Forums - Gaming Discussion - Is Crysis 2 the best looking console game?

Is Crysis 2 the best looking console game?

no 143 28.77%
 
yes 189 38.03%
 
no, but best xbox game 165 33.20%
 
Total:497

I think the best looking parts of Crysis 2 look on par with KZ3. I even go so far as to say a couple of parts look better then KZ3.

But in terms of the overall graphics from start of the game until the game finishes i don't think Crysis 2 looks as good as KZ3. It isn't as consistent. I don't really think it is fair to just take a couple of parts of the game that are better and ignore the parts that are worse and decide on that. You have to look at it as a whole and as a whole KZ3 looks better. So i chose is best 360 game.



Around the Network
Hyruken said:

I think the best looking parts of Crysis 2 look on par with KZ3. I even go so far as to say a couple of parts look better then KZ3.

But in terms of the overall graphics from start of the game until the game finishes i don't think Crysis 2 looks as good as KZ3. It isn't as consistent. I don't really think it is fair to just take a couple of parts of the game that are better and ignore the parts that are worse and decide on that. You have to look at it as a whole and as a whole KZ3 looks better. So i chose is best 360 game.


=O

I agree 100% so far I just got throught the helicopter crashing into building part in the pier(mission 5 if im not mistaken) and so far Im still not stunned and yes the graphics are inconsistent some parts of the game shines with beautiful lighting and smoke effect sometimes it just looks plain average in some areas.



osamanobama said:
kowenicki said:
Reasonable said:

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.

the answer would be no (obviously you havent played killzone) so you yes answer aplies to "is it the best looking FPS on xbox"

Killzone: native 720p, steady 30fps, no screen tearing, little to no pop in, hectic non stop fire fights, better and real stereoscopic 3D

Actually Crysis 2 according to many reviews is the best interpretation of 3d yet on any game.

And yes we have all played Killzone. And although it looks great technically there is alot it isnt doing both realtime and in scale of play area compared to Crysis 2.



osamanobama said:
jhuff394 said:

HOW CAN YOU GUYS THINK THIS IS THE BEST LOOKING CONSOLE GAME LMAO

You guys hyped the graphics up for this game SOO MUCH that I went out and bought it.... but as I figured I was sadly dissapointed to see this game clearly sitting below my other recent purchase KILLZONE 3...

lol I cant see where you guys are coming up with this game beating out either killzone 3 or uncharted 2....

After that... sure Crysis 2 holds its place....

 

By the way.. only vote if you have both consoles... half these 360 guys have never seen a ps3 exclusive in action and desperately want to claim their console can produce the best graphics.....

yeah thats unfortunate that nearly all xbox owners are doing that. but i dont think you need to own both consoles, just that you must have played/owned the other games for a substantial amount of time

people like Nsanity never even touched KZ, or Uncharted, or GOW. but then go out claiming crysis is the best, completely ignoring DF and LOT, and only looking to youtube videos and ign. i wish there was a way to limit it to people who own all of them.

This BS about only IGN. Ask even CGI. There is more reviewers claiming graphics king.

Do we need DF or LOT to tell us how games look with our own eyes?

Do DF take into consideration what an engine is doing totally in realtime?

I can list at leat 5 things in realtime that no other game is doing on consoles apart from Crysis 2. or how much bigger the scale of player interactive area is. In fact that last part isnt even close on any shooter on consoles. The play space thats rendered in realtime on Crysis 2 is a complete nother level compared to other console shooters. 3rd or First person. It's almost embarrassing comparing any game to it for that reason.

AI also doesnt just operate in 2d dimensions because of the play space to. They have to climb 3 or 4 stories up to flank, or traverse the huge distance of the play areas to gain tactical advantage. There is just so much more going on under the hood. It's so obvious on a technical note it hurts.

Take the closest 360 top game for example. Gears 2? Gears 2 is miles behind on a technical not least due to the play spaces not even being close to Crysis 2 size. Reach? Reach has without a doubt the next biggest play areas on conosles. But they arent Crysis 2 big. Crysis 2 is both big play areas not just length and width but hieght. Some of them are rediculously big.

