BOTH consoles run Crysis 2 at 1152 x 720 res.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdonrcwLJPo&feature=player_embedded

If the field engineer from Crytek is to be trusted, then both console versions would be sub hd @ 1152 x 720. Still a far cry in image quality compared to the MLAA, full 1280 x 720 res Killzone 3 on PS3.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdonrcwLJPo&feature=player_embedded

If the field engineer from Crytek is to be trusted, then both console versions would be sub hd @ 1152 x 720. Still a far cry in image quality compared to the MLAA, full 1280 x 720 res Killzone 3 on PS3.

gpuking

Interesting. Not like there would be a massive difference between 1024x720 and 1152x720. Anyway, I learned my lesson about doubting MagDude years ago. Those pixel counters are almost always spot on.

A few pixels are the least of my worries in regards to Crysis 2.

Interesting. Not like there would be a massive difference between 1024x720 and 1152x720. Anyway, I learned my lesson about doubting MagDude years ago. Those pixel counters are almost always spot on.

gamecubepad

Except he took the image from a compressed video. Crytek have said loads of times that they'd be equal. And plus, it's not like Crysis 2 at 1024x720 on PS3 would look that much worse than KZ3 with Crytek's non-prebaked graphics.ocstew

Compressed, or even resized vids don't affect the pixel ratio if I remember correctly.

KZ3 looks better from what I've seen. Not a huge difference, though. The biggest problem I have with the console version's gfx is pop-in and aliasing. Maybe I'm just being overly critical since it's Crytek.

[QUOTE="ocstew"]Except he took the image from a compressed video. Crytek have said loads of times that they'd be equal. And plus, it's not like Crysis 2 at 1024x720 on PS3 would look that much worse than KZ3 with Crytek's non-prebaked graphics.gamecubepad

Compressed, or even resized vids don't affect the pixel ratio if I remember correctly.

KZ3 looks better from what I've seen. Not a huge difference, though. The biggest problem I have with the console version's gfx is pop-in and aliasing. Maybe I'm just being overly critical since it's Crytek.

But the difference is, that Crytek does every single piece of lighting dynamically while in KZ3 it's mostly prebaked. KZ3 doesn't even have HDR or decent DOF. ocstew

For sure, but KZ3 doesn't have pop-in as bad as C2 from what I've seen, which is my biggest gripe with the gfx at this point. Aliasing would be another issue, but it doesn't bother me in motion in the actual game.

It's still a great looking game. Easily one of the best, and it's got a load of impressive tech as well. I'm looking forward to playing Pier 17 in the new demo come the 1st.

[QUOTE="ocstew"]But the difference is, that Crytek does every single piece of lighting dynamically while in KZ3 it's mostly prebaked. KZ3 doesn't even have HDR or decent DOF. gamecubepad

For sure, but KZ3 doesn't have pop-in as bad as C2 from what I've seen, which is my biggest gripe with the gfx at this point. Aliasing would be another issue, but it doesn't bother me in motion in the actual game.

It's still a great looking game. Easily one of the best, and it's got a load of impressive tech as well. I'm looking forward to playing Pier 17 in the new demo come the 1st.

[QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

[QUOTE="ocstew"]Except he took the image from a compressed video. Crytek have said loads of times that they'd be equal. And plus, it's not like Crysis 2 at 1024x720 on PS3 would look that much worse than KZ3 with Crytek's non-prebaked graphics.ocstew

Compressed, or even resized vids don't affect the pixel ratio if I remember correctly.

KZ3 looks better from what I've seen. Not a huge difference, though. The biggest problem I have with the console version's gfx is pop-in and aliasing. Maybe I'm just being overly critical since it's Crytek.

[QUOTE="ocstew"][QUOTE="gamecubepad"]Compressed, or even resized vids don't affect the pixel ratio if I remember correctly.KZ3 looks better from what I've seen. Not a huge difference, though. The biggest problem I have with the console version's gfx is pop-in and aliasing. Maybe I'm just being overly critical since it's Crytek.gpuking

But the difference is, that Crytek does every single piece of lighting dynamically while in KZ3 it's mostly prebaked. KZ3 doesn't even have HDR or decent DOF. Crysis 2 is much larger too and almost everything has physics and can be moved, unlike in KZ3 where almost everything, except the small things seems to be nailed into the ground.ocstew

you are right about everything except one thing, all the lighting in crysis 2 is dynamic, so crysis 2 easily has more dynamic lighting than kz3,kz3 uses dynamic radisoity which is 'cheap' global illumination, and crysis 2's enviromrnts are knowhere near bland and empty, especially if you take into account the realtime damage and deformation effects,the enviroment in crysis 2 can actually change dramatically during a firefight, if that's what you call bland then i must be the king of kashmir,loldelta3074

Even if Killzone 3 looks better, it's not light years ahead or even 6 months ahead LOL.

