Games Aktuell has done a screenshot comparison between Killzone 3 and Crysis 2. Check these screenshots comparing the two visual blockbusters.
im sorry but i dont even need to click the link to know this is unnecessary,or which game looks miles better anyway in crysis im getting some terrible pop up and the re-spawn points are annoying,how can i re-spawn right infront of a enemy?
Even better, when you turn around to go fight back across the map, 15-25 yards out from a side of the map people will spawn, causing for shitty game play thats more frustrating then fun.
another Exclusive vs. Multiplat comparison. i wonder which game is more beautiful...
i will say graphics wise the games poor in comparison to cryteks hype machine,BUT the more im playing the more im getting into it, apart from respawn points im enjoying it
@ All Gamers This proves only tech specs will NOT show a quality of game. The Skills of developer shows that. Eg- U3 on PS3 trumps 95% of PC games GOW / FF / MGS /GT all quality games showed on "inferior" PS2. Developer Skills > Tech Specs
I think that the two should be compared PS3 to PS3. It's stupid to pit a PS3 game against a PC game that fewer than 10% of PCs will be able to run at the level Crysis 2 has been shown at.
KZ3 looks miles better than Crysis 2 on console. Man.. the difference is so big that even KZ2 looks far better than Crysis 2 console version.
They look pretty close to me.
@vsr "U3 on PS3 trumps 95% of PC games " Rofl. http://forums.n4g.com/tm.as... @jammydude "Asus G73JH " lol What is that, a laptop? lol. I don't know how to tell you this, but despite what they told you in the store, it isn't good. a 1.6ghz i7....mine is running at 3.84ghz and not only that, but it is much faster clock for clock with higher cache as well. aka your laptop is a POS.
@whitenoise Yup, it looks better than most of those screenshots for those games do too :) At least I can admit it :P I'm not all high and mighty about my Asus G73JH LMAO! You really think that my laptop isn't good? xDDDDDDD You're clueless. 2.8GHZ I7 CPU, 5870m graphics card, 8gb DDR3 memory... Really? No, really? AKA your mentality is a POS. I can run Crysis with no mods with all settings @ very high @ 1920*1080 at 45-55 fps....
@Whitenoise If you think that laptop is a "POS" then you're a f*cking idiot. My mate has one and he can run Crysis in 1080p all very high with 4xAA with no lag spikes. The cruncher is that it costs £600. Just looked through your comment history and I think it's safe to say you spent at least £3000 on your rig (including screen). Owch. Especially considering he can max every game you can. Way to look like an idiot when talking about something you yourself are fanboyish about.
Crysis 2 owns this one!!!
@geodude. Let me educate you "The mobility 5870 has 800 stream processors versus 1600 in the desktop and it also comes with much lower clocks, so it is approximately comparable to a 5750 in desktop terms." It performs less than half as good as a 5870. and a 5870 CANNOT run crysis at the frame rates you are lying about. You would be lucky to get 25 frames on all high at 1080p in crysis. Either you are playing at 1280x720, or you are just full of $#!+. http://www.techpowerup.com/... A 5870 ( desktop variety, which is more twice as powerful ) gets 40 frames at 1680x1050 on very high with 4aa which performance wise is about the same at 1080p with no aa on very high. Half those results, that is what your PC can achieve. AND that is with a much much much faster CPU. Your CPU is 1.6ghz....i.6ghz is half the stock speed of a current i7, let alone with an overclock. Laptops are $#!