First Crysis 2 PS3 Footage

TSA: The first PS3 gameplay footage of Crysis 2 has surfaced and it’s pretty shiny. Crytek said last year that there were ‘no ports’ for Crysis 2, all versions are developed simultaneously and this PlayStation footage looks at least the equal of anything else we’ve seen on the 360.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
awiseman2701d ago (Edited 2701d ago )

You can thank the friendly folks over at EGAY for hiding the ps3 footage..when their is clearly nothing wrong with it. Its not Crytek's fault!

PS3 demo confirmed as well.

Edit: looks like the fanboys have arrived to start saying that this looks like crap, SMW below can vouch for me. kerrak was right on point unfortuntely. -_-

deadpoole2701d ago (Edited 2701d ago )

Now Im not saying this game looks crap ... but texture popups and dull visuals is just killin this game. I dont get it ... why Killzone 3 is sooo graphically superior and crisp unlike this.

But then again Crysis 2 was always meant to be for PC gamers. I believe Crytek showed mercy and threw in console versions for gamers, just to show what Crysis is all about.

Crysis always required beefed up rig worth $$$ ... but what makes me wonder, if Guerilla Games (Killzone 3) is able to squeeze that awesome graphics from PS3 time freeze snapshot hardware ... and if Crytek can't do that and Crysis 2 require really high spec pc to get same level of visuals of Killzone 3... means that their 3D rendering engine programmin code isn't efficient/refined/optimized enough.

dragonelite2701d ago

Killzone has a lot of faked lighting effects like godray and stuff while Crysis 2 does it all in realtime.

But still you have to wonder if it wasn't sony that kept the crysis 2 ps 3 version footage under control because of fair people would go for Crysis 2 instead of killzone 3.

RBLAZE19882701d ago

hey guess what killzone 3 has massive pop in also. I noticed it even in killzone 2. I noticed shadow pop in also. Stop trying to down play this game. It's coming out next month why can't you just let it come out without bringing up other games all the time. I have killzone 3 and love it but I don't go around calling every other game shit. It's not the holy grail. It's a really really good looking game and in some aspects better but in some aspects it won't be better than Crysis 2 and you're just going to have to face that fact.

Paradicia2701d ago (Edited 2701d ago )

You're merely judging both games on the merits of visual first impression(shock factor). KZ3 just hasn't got the scale and vertical gameplay present in crysis 2.

You just have to look at the video in the header to see how diverse and vertical the traversal aspect of crysis is. In the video when the player is ambushed, he climbs near 200 feet to snipe from above, returns fire, cloaks, power stomps off the ledge only to flank around and surprise the aliens.

That kinda gameplay is just not available in KZ3. It's a more grounded experience - door to door firefights, which enables more processing power to go into more detailed nuances such as lighting etc.

deadpoole2701d ago

Ive always thought of Crysis as ball having uneven surface ... the analogy is no matter how polished surface you have, ball with uneven surface will never roll smooth as silk. Thats the reason Crysis game released many years back is still giving new Graphic Cards hard time.

Whereas Killzone 3 a polished ball on older architecture is able to give such an outstanding performance.

starchild2701d ago

At the very least we can all admit that this is the best looking multi plat ever.

Istanbull2701d ago Show
SephireX2701d ago

This game looks great on PS3. Remember, unlike KZ3, this game is much more open which obviusly makes it more difficult for the devs to have the same graphics as KZ3. Thisa game will have a much better campaign than KZ3 but KZ3's multiplayer will probably be better.

inveni02701d ago

That texture and object pop-in is terrible. It's literally the first thing I noticed (besides the aliasing). I'm sorry, but Crysis 2 on consoles still doesn't beat out EITHER consoles' exclusives.

Active Reload2701d ago

"deadpoole + 6h ago Now Im not saying this game looks crap ... but texture popups and dull visuals is just killin this game. I dont get it ... why Killzone 3 is sooo graphically superior and crisp unlike this.

But then again Crysis 2 was always meant to be for PC gamers. I believe Crytek showed mercy and threw in console versions for gamers, just to show what Crysis is all about.

