Forums - Gaming Discussion - World's Best Graphics On Consoles! Top 10 by GameReactor

I've actually played all 10 of those games and agree with the top 5, only not in that order.

As far as i'm concerned, God of War III > Killzone 3 > Uncharted 2 > Crysis 2 > Killzone 2.



Around the Network
gurglesletch said:
Doobie_wop said:
Oblivion86 said:
XxXProphecyXxX said:
Oblivion86 said:
XxXProphecyXxX said:

Right now my list would be:

1.God of war 3

2.Killzone 3

3.Uncharted 2

4.Killzone 2

5.Crysis 2

special mentions to HEAVY RAIN,BATTLE FIELD  2 and UNCHARTED 1.

I know that my list will definitly change once UNCHARTED 3,LAST GUARDIAN and probly INFAMOUS 2 drops, can't wait!!!

ALSO:

LOL @ the guy who keeps saying CODE NAME KINGDOMS will say "bye bye to sony 1st party games",we don't even have a single screen shot from that game AHAHAHAHAH!

Killzone 2 is in no way shape or form even close to Crysis 2, please drop that comparison.. It is on par or slightly better then Killzone 3. Using a huge color palette it is alot more difficult to make things look sharp and crisp, rather then going the mono-brown approach that the Killzone series has always used. In terms of scale Crysis 2 blows everything away, but in terms of detail, textures, and lighting only UC2 is slightly better.

Uhhh I have both games on my ps3 and finished both so please spare me the "mono -brown is easier" excuse because I've seen both with my OWN EYES.

So have I, played through both KZ2 and KZ3.. I am giving you reasoning as to why it is "lazy" developing doing a mono-palette, nobody is going to deny that Killzone uses a mono-palette to shade their games. Just my personal opinion, but in no way is KZ2 on the level that C2 is at.

You'd have to also take into consideration that Crysis 2 barely runs in comparison to Killzone 2. One is 720p, a constant 30FPS, lacks bugs and has great looking character models, while the other has some serious pop in issues, the framerate drops to as low as 15FPS, ugly looking enemy character models and has some bugs.

I personally think Crysis 2 looks better than Killzone 3, but the visual issues it's suffers from can only make them equal in my personal list. Sure Killzone 2 is brown, but it's also flawless in it's visual execution, the same can't be said for Crysis 2.

It's all opinions anyway, you may think that a darker colour palette hurts the visuals more than a bunch of technical issues, I think otherwise, it's all cool.

Neither run at a constant 30. 

Killzone 2 is far more consistent than Crysis 2, it rarely ever dropped in frames and the only visual problem the game had that I can recall is a slight pause between loading new levels, which was done to avoid menu loading. 

Rest of the thread: People are comparing Gears 2 to Killzone 2, there is no competition, Killzone 2 trumps it. People should be comparing Gears 2 to Dead Space and MGS4 those games released in the same year and even they are arguably better looking than Gears. 

 



Bet with Conegamer and AussieGecko that the PS3 will have more exclusives in 2011 than the Wii or 360... or something.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3879752

Oblivion86 said:

Gears had fade-in effect, different and more subtle from the obvious texture pop-in towards the later stages of KZ2.. Clunky can be used to describe an object or graphics by treating it as a metaphor meaning "disportionate or inconsistent from reality.."

 

coming back to my original opinion..

UC2 > Crysis 2 > KZ 3 & GoW3 > Gears 2 > Killzone 2

Oh well, I don't use "clunky" that way and the vast majority of people I talk wouldn't either. So it's a non-issue.

As for graphics, let's agree to disagree. Crysis 2 had far too many problems for it to be in the Top 3 & while Gears 2 was prettier than Killzone 2, on sheer graphics, Killzone 2 was head and shoulders above it (and just about any review during Killzone 2's release would agree).



                                                                                                             

CGI-Quality said:
Oblivion86 said:

Gears had fade-in effect, different and more subtle from the obvious texture pop-in towards the later stages of KZ2.. Clunky can be used to describe an object or graphics by treating it as a metaphor meaning "disportionate or inconsistent from reality.."

 

coming back to my original opinion..

UC2 > Crysis 2 > KZ 3 & GoW3 > Gears 2 > Killzone 2

Oh well, I don't use "clunky" that way and the vast majority of people I talk wouldn't either. So it's a non-issue.

