today i've finally finished Crysis 2, and sad to say iam quite dissappointed about it.

before i got the game i've been doing some reading and reviewers kept on saying crysis 2 is better than killzone 3 in the graphical part.

now after finishing crysis 2 i have to admit KZ3 graphics look far better than crysis 2. i notice in crysis 2 there were drops in frame rate, and places that didnt look

polish, colour was like alover the place etc.

something else troubled me is that crysis 2 is sub HD as compared to KZ3 which is HD.

There's a few areas where Crysis 2 looks amazing. The city buildings are pretty awesome sometimes.


I think the problem with KZ3, like KZ2, is that it's just a bunch of war-torn industrial settings, military bases, piles of rubble, and ruined cities. For me personally, there's hardly anything amazing to look at.

The prob with Crysis 2 are things like aliasing, framerate drops, and the sub-hd part. Out of all "graphical issues" that is exist, I still find aliasing to be the fugliest =/


Between the two, it's hard to decide which is prettier to look at but I honestly still think KZ2/3's graphics are a missed opportunity. I've been playing CoD since the first game and I'm dead tired of ruined war-torn cities. They're so bland and boring, so can't say I'm a fan of pretty much every map in KZ3. The jungle setting is a nice change though.

Damn...got to clear my browser cookies. I mean, KZ3 vs Crysis 2 graphics clearly must be a thread from last March.