Crysis always required beefed up rig worth $$$ ... but what makes me wonder, if Guerilla Games (Killzone 3) is able to squeeze that awesome graphics from PS3 time freeze snapshot hardware ... and if Crytek can't do that and Crysis 2 require really high spec pc to get same level of visuals of Killzone 3... means that their 3D rendering engine programmin code isn't efficient/refined/optimized enough."

N4g is bizarro world, lol, go anywhere else and majority of PS3 owners will say Crysis is a sight to behold on the PS3...

Soldierone2701d ago

Wait I dont understand. killzone looks better ,and people agree, but their defence is "well Killzone is faking it." How is Killzone faking animations? Gun textures? and so on. ill agree some of the lighting is helping the game, but so what? It makes it look better than friggin do it.

Let alone anyone that stands by color as their defence never touched Killzone 3. The plants and forested areas in that game were breath taking.

It just proves that PC developers are not efficient or creative in achieving what they want. Killzone 3 and Uncharted, Resistance etc...would ALL require hardware upgrades in the hundreds to thousand dollar range to work at that rate.

Ducky2701d ago (Edited 2701d ago )

^ Err... they would require upgrades why?

A modern PC is more than capable of handling those games; if they were developped/published for the PC.

The difference is that PC games usually come with mod support. In order to give the community freedom, the devs must go for a dynamic engine.

So although Killzone looks better (it certainly has more detail in it's environments) it also is limited whereas a game like stalker
( ) might not be as detailed, but has a larger scale and doesn't have permanent~ish lighting.
Although the 'faking' argument is still moot since it is only works when arguing over which engine is better.

paintsville2701d ago

This game easily crushes the Killzone 2 with more color Killzone 3. Hands down. FACT.

Redman222701d ago (Edited 2701d ago )

Nice job Crytek! Will pick it up when it drops. And guys please enough with this bullshit already just let it go.

just placed my pre-order. : )

BattleAxe2701d ago (Edited 2701d ago )

The best thing for non-PS3 owners to do is to go over to a friends place who has Killzone 3 and a 1080p TV and check out the visuals yourselves. Killzone2 and Killzone3 are both amazing looking games but Killzone3 is a notch above Killzone2. I realise that Crysis2 is a good looking game and that the areas where you can go in the game are larger, but if we're talking straight graphics, then Killzone3 takes the crown.

Regardless of what techniques they used to achieve the high level of graphics in KZ3, it looks totally amazing. Some moron above me here said that there was pop-in on Killzone2 and Killzone3, I can tell you that there was absolutely no pop-in, stop being such an idiot.


Well if we're going to compare by color, then IMO Super Mario 3 kills Crysis2 FACT!

DaTruth2701d ago (Edited 2701d ago )

You simply can't expect an open game to have the same graphics as a straight through shooter! Not that I don't think a similar styled game made by Guerilla for PS3 wouldn't look better!

I'm just happy it looks this good on PS3! Really set my mind at ease for the day 1 purchase! Also, it looks like fun, which is really the most important part!

I've already put LBP2 on a virtual hold because of Mass Effect 2 and only played an hour of Killzone 3, putting LBP2 on hold even longer; now this!!!

Hoping to free up some time between Crysis 2 and Infamous to find some time to play LBP2... Unless Ico collection gets a date in between!

CrIpPeN2701d ago

I'm going to get this on PC, best version.

HolyOrangeCows2701d ago (Edited 2701d ago )

So much for reaching for the PS3's graphical ceiling. Just like the 360 version; no AA, some screen tearing, pop ins.....It looks fun, but they definitely lied. I'll be buying used, as I do not support liars.

In b4 "bu bu bu Teh lighting enginez!!!"......oh wait, never mind.
Enjoy the bright, aliased pixels.

Anyone else reminded of those "open world" portions of ODST? Except more opened up and more action-filled?

BlackKnight2701d ago (Edited 2701d ago )


KZ3 runs at 720P. There is no difference on a 720P or a 1080P TV....