Framerate issues? Yes it has some. But nowhere near unplayable. In fact Ive barely noticed it and I;ve just got to the central station. If it ever has dropped to the so called 15 - 20 FPS that DF has said. It's been for a split second like 1/100th because I know from my PC days what 15 fps looks like. And Crysis 2 has never chugged like that. ( 360 version ).

Well done Crytek. Youve blown our eyeballs.



selnor said:
osamanobama said:
jhuff394 said:

HOW CAN YOU GUYS THINK THIS IS THE BEST LOOKING CONSOLE GAME LMAO

You guys hyped the graphics up for this game SOO MUCH that I went out and bought it.... but as I figured I was sadly dissapointed to see this game clearly sitting below my other recent purchase KILLZONE 3...

lol I cant see where you guys are coming up with this game beating out either killzone 3 or uncharted 2....

After that... sure Crysis 2 holds its place....

 

By the way.. only vote if you have both consoles... half these 360 guys have never seen a ps3 exclusive in action and desperately want to claim their console can produce the best graphics.....

yeah thats unfortunate that nearly all xbox owners are doing that. but i dont think you need to own both consoles, just that you must have played/owned the other games for a substantial amount of time

people like Nsanity never even touched KZ, or Uncharted, or GOW. but then go out claiming crysis is the best, completely ignoring DF and LOT, and only looking to youtube videos and ign. i wish there was a way to limit it to people who own all of them.

This BS about only IGN. Ask even CGI. There is more reviewers claiming graphics king.

Do we need DF or LOT to tell us how games look with our own eyes?

Do DF take into consideration what an engine is doing totally in realtime?

I can list at leat 5 things in realtime that no other game is doing on consoles apart from Crysis 2. or how much bigger the scale of player interactive area is. In fact that last part isnt even close on any shooter on consoles. The play space thats rendered in realtime on Crysis 2 is a complete nother level compared to other console shooters. 3rd or First person. It's almost embarrassing comparing any game to it for that reason.

AI also doesnt just operate in 2d dimensions because of the play space to. They have to climb 3 or 4 stories up to flank, or traverse the huge distance of the play areas to gain tactical advantage. There is just so much more going on under the hood. It's so obvious on a technical note it hurts.

Take the closest 360 top game for example. Gears 2? Gears 2 is miles behind on a technical not least due to the play spaces not even being close to Crysis 2 size. Reach? Reach has without a doubt the next biggest play areas on conosles. But they arent Crysis 2 big. Crysis 2 is both big play areas not just length and width but hieght. Some of them are rediculously big.

Framerate issues? Yes it has some. But nowhere near unplayable. In fact Ive barely noticed it and I;ve just got to the central station. If it ever has dropped to the so called 15 - 20 FPS that DF has said. It's been for a split second like 1/100th because I know from my PC days what 15 fps looks like. And Crysis 2 has never chugged like that. ( 360 version ).

Well done Crytek. Youve blown our eyeballs.

I own all consoles and even a pc. Now what I will say is I have to agree with what selnor is saying. Crysis 2 is much bigger in size than these closed in corridor games (see gears of war and Killzone). Now Crysis 2 is not perfect, it does have framerate issues and some glitches. Those things still don't take away how impressive it does look. Look at the water destroys anything other game on console with water in it. Compare the water to killzone 3 go ahead, night and day difference. Lighting its bright and you can actually see stuff plus its real time lighting. All cut scenes are in engine. You would have to be blind to not notice how good Crysis looks. Killzone 3 looks good but as I've said before (I do own the game) but it’s just not much of a step up from Killzone 2. As far as textures go both killzone and Crysis have a lot of low res textures but in my opinion killzone has more. Crysis is the king, I know ps3 fan boys and xbox fan boys are fighting hard but the real deal is Crysis 2 is the best looking console game right now.  You really would have to be a fanboy to say this doesn't look better than killzone 3. 




 

 

Around the Network
selnor said:
osamanobama said:
jhuff394 said:


yeah thats unfortunate that nearly all xbox owners are doing that. but i dont think you need to own both consoles, just that you must have played/owned the other games for a substantial amount of time

people like Nsanity never even touched KZ, or Uncharted, or GOW. but then go out claiming crysis is the best, completely ignoring DF and LOT, and only looking to youtube videos and ign. i wish there was a way to limit it to people who own all of them.

This BS about only IGN. Ask even CGI. There is more reviewers claiming graphics king.

