by Ravi Sinha
Killzone 2 is definitely shaping up for a momentous release this February end. Everywhere you go, the news is on developer, Guerilla Games (recently, they’ve kindly confirmed that, no, there will not be a CGI-animated movie based on the game). And the consensus is clear on most sites: Killzone 2 will blow you away. We definitely agree on the game looking far superior to the target trailer showcased several years ago at E3. But is it truly the “Most Gorgeous First Person Shooter”?
Any FPS trying to lay claim to that title, has to first defeat the reigning champion, which in this case is indisputably Crytek’s Crysis, available only on the PC. We pit the two titles against each other in a shot-by-shot visual comparison to determine the better, more aesthetically pleasing, shooter. Crysis shots are pictured on the left and Killzone 2 shots are on the right. Things have officially gotten ugly.
The first comparison involves the detail on facial models. With its sharper focus, greater attention to detail and accurately captured skin tone, Crysis emerges the winner by a shade. Killzone 2 superbly captures realistic details like facial hair and skin folds. But the proportions look less realistic, giving an overall brawny and cartoonish appeal to the characters. The expression says it all: Angry, yes but photorealistic? Almost, but not quite there. This reflects Killzone 2’s narrative of a grounded-in-reality, science-fiction very appropriately.
Ah, particle effects. Nothing can properly murder your system like a good explosion or three. If you want to know how bodies can be properly vaporized by grenades, then Killzone 2 shows a great example. But a real explosion, with the subtle, hazy dissipating flames at the exterior, molten inferno in the middle and blinding core in the interior? Crysis wins yet again, that too by far more than a shade.
Both games excel aptly in environmental visuals. Be it Crysis, with it’s multitude of flora and fauna, or Killzone 2’s grime-ridden and gritty industrial settings; both reflect the extreme amount of hard work the developers put into making you believe you’re in another world. We’re going to give the nod to both titles here.
Weapon detailing includes the luster of the steel, the modeling of the weaponry, and the effect of the environment on the weapon. Crysis is definitely the winner. As can be seen in the above shot set in a snowy environment, the dull layer of frost is inimitable and unbelievable. Killzone 2’s also offers realistic modeling, but this is bogged down by the plastic-looking shades and slightly less sharpness in the pixels.
Killzone 2 affably competes with Crytek’s graphical goliath, with the environmental visual quality of both literally on par. Since the game is not even using the full power of the PS3, it’s doubtless that we’ll see a shooter that can surpass the latter in the years to come. Until then, the most beautiful first person shooter and video game currently available is still Crysis.
The 3rd comparison picture has been replaced with the appropriate one. We apologise for the oversight. Our writers are over worked and under paid, with absolutely no benefits. However, we will be looking into this “accident” and assure you, that heads will roll. We might even make a bowling game out of it. As always, we thank you for your patronage.
141 Responses to “Visual Comparison: Crysis and Killzone 2”
Can i just ask why you haven’t used the latest Killzone 2 build image’s and also the image on the 3rd one down isn’t even from Killzone 2, looks more like Far Cry.
Isn’t the 3rd right screenshot from farcry 2?
the third pic on the right is far cry2 you noob ,
Hi Ravi
What an awful write up. First off why are you using a screen shot of Far Cry 2 instead of KZ2 for your third comparison? Second, your fourth comparison is using a screen shot from KZ2’s alpha build. Do you not have anything more recent? Lastly, get your eyes checked. This feature you wrote indicates you have serious vision problems.
the third on the right is far cry 2
FAIL
killzone will def own crysis, crysis is just a graphics game, however kz2 would be more war realistic and heroic with better online etc!
Screen shot No.3 for Killzone is Farcry2
I predict a fire! Lush flames will engulf this blog…
Lmao, the KZ2 face you used was from the E305 trailer screenshots and you guys used a Far Cry 2 environment in the environment comparison… wtf? lmao
The environment one is from far cry 2 not killzone 2.
you fucking retard , you posted a screen for far cry 2 in place of killzone
lol
self owned
How do you compare Killzone 2 and Crysis ? One is a linear shooter, the other one is an open world game…
Cool.
Now can you compare it to another console game?
or you looking at the same pictures firstlly the hairs on crysis guys face look painted on while killzone 2s look 3d second you cant compare particle effects in pictures you need to see it running 3rdly thats farcry 2 idiot secondly the picture of the gun on crysis isnt gamplay its boxart omg research this stufff first and im not usually the obusive type but you really are an idiot and probably a crysis fanboy
Yeah KZ2 destroys Crysis in every single way, lighting,textures,physics,gameplay,graphics,enemies on screen,scale of the game,fun factor,multi player,story line ect.
