Visual Comparison: Crysis and Killzone 2

Split-Screen.com writes: "Killzone 2 is definitely shaping up for a momentous release this February end. Everywhere you go, the news is on developer, Guerrilla Games. And the consensus is clear: Killzone 2 will blow you away. We definitely agree on the game looking far superior to the target trailer showcased several years ago at E3. But is it truly the 'Most Gorgeous First Person Shooter'?

"Any FPS trying to lay claim to that title, has to first defeat the reigning champion, which in this case is indisputably Crytek's Crysis, available only on the PC. We pit the two titles against each other in a shot-by-shot visual comparison to determine the better, more aesthetically pleasing, shooter."

[elorm9]

I still think that Crysis is ahead of KZ2. Crysis can run in higher resolutions and can do more frames per second. Motherh himself said that KZ2 wouldn't look as good if they rendered it in 1080p.

Btw, why all the disagrees? If you've got something to say, then say it

[Ninja-Sama]

Crysis still holds the crown for best looking game no doubt but the fact that ppl are now comparing a console game to the best looking PC game out shows how powerful the PS3 is...definitely way ahead of any competing console.

However, I honestly prefer KZ2's weapon models over crysis.

@elorm9 I did NOT disagree with you.

[MNicholas]

This guy doesnt know what he's talking about. He's weighted all his decisions on art style rather than technical accomplishment. He got every single one of the comparisons wrong, including saying that Killzone's environments are as good as Far Crys.

@elorm, higher resolution and frame-rate are important for raw technical comparisons of performance. However, it is very simplistic. What about shaders, number of lights (KZ2 has hundreds of real-time lights), shadows, draw-distance, character detail, number of characters on the screen, complexity of animation (including how animation is implemented), rag-doll character physics, object physics, bullet response, ambient occlusion, particle physics, blah, blah, blah ....

There are literally hundreds of points for comparison and debate. Simply talking about resolution and frame-rate assumes both games are doing the same amount of everything else. The reality is that Killzone 2 has a hell of a lot more going on on-screen than Crysis. It has hundreds of real-time lights. How many does Crysis have? What is Killzone 2's texture size vs those in Crysis? You see, it gets very complicated.

That so many people are saying that Killzone 2 is the best looking game ever made when there are $3000 PCs out there running the latest and greatest PC games shows just how powerful the PS3's architecture can be in the hands of an exceptional development team.

[Milky Joe]

I think the problem with Crysis' graphics is that they're a little too clichéd. They're still super impressive and really smooth but KZ2 has a bit more... personality. Crysis is going for realistic whereas KZ2 has taken a slightly artistic direction and hence has a bit more personality.

Put it another way, KZ2 is instantly recognisable (even with low res shots), whereas for Crysis doesn't instantly jump out at you.

That's why IMO Killzone 2 has the most impressive graphics, not most realistic or technically superior, but the most likely to make you go, "Phwoar... Hey guys, take a look at THIS!"

[wil4hire]

You couldn't even begin to compare Gears or Halo to it.

LOL, and that third one isn't even kz2..

[gametheory]

So what you'r basically saying is that a PC with 4Gigs of RAM, an i7 intel proccessor and a 295 GTX are better than the PS3 at running Crysis @ resolutions that surpass 1080p@60fps? Who could have figured that, Einstein?

What you're basically saying is that a monstrous PC is superior to a PS3, not that Crysis > Killzone 2. The thing is, if the PS3 had 4 Gigs of XDR and a 295GTx instead of the RSX, then obviously KZ2 would look immediately better.

The point a lot of people are trying to make is that technically, Guerrilla optimized an engined for the PS3 a lot more than Crytek did for Crysis on the PC, so much so that they are comparable. The techniques GG used are pretty cutting edge. That's not to take any merit from Crysis which is awesome, just saying that perhaps GG is more impressive because they did all of that with a 512MB of RAM console instead of 2 Gig of RAM and a cutting edge GPU.

[elorm9]

That's the point I'm trying to make here. PS3 specs will remain constant throughout it's life cycle and games will only look better if devs find more efficient ways to program their games. I never said KZ2 wouldn't look as good on a high end PC and I never said KZ2 looked bad.

[eagle21]

*watches ballet of death*

Killzone 2 wins!

[zo6_lover27]

Remember, they were seeing which one was aesthetically better, not which one was technically better

[umair_s51]

Crysis's graphics are a touch better than KZ2's but if you look at art style, KZ2 is definitively ahead and personally art style is more important than graphics.

[Kushan]

Why is it that people are still claiming that the PS3 can look better than the 360? I'm sorry guys (and before you click "disagree", read the whole of my post) but the PS3's GPU is NOT more powerful than the 360's. It also doesn't have a dedicated scaling unit like the 360 so it takes a bit longer to output at higher resolutions, the 360 would always be the same (Which is why people often point out that framerates on a PS3 don't seem as good as the 360, regardless as to whether it looks better or not).

