Visual Comparison: Crysis and Killzone 2 writes: "Killzone 2 is definitely shaping up for a momentous release this February end. Everywhere you go, the news is on developer, Guerrilla Games. And the consensus is clear: Killzone 2 will blow you away. We definitely agree on the game looking far superior to the target trailer showcased several years ago at E3. But is it truly the 'Most Gorgeous First Person Shooter'?

"Any FPS trying to lay claim to that title, has to first defeat the reigning champion, which in this case is indisputably Crytek's Crysis, available only on the PC. We pit the two titles against each other in a shot-by-shot visual comparison to determine the better, more aesthetically pleasing, shooter."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
elorm93596d ago (Edited 3596d ago )

I still think that Crysis is ahead of KZ2. Crysis can run in higher resolutions and can do more frames per second. Motherh himself said that KZ2 wouldn't look as good if they rendered it in 1080p.

Btw, why all the disagrees? If you've got something to say, then say it

Ninja-Sama3596d ago (Edited 3596d ago )

Crysis still holds the crown for best looking game no doubt but the fact that ppl are now comparing a console game to the best looking PC game out shows how powerful the PS3 is...definitely way ahead of any competing console.

However, I honestly prefer KZ2's weapon models over crysis.

@elorm9 I did NOT disagree with you.

MNicholas3596d ago (Edited 3596d ago )

This guy doesnt know what he's talking about. He's weighted all his decisions on art style rather than technical accomplishment. He got every single one of the comparisons wrong, including saying that Killzone's environments are as good as Far Crys.

@elorm, higher resolution and frame-rate are important for raw technical comparisons of performance. However, it is very simplistic. What about shaders, number of lights (KZ2 has hundreds of real-time lights), shadows, draw-distance, character detail, number of characters on the screen, complexity of animation (including how animation is implemented), rag-doll character physics, object physics, bullet response, ambient occlusion, particle physics, blah, blah, blah ....

There are literally hundreds of points for comparison and debate. Simply talking about resolution and frame-rate assumes both games are doing the same amount of everything else. The reality is that Killzone 2 has a hell of a lot more going on on-screen than Crysis. It has hundreds of real-time lights. How many does Crysis have? What is Killzone 2's texture size vs those in Crysis? You see, it gets very complicated.

That so many people are saying that Killzone 2 is the best looking game ever made when there are $3000 PCs out there running the latest and greatest PC games shows just how powerful the PS3's architecture can be in the hands of an exceptional development team.

Milky Joe3596d ago

I think the problem with Crysis' graphics is that they're a little too clichéd. They're still super impressive and really smooth but KZ2 has a bit more... personality. Crysis is going for realistic whereas KZ2 has taken a slightly artistic direction and hence has a bit more personality.

Put it another way, KZ2 is instantly recognisable (even with low res shots), whereas for Crysis doesn't instantly jump out at you.

That's why IMO Killzone 2 has the most impressive graphics, not most realistic or technically superior, but the most likely to make you go, "Phwoar... Hey guys, take a look at THIS!"

wil4hire3596d ago (Edited 3596d ago )

You couldn't even begin to compare Gears or Halo to it.

LOL, and that third one isn't even kz2..

gametheory3596d ago

So what you'r basically saying is that a PC with 4Gigs of RAM, an i7 intel proccessor and a 295 GTX are better than the PS3 at running Crysis @ resolutions that surpass [email protected]? Who could have figured that, Einstein?

What you're basically saying is that a monstrous PC is superior to a PS3, not that Crysis > Killzone 2. The thing is, if the PS3 had 4 Gigs of XDR and a 295GTx instead of the RSX, then obviously KZ2 would look immediately better.

The point a lot of people are trying to make is that technically, Guerrilla optimized an engined for the PS3 a lot more than Crytek did for Crysis on the PC, so much so that they are comparable. The techniques GG used are pretty cutting edge. That's not to take any merit from Crysis which is awesome, just saying that perhaps GG is more impressive because they did all of that with a 512MB of RAM console instead of 2 Gig of RAM and a cutting edge GPU.

elorm93596d ago

That's the point I'm trying to make here. PS3 specs will remain constant throughout it's life cycle and games will only look better if devs find more efficient ways to program their games. I never said KZ2 wouldn't look as good on a high end PC and I never said KZ2 looked bad.

eagle213596d ago

*watches ballet of death*

Killzone 2 wins!

zo6_lover273596d ago

Remember, they were seeing which one was aesthetically better, not which one was technically better

umair_s513596d ago

Crysis's graphics are a touch better than KZ2's but if you look at art style, KZ2 is definitively ahead and personally art style is more important than graphics.

Kushan3596d ago

Why is it that people are still claiming that the PS3 can look better than the 360? I'm sorry guys (and before you click "disagree", read the whole of my post) but the PS3's GPU is NOT more powerful than the 360's. It also doesn't have a dedicated scaling unit like the 360 so it takes a bit longer to output at higher resolutions, the 360 would always be the same (Which is why people often point out that framerates on a PS3 don't seem as good as the 360, regardless as to whether it looks better or not).

The PS3's advantage lies in the CELL. The CELL is NOT good for rendering graphics! The CELL is an amazingly fast chip, but when it comes to graphics, the RSX (PS3 GPU) beats it hands down. And when it comes to graphics, the XENOS (360 GPU) is slightly better than the RSX (only slightly, though, but it's enough to get maybe 2 or 3FPS more on the same scene). The CELL is better suited to handling things like physics and other PROCESSOR intensive tasks, which may make a game more appealing in terms of what the world can do, but it wont make it LOOK any better in terms of texture quality or screen resolution or anything like that.
Texture quality comparisons are a joke, the main limiting factor on a console when it comes to textures is the amount of memory it has - and both the PS3 and the 360 have got about 512Mb to play around with. Yes, one of the PS3's 256Mb banks is faster than the 360's but that only helps so much and only in certain instances. The CELL can sort of help the RSX by doing some more complex clipping and whatnot, but all that really amounts to is keeping it on par with the 360.

