Top
All Channels
570°

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

Check out this amazing ultra HD 1080P comparison between two legendary games.

Read Full Story >>
gamingbolt.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Assassin Nawabi1959d ago

looks good but is it better than kz3? i m not sure :)

theonlylolking1959d 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.

DualConsoleOwner1959d ago (Edited 1959d ago )

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....

tsunami9011959d 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_Army1959d ago (Edited 1959d 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)
http://www.youtube.com/watc...

24 New Direct Feed Killzone 3 Screenshots
http://www.nicagamerz.com/v...

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)

evrfighter1959d ago (Edited 1959d ago )

This entire article is skewed. Author knows jack sh*t about hardware. 16gb of ram and a 5670? wtf

http://www.tomshardware.com...

"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.

http://7mtjgq.bay.livefiles...

MisfitSmurf1959d ago

Kz3 is a purtyy game, but of course crysis 2 looks better.

Eitherway, those are some Poopy screens of both crysis 1&2

ComboBreaker1959d ago

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.

jeseth1959d 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.

Substance1011958d ago

Like Evrfighter said, the author is a retard for using a HD5670 for playing Crysis, thats not even a proper gaming GPU.

Megaton1958d 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.

pixelsword1958d 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.

Spydiggity1958d ago (Edited 1958d 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

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 1958d ago
Dylantalon11959d ago (Edited 1959d 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

Pandamobile1959d ago

Except, you know, games like BF3, Crysis 2, The Witcher 2, and all that jazz, right?

arjman1959d ago

@Pandamobile

He said 'consoles' not all formats, Uncharted 3 will be the best looking CONSOLE game to date but not the best looking game altogether

Pandamobile1959d ago

Yes, he edited that in after my comment.

hiredhelp1959d ago (Edited 1959d 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.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1959d ago
iamgoatman1959d 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?

Spydiggity1958d ago (Edited 1958d 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....

CoLD FiRE1958d ago

@Spydiggity Here's a bubble for you. You deserve it. I completely agree with everything you said.

SJPFTW1959d ago

sorry generic corridor shooters were so 1990's. i guess guerrilla games did not get the memo

Ravenor1959d 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.

RedDead1958d ago (Edited 1958d 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.

RedDevils1958d 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

vulcanproject1959d ago (Edited 1959d 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: http://i731.photobucket.com...

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....

hassi941959d 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.

vulcanproject1959d ago (Edited 1959d 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.

trancefreak1959d ago

I played the crysis 2 demo yesterday on my new gaming rig maxed and it was fuking awesomely beautiful.

bozebo1958d ago (Edited 1958d 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...

edit:
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.

vulcanproject1958d ago (Edited 1958d 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!!

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1958d ago
JsonHenry1959d ago

Except KZ3 has lots of jaggies, low rez textures, and only runs 720p..

Ravenor1959d ago

Not to mention the fact that it's scripted all to hell and back and takes place in a hallway.

specialguest1959d ago

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.

BrianG1959d ago

Ravenor

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.

trancefreak1959d ago

crysis 2 is also scripted. It wont be like the original unfortunately.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1959d ago
+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1958d ago
Wiiloveit1959d 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.

ultramoot1959d 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.

STONEY41959d ago (Edited 1959d 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.

despair1959d ago

Agreed, as soon as I saw the Crysis 1 shots I knew it was not highest or even close to highest settings.

mrv3211959d 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.

iagainsti1201959d ago (Edited 1959d 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

bozebo1958d ago (Edited 1958d ago )

yeah.
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.

mrv3211958d 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.
Case- NO LIGHTS, IT LOOKS STUPID.

theonlylolking1959d ago

Character models look better in Crysis 1 but the overall graphics I think look better in Crysis 2.

PS360PCROCKS1959d 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.