Do we need DF or LOT to tell us how games look with our own eyes?

Do DF take into consideration what an engine is doing totally in realtime?

I can list at leat 5 things in realtime that no other game is doing on consoles apart from Crysis 2. or how much bigger the scale of player interactive area is. In fact that last part isnt even close on any shooter on consoles. The play space thats rendered in realtime on Crysis 2 is a complete nother level compared to other console shooters. 3rd or First person. It's almost embarrassing comparing any game to it for that reason.

AI also doesnt just operate in 2d dimensions because of the play space to. They have to climb 3 or 4 stories up to flank, or traverse the huge distance of the play areas to gain tactical advantage. There is just so much more going on under the hood. It's so obvious on a technical note it hurts.

Take the closest 360 top game for example. Gears 2? Gears 2 is miles behind on a technical not least due to the play spaces not even being close to Crysis 2 size. Reach? Reach has without a doubt the next biggest play areas on conosles. But they arent Crysis 2 big. Crysis 2 is both big play areas not just length and width but hieght. Some of them are rediculously big.

Framerate issues? Yes it has some. But nowhere near unplayable. In fact Ive barely noticed it and I;ve just got to the central station. If it ever has dropped to the so called 15 - 20 FPS that DF has said. It's been for a split second like 1/100th because I know from my PC days what 15 fps looks like. And Crysis 2 has never chugged like that. ( 360 version ).

Well done Crytek. Youve blown our eyeballs.

i never said it was only ign, as i have admitted many times (man you and Nsanity arent to good a ready my posts) there are about 6 sites that say it is the best.

and there isnt anything significant that crysis is running real time that GOW, KZ's, and UC2 arent.

(on a side note, the helicopter crashing into the building was really amazing, unfortunately the fps dropped a ton when it did it.)

also the AI in crysis are idiots (i didnt really bother me, because i had fun at how comical it was, not joking, i didnt care to much) there were many times they would just run into wall, corners, run away. other time they literally didnt act like i was standing right in front of them. i would throw objects at them and they would just stand there doing nothing. sometimes they would do nothing, but over their radios, they would say were i was at (which was right in front of them).

sure they had a more than usual open shooter that looked on par as more Linear (still not as linear as most games) UC2, KZ's, and GOW, but they did it at the expense of performance, which LOT and DF, and I have gone into great depths about. games like Killzone look look better and realler than real life if they wanted to, but if it meant its 10fps, and pop in every time you sprint, and tons of screens tearing (not at all saying this is what crysis does) then does it really matter, would it be the console graphics king then? i think not

also DF said Crysis not only doesnt use real 3D, but its also inferior to motorstorm and KZ(which use real stereoscopy)



osamanobama said:
selnor said:
osamanobama said:
jhuff394 said:


yeah thats unfortunate that nearly all xbox owners are doing that. but i dont think you need to own both consoles, just that you must have played/owned the other games for a substantial amount of time

people like Nsanity never even touched KZ, or Uncharted, or GOW. but then go out claiming crysis is the best, completely ignoring DF and LOT, and only looking to youtube videos and ign. i wish there was a way to limit it to people who own all of them.

This BS about only IGN. Ask even CGI. There is more reviewers claiming graphics king.

Do we need DF or LOT to tell us how games look with our own eyes?

Do DF take into consideration what an engine is doing totally in realtime?

I can list at leat 5 things in realtime that no other game is doing on consoles apart from Crysis 2. or how much bigger the scale of player interactive area is. In fact that last part isnt even close on any shooter on consoles. The play space thats rendered in realtime on Crysis 2 is a complete nother level compared to other console shooters. 3rd or First person. It's almost embarrassing comparing any game to it for that reason.

AI also doesnt just operate in 2d dimensions because of the play space to. They have to climb 3 or 4 stories up to flank, or traverse the huge distance of the play areas to gain tactical advantage. There is just so much more going on under the hood. It's so obvious on a technical note it hurts.

Take the closest 360 top game for example. Gears 2? Gears 2 is miles behind on a technical not least due to the play spaces not even being close to Crysis 2 size. Reach? Reach has without a doubt the next biggest play areas on conosles. But they arent Crysis 2 big. Crysis 2 is both big play areas not just length and width but hieght. Some of them are rediculously big.

