By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Killzone 2 surpasses Crysis

Slimebeast said:
Killzone has nuffin on Crysis. It looks good, but not impressive because it's a corridor shooter and a master of one thousand shades of grey.

Technically Crisis beats everything, but personally I'm not very fond of Crisis grafix - I'm annoyed by how grainy and pixelated the graphics look, I hate it!

Gears of War 2 grafix are overrated as well. Simply another corridor shooter without colors.

Far Cry 2 - at least on PC - have better grafix than Crysis, Killzone, Gears 2 IMO. Even Uncharted and Fable 2 look better.

KZ2 doesn't look much like a corridor shooter. I haven't played Gears of War 2, but the first one was certainly not a corridor shooter either.

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Around the Network
NJ5 said:
Slimebeast said:
Killzone has nuffin on Crysis. It looks good, but not impressive because it's a corridor shooter and a master of one thousand shades of grey.

Technically Crisis beats everything, but personally I'm not very fond of Crisis grafix - I'm annoyed by how grainy and pixelated the graphics look, I hate it!

Gears of War 2 grafix are overrated as well. Simply another corridor shooter without colors.

Far Cry 2 - at least on PC - have better grafix than Crysis, Killzone, Gears 2 IMO. Even Uncharted and Fable 2 look better.

KZ2 doesn't look much like a corridor shooter. I haven't played Gears of War 2, but the first one was certainly not a corridor shooter either.

 

Well, they're not corridor shooters in the strict, traditional sense á la Doom and Quake, but the areas are still very limited compared to more "modern" shooters like Battlefield, Crysis and Far Cry 2.

 



Seriously, I could give a whit if this game looks better than Crysis. I wasn't a big fan of Crysis. I want a kickass gaming experience. Certainly graphics are part of that, but I want a great game. I have high hopes for KZ2, I just don't want the developers to have been focusing so hard on the graphics that they forgot that it needs to be fun. The haters are going to be out in full force trying to give this game a bad rap.



killzone-2-20081209055122390.jpg

killzone-2-20081209055117890.jpg

 

Look at the game at FULL resolution. Does it look better than Crysis? No, not at all. Jaggies galore. Those small gifs look nice because they benefit from supersampling. Taking a screenshot and resizing it to such a small size essentially gives it 48XAA and hides all the imperfections.

 

I think that given the weak GPU in the PS3, the game looks amazing. However, don't compare it to Crysis.



Good news Everyone!

I've invented a device which makes you read this in your head, in my voice!

PS3 fans, we got KZ2, the best looking console shooter, isn't that enough. Why must u all compare it to Crysis, anybody that is objective enough can see that Crysis looks miles better. Just like anybody that is objective enough can see that KZ2 looks much better (not marginally better) than Gears 2.



Around the Network
Fishie said:
haxxiy said:

Physics is better (what else you could expect, Cell vs Pentium 4) but graphics wise hell no. I mean, even on 720p Crysis need what, 500 megatexels per frame...

Still looks as good as a console game can be.

 

 Watch this then talk again:

 

Windows Vista 32 Bit
CPU: Core2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz
RAM: 2.00 GB Patriot DDR2 2GB Kit, PC8500 1066MHz
Graphic: 1 x GigaByte NX8800Ultra, 768MB 2160/612MHz
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 Ultra

 




selnor said:
Dude seriously?

I'm looking at KZ2 with eager eyes. It looks great, but the graphics arent so impressive anymore.

Their are other games coming in 2009 which impress me more graphics wise. To be honest the new CES 2009 videos just dont seem as impressive. I dont think it's that much better graphically than MGS4 or Gears 2. But the animation is top class.

 

LOL Points @ selnor and laughs.



I'm getting kind of tired of hearing graphical comparisons to Crysis. Both games have their talking points though, but at it's max, Crysis and Warhead are still at the top.

I would say gameplay is debatable though as I feel that the open nature of Crysis makes enemy encounters either boring or frustrating. Especially when they litter guys with rocket launchers all over the map (a la Far Cry.... you think they would learn). Oh, and don't forget those damn attack helicopters!



Million said:
Fishie said:
haxxiy said:

Physics is better (what else you could expect, Cell vs Pentium 4) but graphics wise hell no. I mean, even on 720p Crysis need what, 500 megatexels per frame...

Still looks as good as a console game can be.

 

 Watch this then talk again:

 

Windows Vista 32 Bit
CPU: Core2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz
RAM: 2.00 GB Patriot DDR2 2GB Kit, PC8500 1066MHz
Graphic: 1 x GigaByte NX8800Ultra, 768MB 2160/612MHz
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 Ultra

 

Wait wait, I can do this too.

Haze looks better then Crysis running on a P4 with integrated graphics.

 

Bottomline Crysis a 2007 game can look a shit ton better then Killzone2 ever will.

 

 



CGI-Quality said:
@ Red

You should know that this will bring all sorts of criticism...tread carefully. My opinion: yes, certain aspects of Killzone 2 do actually best Crysis. HOWEVER, from a technical standpoint, Crysis easily takes the win and I think from what I've seen of both Killzone 2 has the physics and particle effects BUT Crysis visually is still the winner. These games are kind of hard to compare though, one is a war torn apocolyptic world: Killzone 2, the other is in HIGHLY detailed foliage: Crysis which IMO is not defeated, nope not even by Killzone 2 I'm afraid! Regardless, this should tell people though, of just the sheer prowess that is Killzone 2, for it to even be compared to the marvel that is Crysis. Even, HEAVY RAIN, must provide almost flawless, top-notch visuals at this point to best Killzone 2, just look at Spartan's first gif, OMG, mindblown!!!!!

 

 

Killzone2 physics and particles cant even begin to compare to those in Crysis.

Just check the vid I embedded.