+ for gaming. I know it's hard for you to comprehend because the dot point on the box said it was 'teh bestest gaming laptop' but even a low end PC with a 3 year old quad and a current entry level card would run circles around that 'PC'. Please don't compare a laptop with a gaming PC, let alone those screenshots which are 1080p maxed in dx11 with 32csaa... here are the specs of your modile gpu 5870mobile GPU core700 memory1000 coreconfig800:40:16 pixel/s 11.2 texture/s 28 gb/s 64 Now here is LAST YEARS ENTRY LEVEL DESKTOP GPU ATI5750 core700 memory1150 coreconfig720:36:16 pixel/s 11.2 texture/s 25.2 gb/s 73.6 In that same bench mentioned above in the link above, a gtx465 which is far more powerful than a 5750, gets only 24 frames at on very high at 1680x1050 with 4aa... Like I said, you are full of $#!+
@ Whitenoise This is going to be satisfying Here, let me educate you http://www.youtube.com/watc... Yeah that's right a 5870 running crysis in Very high @ 4xAA in 1080p with no lag. The guy's laptop I mentioned can run it like this (when overclocked and with a lower FPS but still above 30) owch. As for the CPU running at 1.6GHZ.... you do know it can perform a stable overclock to 2.8ghz right? LOL. You really have no idea what you're talking about. You then went on to call the 5750 " LAST YEARS ENTRY LEVEL DESKTOP GPU" I really rest my case.... If you think the 5750 is an entry level GPU you're an idiot. Heard of the 5650? 5730? LOL Sorry if it broke your assumption that laptops are crap for gaming but anything that comfortably runs crysis in 1080p all very high with ANY AA is a VERY capable gaming machine. Calling it a POS is just f*cking ignorant and imbecilic. The fact that you spent ~£3000 on your rig just shows how stupid you are.
@Geodude You are a fu<king moron a 5870 is NOT THE SAME AS A MOBILE 5870. You know absolutely nothing about PC components or PC gaming. My GPU wipes the floor with a 5870 and it does not get the frames he claims to get on a GPU half as powerful as a desktop 5870. Desktop 5870 specs: 850 1200 1600:80:32 27.2 68 153.6 Mobile 5870 specs 700 1000 800:40:16 11.2 28 64 I'll just let you look ar that for a moment so you can see that it is LESS THAN HALF AS POWERFUL AS A 5870 which is exactly what I said above. Now again. Here is the mobile 5870 compared to the 5750 Mobile 5870 specs 700 1000 800:40:16 11.2 28 64 desktop 5750 700 1150 720:36:16 11.2 25.2 73.6 There we have it, simple FACTUAL information. You have no idea what you are talking about neither do the 3 console retards that agreed with you. his mobile GPU is LESS powerful than a 5750 Now I will link you to a hardware review of the 5750 because a a console gamer you have no idea of the chronology of hardware releases http://www.guru3d.com/news/... "it is now time to review the Radeon HD 5750, ATI's most budget DX11 card available at this time. " At it's time of release it was the WORST PERFORMING CARD ATI MADE IN THAT SERIES. It was also the cheapest, somehow I think that fits into the category of 'budget'. So his card is slower than last years budget/entry level/current POS card. AS the benchmarks in the link I posted show...a gtx465 which is FAR more powerful than a 5750 ( which again, I need to repeat because your simple mind cannot grasp this ) which is MORE powerful than his crap laptop GPU only gets 25 frames at a lower res than he is claiming to be using ( 1680x1050 in the bech, he claims to be using 1920x1080. So HE IS NOT PLAYING AT THOSE SETTINGS OR THOSE FRAME RATES AND LIKELY NOT AT THAT RESOLUTION. Here is a bench of a 5750( which again; is better than his card ) running crysis on very high... http://benchmarkreviews.com... 20.2 frame average, it seems like someone was lying and a certain console only jackass bought it... GTX465 = 25 frames, so yeah that means that both he and you are full of $#!+ and also morons.
PC fanboys for the loss.... way to get obsessed with your machine much.
Lmfao. Its like watching the av guy from family guy fight with himself. Sorry guys no offense just struck me as very funny reading this.
