Nope because that's an impossible call to make objectively. And subjective calls are simply that, subjective opinions.
Unless someone can explain to me how you compare say GT5 engine to Crysis 2 engine to Wipeout HD engine to Alan Wake engine in a way that allows you to objectively declare some form of superiroty.
I agree with this though...
The question should be "is it the best looking FPS on consoles..."
answer... 100% yes.
Just got it on 360 finally. So far I'm pretty impressed. I'll wait until I get right through it until I make any final judgements though. And yes, the poll should be best FPS. It becomes a bit of a subjective mess trying to compare different software rendering and game engines to each other. At least within certain genre types it's a pretty clear comparison.
Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...
can we really quit it with the omg real time bigger bullshit, because it's bullshit, crysis 2 singleplayer is barley bigger than KZ3, and when compared to Crysis 1 it IS a corridor shooter, with 10 times less freedom, and that's JUST the single player, Killzone 3 multiplayer has maps twice the size of Crysis 2 multiplayer maps with twice the amount of players, and Killzone 2 is bigger than that, plus killzone also features split screen co-op, so spare me the it's doing more crap because it isn't, and that's even more so considering it's running sub HD, with severe performance problems in sections compare to a game running in HD with ZERO performance problems.
now I get, you guys have been waiting this entire gen to finally get a game you can compare with certain ps3 exclusives, and a game has come along that can be considered amongst those titles, it isn't blowing anything away like some of you are making it out to seem ( I can understand that considering) and if you think it's the best looking game on consoles that's totally cool, but don't lie to yourselves and everyone else by saying this game is doing anything most other games of the caliber aren't or are even capable of.
I mean ffs
and that's killzone 2....from 2009
question: will we see this amount of 360 fan jizz once RAGE (a game that I think it will not only look better, but perform better than Crysis 2 in every way) comes out?
Rage may have 60 fps but I think its going to be flat texture city. Every screenshot I see of rage sure it looks great but when I look at the textures there unimpressive. Killzone 2 looks great in those gifs by the way. Gif doesn't really show much. I mean look at the Crysis ones. Yes killzone 2 does look amazing at times but it’s also inconsistent. Crysis 2 is doing things other games don't do like the lighting. Look at the water compared to killzone. Yes compared to the first Crysis, C2 is tiny but it’s still bigger than killzones corridors. I'm not saying Crysis takes a shit on killzone or anything but it does look better even if it is by a tiny bit. I'm sure Uncharted 3 will make all the ps3 fanboys happy and take back the crown.
yeah a crown they never lost, to a multiplat, you've gotta be kidding me
the game has sub HD flat textures with more bloom than orlando (I made a funny)
and lighting
killzone 2
riiight so much moar advanced
now what I'm upset about is that I can't find the vid of the e3 07 demo they did, where the dev. paused the game a zoomed out to show how the enitre enviornment was all rendered real time in-game, and then they talk about the deffered rendering. And that was from 07.
Choppy water effect, there is none in Crysis 2. Killzone 3 any water you walk in does have ripples but its pixilated, and shoot the water in killzone 3 you will see a big difference in the way it looks vs Crysis. Those big crashing waves in kz look good from far way but look up close. Both games have flat textures but I swear killzone has more. I just don't see what people see in Killzone 3 the explosions are nerfed from killzone 2. The explosions in Crysis take a dump on kz.