Also, EVERY game has pop-in. The technical term is LOD (level of detail). The degree of LOD used determines WHEN things "pop" in or out.


When within 5 feet of a player model, you seen the highest quality model, between 5 and 30 feet, you see a slightly less detailed model (lower poly count, less texture resolution), between 30 and 100 feet, you see an even less detailed model (further polygon detail gone, even lower texture resolution, specular lighting is no longer calculated nor self shadows or world shadows).

All well optimized games do this, UC2 devs even talk about it:

"There are 50 separate cars that are really moving along through our streaming environments at a pretty good lick. You can see all 50 cars at pretty much any time during the level and when we first started to build the level, when we looked at the first car from the last car, a little lamp hanging on the front of the first car was still swinging! We hadn't really used a level of detail (LOD) system in the first Uncharted but the train level made us put it into action in double quick time."

Here you see ND talking about needing to put in an LOD system to make UC2 run smoother. That lamp they are talking about swinging is supposed to be NOT rendered at that distance because its a waste. So that means as you move along the train (or any level) things will "pop-in" or have greater detail when you get close.

KZ2/3 have this and it is slightly noticable, ESPECIALLY in 3D. The pop-in in 3D is terrible, nothing even CLOSE to Crysis 2. KZ3 pop-in is similar to Crysis 2 pop-in from what I have seen of Crysis 2 and my copy of KZ3.

BABY-JEDI2701d ago

I get your point. I think the level design on Crysis 2 is looking interesting. However, I do find the lighting (going by this footage) really flat. I also find (& I hate to say it) the stealth/invisibility cloak seems such a cop-out. But I'm sure this will be a really good FPS but I was expecting more..

DualConsoleOwner2701d ago

you realize Killzone 3 maps are WAYYY bigger than Crysis 2 map that was shown on demo??

Lol... nice try fanboys.

BattleAxe2701d ago (Edited 2701d ago )

@ BlackKnight

I realise that the game runs 720p native, but the reason why I said to play it on a 1080p TV is because newer TVs have more picture adjustment options and much higher contrast ratios than pretty well all of the old 720p/1080i TVs out there. So all I'm saying is play it on the best TV possible because KZ3 looks amazing. It also helps to have a TV with a faster refresh rate (120hz/240hz). There are plenty of other reasons to play on a 1080p TV, so if you want to talk about TVs, then lets talk :)

BlackKnight2701d ago


There are TV's as new as 2009, such as Panasonic Plasmas, that are 720P and have superior contrast ratio to nearly all TVs save for high end LED's and plasams. Not to mention plasmas have no motion blur (phosphor blur on older, lower end models) and also are viewing angle independent so you will have much better color accuracy no matter where you sit. This is still something that top LED TVs of today can't reflect. Also, refresh does absolutley nothing since nearly all game run at 30FPS, some like COD and GT5 and Forza and Burnout paradise and so on run at 60. It's not the refresh rate that makes less blur, it is just the quality of the panel (better response times) has to be higher with higher refresh rates. If you don't have better response times with high refresh rates, that high refresh rate is wasted. Again, LED TV's measure response times in ms (average is 2ms) while plasmas are in nanoseconds.

My point is the fact a TV is 1080P does little. There are low end 1080P LCD (CCFL, not LED) TV's that have much lower image quality than some high end, newer 720P panels.

I think it would be better to say a high end TV. I think there are plenty of 1080P TV's out right now that are low quality.

BattleAxe2701d ago (Edited 2701d ago )

Well I'm not sure where you're from BlackNight, but nobody sells 720p TVs here in Vancouver anymore. But anyways you're sort of causing an unecessary arguement as you've kind of missed the point of my original post. Besides, most manufacturers are phasing out plasma TVs in favor of LCD and OLED TVs, thats why you can get a good plasma TV for a much cheaper price than an LCD TV. Plasmas have their benefits, but they also have their problems. It all comes down to preference though. Personally I find them to be too bright, they have a shorter lifespan than LCD TVs and if you tip them or handle them the wrong way you can screw up the gases inside the TV. PC gamers brag about playing games at 2560x1600 resolution when the games aren't that resolution natively. Thats because they do look better even if the game is natively lower resolution.