Whitenoise, you're a goddamn idiot. I link you a video showing crysis benching with 4xAA, 1080p res and all very high on a 5870 at above 40fps... so you then tell me it couldn't get above 27... right. You then fail to realise that his laptop is overclocked, the cooling system on the G73JH is very efficient and the graphics card/ processor (and even ram) can be cranked up quite high without any crashing. Just go on youtube and find videos of it playing crysis at 1080p, all settings on very high for yourself. You're a complete idiot who spent £3000 at least on a gaming PC and wrote a wall of text in dispute over the internet - and you're still wrong. Again, playing crysis on very high at 1080p with ANY AA (heck, even with no AA) is very impressive. Calling it a POS for doing so shows your ignorance and stupidity
This PC argument is hilarious, I luckily don't have time to be that obsessed. One thing I do know is that my PS3 has the same spec as my brothers PS3. This is good for developers as they don't have to worry about his being able to run Killzone 3 like mine. Simples.
Killzone 3 wins. It looks phenomenal.
No shit. A multiplaform game (console) VS PS3 exclusive. Which wins?
@ AndrewRyan I dunno, not all ps3 exclusives look great, in fact some look terrible
@Perjos Which ones look bad?
Istanbull: Agree. atleast Console version of crysis2 VS Killzone 3. I havent seen any clear PC footage that I know so I wouldnt know 100% for sure of how it would compare to pc, But I wouldnt be suprised if it looked 2 times better on pc again. But it is too early for Comparisons I think. KZ3 1 month to go. Crysis 2 2 months(?) to go. Getting both day 1.
@ mawiko Haze and Resistance 2 are no way in the same league as games like GoW3 and Uncharted2. edit: also, GT5 is quite a let down unless you are in photo mode.
Its a beta. Remember that Bungie's definition of a beta (usually better than most other devs finished games :P) is not what other devs define as a "beta" We will have to wait and see. I just played the "beta" of crysis 2 and I am kind of dissapointed.
What does Bungie have to do with anything? The two devs are Guerrilla Games, and Crytek.
Crysis 2 looks good but I am not sure I like the environment direction they went with Everything looks too pristine.
I agree it's like some crayola pascal colored city. This is supposed to be New York, where's the grit and spit on the sidewalks at. Way too shiny and clean.
That is the problem with Crysis. It is the issue with the graphics in several other high end game engines as well. A great amount of detail and fidelity doesn't necessarily translate into a great looking game. I look at Crysis on any setting an my thoughts are still, "It looks like a video game" This is where titles such as Killzone 3 and on the PC games like Operation Arrowhead (Arma II) outshine others.
So...you're saying Killzone looks less like a video game than Crysis?
Morganfell Morganfell has a great point so don't take it out of context. Crysis 2 looks like shiny crap while Killzone 3 and Arma II OP have a more realistic look and feel to the graphics. The world is not all shiny clean and brand new like Crysis 2. You gotta show the grit and dirt like Killzone 3 and ArmA 2 or better yet Bad Company 2 and all the dirt and dust blowing around.
I think it's personal preference. Just because Minority Report depicts a shinier, cleaner future than Blade Runner doesn't make it a less enjoyable film.
I want to see how it compares to the first Crysis
Much more narrow areas of game play likely due to consleitis again, unless they designed the game twice over (Once for consoles, then PC's) which they didn't. The game will not come close in quality, scale, because of the consoleitis direction they took. Its like Battlefield, 1942/BF2 are still the kings; because of the time and quality put into the direction of PC. The console versions are OK, but have terrible disconnect with what really made BF great which i know is because of the shitty hardware limitations that consoles have (Ram/Vram/ Not having upgradeable tech). Console tech is almost 6 years outdated thats HUGE in terms of what PC gamers have today. Multiplatform is terrible for PC game design, and will always be bad. PC Systems (Common) 6-core(/6 hyperthreading -- High end/AMD(Without HThreading) 4-Core(/4 hyperthreading) 4-6Gbs RAM 786-1500MB's Vram (Video card based obviously) 500-1000+GB's HDD space Consoles Triple core (360) Single core + 7 SPU's (PS3) (May be off on the SPU count) 512MB ram (360) 256/256(Ps3) HDD's 120gb average Thats just simplified, thats not taking into account optimizing clock rates (Doing more operations per clock)on the CPU/GPU's is another huge factor. Example, Current gen I7's vs last gen i7's running at the same speed roughly 20% faster; this is over ONE YEAR. Imagine 6 years like in the consoles case..its not even funny to argue any differently, simple facts. We have the ability to create games that are far beyond what we have on PC today, but because of the LCD (Lowest common denominator) consoles prevail. PC gamers get the back seat and get many shoddy poorly optimized games that have fewer and fewer development dollars put towards PC development. LCD is what rules the business side of game design.