I know it must really get to some of you, but your console is incredibly evenly matched to the competition.

Cwalat3596d ago

the fact that the compare this to an unreleased game is pathetic.

they should just shuv Crysis up their asses. to have those graphics that they are showin you would need atleast.. ATLEAST.. 2000$

elorm93596d ago (Edited 3596d ago )

You're right on that. I do agree that there are in fact more details in KZ2. But all I said was that Crysis runs in higher resolutions and better frames per second and I got all these disagrees. KZ2 only runs in 720p and 1080i native in 30 fps. :|

I do think KZ2 looks good, but I think Crysis is somewhat better. Btw, I don't know if y'all are just going after me because I made the first post. I'm not the only one who thinks Crysis looks better. Look further down to the other posts :|

bpac1234567893596d ago

Yeah Crysis wins, but the fact that Killzone 2 can even be compared to a pc game as impressive as crysis and still hold it's own says alot.

Gue13596d ago

Look at the disagrees of elorm9... I can't believe people actually thinks that Killzone 2 looks better then Crysis. That's what I call famboyims at its best!

Most of this people haven't seen Crysis running in its highest setting.

Crysis is beyond of what consoles of this gen can do. Fact.
Stop living in a fantasy world where you think the PS3 is the most powerful sh1t on the planet just because Sony say so.

Milky Joe3596d ago

Could it just be that people prefer the art style of KZ2? Crysis has a completely different style to Killzone.

But I'm almost certain some people would have a completely different opinion if it was Crysis on the PS3 and KZ2 on the PC. But hey, welcome to the internet. :P

dukadork23596d ago

everything feels dead, static, and frozen while KZ2 is a constant barrage of particle, complex animations, physics and a dynamic lighting extravaganza no-one has ever pulled off. KZ2's engine is miles ahead of crysis, and that's an amazing achievement for GG on a console: period.

watching these videos, i couldn't help thinking we're so close to riddley scott's dream but... in a [email protected] game!!

I hope crytek is reading this: c'mon guys, prove us wrong and show us what you can do on that beasty PS3! we know you're very good coders but can you guys match KZ2 or do we have to run your code on a $5000 PC?

we're waiting...

Yoma3596d ago

Thinking like this, making a game for pc, and you don't have any "hardware limits". Making one for a console, you have to get it to perform better on a limited hardware. Because of this, it's an incredibly good job by GG.

majorsuave3596d ago (Edited 3596d ago )

Crysis will output more of everything if paired with the right tech, Geforce 295 or say Radeon 4970.

KZ2, on the other hand, will always be rendered on a 3+ years old 7600GT (the chip on which RSX is based). And, at that level of detail, it probably is rendered at 720p then upscaled to 1080 for HD while Crysis can be rendered at 2560 x 1600 if need be.

Then again, can I play KZ with a keyboard and mouse? If yes, I will maybe not wait until the PS3 hits the 249$ price point and buy one right away. If not, then...

dude_uk3596d ago (Edited 3596d ago )

way to go on the flame bait....

If you don't know the Cell actually DOES aid the RSX in geometry and in lighting which is a graphics based process instead of overloading the RSX with these jobs:

"The two things you mention - lighting and particles - are things that we can already drop fairly seamlessly into the PSSG geometry pipeline and run on SPEs. Particle processing especially has an advantage over current GPU based techniques because of the generality of the SPE (and over a traditional CPU as well due to the speed and parallelism of Cell). Using SPEs as a front end to the GPU opens up a lot of interesting avenues and I'd be very surprised not to see people explore them."

another thing is that the Cell can post process the goemetry our eyes can't see and remove more load off the RSX so it can push more pixels as well as aiding the RSX with vertex shadders

And as you say the Xenos is only "slightly" better than the RSX if all graphical processes are loaded onto the RSX directly which isn't the case with First Party Game Development, so in the End the 360 will not be able to compare with the PS3 Graphical output because of The Cell + RSX complex

The Xenos > RSX talks has been proven wrong by Criterion in one of their podcasts where they talk about how the RSX architecture is different than the Xenos but are basically equal in power but harder to program for[RSX]

if you had read up on how the Cell helps the RSX you wouldn't have to spend so much time trying to prove nothing.

Agreed mate have a bubble

TheExecutive3596d ago

Where is the 360's Killzone 2 then? They dont have one. KZ2 is almost a generational leap above 95% of the games on the 360. Gears 1 and 2 are the best graphics the console has and they DONT hold a candle to KZ2.

I have both systems. I think your post is rediculous and quite frankly when the evidence is right in front of your face its pretty hard to deny... unless you are a complete fanboy, which you probably are.

callahan093596d ago (Edited 3596d ago )

@ Kushan:

The Executive said it, but I'll say it too. People talk about the PS3's better graphics because it has this game, which looks much better than any game on the 360. If you've got the console title with the best graphics, then you've proven yourself for the time being.

wil4hire3596d ago

But yeah, people have eyes. The technology behind the PS3 games are second to none. Not only because its a new tech, but the 360 has no games that are graphical hard hitters.

Heres something easy:

1. Find a 360 game that can do both:

A. Calculate Motion Vectors to Render Motion Blur
B. Run any resolution of 1080p naively.

The 360 has no graphically advanced games, because developers simply can't do it on the hardware. There are no options to, because of everything being developed with the Unreal Engine, and previous programming benchmarks/status-quo laws of game development.

Think about Crysis, and why NO PC GAMES hold up to it. Its because the developers set out to do something thats NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE in gaming. So they created a game engine that sets the bar for everything in existence. Nothing can compete with it. THey had a certain specification to use, and with that specification. They would optimize and crush everything to fit within it.