What computer have you used? Obviously many pc games with max setting can be better than a console game but with normal computers, this is not true.
And it’s not correct to pick unfocused images for killzone 2…
WTF?? You used a Far Cry 2 screenshot instead of a Killzone 2 one for the environments bit.
epic fail.
I’ll give you the explosion pic, though who knows how they were takin, and seeing as you can’t really compare the two because neither have the same frames to be compared ….but nobody said that the character design was to look as perfectly humanlike as possible…easily without looking at it the way you did the detail in the killzone face is better….and the gun on that last picture for crysis looked really pixelated not detailed …take a better look
WOW dude u r comparing Crysis to a 2 year old build of killzone2,. Yeah thats really fear, u must not know anything bout killzone becuz we all know that the current build of killzone is miles better then the above pics of killzone in 07. Worst comparison ever.
my bad the for above comment “fear’ is suppose to be “fair”
@Xbot:
“The most beautiful first person shooter and video game currently available is still Crysis.”
Something about that line you find hard to understand?
omg kz2 vs crysis bullshi??!!!! KZ2 IS GNA REVOLTINAZE INTDUSTRY CRYSHIT DINT DO ANYTHIGN LOL FOCKEN BIAS CRYSUX SUX BAD LOL
Yeah Crysis destroys KZ2 in every single way, lighting,textures,physics,gameplay,graphics,enemies on screen,scale of the game,fun factor,multi player,story line ect.
Um…
The second Crysis pic with the explosion is a concept are picture… not in-game.
The third “Killzone 2″ pic is from Far Cry 2…
For a console game, KZ2 is an impressive looking game. Crysis in the end still looks unbelievable, even today nothing has come close to matching it let alone surpassing it. That game really was and I believe still is ahead of its time in terms of graphics and I don’t feel that any console title will ever surpass it this generation of consoles.
First photo comparison is rubbish, one has his face half hidden so we can’t see his visual expression and has his mouth closed. The second photo comparison is not Killzone that looks like farCry to me…
3 tiny visuals of each game being compared, then with a short illustration of the difference, where do these web sites get these analysts or journalists from, what is the point of these articles,is this what fan boys do, publish bs articles just to defend their choice of console, cum on man, at least you could have made a comparison of the game play footage, can sumbody tell me how i can publish articles for these web sites, wots the procedure
I think that was blazing sarcasm.
And what’s with the far cry 2 picture?
i love how the guy used the E3 2007 picture to compare the guns
completely not biased……
You might want to check your source images before you start comparing!!
The environment image (No3) for Killzone is actually from Far Cry 2!!
to all the crysis fans, now, stop playing at 2560 x 1600, and play it at 720p. “holly shit.THAT’S ugly” are you saying ?
1 guy over 10000 can have the quality of the screenshots on his pc. 20′000′000 guys over 20′000′000 will have the same quality on his ps3.
think about that
the thing that is very stupid about this review is the fact that there is hardly anyone who owns a pc powerful enough to run crysis on these graphics settings. what this should be based on is crysis running on the average graphics settings. still both games look spectacular and i must say i am a kz2 beta tester and it looks so much better in real life then these screen shots can show.
For the environment comparison you used a far cry 2 pic lol
Comparison 3… itn’t it Far Cry2!?
NIce, but why is there a screen of far cry 2 in there?
In the environment comparison, the photo on the right is Far Cry 2, NOT KILLZONE 2!
@Ravi Sinha
Dont feed the trolls
tbh KZ2 doese look better then crysis but they cant realy be compared as they both have different gfx style’s.
where crysis aim’s for the most realistic GFX.
it’s just a different style.
KZ2 seems to be more of a…. erm…. 3d comic book style? as in the sin city movie type of gfx. yea it’s hard to explain i cant realy think of a name for that style
The third comparison screenshot compares a crysis and a far cry shot. I call foul!
looking at both games i think that Killzone 2 is by far better then Crysis. this site can say what ever they want but at the end i have seen both of them even though i haven’t played Killzone 2 i thinks its got better graphics. i mean look at the detail between the 2 games
Its that close i guess it comes down to artisitic preference or, if you are an unfortunate individual, fanboyism. Personally i feel a greater impression is delivered by KZ2. Aiming for realism is not something that necessarily improves an experience and can impose unecessary constraints on the imagination when developing for video games.
