Crysis wins, but I will never have an opportunity to play it. I'll be satisfied with what I got.

Why is there even a question here. Crysis blows Killzone 2 away, and Crysis offers superior environments as well. The amount of detail in trees is nothing in comparison to environments in Killzone.

@MikeB, lol better lighting in Killzone 2, are you sure?

@whoever said you need an amazing monitor to see it look like that, same goes for the PS3 shots, and my HD TV cost 3 times what my computer monitor did. So if you tally that into a PS3 price, my PC is way cheaper than a PS3 setup (2k vs 3k)

No doubt to me Crysis wins, but they didn't pick the best shots ever..the facial shot should b e of two people with the same expression..the explosion shot is just horrible for the Killzone 2 game.

I dunno..the KZ2 shots look blurry to me.

llMikeB said: Crysis on a good enough PC looks great, Killzone 2 looks great. I like Killzone 2's lighting, art direction and character animations better. Most important of course is which one is more fun to play.

Well ... obviously there was a reason they didn't side-by-side compare that.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but what exactly was the point of doing a side-by-side of a game on a $400 console vs a game on a $2000 PC? Computer games have been graphically superior to home consoles since the 1970s. Do people still debate this?

Yeah, they definitely used an old bild, because Killzone 2 looks like **** in that screenshot.  God, at least compare 2009 build =/

LOL. Killzone 2 hater feels the wrath. Was reading the comments on his comparison, did a refresh, and got:

"Service Temporarily Unavailable

The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later."

Dryden said: llMikeB said: Crysis on a good enough PC looks great, Killzone 2 looks great. I like Killzone 2's lighting, art direction and character animations better. Most important of course is which one is more fun to play. Well ... obviously there was a reason they didn't side-by-side compare that. Maybe I'm missing something here, but what exactly was the point of doing a side-by-side of a game on a $400 console vs a game on a $2000 PC? Computer games have been graphically superior to home consoles since the 1970s. Do people still debate this?

You do not need a 2k PC to run Crysis on those settings.  A GTX260 is capable of running Crysis in 1900x1200 with Ultra high (0xAA) and running at a stable framerate.  This means you hardly need 2k computer to run the game, more like $800 for the required.  If you are including the monitor, you should then be including the $1500(minimum) for the HDTV to get the PS3 to produce those graphics.

$1500 minimum? WTF? Since when did 720p TVs start at $1500?!

And seriously ... whatever price you want to target with your PC build, you're still saying you need a GFX card that starts at $300 to even run this. That's not a relevant comparison at all.

But with only a 720p you aren't getting the best graphics.

You need a 1080p TV to get the best graphics out of it.

KZ2 doesn't run at 1080p. It's 720p or 1080i.