Framerate issues? Yes it has some. But nowhere near unplayable. In fact Ive barely noticed it and I;ve just got to the central station. If it ever has dropped to the so called 15 - 20 FPS that DF has said. It's been for a split second like 1/100th because I know from my PC days what 15 fps looks like. And Crysis 2 has never chugged like that. ( 360 version ).

Well done Crytek. Youve blown our eyeballs.

i never said it was only ign, as i have admitted many times (man you and Nsanity arent to good a ready my posts) there are about 6 sites that say it is the best.

and there isnt anything significant that crysis is running real time that GOW, KZ's, and UC2 arent.

(on a side note, the helicopter crashing into the building was really amazing, unfortunately the fps dropped a ton when it did it.)

also the AI in crysis are idiots (i didnt really bother me, because i had fun at how comical it was, not joking, i didnt care to much) there were many times they would just run into wall, corners, run away. other time they literally didnt act like i was standing right in front of them. i would throw objects at them and they would just stand there doing nothing. sometimes they would do nothing, but over their radios, they would say were i was at (which was right in front of them).

sure they had a more than usual open shooter that looked on par as more Linear (still not as linear as most games) UC2, KZ's, and GOW, but they did it at the expense of performance, which LOT and DF, and I have gone into great depths about. games like Killzone look look better and realler than real life if they wanted to, but if it meant its 10fps, and pop in every time you sprint, and tons of screens tearing (not at all saying this is what crysis does) then does it really matter, would it be the console graphics king then? i think not

also DF said Crysis not only doesnt use real 3D, but its also inferior to motorstorm and KZ(which use real stereoscopy)


Who cares if something is real 3d or not. If the 3d looks better isnt that what matters?????

Also KZ3, UC2 and GOW3 all do not have full realtime lighting. They dont. Nor do they have full realtime shadows. Again realtime physics do not apply to every object in KZ3, UC2 or GOW3 either. Couple that with Crysis 2 at it's biggest ponts at least 2 to 3 times the size if not more in play space area than any of those games and any Console game pitted against Crysis 2 looks pretty pointless.

I would love to see Crytek make a game with levels as small as KZ3's or UC2's and see just how much the textures etc would be upped. It would be huge.

All in all, When you playthrough Crysis 2 and you come up over a cliff edge only to find that everything you see before you is actual game play space that you are seriously impressed.

I love the way the first achievement you get on Crysis 2 is named "can it run Crysis". Says everything any gamer needs to know.

The first console game to be fully realtime. No smoke and mirrors. Just like Crytek critised the other devs in the console business for so far this gen. Smoke and mirror tactics. Which will never allow them to create fully fledged big play areas like seen in Crysis 2. The bigger you go, the more obvious things like Global illumination etc are to see if it's there or not.



Wagram said:
Nsanity said:


You can tell that guy at the bottom totally said "Holy shit!"


I lol'ed. After looking at the bottom image, you are right.



Not best looking PS3 game but probably the best Xbox360 and PC game



selnor said:
osamanobama said:
selnor said:
osamanobama said:
jhuff394 said:


yeah thats unfortunate that nearly all xbox owners are doing that. but i dont think you need to own both consoles, just that you must have played/owned the other games for a substantial amount of time

people like Nsanity never even touched KZ, or Uncharted, or GOW. but then go out claiming crysis is the best, completely ignoring DF and LOT, and only looking to youtube videos and ign. i wish there was a way to limit it to people who own all of them.

This BS about only IGN. Ask even CGI. There is more reviewers claiming graphics king.

Do we need DF or LOT to tell us how games look with our own eyes?

Do DF take into consideration what an engine is doing totally in realtime?

I can list at leat 5 things in realtime that no other game is doing on consoles apart from Crysis 2. or how much bigger the scale of player interactive area is. In fact that last part isnt even close on any shooter on consoles. The play space thats rendered in realtime on Crysis 2 is a complete nother level compared to other console shooters. 3rd or First person. It's almost embarrassing comparing any game to it for that reason.

AI also doesnt just operate in 2d dimensions because of the play space to. They have to climb 3 or 4 stories up to flank, or traverse the huge distance of the play areas to gain tactical advantage. There is just so much more going on under the hood. It's so obvious on a technical note it hurts.