As for graphics, let's agree to disagree. Crysis 2 had far too many problems for it to be in the Top 3 & while Gears 2 was prettier than Killzone 2, on sheer graphics, Killzone 2 was head and shoulders above it (and just about any review during Killzone 2's release would agree).


This is a graphical comparison not a technical one..



Oblivion86 said:
CGI-Quality said:
Oblivion86 said:

Gears had fade-in effect, different and more subtle from the obvious texture pop-in towards the later stages of KZ2.. Clunky can be used to describe an object or graphics by treating it as a metaphor meaning "disportionate or inconsistent from reality.."

 

coming back to my original opinion..

UC2 > Crysis 2 > KZ 3 & GoW3 > Gears 2 > Killzone 2

Oh well, I don't use "clunky" that way and the vast majority of people I talk wouldn't either. So it's a non-issue.

As for graphics, let's agree to disagree. Crysis 2 had far too many problems for it to be in the Top 3 & while Gears 2 was prettier than Killzone 2, on sheer graphics, Killzone 2 was head and shoulders above it (and just about any review during Killzone 2's release would agree).


This is a graphical comparison not a technical one..

I'm quite aware, but the technicalities play a role. We can talk about what we think is "prettier/better/clearer", but the tech stuff is what's behind making much of the stuff you see on screen look so good. As a student in game development, I can tell you that without a shadow of a doubt.

So in fact, it's relevant.



                                                                                                             

Around the Network
Euphoria14 said:

Fugly grass... SOryy I'm one of those who don't understand how, putting aside char models, people find FFXIII beautiful.



Doobie_wop said:
gurglesletch said:
Doobie_wop said:
Oblivion86 said:
XxXProphecyXxX said:
Oblivion86 said:
XxXProphecyXxX said:

Right now my list would be:

1.God of war 3

2.Killzone 3

3.Uncharted 2

4.Killzone 2

5.Crysis 2

special mentions to HEAVY RAIN,BATTLE FIELD  2 and UNCHARTED 1.

I know that my list will definitly change once UNCHARTED 3,LAST GUARDIAN and probly INFAMOUS 2 drops, can't wait!!!

ALSO:

LOL @ the guy who keeps saying CODE NAME KINGDOMS will say "bye bye to sony 1st party games",we don't even have a single screen shot from that game AHAHAHAHAH!

Killzone 2 is in no way shape or form even close to Crysis 2, please drop that comparison.. It is on par or slightly better then Killzone 3. Using a huge color palette it is alot more difficult to make things look sharp and crisp, rather then going the mono-brown approach that the Killzone series has always used. In terms of scale Crysis 2 blows everything away, but in terms of detail, textures, and lighting only UC2 is slightly better.

Uhhh I have both games on my ps3 and finished both so please spare me the "mono -brown is easier" excuse because I've seen both with my OWN EYES.

So have I, played through both KZ2 and KZ3.. I am giving you reasoning as to why it is "lazy" developing doing a mono-palette, nobody is going to deny that Killzone uses a mono-palette to shade their games. Just my personal opinion, but in no way is KZ2 on the level that C2 is at.

You'd have to also take into consideration that Crysis 2 barely runs in comparison to Killzone 2. One is 720p, a constant 30FPS, lacks bugs and has great looking character models, while the other has some serious pop in issues, the framerate drops to as low as 15FPS, ugly looking enemy character models and has some bugs.

I personally think Crysis 2 looks better than Killzone 3, but the visual issues it's suffers from can only make them equal in my personal list. Sure Killzone 2 is brown, but it's also flawless in it's visual execution, the same can't be said for Crysis 2.

It's all opinions anyway, you may think that a darker colour palette hurts the visuals more than a bunch of technical issues, I think otherwise, it's all cool.

Neither run at a constant 30. 

 

Killzone 2 is far more consistent than Crysis 2, it rarely ever dropped in frames and the only visual problem the game had that I can recall is a slight pause between loading new levels, which was done to avoid menu loading. 

Rest of the thread: People are comparing Gears 2 to Killzone 2, there is no competition, Killzone 2 trumps it. People should be comparing Gears 2 to Dead Space and MGS4 those games released in the same year and even they are arguably better looking than Gears. 

 

 

I have played Killzone 2 FYI. I just just pointing out that the post i was quoting was incorrect



another graphics thread...how boring.