The differences are in the details and perhaps, being less aliased.

But the PC version of Crysis 2 is at least 2 years ahead of Killzone 3.

PS3 is not twice as powerful as 360. It's like 0.05% and that is all.

thats a decent Res

Alan wake was like 900x500, now that was just sad, Halo reach was also really low

thats a decent Res

Alan wake was like 900x500, now that was just sad, Halo reach was also really low

HaloinventedFPS

thats a decent Res

Alan wake was like 900x500, now that was just sad, Halo reach was also really low

HaloinventedFPS

lol lets argue about a few pixels then act like pc's far superior resolution means nothing :shock:

[QUOTE="HaloinventedFPS"]

thats a decent Res

Alan wake was like 900x500, now that was just sad, Halo reach was also really low

Tessellation

Not being a fanboy but PC FTW if we are talking about Crysis 2.Wisely321

This whole KZ3 is better than Crysis 2 on consoles stuff is getting old. KZ uses so many post processing effects to create its look and everything is so static and lifeless. I'll admit it looks good but Crysis 2 is dynamic. It has a night and day system so all shadows etc. are rendered in real time so it is a lot more impressive. And honestly it does look better. KZ2 almost looks better than KZ3. MLAA did less for KZ3 than it did for GOW III. There is a lot more edge flickering in KZ3 so it doesn't look that good

This whole KZ3 is better than Crysis 2 on consoles stuff is getting old. KZ uses so many post processing effects to create its look and everything is so static and lifeless. I'll admit it looks good but Crysis 2 is dynamic. It has a night and day system so all shadows etc. are rendered in real time so it is a lot more impressive. And honestly it does look better. KZ2 almost looks better than KZ3. MLAA did less for KZ3 than it did for GOW III. There is a lot more edge flickering in KZ3 so it doesn't look that good

seanmcloughlin

too many ppl believed that xbox was weaker than ps3 after games like uncharted 2 and GOW3 released.they said xbox can never handle this kind of GRFX.and after a while we saw red dead redemption which was a gorgeous looking game and we saw that it was better on 360.then I remember they(ps3 fans) said"owe it's developer fault.we saw ps3's power and what kind of GRFC it can handle".after a while castlevania LOS showed up and it was looking really great(I'm just considering GRFX).and when I read comments in system wars in the articles belonged to "360 vs ps3" I always wanted to ask a simple question from ps3 fans.WHY IT'S ALWAYS DEV FAULT WHEN A GAME LOOKS WORSE ON PS3 BUT IT'S NOT DEVS FAULT WHEN THEY CAN'T MAKE CRAZY GRFX ON 360?after GOW nobody could even imagin that 360 can handle RDR or LOS's GRFX but we saw that it could.and I think it's not about the systems but aboute thechnology and the way their engine works.I think we better put our comparisons based on games that exist on both platforms.not the games that only exists on one.and also I have to say halo is not about GRFX at all.

[QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

[QUOTE="ocstew"]Except he took the image from a compressed video. Crytek have said loads of times that they'd be equal. And plus, it's not like Crysis 2 at 1024x720 on PS3 would look that much worse than KZ3 with Crytek's non-prebaked graphics.ocstew

Compressed, or even resized vids don't affect the pixel ratio if I remember correctly.

KZ3 looks better from what I've seen. Not a huge difference, though. The biggest problem I have with the console version's gfx is pop-in and aliasing. Maybe I'm just being overly critical since it's Crytek.

[QUOTE="ocstew"][QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

[QUOTE="ocstew"]Except he took the image from a compressed video. Crytek have said loads of times that they'd be equal. And plus, it's not like Crysis 2 at 1024x720 on PS3 would look that much worse than KZ3 with Crytek's non-prebaked graphics.II_Seraphim_II

Compressed, or even resized vids don't affect the pixel ratio if I remember correctly.

KZ3 looks better from what I've seen. Not a huge difference, though. The biggest problem I have with the console version's gfx is pop-in and aliasing. Maybe I'm just being overly critical since it's Crytek.

Are you kidding? The whole point of this is that we CAN see the difference. Games aren't just played nowadays. They are tested. When real gamers play games these days they go through the game but on future playthroughs they go around lookg at and testing things. "if I throw a grenade here what will it do?" stuff like this. They experiment to see what a game can do. In KZ only certain things move or break in certain areas. Which is not impressive. I don't understand why a column crumbles in a certain area and not in another. also in Crysis if you run past things they react to your character and move with the physics and not not stay cemented in the world. Also in Crysis if you let your character stand still the shadow will eventually move around and change realistically and in real time. Not like KZ where it never gets dark or changes. Everything is "Pre baked" as they say. So real gamers know which is better technically. Like I said they experiment and test the game. Not just play it.