This is how PS3 exclusives are made. With a specification, and to deliver never before seen visuals. That specification happens to be a broadband processor. One that will alleviate the reliance on GPUs. If you don't understand why broadband development is important to the future of computers(Before we get to calculating on photons because silicon is getting too thin) maybe M.I.T(massachusetts institute of technology) Can:

Let me try to put it in words you will understand. Generally computer programming has all looked at the following key factors. Memory, Video Memory gpu, and the Processor. Thats how games are programmed, and thats the reason you need to upgrade often. Because as you demand more, the requirements have to rise. This way of thinking will ultimately pop, and its why we divide procs into cores now. But with cores comes the interesting idea that you can now start sharing the load that the GPU normally would do, and house those functions on other cores. THats pretty much what the cell is doing.

You are right, the 360 has a beefier GPU. But thats because its games require it to have a beefier GPU, because thats what the code is looking for. A testament to the cell/PS3 is that even with a weaker GPU, for games that are optimized on the 360, the only difference is often a subtle edges/texture filtering. No longer is it an entire framerate or night and day performance. This is with the weaker GPU as you put it. PS3 development has gone from terrible ports, to equal, and better\higher resolutions in regions. This is another reason that the PS3 has better hardware performance than the 360.

With the Playstation 3, it can not only handle 360 titles with ease. But it can also use its lower specifications, to run more technically advanced visuals like Gran Turismo 5 Prologue, Metal Gear Sold 4, Uncharted, and Killzone 2. Games that either run in higher resolutions, stream with ease, provide never before seen visuals/model detail/shaderdetail/lighting/f ramerate than 360 games are capable of. You can pretend to deny this, but its frankly impossible.

Multiplatform games that use the same rules of graphics often could be called "better" on the 360. And you will find no argument there. But for the amazing visuals and technical advancements in gaming. You have to go to the PS3. Its just you aren't going to find what I listed above in a 360 title. Because none of the games are being pushed to provide never before seen visuals, without using an old pipeline. The latest technology in the world of Microsofts gaming division, is Normal Maps. The 360 could probably make better looking games if Microsoft made 1 game totally optimized for the full 360 specs. Unfortunately, they are all optimized for the PC and the 360. So again, you are never going to go back and write everything from scratch, since you are going on a history of relying on GPU to do all the hardwork for the graphics.

In other words,

People Have Eyes.

The Lazy One3596d ago

the 360 doesn't have a killzone 2 because it doesn't have 5 years and 60 million dollars it wants to spend on a single game when it can spend half the time and money on 2 games and make twice as much money.

Le Idiotce3596d ago

"the 360 doesn't have a killzone 2 because it doesn't have 5 years and 60 million dollars it wants to spend on a single game when it can spend half the time and money on 2 games and make twice as much money."

>> Oh really fanboy? Halo 3 costed MS 100 million and last I checked, MS wrote a 50 million check to Rockstar for merely some DLC nobody really gives two flying shiats about.

cayal3596d ago

The fact that Killzone 2 is being compared to Crysis is a testament to the achievement Guerilla Games have accomplished.

Sarcasm3596d ago

I crown MNicholas as the smartest non-fanboy on N4G. Every post is filled with logic and never ceases to amaze me. From lowering my IQ reading dumb posts from people like POG, Agent VX, etc. It's nice to read from a real human being that looks at all variables of gaming especially in the technical department.

Well done MNicholas, keep those posts coming!


Sarcasm3596d ago

wil4hire, I gave you bubbles for speaking the troof.

In anycase, I don't get why there is still any "360 vs PS3" graphics arguments with Wipeout HD available.

Show one single 360 game that can do 1920x1080 @60fps with the amount of things going on at once like WipeoutHD. Granted it's using a technique to lower the resolution in heavier sections of the game. But it's still 1280x1080 resolution which is still higher resolution than most games available.

And we're only 2 years into the PS3's life cycle. I cant imagine what year 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 brings us.

Mr Bot3596d ago

while killzone 2 taking the artistic approach hence it looks and feels much better than crysis, beside i dont know anybody who could run crysis at maximum settings, so even if u have the game u will not be able to run it at max unless u own 3000$ pc which i think 1% of the pc gamers in the world have!

the fact that killzone 2 is making a debate of which is better with crysis is an accomplishment, now can anybody compare gears of war 2 to crysis? or any other 360 game??

and i still think killzone 2 is better looking than crysis and its a fact that its better in lighting and shadows!

freeblue3596d ago

the graphic and see which is King.

Kushan3596d ago (Edited 3596d ago )

Well done! You only posted two things that the CELL helps the RSX with, one of which I already mentioned.
I said that it can help by doing some more advanced clipping and culling techniques, this is true, but it's also true of any CPU and if a game is designed well, it'll do this anyway. Read up any basic article on scene-culling techniques (go look up BSP trees, for example) and they all say the same thing - the majority of time is often spent RENDERING the scene, so the more time you take away from that, the better, but you're still going to spend most of your time waiting for the GPU to render everything, so you can afford to spend a bit longer culling as much away as you can. In other words, yes, the CELL can help, but it can only help so much.

Secondly - particles!
Yes, particles are great and stuff, but you know they're not very processor intensive at all? A particle is often little more than a SINGLE point (one vertex) in 3D space that will have some GRAPHICAL effect laid on top of it. The CELL can compute the particle's position, even check it against collisions and all that, but the RSX still has to render the bloody thing. But still, particles! Yeah! That's what makes Killzone 2 look so good, all the particles it has, right?

I'm not saying Killzone 2 is a bad game at all, what I am saying is that people (who obviously don't know a lot about how games are made) are jumping to conclusions on frivolous evidence. If the PS3 is truly, TRULY more powerful than the 360 in terms of Graphics, why have every single Multi-platform title we've seen been nearly identical? The odd one looks better, the odd one looks worse, but overall they're the same. It's easy to blame developers and say they're just catering to the lowest common denominator, but really - every SINGLE developer?
You simply cannot compare console exclusives, there are far too many variables for it to be a fair comparison, even amongst games of a similar genre. The Art style will be different, the engine design will be different, even the game mechanics will all have a huge effect on how it looks in the end (Take red faction, for example, they claim they're pushing the 360 as far as it can go, yet there's plenty of 360 games that look better - why? Because the mechanics are vastly different).