The PS3's advantage lies in the CELL. The CELL is NOT good for rendering graphics! The CELL is an amazingly fast chip, but when it comes to graphics, the RSX (PS3 GPU) beats it hands down. And when it comes to graphics, the XENOS (360 GPU) is slightly better than the RSX (only slightly, though, but it's enough to get maybe 2 or 3FPS more on the same scene). The CELL is better suited to handling things like physics and other PROCESSOR intensive tasks, which may make a game more appealing in terms of what the world can do, but it wont make it LOOK any better in terms of texture quality or screen resolution or anything like that.
Texture quality comparisons are a joke, the main limiting factor on a console when it comes to textures is the amount of memory it has - and both the PS3 and the 360 have got about 512Mb to play around with. Yes, one of the PS3's 256Mb banks is faster than the 360's but that only helps so much and only in certain instances. The CELL can sort of help the RSX by doing some more complex clipping and whatnot, but all that really amounts to is keeping it on par with the 360.

I know it must really get to some of you, but your console is incredibly evenly matched to the competition.

[Cwalat]

the fact that the compare this to an unreleased game is pathetic.

they should just shuv Crysis up their asses. to have those graphics that they are showin you would need atleast.. ATLEAST.. 2000$

[elorm9]

You're right on that. I do agree that there are in fact more details in KZ2. But all I said was that Crysis runs in higher resolutions and better frames per second and I got all these disagrees. KZ2 only runs in 720p and 1080i native in 30 fps. :|

I do think KZ2 looks good, but I think Crysis is somewhat better. Btw, I don't know if y'all are just going after me because I made the first post. I'm not the only one who thinks Crysis looks better. Look further down to the other posts :|

[bpac123456789]

Yeah Crysis wins, but the fact that Killzone 2 can even be compared to a pc game as impressive as crysis and still hold it's own says alot.

[Gue1]

Look at the disagrees of elorm9... I can't believe people actually thinks that Killzone 2 looks better then Crysis. That's what I call famboyims at its best!

Most of this people haven't seen Crysis running in its highest setting. http://www.youtube.com/watc...
http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Crysis is beyond of what consoles of this gen can do. Fact.
Stop living in a fantasy world where you think the PS3 is the most powerful sh1t on the planet just because Sony say so.

[Milky Joe]

Could it just be that people prefer the art style of KZ2? Crysis has a completely different style to Killzone.

But I'm almost certain some people would have a completely different opinion if it was Crysis on the PS3 and KZ2 on the PC. But hey, welcome to the internet. :P

[dukadork2]

everything feels dead, static, and frozen while KZ2 is a constant barrage of particle, complex animations, physics and a dynamic lighting extravaganza no-one has ever pulled off. KZ2's engine is miles ahead of crysis, and that's an amazing achievement for GG on a console: period.

watching these videos, i couldn't help thinking we're so close to riddley scott's dream but... in a f@ckin game!!

I hope crytek is reading this: c'mon guys, prove us wrong and show us what you can do on that beasty PS3! we know you're very good coders but can you guys match KZ2 or do we have to run your code on a $5000 PC?

we're waiting...

[Yoma]

Thinking like this, making a game for pc, and you don't have any "hardware limits". Making one for a console, you have to get it to perform better on a limited hardware. Because of this, it's an incredibly good job by GG.

[majorsuave]

Crysis will output more of everything if paired with the right tech, Geforce 295 or say Radeon 4970.

KZ2, on the other hand, will always be rendered on a 3+ years old 7600GT (the chip on which RSX is based). And, at that level of detail, it probably is rendered at 720p then upscaled to 1080 for HD while Crysis can be rendered at 2560 x 1600 if need be.

Then again, can I play KZ with a keyboard and mouse? If yes, I will maybe not wait until the PS3 hits the 249$ price point and buy one right away. If not, then...

[dude_uk]

way to go on the flame bait....

If you don't know the Cell actually DOES aid the RSX in geometry and in lighting which is a graphics based process instead of overloading the RSX with these jobs:

"The two things you mention - lighting and particles - are things that we can already drop fairly seamlessly into the PSSG geometry pipeline and run on SPEs. Particle processing especially has an advantage over current GPU based techniques because of the generality of the SPE (and over a traditional CPU as well due to the speed and parallelism of Cell). Using SPEs as a front end to the GPU opens up a lot of interesting avenues and I'd be very surprised not to see people explore them."
http://forum.beyond3d.com/s...

another thing is that the Cell can post process the goemetry our eyes can't see and remove more load off the RSX so it can push more pixels as well as aiding the RSX with vertex shadders

http://game.watch.impress.c...

