Try our new beta! Click here
Submitted by Rashid Sayed 1720d ago | screenshot

Crysis 2 vs Crysis 1: 1080P In Game Screenshot Comparison

Check out this amazing ultra HD 1080P comparison between two legendary games. (Crysis 2, PC, PS3, Xbox 360)

Assassin Nawabi  +   1720d ago
looks good but is it better than kz3? i m not sure :)
theonlylolking  +   1720d ago
Max settings on the demo for PC looks a bit better than KZ3 and if you have a good gaming PC it can run it @ 60fps which is twice as much as KZ3.
DualConsoleOwner  +   1720d ago
Yea.... KZ3 looks amazing on CONSOLES.
KZ2 still looks better than C2(console version) according to LoT.

But i am not so sure about it looking better than PC Crysis 2....
#1.1.1 (Edited 1720d ago ) | Agree(20) | Disagree(17) | Report
tsunami901  +   1720d ago
The textures and effects in Crysis 2 (even for a demo, and no DirectX 11) are high-res, whereas in Killzone 3, the textures and effect are low-res, therefore, making Crysis 2 miles away from Killzone 3, in graphical terms. Gameplay wise, I have no idea.
Pixelated_Army  +   1720d ago
Cry1 is absolutely beautiful no question about it but KZ3 is nothing to sneeze at and after checking out these and other screenshots of some PC games I have a much deeper respect for what GG has accomplished with KZ franchise and PS3 hardware.

MAWLR gameplay (HD)

24 New Direct Feed Killzone 3 Screenshots

I'll definitely checkout the MP demo on the 15th and if the gameplay is enjoyable then I'll keep my pre-order....f**k graphics it's all about gameplay right?

(damn I need to start saving up for PC rig asap those game look unbelievable)
#1.1.3 (Edited 1720d ago ) | Agree(12) | Disagree(10) | Report
evrfighter  +   1720d ago
This entire article is skewed. Author knows jack sh*t about hardware. 16gb of ram and a 5670? wtf

"Even at the medium-low settings we've used for testing, ATI's Radeon HD 5670 can't cope with 1920x1200 very well, with its minimum frame rate dropping below 30. "

These screens are not Crysis at high settings.

fail article is fail.

#1.1.4 (Edited 1720d ago ) | Agree(13) | Disagree(1) | Report
MisfitSmurf  +   1720d ago
Kz3 is a purtyy game, but of course crysis 2 looks better.

Eitherway, those are some Poopy screens of both crysis 1&2
ComboBreaker  +   1720d ago
I can't belleve Crysis 2 looks so ulgy.
Can't believe how bad Crysis 2 looks in those screenshots. My god, it looks like a FPS from the PS2 era.

Luckly, BF3 will save the PC.
jeseth  +   1720d ago
I don't know why people cream over Crysis. These screenshots look average, Crysis may have been good for its day but Crysis 2 is not blowing me away visually.

If these are screenshits of Crysis 2, I'm not impressed at all. The game looks sterile and boring.
Substance101  +   1720d ago
Like Evrfighter said, the author is a retard for using a HD5670 for playing Crysis, thats not even a proper gaming GPU.
Megaton  +   1719d ago
Well at least he actually tried to play the game. Rashid Sayed/Gamingbolt usually just takes screens of trailers and passes them off as in-game screens.
pixelsword  +   1719d ago
@ DualConsoleOwner:

I expect Crysis 2 to look better than Killzone 3 on the PC in terms of graphical fidelity; for me, that's a given: but in terms of which one gives a more moving experience visually, I would have to wait to play Crysis 2 to give a judgment. The first Crysis was brilliant graphically, but to me wasn't very moving in terms of being awestruck. I'm expecting Crysis 2 to give me that awe, though I don't know if the awe will match the awe Killzone 2/3 gave me, but you can't Crytek out because power, plus awe = Goty, and Crysis 2 is definitely in the running for that.
Spydiggity  +   1719d ago
Can't go into any article without some sony troll mentioning a subpar game that doesn't look anywhere near as good as he/she likes to pretend it does.

so sad.