Bob5702701d ago

"It just proves that PC developers are not efficient or creative in achieving what they want. Killzone 3 and Uncharted, Resistance etc...would ALL require hardware upgrades in the hundreds to thousand dollar range to work at that rate."

Each of those games were designed from the ground up specifically for the PS3 hardware. PC developers don't have a specified CPU and GPU to develop for. If a devloper designed a game engine specifically for my G73, it would blow Killzone 3 out of the water, but I may not be able to be run as well on other computers despite being more powerful. They just have to make a guess as to how to make it work best for the general population of PC gamers.

MaxXAttaxX2700d ago (Edited 2700d ago )

Oh wait. Too late.

Why don't PC elitists go to the PC footage articles, instead of the console ones?!

Seriously, the game looks good. I don't care if other versions look better. This looks better than most multiplatform games.

We're not even sure how up to date this is. Maybe they've improved some more.

Dee_912700d ago (Edited 2700d ago )

Main difference I can see between console and PC is the lighting

I can understand comparing the graphics between KZ3 and Crysis
but saying 1 sucks because the other have a feature that the other doesent is just plain dumb
because they are 2 different style of games.

tbh i think its dumb to compare pc graphics to console graphics when 1 limits customization and the doesent
but eh what ev
dont really care

sikbeta2700d ago

HEY GUYS! Guess what? KZ3 is Awesome and Crysis seems to be Awesome too, there is no lose here, both games are great, if you can afford them, enjoy both games and that's it...

+ Show (24) more repliesLast reply 2700d ago
KRATOS-PS32701d ago

Sorry, but I don't need Crysis 2 even if it turns out to be a pretty good game. Soon I will have Killzone 3 for my PS3.

Downtown boogey2701d ago (Edited 2701d ago )

It's good that you can cope with less, then.

SIX2701d ago

Cope with less? Sorry but put in just a few hours of KZ3 last night and it's far from less. In fact, it's the best fps game I've played in some time. The MP is also very solid.

KRATOS-PS32701d ago

I think Killzone 3 is by far the better choice on consoles.

mrbattle4202701d ago (Edited 2701d ago )

I have been member of this website for a small time but you and the cell and others are not gamers!,gamers are not fanboys of one console,i got a ps3 ,xbox 360,and building a new pc for games that are more superior than killzone.
xbox 360 -gears of war 3 ,fn champion,forza 4
ps3 -infamous 2 and uc3
pc-skyrim ,crysis2,battlefield 3,brink and rage
and to tell u more uc2 is far more superior in grafics that killzone 3 ! sorry for my grammar but inglish is not my first language so have fun kid is just games !!!

BloodyNapkin2701d ago


Very funny my friend, your name that is Mr. Battle with 420. That says alot about you right there.

You might say the PC is capable of better graphics, yes and everyone would agree. But better games, you sir have lost your f#$king mind. Any game that is worht 2 sh!ts on the PC come to consoles also for the most part, sure it might be PC medium settings. But i am not concerned about little bit better textures or AA and so on and so forth.

All i care about is game's. IS the PC getting GT5? Or how about God of War 3? Uncharted, Infamous, HeavyRain, LBP, Killzone, R&C, and i could go on and on and dont get me startded on the awesome arcade games.

You can spend your money and build you a computer for below average games with better graphics all you want, but i will not be wasting my money on that dumb sh1t anymore.

You call yourself a gamer and make fun of everyone else not being a gamer. But what defines a true gamer is someone that enjoys playing games, and not so concerned with how pretty it looks. I will take enjoyment over looks anyday of the week.

Ducky2701d ago (Edited 2701d ago )

^ There's better racing sims than GT5 on PC.

Not that it really matters since it's down to opinion anyways. You can't say that PS3 has better games and assume it's a fact. It's just preference.

Also, MrBattle's argument was that a true gamer should have all systems to enjoy the variety they offer. You somehow assumed he was talking about graphics only, and then proceeded to burn the straw-man down.

