Lens of Truth noted that Crysis 2 had a better lighting engine. But their focus was on the sum of all parts. http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2head/head2head-killzone-3-vs-crysis-2-analysis/ Pixelation? Seriously? WTF?
It looks like the global illumination Armitage has pinned all his hopes and dreams on isn't even available on the console versions of Crysis 2. Digital Foundry's article with Crytek says: What I'd like to know is does approximation mean pre-baked?
No, it means its a simplified GI solution, it isn't as precise and leads to slight inaccuracies in shadow angles and intensities of reflected light sources. It's still GI of a sort, just cut down from a high precision model, but it definitely isn't pre-baked like most systems.
But it's not the system we thought we had. I declare Kill Zone 3 the undisputed console FPS graphics king.
Well your leading argument for Crysis 2 has been blown out of the water so what does it have left to compete with.
Well number one it hasn't been blown out of the water, a GI approximation is better than pre-baked. Furthermore the games lighting engine is still more impressive no matter how you cut it. So I do believe the competion has not changed at all.
Well yes it does because you have been harking on about this fully dynamic global illumination system as your main reason for Crysis 2 been superior. This was so important for you that it meant you could ignore the sub HD resolution, the shocking framerate and the glitches. As it turns out only the PC version has the system you thought consoles had so I don't believe we can ignore the pitfalls now. An approximation is okay but it's be nice to know how it is different.
What was that Alpolio; you're a cunt? Oh that explains it. @Gaffer: Still, the lighting engine is more sophicticated than KZ3's and the biggest difference made by a game in terms of graphics is by lighting. So yes while it's less impressive than I once thought it on consoles it is still very nice looking and I still think it competes well with KZ3.
Just seen the new footage of Uncharted 3 and it looks amazing, at this moment Uncharted 2 is the all genre graphics king on console but Uncharted 3 will definitely usurp it. The footage is multiplayer and it looks and runs better than Crysis 2 which will keep slipping further down the list as we learn more about it.
But of course gaffer. Though, can you tell me why your opinion is so much more important than those of others who still think Crysis 2 is the best looking game on consoles at the moment?
I don't know really, maybe it's cos I'm fortunate enough to have a PS3 and know how a top quality game should look and run. Maybe the xbots have grabbed onto Crysis 2 with all their hopes that it is the best graphical game on consoles when it clearly isn't. I dunno, what do you think. I'm sorry I'm not as impressed with Crysis 2 as you would like me to be but I find it hugely underwhelming. I don't think my opinion is more important but it is as important and I am entitled to it.
The Lens of Truth took a poll and here's the results. http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2head/head2head-killzone-3-vs-crysis-2-analysis/2/ 77%, out of almost 2000, voted in favor of Killzone 3. That's a landslide victory, if you ask me.
Ok Alpolio, now ask yourself this, how many of those comments and votes are biased? You always complain that whenever I post something saying the contrary of what you believe that it's just fanboy drivel. Why can I not say the same of yours? How is it less subject to bias? Explain these points and provide me proof; as if I am not above it then why should you be?
Armitage we can't prove to you that Kill Zone 3 is graphically better but we can list it's advantages. Better framerate Higher resolution Higher res textures Less Pop In No tearing No nasty glitches The only argument you've given for Crysis 2 is that it has a better lighting system but even that has been proven to be a different and lesser system to what we thought we had.