and the SDF already going through giving out the disagrees...never fails. like clockwork
#1.1.11 (Edited 1719d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(5) | Report
Dylantalon1  +   1720d ago
killzone 3 is the best looking game to date on 'CONSOLES' and after seeing majority of upcoming games i can honestly say that only uncharted 3 may beat it when it comes to graphics later on this year
#1.2 (Edited 1720d ago ) | Agree(22) | Disagree(33) | Report | Reply
Pandamobile  +   1720d ago
Except, you know, games like BF3, Crysis 2, The Witcher 2, and all that jazz, right?
arjman  +   1720d ago

He said 'consoles' not all formats, Uncharted 3 will be the best looking CONSOLE game to date but not the best looking game altogether
Pandamobile  +   1720d ago
Yes, he edited that in after my comment.
hiredhelp  +   1720d ago
you have 1 bubble keep saying that youll never get a bubble. na seriously there are games on the way like bf3 gonna put to test killzone engine also crysis to me looks just as good if not better i love killzone3. however you gota understand a multiplatform game can look good as a certan exclusive on a ps3. but it just wont be as big or uncompressed cos held back by the disc.
#1.2.4 (Edited 1720d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(2) | Report
iamgoatman  +   1720d ago
First comment in a Crysis article and no doubt it's about Killzone 3, didn't see that coming! /s

Can you morons keep the incessant Killzone worshiping to the Killzone threads by any chance?
Spydiggity  +   1719d ago
no they can't....

you have to keep reminding people the game looks good or they might realize it doesn't.

it's a visually dull experience with no scope or scale. with no range of enemies or weapons. terrible voice acting. and a lame story. i have owned both kz2 (traded it) and kz3 (trading it), and neither game looks half as good as these trolls wanna pretend it does. it's not a graphically impressive game. if you wanna believe that it is, fine. but stop saying it in EVERY article on this site. it's worn out. and those of us that don't own fisher price computers have been seeing much better looking games for several years now. and not just better looking, better scale, better draw distance, better physics, better lighting, better everything.

i just don't see how you can turn on killzone, see 2 colors, 3 enemies, and a fogged out draw distance, and blurry textures, and try to pretend you see a visually impressive game. i must have gotten a ps3 that doesn't have the built in brainwash technology. it only does everything....
#1.3.1 (Edited 1719d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(3) | Report
CoLD FiRE  +   1719d ago
@Spydiggity Here's a bubble for you. You deserve it. I completely agree with everything you said.
SJPFTW  +   1720d ago
sorry generic corridor shooters were so 1990's. i guess guerrilla games did not get the memo
Ravenor  +   1720d ago
lol, there were parts of Killzone 3 that reminded me of a 9 year old game (Medal of Honor Allied Assault) So you really aren't to far off in your assessment.
RedDead  +   1719d ago
I would agree, most good looking ps3 exlusives are very linear, the exception is KZ2 online. I can't say the same for KZ3 jusdging from the beta, I thought KZ2 looked better than the KZ3 beta. Anyway that is the only great looking open Ps3 game imo.

The rest however are nothing to brag about in terms of a technical achievement, bringing up such corridor games saying they showcase the Ps3's power kinda makes you think it ain't that powerful at all. Anyone looking for an Example, use KZ2 online.
#1.4.2 (Edited 1719d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report
RedDevils  +   1719d ago
lol Crysis the only good thing about it is the graphic, the story is one the worses in any games so it's kinda waste of money
vulcanproject  +   1720d ago
I actually do not think the original crysis shots are all taken with maximised settings. They don't look maxed to me, the lighting model is not quite there, god rays and lower dynamic range than what i am used to seeing from crysis maxed, personal experience. Its too 'flat' compared to the game with very high turned on to my eyes. I estimate mostly medium settings.

This is warhead on medium across the board:

This may also be backed up by the idea the shots are in 1080p and the stated card is a 5670- that card is simply not nearly fast enough to max crysis in 1080p and be playable, even without filters. You need at least a 5770 and it would still be choppy. It is possible the shots were taken with an ultra low framerate but just from my own experience i don't think the settings are maxed....
#1.5 (Edited 1720d ago ) | Agree(8) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
hassi94  +   1720d ago
Yeah this looks quite poor for both games, but more so for the badly optimised Crysis.

Shouldn't really do comparisons unless you're gonna do it at max settings.
vulcanproject  +   1720d ago
I'm not sure i would call crysis badly optimised personally. Is it a resource hog? Of course, even today. However this is relative. Is it one of the most demanding games, yes, is it one of if not still the best looking game? You have to say yes, it is.