Though you wouldn't miss that much by not having a PC. The PC only has a few exclusives anyways. Though those few games have soaked up a lot of time in my life.

inveni02701d ago

Saying you don't "need" Crysis because you have Killzone 3 is stupid. That's like saying you don't need Uncharted because you have Gears of War.

Different games are different experiences. They compete for your dollar, not for your loyalty.

PotatoClock2701d ago

Lol BloodyNapkin.

Your fanboy retardedness shows through loud and clear. You actually think that PC games are entirely good graphics with no substance.

How about you actually play a PC exclusive sometime rather than spout crap, thinking your blind PS3 loyality is somehow going to reward you with a lost of your virginity?
Total War Shogun 2 is coming out soon, thats a good place to start.

juggulator2701d ago

Some people just can't handle the life. They choose one over the other and justify that by being content with it. I can't do it though, I'm a PS3 owner but there's no way I'm passing up Crysis2 on day one.

@KRATOS-PS3 I'm sorry to say, but it's people like you that give the PS3 fanbase a bad rep, and even more on this site. You put Killzone3 on such a high pedistal like it's the second coming, but it's really just a great FPS game, just like Bulletstorm(which I bought along with my KZ3 Helgast Ed.) and Crysis2.

DXM12701d ago


Actually dude Console games are always dumbed down from their pc counterparts. I have a ps3 and i love it, but im really pissed we dont get games like STALKER or DEUS EX 1 type games. And if we do get it, its dumbed down to shit. I cant stand the fact that devs think all console gamers are casual monkeys.


palaeomerus2701d ago (Edited 2701d ago )

Man #@#$ Killzone 3. I already played it and I am done with it. It was good. So the hell what? Except for some occasional multiplayer, who cares? It's over and the Helghast got smoked by like 20 guys abandoned by their own government for six months.

Crysis 2 is looking really good and it comes out on March 22. That's what this thread is about.

So stop whining about your little "walk down the tunnel except for some rail shooting parts, 84 review average, already out and gonna be old by late March" shooter and get serious. KZ3 isn't that big of a deal. Let's move on.

It's time for Crysis 2 and HomeFront now. Your PS3 game is nothing but old news. After Home Front and Crysis 2 are out, it will be time to think about Brink and other upcoming shooters.

Dee_912700d ago (Edited 2700d ago )

I woke up playing KZ3 @ 11am and stopped around 5pm because I didnt notice how late it was getting
didnt a site say KZ3 sp was like 4 hours long ?
I put in 6 hours and I dont even think im near the end
i only have 18& of trophies

cant wait to play crysis 2!!

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 2700d ago
NeoBasch2701d ago (Edited 2701d ago )

EGAY, really? They're easily one of the best publishers working in the industry today. No need to flame.

WhiteNoise2701d ago (Edited 2701d ago )


All that Dead Space 2 DLC they sold everyone was on the disk for every single platform. If you copy a friends game save from DS2 and play it on your console. All the DLC is magically there even though the DLC files are supposedly not.

EGay is the kindest thing that can be said about them.

They publish good what. There are a lot of amazing musicians that I would love to punch in the mouth if I met them. You can like their product and hate the people too.

NeoBasch2701d ago (Edited 2701d ago )

Except the DLC for Dead Space 2 has nothing to do with the story/campaign (especially the upcoming Severed, it follows Extraction, not DS2). It's extra content they developed unrelated to the DS2 production. That's why they're charging for it. They're not doing this stuff for free. They got to pay the people working on it.

Besides, they did this back during the original Dead Space. Nothing's changed. Its a common practice for developers and publishers. Does it make it right? Perhaps, for you, no, but for the developer who worked hours on it, hell yeah!

Andreas-Sword2701d ago

The PS3 version looks better than the Xbox 360 version.

PS3BURN2701d ago

What are you trying to prove here? Get your info right then come back please.

BlackKnight2701d ago (Edited 2701d ago )

Are you kidding me? The clip is from a level we haven't seen on xbox and its video. Who knows which looks better for now, I see no difference, especially since we don't have same for same level comparisons. I can see they both are using Temporal AA from the video though. Hell, even when the PS3 Demo/beta comes out, we don't know if that build will be old or really close to retail code, just like the 360 beta MP.

