A screenshot to see which console is truly the ultimate version for Crysis 2 has been unveiled.
Wow, guess the haters were wrong on this one, looks like PS3 version looks better! See the greater draw distance, less 'fog', better reflection on the water, generally sharper image quality, etc. edit:@Starhawk You're right, it's pretty hard judge exactly what each version does best by looking at screenshots but these clearly show a PS3 win. You're also right that Killzone still holds the crown, cryisis 2 is good enough for the xbox sites to try and claim it looks better but in actuality it doesn't.
I think that, at the end of the day, one version will do some things better and the other one other things. But Killzone is still the best looking console FPS, and not sub HD like Crysis 2. :)
I thought so too, but have you seen alot of the footage from single player? I think it looks amazing and better than Killzone 3
Agree, Crysis 2 looks awesome on PS3. A lot of BS were told according to the PS3 Version and in the end they both look great. Great game for PS3 and Xbox 360 fans. Let us just enjoy what Crytek did on consoles ... respect
Though in my opinion Crysis 2 isnt the best lookin game on ps3 ... but considerin the amount of effort Crytek has put and thier first ever PS3 game. Theet deserve this chance.
As always the case with every multi platform game starhawk but the fanboys will always pick up on one better thing on one game and say the game is superior because of it.
Wow! Are you guys looking at the same screens? The reflections and lighting (which these are suppossed to prove) are way more generic looking on the PS3 version. Man, it's amazing what fanboyism can do. Just wait for the digital foundry analysis so you can be, once again, cured from ur blindness.
So, basically the 360 version is darker and has a slightly higher sub-HD resolution.
@ Aquanox What's funny is how you seem to sum up yourself in your own comment about others.
Piss poor comparison pictures... Seriously? Clearly the gamma has been fudged with. Crytek claims the final versions of the two are identical, I do not doubt that very much. From what I've seen through.... well... beating the PC version... It's a good looking game and fun to play but suffers from over-hyper syndrome, with a small bit of squeal-being-confused disease.
kind of a poor comparison. One is taken at 1:31, the other is taken at 8:01! Show me a comparison at 1:31 to 1:31 and a comparison at 8:01 to 8:01 when the light source is in the same position. Still going to get it on pc regardless...
Again, another stupid silly fanboy article, and all these silly fanboys putting in their 2 cents worth of "Opinion" when they haven't played the final version of the game. LOL to silly fanboys...
Didn't Crytek challenge people to find differences between the two versions? Guess their challenge was accepted and beaten.
So, the Xbox version has the sun in the background and which make the lighting effects look slightly off. ERKAY......
Killzone 3 does have the best visuals on any of the consoles as of right now. Crysis isn't even HD but sub-HD. For one Crytek has disappointed me as the PC version is another console port. A world class PC developer Crytek was as they pushed the limits of PC hardware. A DX9 game?!?!?! No DX 10 or even DX 11 for that matter. Crytek I will most likely never buy any of the games you produce since you basically went in favor of the consoles as opposed to the PC gamers that helped put you in the position of a world class developer you are today
Mind you, these screens are taken from multiplayer portion (notice the Nano Suit's color/pattern differences in both screenshots), so I'm pretty sure that singleplayer will look better than this.
All haters are Stupid, Every since fanboy site and etc. said the ps3 version sucks, why? Well its in the Demo, WTF!!!! This is why IGN was told to STFU, by Crytex. They have video of the Final code, and how it shows on a blu-ray disc. It was on IGN tiled something like ps3 version superior over 360, but it was overshadowed by the dumb demo saying ps3 version inferior. Take a look, the PS3 rapes the 360. This is based off final game, not a fucking months old demo they showed at E3.
the PS3 demo also looked better than the 360 demo...cloack look better(lot more detail were u actually could see the skin change better)water reflection looked better more realtime/oil on the water on Pier 17 looked way better...underwater was also better and less texture build up...but overal the 360 version is looked just as good...SP will kick #ss believe it!!! f#ck IGN for saying that...u need glasses or less paychecks or agendas....u all mislead the PS3 owners...the demo looked better on PS3....could be it was a later build, but that doesn't matter=>it was not the final game that's for sure. I believe the final game will look/run solid. just you wait! oops they already have started beneath me...so sad.
even the HUB looks blurry smh
do you mean HUD?
yeah, dont know how i missed that
I think starhawk said it all can we close this chapter now :) Looking forward to some single player campaign vids that are direct hd feeds.
