Gamesaktuel provides a side-by-side comparison of Crysis 2 on PS3 and Xbox 360 using new hi-res screenshots.
its just read lens the ps3 version came out on top and then you have an xbox site like ign starting flaim baits all of a sudden i wish they would stop comparing these silly articles as i like. i prefer killzone 3 over crysis2 anyday because to me killzone 3 is on another level. and crysis2 failed on consoles if i was going to get crysis2 it would be the pc version peace out?
there is always gonna be one other site saying ps3 loses even though we seen proof it doesn't. Its easy to pick pics that favour either console.
I dunno man... I think the person who submitted this article, basically made up the title. The link says "Crysis 2 in the graphic comparison: PS3 vs. Xbox 360 Xbox 360" Nothing about anyone winning or losing. Fail
i like the flame bait on the title ohhhhhhhhh N4G you'll never change lol and one more thing its not the original title of the article
That dark crush in the harsh contrast of the 360 version hides detail. I can't even see the detail on their clothes because 360 makes things so dark. http://www.gamesaktuell.de/... Also, notice those textures. PS3 version looks more similar to PC one anyway.
I've noticed no framerate issue at all with the PS3 version. excellent multiplat so far. you notice how they didn't provide a good amount of variety with screenshots for this comparison...yeah that's call cherry picking but when they finally did show something other than direct sunlight the 360's harsh contrast/gamma crushes huge amounts of detail in the textures. and here you notice hardly a difference at all. It does look a bit stretched on the PS3(set the display output to 720p max and you should be good). http://www.gamesaktuell.de/...
@NathanExplosion; Haven't you seen the pic with the red truck?! The difference just hurts! I can't wait to go and see the difference for myself at the end of the week. (Us Europeans have to wait a few more days!GDDMT!) I'm curious how the PS3 version will look in motion and if the difference is still noticable when you actually play the game. If the difference is as big as the article is showing, the PS3 is in for a treat when it comes to CryEngine 3 based games in the future. Sony makes sure the PS3 has lot's of nice exclusives thougout the year to keep the fans happy, but still it's a damn shame the PS3's power is so hard to tap into when it comes to making multi-plats. Without proper assistance and funding from Sony it clearly isn't possible to take advantage of the extra horsepower. Also...there shouldn't be any discussion about wich version looks better in the first place. They should perform according to horsepower.
Calling "retard" people stating facts based on their real gaming experience, it's sad. keep your delusional/mind if you want, but don't insult people who are just seeing by themself the reality.
Personally, I'm waiting for a comparison of all three consoles... the PS3, the Xbox360, and (according to many aforementioned console owning fantards) the PC.
still with this crap? Just buy Crysis 2 on PC. Crysis is a PC game. You get the best version on the PC. Crysis on consoles was a big mistake but then again is all about the money.
How is it a mistake? Is graphics the only reason to justify buying Crysis? Because if it, you shouldn't buy it.
Yeah if you want graphics then Crysis 2 doesn't come close to 3Dmark available on the PC for no charge. Although that is only an unplayable tech demo but if it's graphics you want forget games. Go watch yourself some tech demos.
I concur with iPad. Nowhere did he state that "graphics" was the main reason. After reading the reviews, it was clear that Crysis 2 was a step-down just as Oblivion was a step-down from Morrowind and Deus-Ex: IW was a step-down from Deus-Ex 1. -End statement
XxBarretxX, How was it a mistake? It was a mistake because it's an awesome game that could have been more awesome. But thanks to gimping the graphics so it could be developed for consoles, PC gamers don't get to enjoy the game in the way that it should've been. Ryudo, 3DMark Basic (Free) is crap because you cannot change any of the settings. The only way its graphics are better *than* Crysis 2 is if you're able to max out the settings, which will cost you $19.95. With that in mind, I'm certain only naive console fantards gave you those "agrees".
PC version is where it is peace out?
theres only been one site to say ps3 version better,ign review also said xbox version was better and this site and i saw one awhile back that said xbox version was better
why would you believe lens of truth over ign. Cmon now. Wait for the Eurogamer comparison, the images don't lie the 360 version looks way better.
Only in fanboy dreams, it's the same (almost) good multiplatform games, and it's not really new to see differents sites giving "best version" for one console or other, since it's pretty much the same game most of the time, and the only differences are based on tv, console set up (when it's not a biased fanboy comparison) the fact is that crysis 2 is a 8 game, so pretty good, but logicly not on par with best exclusives on pc or ps3 for graphics, wich is normal.
socomnick, they look almost the same.
Hmm. As much as I hate to refer to Lens of Truth, but this seems to be a bit more honest. http://www.lensoftruth.com/... A lot of the time, the PS3 version actually has the advantage (which I didn't expect), while others show the Xbox 360 version looks better.
