The official KZSF vs Ryse graphics thread.

The start of this gen has been nothing but fanboys going on about processing power, graphics and resolution...

one is 1080p with 30+fps

the other is 900p with sub 30fps all the time

Was the same for most of last gen ...

Very true, and people going crazy over review scores. Not a lot has changed.

Killzone, hands down!

Killzone 4: Shadow fall edges out Ryse: Son of Rome but both look fantastic. Still both of them are behind the very best looking PC games like Crysis 3, Metro: Last Light, The Witcher 2 and modded GTA IV. Oh and the PC version of Battlefield 4

Both games look great.

Killzone has some of the most amazing sci-fi environments I've ever seen. And those Hellgast are just awesome looking.

RYSE is very cinematic looking too. It's actually a shame that Crytek rushed this game out without a more interesting combat engine.

I can't speak for Ryse as I haven't seen it in action, but Killzone Shadow Fall is a surprisingly good looking game. It's easily comparable to BF4 on my PC on high settings.

From the footage of Ryse I've seen the character models and facial animations are probably the best we've ever seen in a video game. The overall image seems to be kind of inconsistent though.

Looking at all the screenshots and gameplay footage floating around, everything outside of the main character models seem astonishingly average for being an uber-linear corridor hack and slash. You don't have to look very hard to see what I'm talking about. KZ SF on the other hand has a very consistent quality to its graphics and you have to go out of your find to find its shortfalls (but zooming in on random textures around the map).

@StormyJoe: You really talk about flops when Ryse got a 4?

He's a lem. He ignores the fact that Ryse flopped here on GS so that he can attack KZSF for scoring a 7, it's what his species does best.

I was not saying that Ryse was a better game than Killzone. But, the TC's own link states that Ryse's visuals are better. Isn't that the point of this thread?

And, I am not some blind lemming. I just don't except cow bullsh*t.

@StormyJoe: Except the same user on neogaf said KZ looked better. Regardless it doesn't matter do you think Ryse looks better then KZ? I personally think they look pretty close but ryse faulters with massive frame rate dips a lower native resolution and much more linear environments.

All I am saying is that GameSpot and IGN both said Ryse's visuals are impressive. And, in the LINK, the author says it looks better than Killzone.

Does it? That's a matter of opinion. But, considering the link said it does, it's kind of stupid to base a thread off of it and claiming that Killzone looks better, isn't it?

This is why posters are really coming here less. And I mean our elder statesman. You like KZ better, and God knows its a better game. But saying Ryse looks like garbage like all Crytek games I hope is a joke.

@StormyJoe: He was asking people's opinion and stating his own. In every review of both games people talk about how outstanding both games are visually. The graphics are not a weak point of either game. But in the case of Ryse reviews did mention inconsistent frame rates and lots of invisible walls that make exploring the beautiful environments impossible.

I understand what you are saying, but he wasn't being neutral. He included the best pics he could find of KZ, and bland ones of Ryse. Plus, the link he provided as evidence for KZ superiority had a contradictory comment in it.

That's my point.

@Mozelleple112: lol no other then Crysis 3 and metro LL nothing on PC is close.

>Console graphics

@wis3boi said:

>Console graphics

lol

@psymon100: Regardless of what you play on, both games look great. If 1080p looks bad I would suggest LASIK surgery.

@wis3boi used an amusing picture implying console graphics made ed helms need to use a health and safety shower's eyebath. so I typed 'lol'.

I didn't say 1080p looks bad.

Shadow Fall is beautiful. I'm always stopping to look around and check out the environments.

The 30+ FPS is because a couple of frames get through their frame limit, or that DigitalFoundry is piss poor at benchmarking. Or both. Regardless, DF is still pretty piss poor at benchmarking.

The short story is that 32 FPS is not a 1-up over Ryse's "30 FPS all the time" because it's not an accurate benchmark. It's a shame there's a limit on the frame rates of consoles. They should allow an option to uncap it but then people would see how piss poor the hardware really is.

Crysis 3 looks best. No point to this thread. Waste of time.