[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"][QUOTE="ocstew"]

Compressed, or even resized vids don't affect the pixel ratio if I remember correctly.

KZ3 looks better from what I've seen. Not a huge difference, though. The biggest problem I have with the console version's gfx is pop-in and aliasing. Maybe I'm just being overly critical since it's Crytek.

seanmcloughlin

Are you kidding? The whole point of this is that we CAN see the difference. Games aren't just played nowadays. They are tested. When real gamers play games these days they go through the game but on future playthroughs they go around lookg at and testing things. "if I throw a grenade here what will it do?" stuff like this. They experiment to see what a game can do. In KZ only certain things move or break in certain areas. Which is not impressive. I don't understand why a column crumbles in a certain area and not in another. also in Crysis if you run past things they react to your character and move with the physics and not not stay cemented in the world. Also in Crysis if you let your character stand still the shadow will eventually move around and change realistically and in real time. Not like KZ where it never gets dark or changes. Everything is "Pre baked" as they say. So real gamers know which is better technically. Like I said they experiment and test the game. Not just play it.

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"] All that matters is the end result, and KZ3 looks better than Crysis 2 (Console). Talk all the technicaly crap u want, but if it doesnt translate into something the viewer can see...its moot.gpuking

Are you kidding? The whole point of this is that we CAN see the difference. Games aren't just played nowadays. They are tested. When real gamers play games these days they go through the game but on future playthroughs they go around lookg at and testing things. "if I throw a grenade here what will it do?" stuff like this. They experiment to see what a game can do. In KZ only certain things move or break in certain areas. Which is not impressive. I don't understand why a column crumbles in a certain area and not in another. also in Crysis if you run past things they react to your character and move with the physics and not not stay cemented in the world. Also in Crysis if you let your character stand still the shadow will eventually move around and change realistically and in real time. Not like KZ where it never gets dark or changes. Everything is "Pre baked" as they say. So real gamers know which is better technically. Like I said they experiment and test the game. Not just play it.

I don't even know why we are arguing yet about this because KZ is out and Crysis 2 is not. Only when Crysis is released will we have concrete evidence of which is better so I reserve my judgement for then.

[QUOTE="ocstew"][QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

Compressed, or even resized vids don't affect the pixel ratio if I remember correctly.

KZ3 looks better from what I've seen. Not a huge difference, though. The biggest problem I have with the console version's gfx is pop-in and aliasing. Maybe I'm just being overly critical since it's Crytek.

II_Seraphim_II

While I agree with you I think people are "jumping" on Crysis 2 because its quite open game,not open world but much more open than games like COD or KZ.Second thing is that it does shadows and lighting all in real time,it has volumetric god rays,HDR,real time global illumination,bokeh effect in real time,great post processing,SSAO etc. That kinda proves that 360 can go just as far as ps3 if programmed correctly.Yea,maybe TAA,artstyle or slightly lower resolution will be a deal breaker to some people but it still won't change the fact that Crysis 2,as far as tech goes, is loaded like no other console game.

Even if Killzone 3 looks better, it's not light years ahead or even 6 months ahead LOL.

The differences are in the details and perhaps, being less aliased.

But the PC version of Crysis 2 is at least 2 years ahead of Killzone 3.

PS3 is not twice as powerful as 360. It's like 0.05% and that is all.

Ravenchrome

Uh no. PS3 has a cell processor which is much more powerful than 360's regular CPU processor. Other than that, I THINK PS3 has a slightly better GPU.

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

This whole KZ3 is better than Crysis 2 on consoles stuff is getting old. KZ uses so many post processing effects to create its look and everything is so static and lifeless. I'll admit it looks good but Crysis 2 is dynamic. It has a night and day system so all shadows etc. are rendered in real time so it is a lot more impressive. And honestly it does look better. KZ2 almost looks better than KZ3. MLAA did less for KZ3 than it did for GOW III. There is a lot more edge flickering in KZ3 so it doesn't look that good

gpuking

Man you really love your KZ3 don't you? :)Which is fine but reading your posts it seems as though you are trying to pass off your opinion as fact and trying to ram it down people's throats :) Some people like Kz3 others prefer the look of Crysis 2. They both look great but I definitely think Crysis 2 looks better. To me KZ3 looks great but it is very inconsistent in terms of textures, AA and that nasty pixel crawling effect. It really bothers my eyes in some spots. To me, that right there alone (pixel crawling) puts KZ3 behind Crysis 2. Yes MLAA was used in this game but the results were mixed at best. In fact if you go back to the Digital Foundary article here although they say they don't prefer QAA they talk as if AA was done better in KZ2.