Well there you have it, The Xbox version is the better version.
This should have been a PC exclusive, going console effected the end result. It still looks amazing, but would have been 2 times better had they just stuck with PC. Reviews so far say its good. I'll be getting this for my PC, as should anyone who can.
I'll wait for Digital Foundry to do a proper comparison.
how about if you HAVE both systems, just rent both and compare for yourselves? It amazes me this day and age with how people need to be "told" which is better rather than have proof and opinions of their own
It amazes me how some folk really expect others to rent or buy 2 copies of a game to compare. Which is really the dafter option? Reading a technical analysis or playing the same game twice on two different systems because you don't trust anybody?
is needing an "opinion" spoon fed to you. If a person is that obsessed with pixel counting to the point he or she "needs" to know which one is "better", then yeah why not see BOTH for yourself WITH YOUR OWN EYES and THEN formulate an opinion. It has nothing to do with trust. It has everything to do with having your OWN opinion rather than taking someone else's opinion as gospel
if you state common sense you will lose bubs quickly.
Im with lodos, the man has a good point. I understand what he's saying perfectly
That's because you have some sort of brain-related problem. Possibly idiocy. Watching/reading a technical analysis performed by relatively proffessional individuals and making your own mind up based on their observations is obviously the better choice. You're saving money, energy, and most importantly time as compared to renting both games. Not to mention the fact that it's not even a possibility for residents of many countries because there are no renting services available. If you're smart, you'll do the sensible thing and base your purchase on the comparisons online. If you're really smart, you won't even care about the comparisons and simply buy the 360 version, which 9/10 times will look and play better. If you're smarter still (like me!), you'll buy a pc capable of playing multiplat games on superior settings and laugh your ass off at these comparisons.
StupidSega, Well said on your last paragraph.
We really don't have a choice at this point. Every other site is declaring "OH, XBOX 360 WINS!" or "WOW, PS3 WINS!" Just gotta wait for the real experts.
Who's waiting LOT already did it... Game over it's a tie!
Comparisons don't matter. The game is practically identical on both systems. Pixel counting and magnification lenses and framerate counting equipment aside, you're not going to notice one way or the other if you just pick a version of the game and go home and play it. Here's what it comes down to: 1. Which console do my friends play the game on, if I intend to play multiplayer I'll get it on that machine. 2. Which controller feels better to me? 3. If 1 & 2 are a wash, then would I rather pad my trophy level or gamerscore? 4. If 3 doesn't make a difference to you either, then FLIP A COIN. These comparisons are a waste of everyone's attention, though. Multiplatform games are either downright obviously superior on one platform, or the differences are negligible, so these in-depth comparisons are just a whole lot of nothing if you ask me.
my bet is he will say "ps3 have this advantage, xbox have this advantage, blah blah, if you want better version buy pc"
wait you shall Dilbert! Sux's you to have to wait. Why not grow some and buy the game you want! ...Guess what I don't have to wait I made a perfect decision with out ANYONE HOLDING MY HAND. Just like all the other big people out there and I get to go home and play tonight and not a week later!
Wow PS3 version has Waaaaaaay more jaggies. But it's still better than Killzone3. 360 superior release, no "mandatory" install required, is much more crisp and appears to be running at a higher resolution.. PS3 version is no slouch but 360 version is clearly superior this time around probably due to superior unified shader tech of the 360 GPU and it's huge amounts of available bandwith.
Before anybody starts kickig off, the title is fake and not mentioned in the article anywhere. It's just a ploy by the submitter to gain heat, a shameless tactic that seems to have 'somehow' been approved here.
agree. btw, the PS3 version has higher res body textures: http://www.gamesaktuell.de/...
It's clear that the 360 version of the game is better.
Clear?? As what?? You need to look up the term clear in the dictionary mate.
To the people who only read fake headlines, yes.
The only people who lose are the ones who feel so inclined to make these damn "truth" comparisons with every release now.
They look pretty identical. The biggest difference is image 4 where the insignia badge is blurrier on the 360 and crystal clear on the ps3. This is probably down to the textures loading (like we see in Unreal Engine games), but Crytek have done a damn good job of porting to consoles. I don't think either console "loses".
Um, someone forgot to turn on Full-Range RGB for the PS3 screenshot. Yeah, such a fair comparison. Morons.
I just wanted to say that. You never get that kind of contrast compared to 360 with RGB set to full range.