Everyone should save their comparison opinion till you get both games out and good comparison sites like Digital Foundry throws us some clean and UNCOMPRESSED still shots.

Either way, both look fucking great.

damnyouretall2701d ago

nah i cant tell them apart and it really doesnt matter. i think it looks just as good as killzone 3 to be honest. its kinda hard to pick and choose all the details between each game, but crysis 2 looks damn fun and thats all that matters to me.

ChronoJoe2701d ago

Actually he's right. It did strike me as looking allot better than the 360 version.

All I've seen of the 360 version has been a very small, controlled environment (multiplayer map), this PS3 footage is on a much larger scale but textures seem to be at higher resolution, and lighting seems a little better too.

Not that it's a surprise. Crytek have said from the begging that the PS3 version would look better than the 360 version, and of course PC better than either of them. Assuming they're developed as seperately for each platform the PS3s hardware will always have a multiplatform game looking better, and I believe Crytek have taken that approach to the development of Crysis 2. So it comes as no surprise that it does infact, look better than the 360 version.

BlackKnight2701d ago (Edited 2701d ago )


What the hell are you talking about? The 360 has the SAME levels as the PS3 version. And there ARE big levels already shown on 360:

Crytek just stated they will look identical (I assume there will be performance differences depending on the strengths of each system). You are making stuff up.

Care to point out anything specifically in the demo that looks better? I'll help you. AA is identical so that's not different. Gun looks identical. Hell, you can't even compare fairly beyond that, like I said above, because we haven't seen this particular part of the game on 360, just like we haven't seen the video I just linked on PS3...

Bob5702701d ago

You're kidding me right? I truly hope you are trolling because Crytek themselves said that Xbox and PS3 would be running the same spec.

If you really care about graphics that much, buy a PC. I'll be playing Crysis 2 with better visuals than anyone who plays it on 360 or PS3.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2701d ago
JsonHenry2701d ago

I think this looks rather good especially for a console game.

You can compare it to KZ3 all day long but in the end does it matter? They both look fantastic!

DelbertGrady2701d ago

Hopefully Crysis 2 will have a longer SP campaign and better MP.

BlackHairyTongue2701d ago (Edited 2701d ago )

According to your agree disagree ratio, most people hope it doesn't.

BloodyNapkin2701d ago

Sorry i have played both multiplayers and Crysis does not hold a candle to Killzone in multiplayer department.

lh_swe2701d ago

Trollin' as always delbert...I am just wondering, does it ever get booring? no ofcourse not, how silly I am you have to balance the system here on n4g ;)

BlackKnight2701d ago (Edited 2701d ago )


I seriously want to know what you see different between the MP in KZ3 and Crysis 2 and why Crysis 2 "does not hold a candle" to KZ3 MP.

Both have sprint and ADS and only crouch. Both have killstreaks (though in crysis 2 you need to collect the dropped dogtag to make it count as a deterrent to campers). Both have a "perk" system. Crysis 2 has classes support through what perks you choose while KZ3 has perks/abilities through abilities and class skill. Crysis 2 has the suit options. KZ3 has mechs. Both have 1 hit melee (unless Crysis 2 changes that from beta which might be the case). KZ3 you can revive, Crysis you can't. KZ3 has 3 gamemodes, Warzone, Operations, and Guerrilla Warfare (Team Deathmatch) while Crysis has Team Instant Action (Team Deathmatch).
Crash Site (King of the Hill)
Capture the Relay (capture the flag)
Instant Action (Deathmatch)

Both games are very similar actually with their own special twists. You just exaggerate.

Ju2701d ago

I agree with Henry.

A good looking game, no doubt about it.

evilmonkey5012701d ago

I think the Crytek devs did a great job for their FIRST Ps3 game.It looks pretty good. I have kz3 and I think it looks WAY better but I also remember that Naughty Dog helped a lot on this game. Theres no chance anyone can come up against Naughty Dog. I might buy Crysis used or rent it because I didn't care for the first one (on pc).