So it kinda evens out, you can hardly expect the very best looking games to not be resource hogs. Badly optimised games for me are ones that look ok or average but run poorly. Crysis looks anything but average, even today.
#1.5.2 (Edited 1720d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(1) | Report
trancefreak  +   1720d ago
I played the crysis 2 demo yesterday on my new gaming rig maxed and it was fuking awesomely beautiful.
bozebo  +   1719d ago
agree, infact neither of the screens are taken on max settings by any means.

Also the scenes chosen are horrible for proper comparison of graphics.

Crysis 2 in dx11 will hands down look vastly better than Crysis 1, but until then I am not so sure...

crysis 1 is badly optimised when on low graphics settings.
I was running warhead with 2 9800GT cards in SLI at about 20-25 fps maxed (no AA) or on total minimum settings at about 20-30 fps. Tried 1 gpu and it is the same 20-25 minimum and maximum. I doubt it was a cpu bottleneck with a q6600 g0 at 3.4GHz & 4GB 1066MHz 5-5-5-15 ddr2.

The in-game stats overlay thing (cant remember the console command now) showed the draw call count in red when it went above 4000, oddly - gpu memory bandwidth fail?

Anyway, from my knowledge the draw calls are the easiest thing to optimise and the shaders are the hardest thing to optimise (my problem seemed to be draw call based not shaders because changing the IQ didn't affect performance - it was doing only a few less draw calls because of the level of detail reduction)

Crysis 2 on the other hand I can run at about 40-50 fps with 1 9800gt on minimum or ~30fps on max (with the in-game option thingy), but the limited environments mean it is performing far less draw calls despite the IQ settings because they simply increaesed shader complexity not level of detail.
Bout time I got a new gpu anyway.
#1.5.4 (Edited 1719d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
vulcanproject  +   1719d ago
@ bozebo

Sounds more like you had driver problems or some other problem than Crysis being unoptimised. About 2 1/2 years ago my setup was 8800GT 512mb SLI and i had a Q6700. As soon as i dropped the settings down to medium, the framerate usually shot up to 50-60 frames a second no problems and this was a long time ago as well, i am sure the SLI drivers are more mature now for those cards.

Generally Crysis chews up video memory so quickly that much above high settings and the framerate of cards with only 512mb memory crashes off rapidly, introducing nasty stuttering. It eats bandwidth too. Crysis is fairly bad for SLI microstutter. When i first upgraded to a card with more than 1GB memory i was fairly surprised to see crysis eating up around 1100-1150mb of video memory maxed out!!
#1.5.5 (Edited 1719d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
JsonHenry  +   1720d ago
Except KZ3 has lots of jaggies, low rez textures, and only runs 720p..
Ravenor  +   1720d ago
Not to mention the fact that it's scripted all to hell and back and takes place in a hallway.
specialguest  +   1720d ago
It's true
Some of these Killzone fanboys have no idea what real high res textured true HD gaming looks like. All they have are screens that don't do games like Crysis on PC justice.

I own both KZ2 and KZ3, and I'm as much of a fan of the Killzone franchise as the next person, but I also play PC games, and there is a big difference in graphics.
BrianG  +   1720d ago

My only question is since when were scripted games a bad thing?

Crysis 2 is scripted as well, the developer said that themselves. Not as scripted, more sandbox like, but scripted sections non the less.

Scripted sections in games allow for building story and creating immersion.
trancefreak  +   1720d ago
crysis 2 is also scripted. It wont be like the original unfortunately.
Xfanboy  +   1720d ago
Wiiloveit  +   1720d ago
Other than the fact that there's more to the environment in the first image, it looks more of the same if you ask me. But that's not necessarily a bad thing.
ultramoot  +   1720d ago
Looking at the author's posted hardware, I'm a bit surprised. 16GB of RAM, but only 5670 for graphics? I hope that's a typo.
STONEY4  +   1720d ago
I don't think it was a typo, look at the pics. Crysis 1 looks like medium-high DX9, almost definitely not very high DX10. Specs sound like a pre-built PC. BUT, it does show that Crysis 2 is much better optimized for lower end PCs, assuming those Crysis 2 shots were also from his PC.
#3.1 (Edited 1720d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
despair  +   1720d ago
Agreed, as soon as I saw the Crysis 1 shots I knew it was not highest or even close to highest settings.
mrv321  +   1720d ago
He could be a photoshop user in which case the 16GB is useful.