"The Xenos > RSX talks has been proven wrong by Criterion in one of their podcasts where they talk about how the RSX architecture is different than the Xenos but are basically equal in power but harder to program for[RSX]"

Yeah, there's a major point right there: Harder to program for. Do you know anything about Software development? If you did, you'd know that easier to manage and maintainable code is just as important as efficient code, but if you've never written a vaguely sizeable program, you probably wont understand why. That still doesn't account for the 360's scaling chip, though.

And it's interesting that you claim my post is "flaimbait" when I never actually said the PS3 was a bad console, nor did I even say the 360 was better, what I said was that they were very similarly matched in terms of performance. How dare I claim things are equal! That's very bad of me, right?

No, you fanboys (on both sides of the field) can believe what you like, I'd rather be informed than ignorant. KZ2 could just as easily run on the 360 (And if anyone's going to ask why it's a PS3 exclusive, ask why KZ1 was a PS2 exclusive, even though the Xbox1 was more powerful).

gametheory3596d ago (Edited 3596d ago )

As for your comments on multiplatform games, games today are too expensive to make. Taking the extra effort on PS3 would require a lot of time, i.e. delaying a game indefinitely just to make it take as much advantage as possible of both consoles, especially the PS3. Also, considering you think you know something about game programmingm, how come you don't consider into the equation the fact that the Xbox 360 has a pretty straightforward architecture, i.e. unified shaders and unified RAM. As for the PS3, it definitely packs a much higher power processing punch but you have to program it adequately: instead of PPUs it has SPEs, instead of unified RAM it has split RAM, each running at a different clock speed, and it also has discrete shaders. So the best a multiplatform dev can do is get both games up to speed without programming for each console's specific strengths, especially PS3's.

"How come multiplatforms look the same?!?!?!?!!?" Well how come no 360 exclusive is as impressive as most PS3 exclusives? I mean seriously, the only impressive 360 exclusive is Gears of War. Halo 3 fails to impress, Fable 2 fails to impress. The funny thing is, Gears of War runs on a multiplatform engine, so you could pretty much say that if that's the best thing on 360, then it can run on PS3 if Epic wants to port it.

Kushan, stop it with the ignorance, you've been raped, it's time to move on and accept the fact that the Cell processor can do graphics, just like the emotion engine did, use that little brain of yours to get that into your thick skull. Developers have said it and used it to make exclusive games on PS3 look better than anything multiplatform or exclusive to 360. The Cell processor has been proven to do Raytracing 5 times faster than the nVidia 8800 (and therefore better than most GPUs available on the market since the 8800 is still comparable to the latest GPUs) in simulation tests. And guess what? Both Killzone 2 and Gran Turismo 5 use raytracing. Any game on 360 that can do raytracing? Not even crysis uses raytracing.

You know what? You've been raped again.

Actual game developers > you.

cayal3596d ago

@ Above:

You ask why nearly all multi-platform games look identical on both 360 and PS3. It is because they are not optimised for either console.

You will notice how much better exclusives look on each console (like Uncharted, Killzone 2, Gears of War etc) vs how multi-plat games look on the console (ie how Devil May Cry 4 looks on the 360 vs Gears of War 2).

The reason for this is that the developer would have to build the game ground up for both consoles to have it looking as best as it can. The cost of doing such a thing is not feasible (or smart). So they build the game on one console and then port it over to the other.

The Lazy One3596d ago (Edited 3596d ago )

it didn't cost them 100 million to develop. It cost them around 30.

"The total cost to Microsoft for “Halo 3”: a little more than $60 million. Development costs will probably be just above $30 million"

They haven't even really started marketing killzone 2 yet, and they're already at the entire development and advertising budget of halo 3.

edit: it also took them around half the time... half the time, half the development costs, and probably similar if not better sales...

masterg3596d ago

I Disagree with you.

I'm running Crysis on full settings on my PC and I think Killzone 2 looks better. Crysis has better explosions and better physics when it comes to environment. KZ2 has better physics when it comes to characters and better atmosphere.

agentace3596d ago (Edited 3596d ago )

there not comparing the hardware there comparing the games.

if KZ2 was made for a $5000 PC it would probably kane crysis.

if crysis was made for a $300 console/PC would it look anywere nearly as good? NO

its just the fact that with what they have to work with they have done an amazing job.

as it stands crysis looks better but its using FAR more advanded hardware.......i wish KZ2 was a PC exclusive then it would of overtaken crysis

@The Lazy One
i saw you left out his comment about the $50million on DLC lol

Kushan3596d ago (Edited 3596d ago )

I never once said that the CELL "can't" do graphics, what I said was that the RSX can do graphics much faster than it. You can write a software renderer for practically any processor out there. Now you've thrown out the ray-tracing card, well done. Problem is, the RSX (and by proxy, the 8800 and just about every other discreet desktop GPU out there) were never built for ray-tracing, they were built for rasterising 3D Geometry, which is a completely different approach (And it's how 99% of games today are done). GT5 DOES use Ray-tracing, yes, but you failed to mention that it doesn't use this in-game, it uses this in the pre-race screens (Where your car is sitting outside your garage or whatever). You know, the MENU screens! Surely if the CELL was so fast, they'd use ray-tracing ingame as well?
Oh and your comment on KZ2? Incorrect, there's a video floating around where some PR guy says they use ray-tracing, but it's been debunked and it's mostly accepted that he was referring to the rays of sunlight visible in said video.
No, ray-tracing for anything truly real-time and ingame is far above and beyond this generation and probably the next generation as well. It's completely different from rasterisation, it's like you saying "my Ford 4x4 truck can pull more weight up that hill than your Ferrari can, so it must be faster", it's comparing apples to oranges. The CELL may be able to do Ray-tracing faster than a G80, but it's still not fast enough to use in-game.
And you CANNOT combine ray-tracing and rasterisation easily unless you want to render the whole scene twice or have the rasterised objects look really out of place.