Another thing is that the lighting is superb in Crysis 2. Taking into account the lighting in addition to the photo-realistic look in Crysis 2 and for me there is no way I can put KZ3 ahead of Crysis 2. Not to mention that the world in Crysis 2 seems more open while KZ3 is more linear and spiced up with some on-rail segments. Both look great but graphically Crysis 2> Killzone 3.

Good god, how many threads about Crysis 2 resolution are people going to make?

If you really care that much about 93,000 pixels you should be playing it on PC where the game belongs, and you can get an extra 1.5 million pixels per frame.

[QUOTE="gpuking"][QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

This whole KZ3 is better than Crysis 2 on consoles stuff is getting old. KZ uses so many post processing effects to create its look and everything is so static and lifeless. I'll admit it looks good but Crysis 2 is dynamic. It has a night and day system so all shadows etc. are rendered in real time so it is a lot more impressive. And honestly it does look better. KZ2 almost looks better than KZ3. MLAA did less for KZ3 than it did for GOW III. There is a lot more edge flickering in KZ3 so it doesn't look that good

T-razor1

Man you really love your KZ3 don't you? :)Which is fine but reading your posts it seems as though you are trying to pass off your opinion as fact and trying to ram it down people's throats :) Some people like Kz3 others prefer the look of Crysis 2. They both look great but I definitely think Crysis 2 looks better. To me KZ3 looks great but it is very inconsistent in terms of textures, AA and that nasty pixel crawling effect. It really bothers my eyes in some spots. To me, that right there alone (pixel crawling) puts KZ3 behind Crysis 2. Yes MLAA was used in this game but the results were mixed at best. In fact if you go back to the Digital Foundary article here although they say they don't prefer QAA they talk as if AA was done better in KZ2.

Another thing is that the lighting is superb in Crysis 2. Taking into account the lighting in addition to the photo-realistic look in Crysis 2 and for me there is no way I can put KZ3 ahead of Crysis 2. Not to mention that the world in Crysis 2 seems more open while KZ3 is more linear and spiced up with some on-rail segments. Both look great but graphically Crysis 2> Killzone 3.

Open world shooter with destructible environments vs. corridor shooter with bland colors and static environment. I will take the prior. KZ is the most generic shooter ever. It is on the Timesplitters scale of generic.

Open world shooter with destructible environments vs. corridor shooter with bland colors and static environment. I will take the prior. KZ is the most generic shooter ever. It is on the Timesplitters scale of generic.

kuu2

Except Crysis 2 does'nt look all that open world anymore. Or destructible for that matter.

It's a point I did bring up when it came to Crysis VS Metro 2033 but let's see how it fares this time around.

For now, I can judge the KZ3 demo and tell you that it's not generic and it looks amazing for being on a console. Let's see how Crysis 2 does yes? So far, impressions have been.... Mixed.

Well, the game looks amazing even in sub hd!

this thread barely passed the 40 posts, the other one where the PS3 alone was sub HD was like 100+ .

this thread barely passed the 40 posts, the other one where the PS3 alone was sub HD was like 100+ .

omho88

Looks like crytek couldn't keep their earlier promises,sacrifices obviously had to made somewhere.

I'll be getting the PC version and playing it at 1080p,so I'm not to saddened by this news lol.

[QUOTE="T-razor1"]

[QUOTE="gpuking"] Fail, kz3 is anything but lifeless or static. It has a lot more particles, dynamic lights on screen as well as tons more polygon density and more actions almost in every corners. The sky is filled with cruisers, lightning, debris and what not. Anyone who played the game should see it. MLAA may have edge crawling but generally speaking it it's far superior than QAA and TAA. And again, it has 10,0000 more pixels than crysis 2 on consoles with excellent AF to boot. So kz3 does look better, there's no way around it.gpuking

Man you really love your KZ3 don't you? :)Which is fine but reading your posts it seems as though you are trying to pass off your opinion as fact and trying to ram it down people's throats :) Some people like Kz3 others prefer the look of Crysis 2. They both look great but I definitely think Crysis 2 looks better. To me KZ3 looks great but it is very inconsistent in terms of textures, AA and that nasty pixel crawling effect. It really bothers my eyes in some spots. To me, that right there alone (pixel crawling) puts KZ3 behind Crysis 2. Yes MLAA was used in this game but the results were mixed at best. In fact if you go back to the Digital Foundary article here although they say they don't prefer QAA they talk as if AA was done better in KZ2.

Another thing is that the lighting is superb in Crysis 2. Taking into account the lighting in addition to the photo-realistic look in Crysis 2 and for me there is no way I can put KZ3 ahead of Crysis 2. Not to mention that the world in Crysis 2 seems more open while KZ3 is more linear and spiced up with some on-rail segments. Both look great but graphically Crysis 2> Killzone 3.

Interesting stuff.

I've been gaming at higher resolutions on my PC since 1995.

there's so many graphics whores in these forums and in this thread.

you know who you are.