Um... Unless you're playing on an old school computer monitor, you don't need full range RGB. Limited range restricts the bottom IRE values to 7.5, just like NTSC broadcast. Full range drops it to zero IRE but it's not adding any detail there. It just spreads it out. And conventional HDTV's are all still calibrated primarily for NTSC since it's the majority signal. So unless you like driving your TV brighter than necessary and risking burning it out sooner than needed, there's really no benefit to full range RGB. And if you've bought a TV within the last three years, there's absolutely no difference between RGB and YPbPr and how your screen displays them.
I have a Samsung full HDTV and with full range off I would need to adjust contrast, brightness and color settings to get the proper color scheme because it looks to bright and the colors are washed out, especially the blacks don`t look good. With full range on the contrast is fine, the brightness is fine and the colors look good without any need to change any kind of settings. The picture is brighter with RGB full range off.
I know the picture's brighter with limited. That's what I was saying. But it doesn't effect the picture quality. And you should always be adjusting your TV. Every display needs to be calibrated, and as it ages, it needs to recalibrated. You should never trust the settings right out of the box because they're typically way too bright as the manufacturer wants the TV to stand out when it's sitting on a wall with a hundred others. Look at it this way - with full range turned off, you can adjust your brightness and contrast down considerably, thus preserving the life of your display and cutting down on power consumption. If your brightness is near or over 75% of total, you should seriously rethink your configuration. Again, whether you're using full or limited, you're getting the exact same amount of pixel and color information. It's just being displayed differently.
This is getting really old, the game looks great across all platform.
BS comparisons to me a game's better if it has content the other platform doesnt not wich ones prettier.
The only losers are the ones in green and the others in black mini skirts coming on here daily with their pom-poms and high heels like little fruitcakes who cant think straight, dumb as a bucket of shrimp and with a caviler caveman attitude, cheering on these opinion pieces and preaching the gospel to the world of their respective console preferences. Never understood the point of fanboyism but yeah dont let me stop you. Go on, prance around in your mini skirts like little bitches while i just enjoy both games and the awesomeness of gaming in general.
i've never really understood anti-fanboyism, fanboyism myself lol... So you carry on slaying those fanboys you big bully you! Lmao.
What's with comparisons for multiplatform games that makes the 360 version looks darker.
So the gaybox fanbois can pick out the pixels that show up on a brighter screen ps3 version.
PS3 version looks lighter, 360 looks darker. Those are the only differences I can see from those pictures - and i'm thinking that if your preference is for either end of the spectrum, that's probably easily altered in the options menu. I think it's a huge complement to Crytek when we're having to be this picky to find a difference between versions. ^-^
they look virtually identical, at both versions look better than anything on their respective consoles to date. well done Crytek. only differences i can see is that in some screenshots the AA looks ever so slightly better on the 360, and the usual colour differences between the 360 and PS3 with the PS3 being slightly duller/360 being slightly brighter. im buying it on the 360 as thats what all my friends play online on, and i prefer the controller for FPSs, but id be perfectly happy with the PS3 version too.
Well first it doesn't touch any of the top PS3 exclusives.Next it doesn't have any AA at all.
@ The_Ultimate_Guy first crysis 2 console is no were close to killzone 3 or uncharted 2 or the little videos we have seen from uncharted 3...
Truthfully the both versions look no better than each other only some pictures show xb360 better and some show ps3 better but you can't rely on the pictures who cares? i own both consoles but i'm sure both versions of this game will be great, does sony or ms care about you? the answer is NO your just a number to them so shut up fanboys and just enjoy your very good lives and think about people less fortunate than yourselves, lifes to short to argue over consoles lol.
You know who really wins? PS3 owners as well as 360 owners because neither got broken versions of the game. I think that is the most important aspect i mean sure they are differences between the 2. But in the end they are pretty much the same and both are worth it. Anyways can we just stop fighting over this game and be happy that it isnt exclusive to any platform?
How is it that you not bitching and moaning about Google translate "Contrast differences"? The only thing different about these images is contrast... You see, real comparison sties don't adjust contrast differences to appease the uneducated!
I dont really complain about contrast because you can always adjust it via TV settings. What angers me is when comparison sites manipulate the contrast to make one version look better than the other.
I never trust these german comparisons, the 360 version always seems to have crushed blacks, which isn't normal. Which leads me to believe their capture equipment and console settings aren't set up properly, or they are altering their images. This isn't a problem on the gameblurb or lens of truth comparisons (They use the same capturing equipment as digital foundry).
When you have a comparison, you usually let the gamers see which is better. But if you put in the damn title the result of the comparison so people don't even click on the article...then you know the source is unreliable
So graphics are now judged depending on tv contrast?
360 looks miles better but i blame the devolpers for being lazy and copying/pasting form the 360.
You need to have your eyes tested - or you need to apply for a job with IGN. They need more reviewers with that type of eyesight. You most likely thought FF looked better on XB360 as well? PC>>PS3>XB360