Just read the Digital Foundry analysis and I have to admit I'm very underwhelmed. The bottom line seems to be that the 360 is the slightly better version to get however both versions have their issues. The 360 has a higher framerate on average although the PS3 has a higher framerate in high action areas. The writer actually said the gamer should use stealth instead of combat in these areas to keep the framerate up which is frankly ridiculous. Other features vary, the PS3 has better texture filtering and less blocky shadows wheras the 360 has better lighting and resolution but suffers from tearing. The most damning fact is the framerate can hit 15fps which is appalling. The article tells me all I need to know, Uncharted 2 is still king, rocksteady 30fps, a myriad of amazing effects and it simply looks amazing. None of the letdowns both consoles suffer with Crysis 2. All we need now is Uncharted 3 to come out and put the x-bots back in their corner.
This article proofs Crysis 2 looking better then KZ3. Also, compared to Crysis 2, KZ3 is an corridor/linear shooter. The MLAA technic is said to be less impressive in comparison what Cryteks team used for Crysis 2. http://www.vgarabia.com/2011/03/21/crysis-2-vs-killzone-3-the-truth/
It's a fanboy article that was floating around last week. Pay no attention. Regardless of either game MLAA is the best AA on console right now.
Lens of Truth just posted their KZ3 vs C2 comparison. http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2head/head2head-killzone-3-vs-crysis-2-analysis/ And, as expected, KZ3 won hands down. Crysis 2's performance was just a "tad" short of KZ3's. LOL. Actually, I think it's way off. How can anyone think that it would have a chance with textures like these??? And those are some of the better shots that they posted.
Alpolio, you strike me as someone who'd be a climate change denialist... are you? This is a serious question here.
Nonsense. The obvious cannot be denied. Killzone 3 wins. just as Lens of Truth stated in their analysis. http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2head/head2head-killzone-3-vs-crysis-2-analysis/2/
What kind of daft response is that? Are you a holocaust denialist for preferring Crysis 2? Like Apolio I also think KillZone 3 is the clear winner. It's not got the same pretty colours but it looks more advanced and runs a hell of a lot better than Crysis 2 which is a buggy mess. I'm really pissed off with Crysis 2, I've wasted £40 on this shit. I have no compulsion to play it because the 3 or 4 times I have played it all I see is glitches. I'll sell it to anyone in UK for £20 if it's wanted.
So wait a second.... When IGN and Gamespot and loads of other sites claim Crysis 2 to be the king of console shooters and hands down the best looking game of all time, information like this is dismissed as essentially being one mans opinion..but...now it's not? You need some balance in the arguing here; you can't deny a shit load of articles which say something you don't like and then pin all your hopes on one article..
Yeah but it's not is it let's be perfectly honest. I think Crysis 2 has sufferred such a backlash because these reviewers made these silly claims and the consumers went out and bought the game expecting something special and were majorly let down. I'm sick that I wasted my hard earned cash on this crap I really am. It's not the images the game produces that are the problem it's all the mess that we have to suffer for the creation of those images. Yes it can look great but it can look shit. Imagine if Naughty Dog, GG or SSM were told by Sony "Go make a fantastic looking game, don't worry about framerate, 15fps will do and go sub HD if you want". They would make games that would visually destroy Crysis 2 but they'd run like shit so they don't. They make polished quality games instead.
You're a racist twat so it doesn't matter either way. Crysis 2 has the more advanced engine, considering that its utilising global illumination, hence Crysis 2 is more advanced. I shall give you the fact that the frame-rate isn't as stable as Killzone 3's, but that's fair enough given its multiplatform development. By the way, if you've ever met any climate denialists (I know Ian Plimer and that man isn't subject to reason it seems) they will deny the facts and always spurt out their misleading, usually twisted information. Just as Alpolio and you do. That is why I asked, it just seems common to those arseholes.
IGN and Gamespot can't be trusted. Why? For starters: They don't perform a full side & side analysis. Yeah, that's right, huh? Lens of Truth and Digital Foundry have a far better in depth coverage of performance issues than either IGN or Gamespot. That's what they do. They dissect a game and post the games performance. That's something that neither IGN or Gamespot does. And, more importantly, it's proven that advertiser dollars will sway their reviews. Or have you forgotten Jeff Gerstmann firing at Gamepot over his Kane & Lynch review? I removed Gamepot from my bookmarks when that happened. Always make sure that the review is backed with facts because they will add nonsense to generate more traffic in favor of the advertisers.