Its great to see things progress the way they are in todays industry. C
By MNicholas: “Some genuine oversights
This guy doesnt know what he’s talking about. He’s weighted all his decisions on art style rather than technical accomplishment. He got every single one of the comparisons wrong, including saying that Killzone’s environments are as good as Far Crys.
@elorm, higher resolution and frame-rate are important for raw technical comparisons of performance. However, it is very simplistic. What about shaders, number of lights (KZ2 has hundreds of real-time lights), shadows, draw-distance, character detail, number of characters on the screen, complexity of animation (including how animation is implemented), rag-doll character physics, object physics, bullet response, ambient occlusion, particle physics, blah, blah, blah ….
There are literally hundreds of points for comparison and debate. Simply talking about resolution and frame-rate assumes both games are doing the same amount of everything else. The reality is that Killzone 2 has a hell of a lot more going on on-screen than Crysis. It has hundreds of real-time lights. How many does Crysis have? What is Killzone 2’s texture size vs those in Crysis? You see, it gets very complicated.
That so many people are saying that Killzone 2 is the best looking game ever made when there are $3000 PCs out there running the latest and greatest PC games shows just how powerful the PS3’s architecture can be in the hands of an exceptional development team.”
By Gametheory: “So what you’r basically saying is that a PC with 4Gigs of RAM, an i7 intel proccessor and a 295 GTX are better than the PS3 at running Crysis @ resolutions that surpass 1080p@60fps? Who could have figured that, Einstein?
——————————————————————–
What you’re basically saying is that a monstrous PC is superior to a PS3, not that Crysis > Killzone 2. The thing is, if the PS3 had 4 Gigs of XDR and a 295GTx instead of the RSX, then obviously KZ2 would look immediately better.
The point a lot of people are trying to make is that technically, Guerrilla optimized an engined for the PS3 a lot more than Crytek did for Crysis on the PC, so much so that they are comparable. The techniques GG used are pretty cutting edge. That’s not to take any merit from Crysis which is awesome, just saying that perhaps GG is more impressive because they did all of that with a 512MB of RAM console instead of 2 Gig of RAM and a cutting edge GPU.”
Dude, it is possible to have a title that is better looking on PS3 than Crysis, problem is, it will probably be 1 Room and 3 modules.
On the other hand, it can actually be unplayable, like loading every 5 minutes of playtime and using cheap tricks like FOG and blurring to avoid anti-aliasing.
With all do respect these images look like the alpha images they showed at the E3 2007. I think a fare comparison can only be made when killzone 2 is released. Everybody can see the graphics in killzone 2 made a huge leap the last couple of months. Never the less Crysis is looking awesome as well. Also I really like to see you compare more weapons, characters, environments and effects since both contain so many of it.
the environment comparison: “Killzone 2’s grime-ridden and gritty industrial settings” yet the picture shows a jungle……. which is from Far Cry 2…….. o___O
You don’t know to programme and what’s a shader or a pipe
Moreover I think you’r an ass and obviusly the snapshot you show goes against what you tell
Is there a reason the third screenshot comparison is NOT Killzone 2, but FarCry 2?
If you’re going to try and visually compare 2 games with completely different aesthetics (why?) try to at least make sure those are the screenshots from the games you’re comparing.
Also: of course the Killzone 2 gun model looks less detailed – it has extreme depth-of-field blurring that Crysis lacks on close-range objects, making the gun out of focus because the player will naturally be looking at objects further in, just like in real life if you’re wearing a hat and it’s out of focus when you’re looking past it.
I think graphical comparisons have very little meaning when games are so visually different, as many of the differences are intentional,
BTW Xbot, I’ve got to disagree with the textures of K2 being superior to Crysis – due to the PS3’s low video memory other than faces K2 has very low-resolution textures. ave a look at some screenshots that show the ground or walls and you’ll see a significant amount of pixellation.
You’re also using Farcry2 picture in the comparison instead of KZ2, and another picture with an old build of KZ2. That’s beyond pathetic.
With all do respect these images look like the alpha images they showed at the E3 2007. I think a fare comparison can only be made when killzone 2 is released. Everybody can see the graphics in killzone 2 made a huge leap the last couple of months. Also the helghast image is the one from killzone 1 cause their gas mask are looking quit different now. Never the less Crysis is looking awesome as well. Also I really like to see you compare more weapons, characters, environments and effects since both contain so many of it.
Well, he can say Killzone 2 looks better than Crysis it is all still just a personal opinion.