As for the multi-platform games - don't give me any of this "Oh it would just cost them too much money to max out both". That wasn't an issue with the last generation, or the generation before that, or the generation before that, so why is it an issue this time? Because Game development has become more expensive? Or is it because the platforms are, actually, quite evenly matched in the end?

You can believe what you want, you can even believe that everything posted here about the PS3 being far superior to the 360 in terms of GRAPHICS, but at the end of the day the facts remain - all the multi-platform games look more or less the same, the few exclusives there are are too different to be compared, but if you want to compare them then rest assured the shoe will be on the other foot a few months from now and all the 360 fanboys will be proclaiming the 360 looks better when something like Alan Wake appears (or whatever, all I'm saying is there's ALWAYS going to be a "better looking" game down the line, for both consoles).

But here's a question for you, and I really want an answer to this if you want to reply at all - does it matter? Does it really...really matter? Why are you so obsessed with proving the PS3 is the better console? Why is it so important to you that your console isn't "just as good" as the competition, that it has to be so much better than it? Why do you get so upset when someone disagrees?

EDIT: To clarify what I said about combining ray tracing and rasterisation - you CAN ray-trace a scene and then draw something rasterised over the top of it (like a HUD or even another 3D object), but the two cannot affect the other, the rasterised object can't be affected by ray-traced lights and such and the ray-traced objects wont reflect anything rasterised and such.

dude_uk3596d ago (Edited 3596d ago )

thank you cayal and gametheory you've already answered the multiplat's question

btw kushan... yes i have done software development as part of a computer science college couse in the UK. We had to make a simulation of a petrol pump and of the cashier's computer calculating: price, litres of gas pumped to the car, total income, etc. all while using 7 segment displays using binary codes for the pump and a well designed computer software with a good design.

and yeah one other thing i forgot to mention was that there are videos on the internet of Cell ONLY rendered Cities

and oh yeah the fact that it also does ray-tracing in killzone 2 as posted ealier today from the gameking's interview is astonishing and that means the cell can do graphic, though i do agree that RSX does it much faster.

quick and dirty:

- goal: cinematic experience. lot's of post-processing. analogue look

- motion blur per pixel,
- noise, AA

- spu's are the key for optimal performance on the PS3: Deferred Rendering
- they often use all six: for full fire fights, physics, particles, mp3 streams, 7.1 audio, lighting
- they also help to render effects. 40% extra speed thanx to the spu's

- guns have to feel realsitic, reactions have to be realistic. hit impact system. every bullet has an effect on the surrounding or people in it
- stacked animations with real time rendered ragdoll.. and yep, blow heads off...

- every polygon has mass and material

- real time ray tracing <<<<<<< Righ here from a recent interview

- holes are not a flat image of a hole
- collision detection of small particles, even sparks.. icing on the cake. will often go unnoticed while playing by a lot of people.

- 5.1 ambient mp3 streams that rotate when you rotate. on top of that stereo music, 3d sound effects, voices in the right positioning, sound filtering.. all in 7.1 uncompressed sound.

- extreme amount of lightsd. 230 lights in this screen (he's showinng the screen). they are proud of this level. impressive
- the robot alone has 8 lights

- tech was developed while making the game.

- they think they can go further and beyond what they're doing with killzone 2
AND they will show us in the future!!

Microsoft Xbox 3603596d ago

Kushan, can the 360 pull off REALTIME RAY TRACING? Is there any 360 games using deferred rendering? LOL Nope.

RememberThe3573596d ago (Edited 3596d ago )

How is it bad that Sony put 60 mil into this game? If MS put 60 mil into one of their own games and it turned out like killzone 2 that would be freakin awesome!

How can you look at Sony's investment into a proprietary engine and a game in a negative light? That is how you spend money. You get a kick ass game as well as a kick ass engine that your entire first party can use.

I honestly can't tell why your defending MS for not pushing their hardware. If you want to defend Halo 3 go for it, but you'll get demolished. Halo's graphics were a joke. It didn't look anywhere near as good as Gears and it came out a year after. Don't get me wrong here, I had a good time with Halo 3. But when we're talking about production costs and what you get form it, killzone 2 takes the cake.

EDIT: I just had a thought...
Remember when everyone was spouting off about how the PS3 was over engineered and that the hardware people weren't making the system for the software people? Now look at what we're getting from this hardware. GG has already said that they will be able to get even more out of the PS3 with future products.

Now those hardware guys at Sony aren't looking so out of touch after all.

Microsoft Xbox 3603596d ago (Edited 3596d ago )

"But here's a question for you, and I really want an answer to this if you want to reply at all - does it matter? Does it really...really matter? Why are you so obsessed with proving the PS3 is the better console? Why is it so important to you that your console isn't "just as good" as the competition, that it has to be so much better than it? Why do you get so upset when someone disagrees?"

Hypocrite much? I see YOUR three wall of texts, trying to prove the 360 is on par with the PS3, which is clearly false. The PS3 will and always remain superior than the 360. Fact. Killzone 2, Gran Turismo 5 proves these. Lets just face it your a 360 fanboy trying way too hard.

Kushan3596d ago (Edited 3596d ago )

Right, ok, so apparently everyone's jumping on the ray-tracing bandwagon, great.

Ray-tracing is nothing new, ray-tracing is quite a simple technique for accurately drawing a lit Scene, it's problem is that it's slow.
Just because the CELL is capable of doing it, it does not mean that it can do it fast enough for a game. An old 386 can do ray tracing if you want it to, in fact Doom uses a form of ray-tracing and I'm certain that the 360 can handle Doom.
No, the problem is that as your screen resolution gets bigger, the performance cost of ray-tracing goes up quite considerably. The good thing about it is that it's very easy to thread, which is perfectly suited to the CELL (It's very difficult to do this with rasterisation, which is why SLI setups get like 150% performance over one card), but it's STILL not fast enough.