Also here's an FYI for all you low budget gamers.

RAM means nothing, get 4 GB and you'll happy V.ram is more important
CPU hexacore is stupid. Most games use Two cores tops, SOME even use 1 core max. Stick with a i5 and you should be fine.
iagainsti120  +   1720d ago
yes 4 gb or more is best, a gpu with at lest 1gb of GDDR5 now this is where you are now wrong Quad core is best for gaming all newer games will use all of the cores unless its name is Call of Duty
#3.2.1 (Edited 1720d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report
bozebo  +   1719d ago
Until sandy bridge came out there was no point getting a quad core for gaming if you were on a budget.

Nowadays though:
4GB ddr3 (6 to be futureproof? upgrade later but keep it twin sticks)
A nice 6850 or better GPU
i5 sandy bridge and a titan fenrir to push it to 4.4GHz on any reliable mobo (like a gigabyte one :P)

A rig like that costs about £530 for the tower and will destroy any game on very close to max settings (just 2x or 4x AA instead of 16x - so you won't notice the difference).

Infact, hunt around for last generation stuff (like a q6600 rig) and stick in a new graphics card and it'll probably cost even less.
#3.2.2 (Edited 1719d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
mrv321  +   1719d ago
World of tanks=single core, very few case use 6+ cores, go for a quad because they are cheaper than the i7's which for gaming is pretty much useless.

Here's a guide for a cheap good machine.

Quad core-i5, if your on a really small budget AMD dual core or a last gen intel should do fine also unless it's physics stuff or an RTS
MOBO- Cheaper CPU cheaper motherboard, unless you want to upgrade don't by extra slot
RAM-4 gigs is plenty, 6 GIGs if you have a tri-core
PSU- Very important, don't save money here, get an 80+
GPU- AMD are cheap, HD5770 would be a good card for anything 1080p.
theonlylolking  +   1720d ago
Character models look better in Crysis 1 but the overall graphics I think look better in Crysis 2.
PS360PCROCKS  +   1720d ago
Crysis 2 looks surprisingly good. But with mods, Crysis 2 doesn't compare at all to Crysis, it's a matter of time though.
Thrillhouse  +   1720d ago
Hopefully the DX11 patch comes out very soon after release D:
Thecraft1989  +   1720d ago
What do you mean no dx11 at launch ? ! !!!! crytek will burn in hell if this is true.
hassi94  +   1720d ago
Yep. They said DX11 will be patched in later.
dirthurts  +   1720d ago
DX11 just kills performance anyway.
Tesselation especially. The effect isn't really notable during gameplay.
DX11 softshadows are nice, but rarely implemented. The only examples that come to mind are Bad Company 2, and Metro.
I'd rather have the performance.
Shackdaddy836  +   1720d ago
They said it will be in a patch right when the game comes out. No worries.
bozebo  +   1719d ago
dirthirts you are completely wrong

hardware tessellation is the single biggest advancement in computer game graphics since programmable shaders in 2000 or something

also the rest of the rendering pipeline improvements in DX11 outright increase performance even if the exact same thing from a dx9 or dx10 scene is being rendered.

dx11 vastly reduces cpu usage and ram access at the api level and rendering thread level (a possible bottleneck in SLI/xfire systems) too.
#6.1.4 (Edited 1719d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
Thrillhouse  +   1720d ago
From what I've seen and experienced, DX11 on the same detail settings in games actually improves performance.
Nelson M  +   1720d ago
Well personally i think both versions aint that impressive !!
Thank God for Killzone

Helghast Awaits !!
Pandamobile  +   1720d ago
In other words:

"I'm not impressed by the game with the best graphics so I'll go play a game with lesser graphics to make me feel better"
Nelson M  +   1720d ago
Crysis 2 on console will not look as good as Kz2 never mind Kz3
So in other words
"I got Killzone 2 and 3 so why would i wanna downgrade to a last gen looking game that deserve's nothing more than to be a xbox 360 exclusive"
#7.1.1 (Edited 1720d ago ) | Agree(11) | Disagree(21) | Report
SuicideShaun  +   1720d ago
Don't you mean helghan awaits? or the helghast await?
MiloGarret  +   1720d ago
Couldn't see the screenshots for all the ads.
Caleb_141  +   1720d ago
My god can we stop comparing everything to KZ3! It's an awesome game but I hate how PS3 fanboys compare it to every single game that comes out! I much prefer the PS3 over the Xbox 360 in every way but please... SHUT UP!
Maxie1992  +   1720d ago
Man, this 1080P comparison is very bad.
The 2nd picture is taken from the Xbox 360 version, u can see the "Y" symbol in the hud in the bottom left corner.