I can say Football for the Atari 2600 had the best graphics in a football game but no one is going to agree with me. Using critics like this for your opinion is stupid.
Hi, Xbot here.
I can’t read because my mommy wouldn’t let me go to school, she said I would catch the “aids”.
LOL, that environmental picture is from FarCry2…
WTF that last pic is from farcry2
The simple fact that this article compares the highest-end PC game available, to a CONSOLE game… should say something about the PS3 and its games.
Also, there’s a picture from a game that is not KZ2 shown in the comparison.
This comparison is pretty half-assed. You need to post more than one picture for each aspect. Plus, the pictures aren’t even high resolution. You fail.
Wow, KZ2 looks a lot like Far Cry 2 outside… lol
give me a break, both the explosions and the gun pic were obviously bull… there were ten times better explosions to show, and in the gun pic, what is that from 2007? you guys are pathetic, the motion blur is on cause the guy in that vid /pic is moving..
how about the ugly pasted on look crysis has where it looks like an arts and crafts team just glue their way to glory… obviously this is not an unbias article and therefore holds no weight
Crysis has better textures, but just because you can see such detail doesn’t make it realistic. I say this because we don’t see things THAT detailed in reality. Sure, the gun in Crysis is WAY more detailed, but that’s not what we see in reality. If I were to really get into detail about I mean, I could end up making a whole article, but I don’t want to use up anymore time. I just might do that. Check out my site. Click on my name.
@ravi
someone giving his opinion to an opinionated article and you find it hard to understand how?
I agree that crysis has better graphics in most if not all areas although Killzon2 comes closer than any other game. But I’ve seen better screenshots of Killzone2’s guns so I think that was a bad comparison, also I would like to see close-up texture comparisons of buildings.
lol that guys only reading what he wants to read.
Im not suprised Crysis is still the winner, it’ll be a long time before a game beats it visually.
That said, when Cryengine 3 comes out in 2012, im sure Crysis 2 will be right back on the top of the pile.
Yeah, Crysis obviously wins graphically….but it is one of the most boring games I have ever played. I haven’t played KZ2 yet, so I can’t speak for it….but I’m sure the gameplay is better than Crysis’
They both look amazing but crysis is the better looking one i agree but killzone 2 will easyer and cheaper for me to play because my playstation wont explode when i try to run as apposed to my computer. I hope i get a good comp soon so i can try crysis and compare for myself.
Well lets all compare a game that hasn’t come out and you probably havn’t played. Since we are on the topic crysis looks like a corny n64 game and one of those comparison shots are actually farcry 2.
Maybe i should have this guys job?
the picture they used for the enviornment for killzone is actually a picture from far cry 2, not killzone…
Crysis is a piece of garbage. it may be pushing more polygons but at what cost? any developer can make a Pixar looking game, but will it run on current technology? nope. and neither did Crysis. and years later, it still cant run. Killzone 2 has more advanced technology in many areas: animation, physics, AI, and more. and while it doesnt technically push as much as Crysis, it STILL manages to LOOK better.
Killzone 2: Best visuals in a game, EVER.
Crysis does look better but it had to be one of the most boring FPS I’ve ever played, but that’s just my opinion and that only really matters to me.
I’d really like to see how Killzone 2 plays out.
If this generation has taught us anything, it’s that game play comes first, great graphics are just a bonus!
I find quite disturbing that in the third comparison, the image supposed to be from Killzone 2 is actually from Far Cry 2.
Nevertheless, Crysis is clearly the winner, altought Killzone does really well for a videogame game.
There is a farcry2 screenshot in there…
I would much rather play KZ2 then crysis personally but there is no doubt that Crysis looks much more visually appealing on full graphical settings. I would even go so far as to disagree with the author on the environmental graphics. I think Crysis also takes the cake there.
But, i am amazingly excited to get my hands on Killzone 2. Personally i find the gameplay and story much more intriguing.
Also, not everyone (nearly no one) has a computer that can run Crysis high enough to match Killzone 2 anyways.
I lost all respect for this article when I saw that you included a Far Cry 2 screen shot as a Killzone 2 screen.
Hmm, why is there a Far Cry 2 picture in this article? At least I think it is.
Oh please fanboys just accept the truth, crysis is the best right now maybee later the ps3 will have its days of glory but killzone still not that good.
Xbot is entitled to an opinion too, Ravi. Your article is just your personal opinion, not hard facts.