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 2701d ago
lil Titan2701d ago (Edited 2701d ago )

i guess we know now that crytek lied when they said they would take advantage of each console or system
and this is why i like and support PS3 exclusives, they say they are going to take advantage and they deliver...unlike papa johns which i ordered almost 30 mins ago...

Crazyglues2701d ago (Edited 2701d ago )

Wow I'm sorry that looks awful that's clearly an Xbox Port... All that B.S. the CEO was talking about how they would be the best to do third party PS3 version..

and after all that they did a watered down Xbox 360 port... wow

even the menu system for the powers looks stupid... I mean you couldn't just use the same icons from the PC version, come on now Crytek..

now your just insulting my intelligence.. Come on' WTF

if you think that looks good go back and look at the 360 beta -

No wonder they been hiding the PS3 version.. -I'll wait for the demo before I write this game off because maybe its' the youtube feed or something but that doesn't look good come on' fame-rate was awful... Dear God what happened..

This just looks like an really bad port... Man I'm so disappointed


DavidBanner2701d ago

Are we both looking at the same thing the link you send us to the environments are paper texture and comparison to real life its arcade style.I guess that what you are accustom too and to you its great.To compare the two environments on that basis its like chalk and cheese completely different.On the George Washington bridge when you look into the city on a really smog filled day do you really see that much color or detail.What we see on the ps3 version is just that, that gritty look because that how it is in real life(representation).Note when we add the lighting dynamic etc we actual create a look and feel that represents just that and this system shows that.What we see in the real world our brains do filter the mush so it becomes as simple as possible.The 360 rendering does that it is filtered and simple and "colorful" because the system is simple and renders "simple" .The ps3 on the other hand is way different and is able to render complex and true to form as the developer includes the different dynamics.
I think both look great for what they are one is arcade one is simulation,one is ATI the other is NVidia.

Crazyglues2701d ago (Edited 2701d ago )

@ DavidBanner

well maybe I'm not seeing it right because it's a youtube video. I'll wait until the demo then to better judge it..

Maybe also I spoiled Myself by watching all those PC beta leak videos -to me this video is not that clear -when I watch the xbox beta video it's nice and clear so I don't get it..

maybe the video is not that great so I'll see on the demo, people seem to feel it's fine so I'll just wait till the demo before judging it.


DaTruth2701d ago

Okay, I've reread your comment a couple of times because I thought it couldn't be right! How is it that you believe that video you posted looks better than the video above? The video you posted looks like PS2! I understand that not only is it multiplayer, but also a beta and this is in no way a shot at the 360, but the video you posted looks like @$$... no, screen torn all to hell @$$... screen torn all to hell @$$ made of cardboard, coming from a guy who doesn't usually notice screen tearing!

I know the 360 version won't look like that, but if I were Crytek, I wouldn't want that video to be getting around!

Thoreau2700d ago

i don't think that crysis 2 looks bad, but is does have shades of a 360 port.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2700d ago
DigitalAnalog2701d ago

Alright, I'm not going to lie to you. It does look phenomenal and stunning. I really like the way how they implemented the art-style to be photo-realistic; and that takes a lot of balls - especially on hardware that is almost half a decade old.

Maybe it's the video encoding but I doubt the frame-rate is that choppy (on the PS3) for the final retail. If this game were console exclusive based then I would've pre-order it immediately. As of now, I still prefer to get this on PC where it would most definitely shine. This is why I'm saving up for the 460 GTX graphic card so badly.

-End of Line

Shackdaddy8362701d ago

<---Excited about PS3 demo :)

Tinasumsum2701d ago (Edited 2701d ago )

Looks foggier, fuzzier and washed out compared to the other versions I can't believe I have to agree with CrazyGlues I can't stand him.

CryWolf2701d ago

WTF! was I just watching this can't be the PS3 version cause the graphics looks sh!tty visuals looks like something of a horror movie and why the Hell was a aliens dreadlocks sticking out of the ground at 1:54.