What kind of stupid strawman tangent is this? Fucking hell. Are you trying to imply that KZ3 having an edge is unpossible? Seems to me there's been quite a bit of debate on this comparison so I'm not getting your angle here at all.
I am not racist I'm just not afraid to be proud of my heritage. But that's completely off topic. And it does matter, you can't call someone a climate change denialist cos they don't share your opinion on a game, that's unbelievably stupid. So because Crysis 2 has global illumination it automatically makes it more advanced, rubbish. There's a lot more than one trick to an engine. What about the other lighting in the game that sometimes cast shadows and sometimes don't, it's a complete joke. 15fps is not fair enough because it's multiplatform it's completely unacceptable, it should not see release with that and the other massive glitches in the game. Do you think Naughty Dog could make a game better looking than Crysis 2 if they could go sub HD and 15fps. Actually I should say another game cos Uncharted 2 is already the better game graphically.
You idiot, I called him a climate change sceptic because he (and you) use the same backwards and misleading tactics that they use to make themselves seem legitimate to the majority who have a complete lack of understanding of the technical elements behind it all. For example, Alpolio called attention to differences in normal and specular mapping and then referred to it as a textural difference. That's not the same bloody thing, they are completely different! Furthermore I think most if not all light sources in Crysis 2 on consoles are fully dynamic and generate their own shadow volumes. That is an element of Global Illumination, which isn't just one aspect of a lighting engine, no; it's the whole fucking thing! GI refers to the whole approach to calculation of dynamic light sources and thus the effects present on screen. Another fact is that KZ3 lacks full HDR lighting, it is in fact LDR. GI utilises proper HDR as part of it, another bonus that is implied by simply stating that one engine has GI. Finally, I've played the game at a friend’s place on 360 and even during what was supposed to be one of the most intense fights of the game, I didn't notice the frame-rate drop to anything like 15fps. It may have happened for an instant, but it was unnoticed to me. So I believe you are blowing the frame-rate problem out of proportion.
Monsly it was a simple comparison of how Climate sceptics operate; usually by trying to mislead others with false information, as Alpolio was doing. I was asking it sarcastically, but I guess saying that it was a serious question at the end may have been a bad choice as sarcasm rarely flows well from me over the internet. I never made any suggestion that KZ3 can't match Crysis 2. From a lighting engine standpoint it doesn't, but it is an all round more solid engine, namely because it was in the hands of a very talented and experienced dev. team like GG. I must say though that I do think they are very close games and I am very impressed with Crytek's first foray into the console land.
I wish Crytek would release a single player demo. I've played all the way through Killzone 3 and lots of multiplayer. I've played through most of single player of Crysis 2 on PC and all 3 multiplayer demos. But I haven't played any of the campaign of the console versions of Crysis 2. Comparing the multiplayer demos to Killzone 3's multiplayer, Killzone 3 blows both of the console versions of Crysis 2 multiplayer away. But I still need to try the single player on the console versions; I've only played the PC version of the Crysis 2 campaign, which of course looks quite nice.
Well it doesn't fucking work, there are a myriad of screenshots and articles flying around highlighting flaws with the Crysis 2 lighting system. We aren't trying to mislead anybody, we genuinely believe Kill Zone 3 to be the better looking game on console. It seems we are not alone either. Why are you so adamant that a game you claim to have only played once to be the graphics king on console. Why is it so important to you that everybody agrees with you.
I saw plenty of screens of killzone 2 and they looked amazing. was far from impressed looking at the game with my own two eyes on my hdtv. Screens mean nothing to me now.
No, I didn't ever make mention of KZ3 being inferior overall, but I brought attention to Alpolios lack of understanding of rendering techniques, and how that was probably derivitive of Lens of Truths 'disection' of the engine. As such, he is giving misinformation, just like Lens of Truth is. I personally believe they are about equal overall, but technical merit goes to Cryengine 3 for being the first game (that I know of at least) to have realtime global illumination. Also, would you mind providing a link to such articles that highlight the flaws in Cryengine 3's lighting model?