Overall they both look good however by the looks of it the ps3 has better lighting and water effects, also the shadows on 360 seem very dark.. Maybe crytek actually stuck to their word.. Shame about the snowball of bullshit surrounding the ps3 version. IGN = meh
look at the hud and its also worth mention that xbox version is running at higher framrate and resolution
i didnt know higher resolution is what makes a garante "looks better" winner.
Hold the phone, chuck. I personally can't tell which one is better. It's a bad comparison taken at different points of the night/day cycle. You can't see the water in the 360 version as well without the lighting on it.
hard to tell because of the different time of day. it kind of looks like the 360 might be running at a higher resolution, because the PS3 looks a bit blurrier and softer.
Good eye that's what I was comparing. KZ3 all the way until BF3 comes out.
I bet if the platform-tag on each picture was switched around, you'd still have made the same post.
The true difference is lighting. The two screens are similar if you look at them closely. The 360 version is just "lit up" more.There's alot of over exposure which is actually doing some harm and some good.
lmao at those screen 2 barealy visible screens, just go look at some trustfull site
awww well i dont want to say i told you all so. for anyone whos been following me for past 6 months. crytek will be bringing future titles other than crysis. its the engine that makes the differnce on this console unlike any other multiplatform game were can be ported this engine was desgned to program both consoles seperatly but still on the fly, no other dev kit can do this. visually its still one the best multiplatform games and even exclusives the 360 has so dont be cheesed off be greatfull and even beats some the ps3 games. in terms of graphics. and i hate to say that cos i own a ps3 but i know crytek they do awsome stuff. only worrying factor i have is people who dont know crysis like many of us pc gamers may or may not take to the nano suite and the way the games meant to be played. not a all out run and gun like you all imagin. but boy its a good start for crytek. on last note. them photos hmm smells bit funny.
Let’s put this topic to rest already; PC PWNS everything that’s it end of story.
PS3 has greater draw distance, but general lighting on surroundings & clarity of hub & general details goes to 360 clearly IMO. Which obviously counts for nothing LoL
it seems like the ps3 versions gun has more detail
its one picture, lets jus wait for the reviews.
check out 2:33.. where are the char shadows from the light??
More fuel to the fire.....
Please people make it stop. This is going a bit out of hand.
Totally agree why do we have to compare EVERY single multi platform game? The only people who care who wins are fanboys and these articles give fanboys fire. Without them fanboys would die.
1280x720? Both look really good? WTF is going on with all the bad news for console versions (I heard it was sub-HD and the PS3 looked terrible...) Looks like when it comes to who do you trust "the developers or the idiot journalists" we're going to say the developers every time now!
like i said. the ps3 version looks better than the xbox360 counterpart. ask my self where the trolls are now ?
@achira you should know where they are because they were mainly PS3 fans calling it rubbish.
and where are your proofs ? because everyone here can say what he wants. for example: i have played the xbox360 version and was shocked how poor it looks compared to the ps3 (especially the water effects). ok the example is true, but you get the idea.
I've seen more credible sites(LOT, IGN) saying the 360 version looks better. This lousy, and probably faked, comparison only shows how far PS3 fanboys like yourself are willing to reach to 1-up the 360. Let's wait until Digital Foundry compare it, shall we? I doubt you're gonna like the results.
the result of what. a lame game that everyone might forget in 3 months when battlefield3 drops? how about you quit hating or are you the typical broke azz fanboy...
did you just say IGN is a credible site? oh God please help this poor man. i shall pray for you
Haha, "Print Screen" from a compressed youtube video!? Then paste in MS Paint! Are you kidding me? What a joke comparison. Delbert is right this time, wait for the professionals. Without "tailor made" N4G articles, that site wouldn't even exist.
