Crisis looks better, but gameplay wise it's Meh. KZ2 Gameplay is superior.

Sorry to burst your bubble but SLI and crossfire have never represented a linear increase in overall graphical capability for a given system. To even suggest or imply it like you have is just silly. Without knowing what their detailed settings were at we don't even know if they were making any use of the second GPU at all honestly. Furthermore the quad-core CPU and 4GB don't necessarily mean much since they neglect to mention whether they are using 32 or 64 bit Vista Ultimate.  The 32-bit version means that the 2GB of VRAM are sucking down most of the 3.2GB addressability limit leaving 1.2GB of System RAM of which Vista devours a sizeable chunk. 

You're giving the comparison PC being used quite a bit of credit as some beastly monstrosity when it appears to me it probably wasn't anything special and could remain practically identical in performance by reducing to a mid-range dual-core, a single GPU, and 2GB of RAM (which would actually be in increase in system memory).

None of this mentions the important piece of information....they are running fraps (or some other capture software) in the background which is almost certainly the real cause for the long pauses.  The long pauses are the buffer filling up and the conflict between GTA which needs access to the hard drive fighting against the capture software.

Cysis looks lovely on my gaming rig, what's the problem again?

While the OP has a very good point that not every PC can make Crysis look so much better than KZ2 he must conceed there are enough that can.  Killzone 2 doesn't look better than Crysis on a good rig unless you want to judge purely on artistic style.

Sorry to hear you're gone from PC gaming if its true, personally I'm soon to be enjoying my new content for TF2, the extra content for Left 4 Dead and not mentioning COD 4 MW2 next year where I can run it at 1920x1200 in all its glory.  Sure it sucks paying for upgrades from time to time but I prefer the extra control I can have over my online gaming on the PC compared to consoles.

Long time lurker, when i saw this thread i finally registered.

I work in the industry, and i really think these types of threads are pointless. A lot of you guys were talking about the prices and how much an equivalent PC rig costs, have you stopped to wonder how much Killzone 2 cost and how much Crysis cost to make? The latest KZ2 rumoured figures had put it at 42m euros in budget, although this months 3D World magazine has an article on it and states it cost around 32m euros. Crysis cost half of that, if even that much.

Guerrilla also worked with several other outfits on this game, including Massive Black, Liquid Development, Sony's Tech R&D division, and consulted with other Sony affiliated devs.

I was working in Amsterdam when KZ2 went gold, and the Guerrilla guys went to pubs in Leidseplein to celebrate, and i felt happy for them that they finally completed it.

But there's this bad mentality in gaming to compare some games with others just looking at whats in the screen. I also think people go crazy for KZ2's graphics, but what they really like is the art direction, thats what makes it visually different. Because if we're looking at "best graphics", several other games are equal to, or beat it, like the aforementioned Crysis. Gears 2 has better textures and models than KZ2, Far Cry 2 has great graphics, Resident Evil 5 as well.

As it is, i think KZ2 is a pretty standard shooter, its fun, but nothing out of the ordinary save for the visual direction. It doesnt do anything new, but what it does it does well. However, as i also read somewhere (i think in Edge), if it had arrived 2 years prior, it would have made an insane impact. Now, after CoD4, after Crysis, after Gears 2, all huge action blowouts, KZ2 just feels well done, but everything in it ive seen or experienced before.

I felt kinda the same with Crysis as well - i played it before, it was called Far Cry except now it had powerups lol

Edge has been exposed for accepting bribes from developers to give games higher and lower scores. It makes me a bit sick when I see their reviews on metacritic; their sole review dragging the score of a game down horribly. Secondly Gears 2 was never more impressive then Metal Gears Solid 4 or Uncharted. It is not more impresive then killzone 2 in anyway. Also you mentioned that Killzone 2 had a higher budget. That was one of the points I was trying to make.

not really.. far cry 2 yes.. but crysis is pretty linear.. it simply gives you the illusion that you have choises.

It's customary if you're going to commit liable that you place links as evidence, I've not read about it before so I'd be interested to see the articles.

As I laid out on my thread regarding PC vs console gaming:
http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=61751&page=1

There are several claims one can make as to why console gaming is better than PC gaming:
1. A stable platform means that the games is more likely too work out of the box on your machine.
2. Cost of entry to play games of a given generation is less expensive.
3. There are less maintenance headaches one has to deal with with consoles.
4. One can rent console games, to see if you like. Both DO have demos most of the time.


HOWEVER, comparable graphics, or superior graphics is not one you can make. Nor, in ALL cases, can you say that consoles have better interface. RTS is better on PCs than consoles, and aiming is superior on PCs. Same with modding. Also, consoles don't have every genre covered at this point.

Myself, as I laid out in my thread, I do console gaming and not PC gaming.

Holy shit this thread is stupid why do we have to have one every month.

51 FPS is actually rather good and I also believe KZ2 runs at only 30. Oh, and 1680x1050 is 1764000 pixels versus KZ2's 720p with 921600 pixels - the resolution alone takes a lot more power. Then there's the fact that you don't actually have to run Crysis on the highest settings for it to look better than pretty much any other game.

The price? Don't make me laugh. You can get a decent computer for about $500 and it can surely run Crysis on high settings (probably still looking better than KZ2). Oh, and you can do something else with it, too, as you said. That's $200 for basic functions and $300 for gaming - not a bad deal, huh? Well, actually I've barely seen a $200 basic computer new, even $300 is pretty cheap. Yeah, let's say $300 for basic functions and $200 for gaming. Then there's the price of the TV, easily hundred of dollard (or euros in my case). If you want a decent size (ie. bigger than a PC display), it'll cost at least some $400 to some $500, and that's pretty low-end. On the other hand, a PC display (22" for example) costs somewhere between $200 and $300, depending on what you want. Also, why does no one remember you usually have some PC stuff (eg. the display) even before getting a new one, and if you're upgrading the main unit, you may have some stuff already and you can sell what you don't need anymore.

I got my PC for 260€ + 80€ (the graphics card, which would have been either significantly cheaper or significantly more powerful if I had got it now instead of two years ago). Then I got a 22" display (has some dead pixels but their colors aren't that bad so they don't disturb me pretty much, and especially when gaming, I don't even spot them) for 100€. That's 440€ and could have been either cheaper or more powerful. It runs Crysis on medium settings with a decent (although only decent, nothing more) framerate.