Why comparing a console version of the 2nd installment with
the PC version(exclusive)from the 1st.

Not a really good comparison, Xbox 360(Crysis 2) versus PC(Crysis) in my opinion.
Pandamobile  +   1720d ago
It's Gamingbolt, what do you expect.

They can't do anything right.
STONEY4  +   1720d ago
They made a comparison a while back comparing Rage to Killzone 3. The Rage screens were pulled from a friggin video stream of a trailer, while the Killzone 3 ones were press screens at a higher resolution than the game. Really, Gamingbolt?
#10.1.1 (Edited 1720d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(2) | Report
Rashid Sayed  +   1720d ago
That Y button is from Xbox 360 controller for the PC....DOH!
#10.1.2 (Edited 1720d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(10) | Report
Pandamobile  +   1720d ago

I didn't say that... DOH!
Mr Logic  +   1720d ago
Actually I am pretty sure that at one point whenever Crytek demonstrated Crysis 2 they used 360 controllers hooked up to a PC. This might be where the screenshot is taken from.
nalyd-nolat   1720d ago | Spam
Droid Control  +   1720d ago
Crysis 2 is a downgrade. old consoles holding crytek back!
Jacobite  +   1720d ago
Think your right there
Omega Zues  +   1720d ago
I wonder why Crytek went to Consoles in the first place?
PirosThe4th  +   1720d ago
PS360PCROCKS  +   1720d ago
jeseth  +   1720d ago
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$

Thats why.
Jacobite  +   1720d ago
I've just reinstalled Crysis and Crysis Warhead and played through both on high Settiings and Gamer settings on Warhead, and the Crysis 2 demo on the PC the graphics looks disappointing. Crytec have you forsaken the PC for consoles, or just got lazy, you should pushed all platforms on just consoles shame on you Crytech.
neoandrew  +   1720d ago
Screens in jpg rocks !!!

They should be at least PNG
lugia 4000  +   1720d ago
Why are they comparing crysis 2 360 vs crysis 1 pc. This comparison is bullshit (picture 2 you can see the xbox button)
dirthurts  +   1720d ago
I think the game looks better in every way except texture resolution. The retail PC version may have higher resolution textures though. (I hope).
ATiElite  +   1720d ago
Ummm this article = FAIL
here is the editors PC specs
Phenom II at 3.2 Ghz
16 GB Ram
AmD HD 5670

OK looks like a AMD 4 core Phenom 965 (going by clock speed) good gaming chip. 16 GB Ram (I think he does a lot of video editing or his Pc doubles as a workstation) plenty O'ram.

now here's the FAIL part.... The HD 5670 CAN NOT run Crysis DX10 with Enthusiast games settings. It can not run Crysis DX10 on Gamer settings with AA at 1920 x 1080p. I hope this was a typo because even a HD 5670 in crossfire mode (HD5670 x 2) it still can not run Crysis maxxed out. Heres proof!

Because of the improvements of the CryEngine 3 the HD 5670 can run Crysis 2 PC but not maxed out and this is not the DX11 mode because Nvidia is still working on it.

Crysis still looks good in DX9 mode on a low end GPU. Crysis 2 has the same features but just a better lighting engine. Gamingbolt sucks and they need to hire some real PC Gamers for their PC articles.
ht2112  +   1720d ago
Is it just me or have people stopped playing the Crysis 2 demo? I got on today and all the servers except a few were empty...
Izanagi-no-Okami  +   1720d ago
Only 2 maps and 4 weapons, it gets boring after some time.
TABSF  +   1720d ago
Yeah Crysis not on maximum setting.