You shouldn't conclude this after seeing two crappy screenshots.
The graphics look better on the PS3. This IS what the PS3 version looks like and in motion the PS3 looks even better because of extra motion blur. Although there are more frame rate issues but lets hope those get fixed.
fanboys see what they want to see, even the developers said that there was no difference at all, they just believe a unknow blog from another fanboy that take 2 screens that sucks ass
Strange that the PS3 version looks a little bit better in the shots. Jeez i dont know who to believe any longer. I am just going to wait for DF and see what they say
It's the same issue: the lighting. The 360 looks to have higher contrast (and possibly more bloom). The result is that in certain scenes the details will look hidden thanks to darker shadows, etc., while those details will be more visible on the PS3 version with less dramatic contrast, as seen here. By the same token, this will lead to complaints over the PS3 version's lighting looking "flat" in other scenes, as some complained about in the demo. It really depends on the scene (and personal taste) as to whether the lighting differences make one version look better or worse.
exactly, that's pretty much what it is, it's easy to spin for either side because of picking and choosing screenshots, videos, however, are what matter for this game, and from the video comparisons i've seen, they're pretty equal, but they both have their strengths. now can we get back to actual news, please?
...that this is a very Chocolate vs Vanilla debate? I'd say that about sums it up. Everyone is going to have pros and cons in their corner, but at the end of the day it's going to come back as wanting a clear box, or a green box, because they both looks great in their own right...just not identical.
So what though, does it really matter, its just a game like, can people just stop bitching about that stuff and play it and enjoy it, man i fucking hate comparisons on a game for different consoles
You Sir, speak the truth. Just play the game, what do you accomplish from the knoledge your's or the others console has the better version? In the end, the PC Version wins graphically, we all know that...
both demos looked great, don't start bragging about the PC again...we get to enjoy a great game thx to Crytek.
It's hard to tell.. pics' angles are equal but there is time difference. There is sun shine in 360 pic; lightning difference messes the whole comparison.
there no time cycle in Crysis 2.
still, it doesnt prove me wrong. There is sun shine in 360 pic. Which changes lightnings'&shadows 9; places and such. Though I'm a pc gamer. I just pointed out stg ^^
yeah PS3 version looks better... but damn, if Crytek doesn't fix the crappy frame-rate (which is crappy in BOTH VERSIONS)... well. f**k you Crytek.
how long did u actually play the demo? seemed solid to me both versions...
I was initially happy with the aspect of Crysis coming to consoles, whilst I absolutely adored the original, the prospect of playing over LIVE was fantastic. However, what with the raging and the bitchy arguements surrounding the consolde versions, I wish the franchise had kept soley on the PC. I'm purchasing the PC version for the graphics and the 360 version for the multiplayer and I don't know about you, but as long as we have fun, thats all that matters primarily, so theres no point in complaining...
You probably didn't mean anything by it. But dude that's wrong I'm pretty sure those kids have some kind of disability.
It's obviously fake.
wtf is wrong with their faces??
They just played the PS3 version after a night of PC gaming.
Look I believe the devs because their the ones putting in the time in making the game, whereas ign, lensoftruth, and other site are just looking for hits. I'm sorry but my eyes, my gut and instincts are telling me that this game is going to be solid across all platforms. From what I've played on both demos the game is great, I may suck at it but it's fun nonetheless. The way I see it is if one is brighter or darker then adjust your settings and you'll be fine, if no one told you it was subhd you wouldn't have known and no one care when it's COD that's subhd or full of bugs because if they did care why in the hel would ign rate that broken game so damn high. Like I've stated in past comments there's something wrong over at ign to where the wrong people are reviewing the wrong games and games are being under and over rated by them.