And as you say the Xenos is only "slightly" better than the RSX if all graphical processes are loaded onto the RSX directly which isn't the case with First Party Game Development, so in the End the 360 will not be able to compare with the PS3 Graphical output because of The Cell + RSX complex

The Xenos > RSX talks has been proven wrong by Criterion in one of their podcasts where they talk about how the RSX architecture is different than the Xenos but are basically equal in power but harder to program for[RSX]

if you had read up on how the Cell helps the RSX you wouldn't have to spend so much time trying to prove nothing.

@TheExecutive
Agreed mate have a bubble

[TheExecutive]

Where is the 360's Killzone 2 then? They dont have one. KZ2 is almost a generational leap above 95% of the games on the 360. Gears 1 and 2 are the best graphics the console has and they DONT hold a candle to KZ2.

I have both systems. I think your post is rediculous and quite frankly when the evidence is right in front of your face its pretty hard to deny... unless you are a complete fanboy, which you probably are.

[callahan09]

@ Kushan:

The Executive said it, but I'll say it too. People talk about the PS3's better graphics because it has this game, which looks much better than any game on the 360. If you've got the console title with the best graphics, then you've proven yourself for the time being.

[wil4hire]

But yeah, people have eyes. The technology behind the PS3 games are second to none. Not only because its a new tech, but the 360 has no games that are graphical hard hitters.

Heres something easy:

1. Find a 360 game that can do both:

A. Calculate Motion Vectors to Render Motion Blur
B. Run any resolution of 1080p naively.

The 360 has no graphically advanced games, because developers simply can't do it on the hardware. There are no options to, because of everything being developed with the Unreal Engine, and previous programming benchmarks/status-quo laws of game development.

Think about Crysis, and why NO PC GAMES hold up to it. Its because the developers set out to do something thats NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE in gaming. So they created a game engine that sets the bar for everything in existence. Nothing can compete with it. THey had a certain specification to use, and with that specification. They would optimize and crush everything to fit within it.

This is how PS3 exclusives are made. With a specification, and to deliver never before seen visuals. That specification happens to be a broadband processor. One that will alleviate the reliance on GPUs. If you don't understand why broadband development is important to the future of computers(Before we get to calculating on photons because silicon is getting too thin) maybe M.I.T(massachusetts institute of technology) Can:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffi...

Let me try to put it in words you will understand. Generally computer programming has all looked at the following key factors. Memory, Video Memory gpu, and the Processor. Thats how games are programmed, and thats the reason you need to upgrade often. Because as you demand more, the requirements have to rise. This way of thinking will ultimately pop, and its why we divide procs into cores now. But with cores comes the interesting idea that you can now start sharing the load that the GPU normally would do, and house those functions on other cores. THats pretty much what the cell is doing.

You are right, the 360 has a beefier GPU. But thats because its games require it to have a beefier GPU, because thats what the code is looking for. A testament to the cell/PS3 is that even with a weaker GPU, for games that are optimized on the 360, the only difference is often a subtle edges/texture filtering. No longer is it an entire framerate or night and day performance. This is with the weaker GPU as you put it. PS3 development has gone from terrible ports, to equal, and better\higher resolutions in regions. This is another reason that the PS3 has better hardware performance than the 360.

With the Playstation 3, it can not only handle 360 titles with ease. But it can also use its lower specifications, to run more technically advanced visuals like Gran Turismo 5 Prologue, Metal Gear Sold 4, Uncharted, and Killzone 2. Games that either run in higher resolutions, stream with ease, provide never before seen visuals/model detail/shaderdetail/lighting/f ramerate than 360 games are capable of. You can pretend to deny this, but its frankly impossible.

Multiplatform games that use the same rules of graphics often could be called "better" on the 360. And you will find no argument there. But for the amazing visuals and technical advancements in gaming. You have to go to the PS3. Its just you aren't going to find what I listed above in a 360 title. Because none of the games are being pushed to provide never before seen visuals, without using an old pipeline. The latest technology in the world of Microsofts gaming division, is Normal Maps. The 360 could probably make better looking games if Microsoft made 1 game totally optimized for the full 360 specs. Unfortunately, they are all optimized for the PC and the 360. So again, you are never going to go back and write everything from scratch, since you are going on a history of relying on GPU to do all the hardwork for the graphics.

In other words,

People Have Eyes.

[The Lazy One]

the 360 doesn't have a killzone 2 because it doesn't have 5 years and 60 million dollars it wants to spend on a single game when it can spend half the time and money on 2 games and make twice as much money.

[Le Idiotce]

"the 360 doesn't have a killzone 2 because it doesn't have 5 years and 60 million dollars it wants to spend on a single game when it can spend half the time and money on 2 games and make twice as much money."

>> Oh really fanboy? Halo 3 costed MS 100 million and last I checked, MS wrote a 50 million check to Rockstar for merely some DLC nobody really gives two flying shiats about.

[cayal]

The fact that Killzone 2 is being compared to Crysis is a testament to the achievement Guerilla Games have accomplished.