Here, I did some googling for you:

Second or third link on google.
This is great, plenty of nice graphs to work with and such. If you look at the first graph, a 2.2Ghz Athlon (not a fast processor by any degree) gets about 6FPS in his ray-traced scene. All 6 SPUs on the PS3 get about twice as much. Sounds impressive, that's still only 12-13FPS though. Not fast enough.
As the libraries improve, so does the speed, but the most he's able to manage is 28Fps with ONE object on screen. When it gets to any meaningful amount, that just drops dramatically. With just 10 objects on screen, he's back to his 12FPS.

Oh and here's some more youtube videos of the PS3 doing that ray tracing stuff:

Oh, what's that? They're using THREE PS3's to render the scene! Now I haven't checked the system requirements (lol) for KZ2, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't require a multitude of PS3's to run.

No, look closely at what that trailer that everyone's jumping on is saying, he's referring to the RAYS of light coming through the windows - that's NOT the ray-tracing you're all talking about.

EDIT: For the life of me, I do not understand how people can say I'm being a fanboy when I'm deliberately NOT showing bias towards one console.

incogneato3596d ago

Crysis is a piece of garbage. it may be pushing more polygons but at what cost? any developer can make a Pixar looking game, but will it run on current technology? nope. and neither did Crysis. and years later, it still cant run. Killzone 2 has more advanced technology in many areas: animation, physics, AI, and more. and while it doesnt technically push as much as Crysis, it STILL manages to LOOK better.

Killzone 2: Best visuals in a game, EVER.


HMMMM, strange decision.

Would i build a 3k pc to play crysis at high and above gfx settings?
(LOL, i owned and beat it btw, i also built a great system around crysis.)/

or, would i buy a ps3 and killzone 2, based on the beta?

LOL.i know what i would choose.

BkaY3596d ago

im not very technical... but i think it will be reasonable if you compare both according to the specification.. like whatever ps3 specifications are try to run crysis on tht.. then u will get the right result....

slinkey1233596d ago

Theres a nice screenshot of crysis taken on my PC, using natural mod.
Getting 30fps in that picture and my PC cost around $1k... So yeah you dont really need a 3k machine to max it. But i guess 1k is still a lot lol.

dude_uk3596d ago (Edited 3596d ago )

but i think that you have misunderstood my point of raytracing, if that's what you meant by jumping on the bandwagon.
I never said the game completely uses it, the example you posted everything is rendered being affected by ray tracing which is not the case with KZ2.

and i do agree that ray tracing is a very slow process that requires an immense amount of processing to accomplish at a significant frame rate, but the fact that a game with such CPU intensive processes such as their lighting engine, deferred rendering and quincux AA which are also CPU intensive processes all while also adding ray tracing to the game and making all of these interact, proves that the PS3 is a architectural and processing monster.

Edit: Cool, that could be true since we don't have a lot of details of how their engine projects the light and how it bounces back, like the M4's muzzle flare which lights up everything near the light source during each shot, but again not much detail given.

Kushan3596d ago

But dude, it's still not ray-tracing, or at least, it's not the same kind of ray-tracing you're talking about.

The PR guy is referring to the sunlight coming through the windows (as "rays" of light) and the technique they use to cast shadows and such, but it's completely different to ray-tracing in terms of rendering, it's not the same thing, it's just unfortunate he's used the term "ray-tracing" to describe it.
What KZ2 is doing is nothing new, it's just implemented really well and looks very impressive.

Ray-tracing IS projecting a ray from each pixel of the screen (that is, your monitor or TV, so if you are running at 1280x720, that's 921600 rays) and bouncing it around the scene until it hits a light source (hence the "Tracing" part).
That's not what KZ2 is doing at all, KZ2 is likely (and I'm sort of speculating here because they've not really posted details about their engine in this respect) projecting "rays" from a light source, calculating where the rays hit (and where they don't hit) so they can light the scene nicely and cast realistic shadows. It's completely different, as you can see, plus it's been done in games before.

That's also why you can't mix ray-tracing and rasterisation, because you have no way of knowing which pixels need to be traced.

ThanatosDMC3596d ago

I think, they all ready ignored you. So you can stop now. Want a cookie?

GUNS N SWORDS3596d ago

what's interesting about this comparison is that crysis still gives PCs a hard time and it's all on 1 dvd.

The Lazy One3596d ago

the 50 million wasn't development costs. The 50 million for DLC on GTA was the cost of exclusive rights to the DLC.


I'm not saying it's a bad choice. I was replying to the fact that people think just because M$ doesn't spend 5 years and 60 million dollars on games means the 360 is incapable of making games that look as good as a game that's had that development time and money put into it.

It's a great looking game, but the fact of the matter is nobody's spent that kind of money or that kind of time on a 360 exclusive, so there's no telling how good a 360 game can look down the road.

SkyGamer3596d ago

You don't need to spend ridiculous amounts of money on a great gaming machine. I built mine including a brand new 19" lcd monitor and laser wireless mouse and keyboard for under 1025. And it will run circles around a ps3, also run circles around the X360 as well. Any developer that spends all this time and resources can make any game look great.

Like one of the above posters that stated that the gpu is stronger in the Xenos than the rsx. They are correct. Processor only count for a fraction of game graphics. True the physics and number crunching will be better but graphics, NO.

Take a look at this scenario, you go and buy a New Dell PC and it comes with a Core i7 CPU with 4 gb of ram and what, integrated graphics card. Even though that the cpu is a beast, you won't even be able to play MOST of the latest games, why, because the gpu sucks.

