but it is sub-HD

In short, then, Xbox 360 benefits from a 25 per cent resolution boost over the PlayStation 3 version of the game. That's a pretty stark statistic, and while it is true that the action generally looks clearer and not quite so blurred on the Xbox 360, it's also the case that when the game is in full flow, the amount of post-processing effects in play, including camera and object-based motion blur, tends to equalise the visuals somewhat. Quite why there is a resolution difference at all is intriguing. Having fewer pixels to process obviously helps reduce fill-rate concerns, but curiously, notes left within the config files suggest that RAM was also a consideration: apparently 14MB of memory is saved by dropping res (which seems to suggest a hell of a lot of internal buffers being used to compose each frame).

There's little doubt that the Xbox 360 is the cleaner, crisper experience and for the most part it commands a small but significant frame-rate advantage and fewer little glitches; especially outside of combat scenarios, the game just seems to run that much more smoothly. However, there are parts of the game that seem to be brutally unoptimised, bringing the performance level crashing down to the point where the afflicted sections become almost unplayable - a variable 15-20FPS update in an intense fire-fight is hugely disorientating, and this makes Crysis 2 one of the most inconsistent performers released in recent times.

In these situations, it seems that it is the Xbox 360 version that has the most difficulties, though there's no mistaking that both platforms seem to lag badly in much the same areas. Interestingly, the really poor-performing sections do seem isolated to specific areas in the campaign, and from the hive infiltration level onwards things seemed to improve, but it's quite difficult to believe that those areas of the game got through QA without someone, somewhere raising the red flag.

The key to progression through these troublesome areas is to employ stealth rather than a balls-out frontal assault, but in a game that places so much weight on presenting different tactical strategies for potential flashpoints, it's disappointing that it's technical issues that are effectively narrowing down the available options. In conclusion, it's fair to say that Crytek has done enough to prove that Crysis can run on consoles - either of them in fact - and certainly the issues the game has in terms of bizarre glitches, performance drops, geometry pop-in and such-like are hardly exclusive to one platform. On balance, 360 has the edge in terms of visuals and general performance, but PS3 more than holds its own, bettering the Microsoft platform in some areas.

The crucial thing is that both are phenomenally attractive games, producing effects quite different and in many ways more advanced than anything we've seen elsewhere on console. We all wanted Crysis on console to be an event, a showcase release: by and large, Crytek has delivered, and those cutting edge visuals are backed by a truly impressive game design. However, there's the nagging feeling that a few more months in development could perhaps have ironed out the issues both versions of the game have..

Come on, lets call this right.... 360 slightly edges it.

Read that without tinted specs of either hue and "overall" the 360 just about wins.  No that it matter, its good for both, it seems we have a new king in thew FPS genre visual stakes.  At times sure it dropsthe ball a bit but that is because it is trying to achieve a higher standard... 

So the best looking FPS thus far.... is a multiplat.  hoorah.

so you highlighted the positive points said for 360 version and claim it a victory?.....great!

i believe Kowenicki and Nsanity now are the only ones still claiming its the best graphical game.

That video i posted pretty much sums up you and rest of your buddies.

so point to some random youtube guy (i didnt watch the whole video it was too long) saying crysis looks the best, to try to prove your point. 

both DF and LoT disagrees with you. the games not even in HD for crying out loud. yet you still cling to what ign said, and go with it. face the facts it a great/terrific looking game but not the best.

and this sums up people like you

IGN are not the only site and DF disagrees witn me? your delusional and posting picture of handicapped kid proves your only scumbag. 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-crysis2-face-off

Couple of things, here.

No. 1, Richard agrees that Killzone 3 and Motorstorm Apocalypse are the best 3D games out there, even better than Crysis 2.

No. 2:

Both versions are supposedly the same, 360 seems to run at 1152x720. The PS3 version, however runs at 1024 x 720 but the differences are minor, due to blur effects.

The PS3 version seems to have better 3D effects from what I have read. I maybe wrong so you may want to check it out.

The PS3 version maintains its frame rate throughout the whole game perfectly even though its lower than the 360 version. The 360 version however has frame-rate going below 20 fps in some scenes. What this means is that the PS3 version operates more consistently then the 360 version, but the 360 version seems to hit 30 fps a lot more.

There is no screen tearing visible on either consoles.

Which is why he seemed to think that either versions are equally good.