That same LCD also affects PC's internally so its not all the fault of the big bad consoles. A mere fraction of all PC's in existence will have all the features you mention (4-6gb's ram, 1000-1500mb vram, and 8 threads on a general purpose CPU). PC's are just as bad to each other as consoles are bad to PC's.
If console development is holding the PC back, then the 360 is definitely holding the PS3 back.
Common as in -Most common PC's sold in stores like BB/FS, Newegg, etc. If you buy a new PC what you'd end up getting. -Common from everyone I know (Having built many of them) and the systems they own. -Common to what costs are to the above when building your own. Hell i worked at BB while saving for college, I know what I sold during this time, you can even do this...go onto one of the most 'user friendly' game services STEAM and view their survey, it'll have deflated numbers due to the nature of some steam games (It doesnt weed out the baddies) but it will give you a good idea of where communities are at H/W wise.
Mittwaffen, since you worked at BB, I'm sure you are aware that well 99% of those PCs are sold with Integrated Graphics (and most of those will be Intel IGPs, the worst kind). They can play WoW..thats about it. Nothing new. In other words, the common PC is what is holding PC gaming back, not consoles. Developers have a wide range of hardware they are attempting to support. There is a reason a PC game states "minimum requirements", or as you state it, the "LCD".
Sorry but the average PC set up is... 2 core 2.8ghz CPU 3 gb DDR 800 ram 512mb GPU vram Not too many people have a 6 core Intel seeing how they cost $975 EACH. 4 core AMD run games better than 6 core AMD's but most games don't use 4 cores properly and dual core CPU's are so cheap...Jackpot. As a PC enthusiast gamer I use to hate consoles because I thought they were holding PC gaming back. WRONG!! DX9 is holding PC gaming back along with DX10 sucking but now DX11 has corrected all that so PC gaming will improve.
I'm sorry but you're wrong. PC games have been poorly optimized for a long, long time before the consoles. In fact the last well optimized game that I can remember is probably Quake 1 when using OpenGL, pretty much every PC game after that were poorly optimized. Even Half Life 2 ran like shit when it first came out.
You're really going to argue with me? in my first post I said this is gamer pc's, and common PC's which would be relating to their systems. Most gamers I know build their systems so even BB/FS would not be in the loop. However you know what GPU tech for a gamer = aftermarket meaning if they buy their system from BB, pricematch a video card and have it installed for free. Yeah its pretty simple and can add 60-250 to the cost, but at this cost range provide gpu horsepower around the range I originally stated. Lose the short term memory guys, you people need to get caught up on Prices of parts, 6 cores AMD actually run faster than the 4 cores from benchmarks and more so when overclocking. 1000-1500Vram isnt much champ, most cards 120> are getting this, or near this today when their made. Also, apparently you cant read as I stated intel 6 cores are high end meaning high price ranges. Then added the AMD 6core to the mix, saying that people have them, their getting them and let alone this MILLIONS more PC gamers than their are Console (360/PS3) users combined. Why even argue, its the Mitt..you should know better. http://software.intel.com/e...
not good comparison
I don't know if its because of bad captures but those look extra bad.KZ3 looks a bit better but it also looks pretty bad here.... Give me new consoles ASAP.
I thought the same, the captures are terrible.
Still image comparison is stupid anyway, I don't play jpeg games, I play video games. What really matters is how things looks when playing the game, not when you take 1 frame and analyze it to death.