So that goes to prove that you need more than a fancy cpu to render graphics.

rsx - dx9 256mb of ram NON-UNIFIED Shader Architecture - 550 mhz

Xenos - 10mb embedded eDRAM - Unified Shaders - 500 mhz

The embedded eDRAM is why the X360 can push out impressive graphics. Unified shader means that it can take advantage of NEW TECH instead of the outdated single shaders.

True the cell can put more things on the screen but as far as graphics, it is up to the developer in how to make best use of the architecture. If the X360 had a game that was over 5+ years in the making with ALL staff pretty much on this ONE project, we would be seeing some pretty sophisticated games as well.

Still PC owns all and you can build one that is better than nex-gen for less than a ps3. Unfortunately since the X360 dropped to 199, I can't say cheaper than X360.

Phenom X4 9850
8gb OCZ Sli Ram
750gb HDD

DaTruth3596d ago (Edited 3596d ago )

Only one question needs to be asked without all the stupid spec talk. Which console has the games with the best graphics? Killzone, Uncharted,MGS4, Heavy Rain and GT5 all say hi! Face it, even Heavenly Sword does stuff the 360 is not capable of. What is the point in having a system with power and not using it EVER!?! Halo costs 30mil and Killzone costs 60mil, and Killzone looks 20 times better than Halo3, twice the money, 20 times the performance, you do the math.

Your whole argument is stupid, just get off it.

Not only does PS3 have better graphics than 360, it has better graphics in 3D!!!

Here we are comparing a PS3 game to a game on super spec PCs, and you go and bring up the 360; The 360 is officially gone from all conversations about graphics unless we're comparing the Wii!

f7897903596d ago

Crysis while amazing cannot stay the top graphics game for too much longer. It's taken a year and a half for a legitimate competitor to appear though which is incredible.

N4g_null3596d ago

If you guys ever get to the carrier where that giant squid thing is killing every one let me know because you won't see that on the PS3.

Also does killzone have any trees at all?

Sarcasm3596d ago

Kushan, nobody's going to read your wall of texts my friend. Split them out a bit more.

All we see is

but but but teh XeNoS!!!

Doppy3596d ago

Since when has Killzone been set in Africa. Well according to the environment comparison, and when have African been in Killzone 2. If I didn't know any better I'd say that's Far Cry 2 and not Killzone 2, but no one could get those games mixed up could they?

Sevir043596d ago

While they funded 10 million 2 gears and got a better looking game. The point is here is that ms's priorities are all F'd up. They spend too much money on Third parties instead of having there own internal studios

to make games look better than gears. it's a shame that Epic knows MS's own hardware better than them. all there interenal studio games look like Dog ass. halo wars, forza, N3, Kameo, PDZ, Banjo, Even PGR which looked better than forza doesn't stand up, and perhaps there biggest offender. Halo 3, doesn't even look better than resistance:fom, a game breakfast, pog and all the other 360 fanbois claim as the worst looking next gen game ever.

Yet 3rd party devs knows the 360 better than MS. Right now the best looking game on the 360 thats set to release is RE5, and that looks graphically on par with Gears 2,

the 3rd party are showing MS how to make games for the 360 and they arent even taking note. LMAO.

While Sony's First and second party games and a few 3rd party devs are making game look awesome
and those are Kojima productions, Quantic dream, capcom with RE5, Epic games, and Squareenix with Tetsuya nomura... FFVS13 is gonna be awesome and even FFX13 as well.

gametheory3596d ago

Let's compare Gears of War 1 versus Uncharted, polygon by polygon.

Nathan Drake is a 30000 polygon character (real-time). Its enemies are somewhere between 15 and 20K polygons (real-time). Elena and sully's poly count is almost up there with Drakes. Also, there are usually more enemies on screen in Uncharted than there are in Gears of War, and that's not to mention that the Color Palette is much wider. You know how many polygons has Marcus Fenix? Half of what drake has, and that's 360s best looking game done by the "masters" at epic. How come its best game cant match a PS3 game poly per poly, pixel per pixel? How come it is inferior in every way? (That doesn't even take account for storyline or realism, but that has nothing to do with power anyway). Uncharted doesn't even come close to taking full advantage of PS3.

There aren't "too many variables" here, there are so many similarities between those games that they are directly comparable. Gears 2 looks identical to the first one, so it's pretty much the same comparison.

Again, I ask you... where is 360s Killzone? Or 360s uncharted for that matter? The 360 is pretty easy to program for and pretty straightforward. The 360 should have gotten games surpassing Killzone and Uncharted and MGS4 long ago if it was just as powerful, considering its straightforward architecture. Why does Halo 3 have such a disappointing look? Alan Wake doesn't look like a game that can't be done on PS3, but certainly we have seen nothing like Killzone, Uncharted or MGS4 on 360.

Oh, and one more thing. It's not that we care if it's much better than the 360 or not... it's that it actually *is* better than the 360 whether you want to admit it or not. If you really didn't care, then you would have stopped arguing. You came here asking to be replied to, here's your reply. You can shut up now.

The Lazy One3596d ago

look at that picture.

can you see the extra 15k polys? It's not the number of polygons, it's how well you use them.

Anyone, anyone who thinks that drake looks significantly better with almost twice as many poly's. That said, it's color palette is larger, but it has lower dynamic range.

It's a tit-for-tat either way, but no game on the console market TODAY looks significantly better than the original gears of war even 2 years after it was released.

Maddens Raiders3596d ago! Have you ever heard such drivel?

I've never seen a game make so many _______'s nervous.

Damn, it's really true:

KILLZONE II...the Best Shooter you'll play in 2009 (and beyond..)

The Lazy One3596d ago

I think I said "today"... Last time I checked killzone isn't out for a few more weeks.

Matpan3595d ago

Technically it looks very near Crysis´ Quality (bare in mind Crisys is more than an year old now)

Artistically... well that depends on your taste...

I really love how Crysis looks... But I also love Killzone´s desaturated urban look too... so tough call here.

