than U2 because US2 already was amazing... but I expected a little more from Killzone 3.

2. Ok. Some games use UE2... but I just said that because the other guy think Gears 2 uses UE2.

3. Yeah I wrote wrong... Gears 2 already use UE3.5.

4. Mass Effect 2 and Gears 2 are graphicaly similar to me. I'm not saying game with the same engine not can be differents... I'm saying they can't be very different... if a developer start to do many things outside the engine it's easier to develop its own engine or use one another.

And to finish here (because the talk is about Crysis 2... not engines) the Unreal Engine 3 for me is outdated compared with others newers engines on the market.

Still think its outdated? The only thing that is outdated is the consoles because they can't show the true power of UE3.



anikikim on 13 March 2011
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.



Around the Network
tuscaniman on 13 March 2011
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.

I noticed 3 things when playing both games. The explosions do look better in Reach. Killzone 3 has better overall graphics. And Halo:Reach is a much much better game.



Nsanity on 13 March 2011
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?



tuscaniman on 13 March 2011
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.

And you're wrong. Halo:Reach does in fact run at 720p.



ethomaz on 13 March 2011
tuscaniman said:

Still think its outdated? The only thing that is outdated is the consoles because they can't show the true power of UE3.

Same old UE3 engine running in Tri-Way SLI GTX 580... and I'm already said in other forum "not impressive".

And the character looks artificial (plastic or rubber?) like every other rendered by Unreal Engine 3.

The UE3 was impressive in 2005... not today... Epic needs a new engine (Unreal Engine 4?) but I guess it waiting the new generation.



tuscaniman on 14 March 2011
ethomaz said:
tuscaniman said:

Still think its outdated? The only thing that is outdated is the consoles because they can't show the true power of UE3.

Same old UE3 engine running in Tri-Way SLI GTX 580... and I'm already said in other forum "not impressive".

And the character looks artificial (plastic or rubber?) like every other rendered by Unreal Engine 3.

The UE3 was impressive in 2005... not today... Epic needs a new engine (Unreal Engine 4?) but I guess it waiting the new generation.


Wow.....not impressive? This demo looks 10x better than any game out on consoles right now. Get serious man.