Horrible pictures, both games looks great though considering the hardware running them. However, I agree with Shaman.. it is time for new consoles when this is the "best" looking games being released.
@jsonhenry Crysis 2 is not the best looking game being released and Killzone 3 looks great for a game on any platform. Not just on consoles.
One thing is apparent, the lighting and shadows in kz3 are spectacular.. I cannot wait to see this game in action..
You are just a fanboy, get over it!! OT: Why is everynody deney that Killzone 3 look miles better than a multiplat version? We all know that PS3 exclusive always trump 360 in grafichs/Phyischys and Ligting aspect, don't be ignorant fanboys. That's allready proven years after years, and still those idiot's from fanboy come here. Shaman, you are the worst fanboy here, always deney without single argument, and if you come with argument, you get the PC version allong to comparing with the PS3. You just pitty fanboy just all those pitty fanboys still thinking that multiplat beat PS3 exclusive.
Really? Most PS3 exclusives look pretty average. Quit pretending that all PS3 exclusives are something special. Nothing could be further from the truth. A couple Ps3 exclusives look great, most don't.
thank you kalipekona, you are right. the ps3 has been out for over 4 years now and it has 3 or 4 games that can be bragged about but everyone acts like every game on the system is untouchable even against the best games on pc which is funny.
Here we go again :(
My sentiments exactly. Give me my PS3 sitting under my tv for nice casual gaming any day.
Terrible comparison. I always think screenshots don't do any game justice. Seeing them in motion always looks much much better.
Very true . Anyway both look good to me.
Well that just makes it even more obvious - Crysis 2 is a huge letdown graphically (on consoles) it's so far from the best looking console shooter it's ridiculous - no AA, massive tearing, poor foliage.... and to top it off it now plays more like COD :/ http://www.videogameszone.d...
I said It was going to be like this. a year ago! So many fanboys calling me out back then. But i knew the whole time it was going to be a let down graphically on consoles.
Have you played it, talltony? I doubt it. If you had played it instead of making assumptions based on screenshots, you would know that it is a fantastic looking game.
Have I played it? Gamertag talltony see for yourself. Playing it now. It's fun, it copies cod alot but yea you know the graphics are overhyped but it seems to play pretty smooth.
Killzone 3 wins. I played the Crysis 2 demo just now.. I was like -_- .. "alright, shoot him.." move onto next enemy... etc etc.. Very quiet, doesn't feel or sound like a battle is going on.. And graphics look very glitchy. I remember playing the Killzone 3 beta a while back, My eyes were always like O_O through the entire match. Bullets, grenades exploding all over the fucking place, I love it! And the motion blur, graphics, lens flare all look amazing.
Everything has bugs. Killzone 3 had some bad framerate lag. Disagrees? Lol at the fanboys You were saying that the alpha build didn´t have framerate lag? Inside houses there was about 20fps.
"about" I like your attention to detail.
@lugia KZ3 had zero frame rate issues stop making shit up.
No joke. I know this is because it's the alpha build, but don't be so confident that you are right.
If that was fake I wouldn´t have agrees. I played the alpha and I know very well what im talking about. Botzone was even worse.
I loaded it up maxed out the player count(I usually play with default settings) and it did have a slight frame rate issue under heavy combat but it's not as dramatic as you people are describing. "bad framerate lag" "Lag central!!!" lmao I can only imagine what you two think of BlOps; PS3 and PC users have been beta testing that pile of shit since it's release. Your comments are better suited for a game like BlOps than a amazing game like KZ3.
I don't play with more than 8 bots, it really does make the game lag. It is NOT a joke. On Frozen Dam it lags alot. I bet those of you who disagree don't even have the Beta. Also, don't change the subject to another game Pixelated. I have Black OPs, yes it lags, it doesn't make what I have personally witnessed with Killzone 3 change.
You go on about the bots but I have to be honest, when playing online in the alpha code I had very little lag even with full rooms. Maybe it's a bot issue.