Difference:
Cost for seeing Crysis the way those pics show it: 5000 dollars
Cost for seeing Killzone 2 : 450-550 dollars
LOL
In the environmental section of your analysis you posted a Pre-Alpha screen of Crysis(one of the worst) and a screenshot of Far Cry 2.
You got to be kidding me, Crysis is miles better than any console will ever be.
Resolution – consoles run 720p which is considered low res. The texture in consoles is hampered because of the hardware limitations, a ps3 has the power of a nivdia 7 series GPU (3+years old).
You need to stop being fanboys of the ps3 and look at the facts. Those screens arnt in game because ingame is alot less clear.
Computer games will always destory console games, if you want to deny it go play crysis and you’ll see how old it makes any console game look.
KZ2 is no different, it looks good but the view distances arnt even 1/10th of crysis (this helps them push more in a smaller area).
Whoever posted this needs to post correct information, in game screens for kz2 and not the high res shots on IGN.COM.
you realise that your comparision makes no sense.
kz2 is meant to be hollywood realism (over the top) so the explosion is that way cause it was made that way.
anthoer reason you fail is because when your comparing the enviroments the supposedly kz2 picture is actually of far cry 2
err…it’s kinda of unfair to post pics from the outdated E3 ‘07 beta build, much less pictures from another game…
That shot of KZ2’s gun comparison looks out of focus.
Like the focus is where the action is happening.
The solder down the way is way more in focus.
Does it come into focus when reloading, or is it always like that…?
one thing is forsure kz2 surpasses in its ability to play because you need to have the most rediculously expensive computer to play crysis on full speed were kz2 plays on the ps3 perfect all the time!
ummm… It says that Crysis wins the guns design because the guns look more plastic that metal… Perhaps they look more plastic because guns ARE more plastic than metal? I dunno but that’s what it seems like to me…
what a joke article.
yeah crysis does have an edge graphically but I would also say all of the weapon models in kz2 surpass all of the weaps in crysis overall… That example shown there was more in crysis’ favour but on the whole i would say kz2 wins that department(i really love the look of the shotgun and snipers and kz2 and we have yet to play the full kz2 game). I also think one of the comparisons shouldve been lighting seeing as thats one of kz2’s graphical trademarks with its light sources and crysis has nice lighting as well. Crysis wins this comparison overall must i must say that kz2 is bound to be th better game in terms of multiplayer and whatnot.
Is that FARCRY 2 on the right in the third picture?
Textures/ground textures might also be a good thing to compare unless you purposely dint want to get too in depth or something. I just think this is really cool/interesting.. keep up the good work
i totally agree with Jack…you guys should do a comparison between the final build of the game which killz crysis in every way…
Com’on guys…BE FAIR…full game vs full game…and then judge!!!!we’re not idiots you know…
Crysis>Killzone
Why is the 3rd comparison pic between Crysis and Far Cry 2?
the environment comparison isn’t even killzone 2 and crysis its crysis and far cry 2 haha
its called motion blur btw. you know that effect that happends in real life when you focus on a certain thing and the rest is blured out. wave your hand around and look at it. perfect exemple of motion blur. and you need to take a look at a real explosion before you start comparing visual effects. all i got to say is wait until the game is out before you start comparing the 2. or you might end up eating your words later on.
Obviously Crysis is beyond Killzone 2 technically, due to its strengths depending on the hardware (which costs far beyond 400 bucks). But visually, Killzone 2 wins in almost every way IMHO… It’s just more enjoyable/pleasing to look at, due o all the special effects and whatnot; it feels more cinematic. But like I said, technically speaking, fps count, polygons etc etc, Crysis may have the lead, but I would choose KZ2 over Crysis, personally… plus remember you’re comparing a PC game with a console game… (PS, those KZ2 screens are a year old or so lol)
There are other, better looking shots of KZ2. I think those might be able to compete with crysis. From the ones above, crysis does look better however. But really its all about the gameplay. And how green xbox fans will be when PS3 lovers have a wicked game that they cant play. Suckas…
Is that 2nd one from the bottom Killzone 2? It looks more like Far Cry 2…as for the verdict.. well yeah Crisis probably will look better (won’t know till we see the actual game, Killzone has not even released yet and some of those pics are old… but the point is it’s on a console.. and only the privileged few who have a super PC can actually have a PC that can run crisis on its highest levels get that level of graphical awesomeness while every ps3 user gets the same HD picture… also there’s more to a game than graphics and Killzone blows crisis away on the fun factor… (based no what I’ve heard about both games, not personal experience (w/ killzone 2 I mean))…
weel,i I must say theese killzone 2 picture are from 2007,aond the new game has much improove,check the new trailer at gametrailers its slo motion
I agree Jack!