No specular lighting on Foliage
No ambient occlusion
No soft shadows
No light shafts

Custom settings medium-high.

Also sorry to say but HD 5670 is mid-range card I would say anything above HD 5830 would be not be classed as mid-range.
#19 (Edited 1720d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Platinum_k  +   1720d ago
jizz in my pants...
sak500  +   1720d ago
I dont know about crysis but Crysis2 demo on my rig runs in hardcore settings @ 1080p @ 50~60fps. The game looks pretty good even if you can't customize the settings in the demo. However there is bloom effect which is bit nausuating. First time in years that i've been sitting on my pC playing a game for hours.

Might buy it for pc instead of 360 this time. BTW rig is:

Core i5 760 (quad core 2.8ghz) @ 3.8ghz watercooled
2 x 2gb DDR3 1600mhz
AMD 5870 1GB DDR5
23.6" ASUS MS236H
TABSF  +   1719d ago
What... What...

You get games for your Xbox 360 over a PC with that spec.

OMG, I would of sold the Xbox, it has nothing anyway.
I passed on Fable 3 so I could get it on PC.
sak500  +   1719d ago
Bro, i have a 50" 1080p TV on which i play 360 games and laying on couch usting a feedbak controller. HOw you expect me to game on for hours on stooping on the Desktop monitor with keyboard mouse setup? I used to play straight up for hours on my PC back in days of BF1942, BF:vietnam, BF2, BF2142, but once i got hooked onto 360 I stopped using pc as gaming platform and for few years never upgraded it, till a few months back.

I know and i've already tried to hook up the pc to the 50" via hdmi and wired 360 controller but it's still cumbersome to use kb/m to use the pc and you can't beat other players with controller when they are using kb/m.

But since crysis2 demo, i'm usign the pc more and more.
Longsama  +   1720d ago
These pics do not show maximum crysis capability, what they do show however is how amazingly well Crytek optimized Crysis 2 judging by this guys specs
tosh61  +   1720d ago
Crysis 1 has a more natural depth of field.

Crysis 2 has SOME better textures. They're pretty close to be honest in the areas that matter...except for DX11.
tubers  +   1720d ago
They look a little too different and have their own appeal.

The defeault "lighting" on C2 looks a little better though (w HDRBrightOffset increased from default).

Wow.. Those KZ2 SS looks great. Too amazing for a 5 year old hardware.
StitchJones  +   1719d ago
Why compare the two games side by side? What point is it proving?
Kahvipannu  +   1719d ago
Well here it is to show how the visuals/artistic style have changed from C1 to C2. (tought apparently atleast C1 here does not have best settings on)

If you mean comments about KZ3 and C2, I have no idea. They are different kind of games (tube and open), both technically impressive, and it all goes down to which ones artistic style suits you more..
#25.1 (Edited 1719d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Master of Unlocking  +   1719d ago
Killzone 2 & 3 still look better to me, overall. Way better animations, better particle effects, better smoke effects, and above all...a sh!t ton more detailed stuff going on on the screen at any given time.
Oh, and a real scenario with believable characters and events. And an atmosphere that sucks you in, too. :)
Killzone3___  +   1719d ago
they improved the graphics but they changed alots ofthings that makes both games not worth compaaring ,one game in a jungle and the other one ina city so why comparing...

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
New stories

PS4 Exclusive Dreams: Watch Media Molecule Developers Sculpt, Code and Design a Level in New Videos

18m ago - Today Media Molecule released three new videos of their upcoming PS4 exclusive Dreams, and they’r... | PS4

Sports Game Headshot Heroes Now Available On The App Store

2h ago - TTP: Headshot Heroes may seem like a sports game like many others but looks can be deceiving. Ver... | iPhone

HotLiked - What the Internet is talking about right now

Now - Kill some time at You will regret it... | Promoted post

Lara Croft GO: The Shard of Life, Cave of Fire Walkthrough

2h ago - AppUnwrapper writes: "This is a complete walkthrough guide with videos and relic locations for th... | iPhone

Chronicle: RuneScape Legends Enters Closed Beta

4h ago - Jagex, the creators of the award-winning free-to-play MMO RuneScape, today announced the beginnin... | PC

17 Best Star Wars Games of All Time

5h ago - Chillopedia: Gaming has exceptionally evolved since the past decade, which is quite evident from... | Culture