Sure PC can render higher resolutions and AA and AF also. But I would like to see what specs take to run killzone 2 on a PC.

Cynical-Gamerzus3595d ago (Edited 3595d ago )

Everything! repeat everything is Memory!!
All the subtle differences have only to do with one thing only and that is RAM!!
If the PS3 had 512 of Video Ram this discussion would be easily about how the PS3 owns that crappy PC title that is lame as FUGHCK.
that is enough of this argument next please!!!

godofthunder103595d ago

I'm tired of hearing ps3 fanboys spinning news like they always do.They are trying to say that KZ2 looks better then cysis.The fact is that the ps3 was not powerful enough to run crysis so how in the hell it can run a more powerful game.

I'm also tired of hearing ps3 fanboys crying i don't see why people will keep buying 360s when all microsoft do is give a 3 year warrinty.Well i like to ask them why they kept buying the ps2 when it had a defected drive in them and sony only gave a 2 month warrinty.I for got that sony always do things right and microsoft always does things wrong.

I admit i bought 2 360s at launch and i only had to send one of them back for repair around the 2nd year.To top it off i told them i wasn't satified and the guy told me to hold on why he went talked to his supervisor.When he came back he told me they are fixing me up and i want have any problem again.When i received my system back it was a brand new one made 2 months before i received it.It also had a brand new wireless controller,the box,and the face plate.The letter said that they were sorry for my problem and hoped the new one makes up for it.I'll admitt i was mad when i called.

I had my 360s a little over 3 year now,I know some other people wasn't as lucky.The fact is that in 3 years i never had to buy a new 360.On the other hand i had to buy 4 ps2s in less then 5 years and every one i know had to buy al least 2 ps2s in 3 years.I'm also tired of hearing the reason that the 360 sold a lot was because people had to keep buying new ones.The fact is they they had it fixed for free so why they had to buy a new one.

All i ever hear is ps3 fanboys crying about the RROD wich doesn't concern them 1 damn bit.They are always happy to bring up negative things about the 360 but refuse to say or bring up anything bad things about the ps2 and it had a lot of bad news to.

The fact is that the RROd wich was a problem is getting less and less as times goes buy and the new ones are comeing out and that's a damn FACT.the problem with ps3 fanboys is that they thought that they would be in first place at launce and they are always saying next year and it never happens.They are already saying that the ps3 will end up in 3rd place again this year.I know it will be next year.keep saying it one day or maybe not it might happen,i know your been dreaming sweet dreams about it and haveing nightmares because it's in 3rd place.

The fact is that microsoft said that the new xbox will be out in 2012.They also said that it want be called the 720.They also said the 360 games will be 100% BC this time.So unlike ps3 fanboys claim Microsoft isn't goint to stop makeing a powerful system and stop competint with sony.They also claim that microsoft make a less powerful one then the wiiand that's just plain stupid.The new ps4 and the new nintendo will be out at the same time to.I'v also heard that the nintendo will get a little more hitec.

The fact is that the wii and 360 are the only 2 makeing money and sony is the only ones looseing their a**es off.if it wasn't for the ps2 the ps3 would even be out today and that's a fact.

I'm not a stupis fanboy i admitt the truth.Like i said before i know that the 360 had a high defect rate but sony had a defect in the ps2 to.It wasn't as high as the 360 but it still had's some facts about sony

Sony only gave a 2month warrinty,microsoft gave a 3 year warrinty.

Sony had a different controller when they first showed it,when they seen how good the wii was doing with the moition one they changed their to a moition 1.Unlike wii the sony moition controller became a fad.

Sony also said that rummble was last gen.When ps3 fans wanted rummble sony said that they couldn't put rummble in with moition in the same controller because it didn't have enough room and that turned out to be a lie and sony knew.To make it look good sony made a stupid comment that the rummble in the 360s controller was last gen and the one in the ps3 controller will be this gen.The fact is that it's the same damn thing.

Sony said that people wanted a gameing machine when microsoft came out with the first xbox.Sony said that game fans didn't want a media center.Sony seen how people wanted a media center they started doing the same thing.

Sony coppied the online gameplay.

They coppied useing hard drives

The fact is that sony coppied all the things that make a video game
system from other people.

Ps3 fanboys always act like sony never lies.The fact is that before the ps2 was launch sony lied to us in a big way.Sony showed a prerendered film of a game that was going to be released at the same time as the ps2s.Sony claimed that it was actual game play.When the game came out it wasn't even close to the graphics that sony claimed.The developer of the game said that it wasn't actual game play like sony claimed it was prerenderewd and it never looked like sony claimed.

The reason i'm saying this is because i'm tired od hearing stupid and bias remarks that sony is the only innovator and that microsoft and nintendo coppied every thing from them when the facts prove the opposite.

I'll admitt that sony learned from their mistake with the ps2.The ps3 is the most dependable console ever mad.Kust like sony microsoft will learn from their mistake and make a much better dependable console ever made.The new xbox wont have the same problem as the 360 like ps3 fanboys claim.

I think that the ps3 and 360 are good consoles with positive and negative things about them.I'm just tired of ps3 fanboys act8ing like sony invented everthing that makes a system today when really they didn't invent any of them.I think that the 360 and ps3 will fight it out for 2nd place and the winner want have much to brag about because it want be by much.Ps3 fanboys migh as well face the fact that sony will never dominate the market anylonger and this is a fact.All fanboys need to face the fact that there will always be an xbox and ps3 if they like it or not.They all might as well grow up and shut the HELL up about a system if you don't have it.

+ Show (62) more repliesLast reply 3595d ago
Nathan Drake3596d ago

Why are the pics of KZ2 from the old build?

Anyways,both games look fantastic,can't wait for KZ2

resistance1003596d ago (Edited 3596d ago )

I very much doubt that is Killzone 2 considering KZ2 doesn't feature that kind of environment

Edit - this is aimed at the comment below, not this one (clicked wrong reply button)