Take the closest 360 top game for example. Gears 2? Gears 2 is miles behind on a technical not least due to the play spaces not even being close to Crysis 2 size. Reach? Reach has without a doubt the next biggest play areas on conosles. But they arent Crysis 2 big. Crysis 2 is both big play areas not just length and width but hieght. Some of them are rediculously big.

Framerate issues? Yes it has some. But nowhere near unplayable. In fact Ive barely noticed it and I;ve just got to the central station. If it ever has dropped to the so called 15 - 20 FPS that DF has said. It's been for a split second like 1/100th because I know from my PC days what 15 fps looks like. And Crysis 2 has never chugged like that. ( 360 version ).

Well done Crytek. Youve blown our eyeballs.

i never said it was only ign, as i have admitted many times (man you and Nsanity arent to good a ready my posts) there are about 6 sites that say it is the best.

and there isnt anything significant that crysis is running real time that GOW, KZ's, and UC2 arent.

(on a side note, the helicopter crashing into the building was really amazing, unfortunately the fps dropped a ton when it did it.)

also the AI in crysis are idiots (i didnt really bother me, because i had fun at how comical it was, not joking, i didnt care to much) there were many times they would just run into wall, corners, run away. other time they literally didnt act like i was standing right in front of them. i would throw objects at them and they would just stand there doing nothing. sometimes they would do nothing, but over their radios, they would say were i was at (which was right in front of them).

sure they had a more than usual open shooter that looked on par as more Linear (still not as linear as most games) UC2, KZ's, and GOW, but they did it at the expense of performance, which LOT and DF, and I have gone into great depths about. games like Killzone look look better and realler than real life if they wanted to, but if it meant its 10fps, and pop in every time you sprint, and tons of screens tearing (not at all saying this is what crysis does) then does it really matter, would it be the console graphics king then? i think not

also DF said Crysis not only doesnt use real 3D, but its also inferior to motorstorm and KZ(which use real stereoscopy)


Who cares if something is real 3d or not. If the 3d looks better isnt that what matters?????

Also KZ3, UC2 and GOW3 all do not have full realtime lighting. They dont. Nor do they have full realtime shadows. Again realtime physics do not apply to every object in KZ3, UC2 or GOW3 either. Couple that with Crysis 2 at it's biggest ponts at least 2 to 3 times the size if not more in play space area than any of those games and any Console game pitted against Crysis 2 looks pretty pointless.

I would love to see Crytek make a game with levels as small as KZ3's or UC2's and see just how much the textures etc would be upped. It would be huge.

All in all, When you playthrough Crysis 2 and you come up over a cliff edge only to find that everything you see before you is actual game play space that you are seriously impressed.

I love the way the first achievement you get on Crysis 2 is named "can it run Crysis". Says everything any gamer needs to know.

The first console game to be fully realtime. No smoke and mirrors. Just like Crytek critised the other devs in the console business for so far this gen. Smoke and mirror tactics. Which will never allow them to create fully fledged big play areas like seen in Crysis 2. The bigger you go, the more obvious things like Global illumination etc are to see if it's there or not.

they also said the 3d is better on kz. did you not read my post, or even DF.

sure they dont have FULL real time lighting. but they dont need it either because in many aspects it looks better. they dont have odd, jaggy glithy shadows, and everthing has a shodow. you pass over a light source in any of those games, it casts a realistic shadow. you shoot a light, it goes out and part of the screen goes dark accordingly. (there were a lot of lights/lamps in crysis where no mater how much you shot it, the light would still shine) in UNcharted and GOW when nathan and kratos take steps their feet cast shadows even.

and every game uses smoke and mirrors to achieve great visuals that includes crysis. whos to say games like KZ and U2 couldnt produce the same visual having bigger environments.  crysis is far from open/world. KZ and U2 are more closed not because of technical limitations, but rather game play,, the direction the want to take the game. and they could definitely do it, if they sacraficed so much performance like crysis does (which i mentioned earlier). the game can be the most realistic in the world, but does it matter, or even have the best graphics, if its glitching like crazy, drops frame rate like crazy, and has pop in. (again not saying this is what crysis dos, though it does just to a lesser extent) the answer is no.

KZ's (especially 3), U2, GOW run perectly and have flawless visuals. thats why they are graphics kings