Crysis is nearly a year and a half old. Plus its graphics are set up dependant.

Killzone 2 looks good but gameplay is so much more important.

After playing and finishing both I still stand strong on the same opinion. If you show people pictures of Crysis and Killzone there is no question which one looks better. However, once you show people both games in motion, Crysis just looks weird. Crysis suffers horribly from bad anamation, and because it looks so good it only makes matters worse. So in the end Crysis is a great game to look at, but to watch it in motion is a sad sight. Killzone on the other hand is great to watch, but if you want something to look at Uncharted, or Gears of War 2 are much better candidates on consoles.

The fact that this question is being asked is a testament to how good Killzone 2 looks. But you can't compare it to a high end pc game.

Crysis ftw on this one. No contest.

Crysis by a mile, it isn't even close

For those saying that Crysis didn't look that great on their home PC, try turning down to 720p and turn the quality up as high as you can. People unfairly critisise Crysis when they turn down the quality so they can run at a higher res, when KZ2 is only 720p, make it a fair comparison.

No. For me graphics isn't just the resolution, etc - which Crysis would win anyway - but what the engine can handle while giving yoy those graphics.

In COD4, KZ2, Gears 2, etc. the console requires sacrifices in physics, etc. to be made, limits on level size, etc.

On a decent gaming PC Crysis has not only great graphics but requires far less sacrifices.

In COD4 despite all the great sparks, etc. everything is essentially nailed down. KZ2 has slightly more destructible environments but still a lot of stuff is nailed down.

In Crysis, not only do you get at least comparable (and I'd argue clearly superior) visuals, but without those sacrifices. Little in Crysis is nailed down, and the maps don't force your path to hide how small levels really are, that coupled with the graphics for me puts it a fair way ahead of any console title, including KZ2 (which I'm playing and really enjoying BTW).

No, but that's an unfair comparison. What hardware does Crysis on Very High need to run, and what hardware does Killzone 2 need to run?

Crysis: A NASA supercomputer

Killzone 2: A PS3.

It does have better graphics vs a similarly powerful PC (IE a PC that was high end a few years ago, maybe an 8800GT with a 2.66 core 2 duo or something). If you put Crysis on normal settings and Killzone 2 runs at its only settings then KZ2 looks better.

If you have a beastly PC (I just made one lately with a 295 Nvidia card, i7, 12GB RAM ect) and can run everything in Crysis and Crysis Warhead at max settings then Crysis just blows KZ2 and every other game I've ever played away. The faces aren't perfect, but the environments are as close to photo realistic as I've ever seen. It is just an amazing graphical masterpiece in so many ways.

That said KZ2 competes favorably with most PC games even on high settings and beats every other console game pretty handily (particularly given that it maintains the high fidelity with far more going on then other more limited games like Halo 3 and GOW2. Having those graphics with 32 people per multilayer map is just amazing. Graphics are 2 parts, the first part is the screen shot test (how good does a still frame look) and the 2nd part is maintaining high quality even with high quantity onscreen (no slowdown and high fidelity with huge multiplayer matches or gigantic COD4 like single player fire fights with 1 army vs another which KZ2 also has.)

The settings are very different so it's hard to compare:

Yes and No. Now hear me out before you come running with torches. I've played crysis on ultra high and i've actually played through killzone 2 aswell.

Crysis has way way way better textures and better models too.

However, Killzone 2 has better particle effects, atmosphere and way better lighting.

That's my opinion anyways.