Finally the textures across the board have gotten crisp and don't suffer from lack of AF on console anymore. First thing I've noticed in ACIV on PC was how almost every texture is high res - a clear byproduct of the game being developed for next gen as well.

You didn't see many devs bother with creating really high res textures for the PC version alone.

Crisp textures? The IQ looks like shit. Look at textures that are anything more than a few feet away too. Look at the texture under that guy's feet.

@-Unreal-: you should invest in some glasses or contacts.

@-Unreal-: Kz:Sf runs in between 30 and 40fps, Ryze drops down to the mid teens. That's a big difference.

How long until you all start saying that things such as resolution, aren't noticeable/ don't matter?

Many people complain about sub 1080P, yet you were all happy bunnies with the 360/PS3.



EDIT : 60FPS is another thing you all said wasn't noticeable...

Killzone looks better but Ryse looks SO much better than I thought it would or did

But both games seem to be rather crappy in the gameplay and fun department from what I've read

Maybe you should read the follow up quote which is in the OP. Also like 99% of posters here agreed that KZ looks better and it's not really like you don't have a pair of eyes yourself right?

Ryse still looks amazing at times but KZ simply does most of things better.

Ryse is a blurry mess. Leave it at that.

Being 900p with that heavy post AA filter don't really help.

yeah well without that heavy post AA it would've been a jaggies town like Forza 5, more jaggies than last gen titles

I saw a commercial or gameplay video of Ryze somewhere and after seeing it, I felt very confident in my decision to wait on the next-gen consoles if I ever decide to get one. I thought the animation and overall graphics of Ryse were pretty bad. I couldn't believe that was considered "next-gen."

As for Killzone, I tired of FPS after COD4, so even if it looks good, I can't stand the gameplay.

Ryse looks freaking gorgeous, both from a technical and art style perspective, the colours pop with vibrance, the characters look so convincing, both in looks and animation; it is a marvel visually.

That said, I feel Killzone outdoes it, in almost every area even then apart from characters.

From vids and pics I've seen, KZ:SF looks better...

However I think characters in Ryse look better (incl. facial / body movement animations)..

Why are you telling me this?

Crysis 3 has better textures and more detail. The effects are better too. KZSF has poor IQ in comparison.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

Now now this is not a Crysis 3 vs KZSF thread so hold your horses. In time I'll make a similar thread too once I get my PS4 tomorrow night. Rest assured it will be glorious and epic.

Killzone characters are far better.Its texturing on them is particularly most impressive and literally blow ryse away.

All in game-http://abload.de/img/amarectv2013-11-1523-10u58.jpg

http://i3.minus.com/ibw4yTPxxHQciC.png

You mean "100% of the cows agree the KZ looks better".

Obviously, it's not "99% of posters", since there is another thread going on right now with the head line of something like "Now that Ryse is the console graphics king" or whatever.

Art style and all that BS is subjective. Heck someone can think that Pacman "looks" better than modded Crysis. What's not subjective is that KZ:SF is much larger in scale, with more going on on screen running at times at twice the frame rate with 633600 more pixels per frame than Ryse. From a technical standpoint KZ takes a nasty shit all over Ryse.

Both games look great and Ryse looks the best in terms of animation, style, etc.

That said, KZ won't make you want to kill yourself after playing for a day. Ryse? Can't say the same...but if you want a tech demo piece to show off, Ryse is your winner.

900p and 26fps sure is a technical masterpiece.

Killzone looks so much better as to beat ryse pre-rendered cutscene!

http://images.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/6/3/6/1/0/7/XB1_006.bmp.jpg

http://abload.de/img/amarectv2013-11-1523-10u58.jpg

Style is just different form person to person. But Animation? Really? Animation in Ryse looks horrid. And I'm not talking about the prerendered cut scenes.

It has a limited amount of attack animations and such, but the slomo kill cam stuff looks very nice. It's just that it gets very repetitive.

Killzone clearly looks better from a technical point of view.

I'll admit that Ryse's setting does nothing for me, but this really is'nt a matter of "historical" VS Sci-Fi....