Why even bother comparing crysis and killzone 2 wtf. It’s pretty obvious crysis is better looking. And what the hell, those KZ2 pics are from that fake trailer. Crap comparison is crap. And wtf how can you compare them Crysis – Tropical Island
KZ – Some screwed up industrial battlefield.
And wait is that a Far Cry 2 pic i see there? Why bother posting this.
Umm those pics are pretty old and one of them is FROM FAR CRY 2 you jerks. It is the fourth comparison picture and it is the right one it is from some UFLL (Faction in Far Cry 2) camps. If you dont even notice that kind of thing making this i think that this is made only to boost the Crysis. Second of all the explosive pic is from an artwork image when the Killzone 2 pic isfrom gameplay. Get your pics right until you make this kind of thing. Or at least wait fro the game to release
ya I found the FC2 shot a little funny.
Wow…. While I agree that crysis on full may still be better (I have yet to play KZ2 myself, and have seen crysis on full, and know its going to be hard to beat) these shots are from old videos, and one is from FarCry 2 for christs sake.
I feel sorry for this article. Someone, out of somewhere, in a world of the 360 or PC, trying to compete with Killzone 2. Jealous its not coming to the PS3? O_o;; … I’m just wondering. Because in all honesty the graphics are damn beautiful in K2, and you only showed some shitty ass fucking pictures from K2. Why don’t you spend more time with K2 pictures a bit more like you did with Crysis?! ..
K2 BETA tester here, the game on compressed 500 MB is so god damn beautiful, Crysis is beautiful too, but not as good as K2. I played both games FYI.
These are old ass KZ2 pics (E3 07 Pre-Alpha), and is that a screenshot from Far Cry 2. WTF?
umm why is there a pic from Farcry 2 in here?
second last set of pictures. (the right one, im pretty sure its from Farcry2)
Has Killzone 2 been released yet! Wow I didn’t know – it’s totally fair to speculate and make stuff up then expect people to believe it.
Liked the comparisons too, especially since Killzone 2’s industrial setting is a woodden shack in a grassy field and looks almost exactly like Far Cry 2.
C’mon man, wait till the game comes out and give an informed decision with proper screen shots and better insight.
photoshopped
Lol pre alfa screens for KZ2…and the game it’s not released yet.
Sorry but F a I L
hi
i just firstly like to say i am a ps3 fanboy, secondly i would just like to say that the author of this article is a motherfucking sun of a refugee bitch bastard asshole motherfucker. sorry , i just had to get that off my chest, anyway3 tiny visuals of each game being compared, then with a short illustration of the difference, where do these web sites get these analysts or journalists from, what is the point of these articles,is this what fan boys do, publish bs articles just to defend their choice of console, cum on man, at least you could have made a comparison of the game play footage, can sumbody tell me how i can publish articles for these web sites, wots the procedure
I don’t care which one looks better, I will have them both. They are two totally different rides and I have admission to them both. Crysis rocks and thus far so does KZ2. I rather enjoyed the original Killzone, but I did not have unrealistic expectations for it either.
I would not bother getting into a comparison match until after KZ2 launches. The final version in not yet out for distribution. Who knows what types of environments we will encounter or if there is going to be visual sacrifices to improve gameplay in certain environment designs. Certain levels may use lower res models or particle effects etc. (or lack of) that might be more noticeable.
Kinda of like Ubisoft’s Farcry 2 on the PS3 and Xbox. At times it shines and other times it looks just slightly better than the original. I recall critics boasting about how wonderful it was when they got early glimpses (the dawn of the hype), but I guarantee that they did not experience it enough at that time to see the wondrous visual inconsistencies that the game has as you progress (it’s still great none the less, although the ending is much like the overall atmosphere, EMPTY). I’m not saying Guerilla is going to disappoint, but just don’t start making comparisons just yet as the overall design may take KZ2 further away from applicable comparison.
Guerilla has had there hands in the PS3 cookie jar for a long time now, so I’m hoping that the cookie they pull out is a big bad-ass choice-pick laced with chocolate chips.
First of all, you didnt use screenshots from the recent build.
Second of all, your comments on each screenshot are mind numbingly ignorant. You slate the first one for having a visual style that is different from Crysis, but you fail to recognise the technology involved. The first screenshot of the faces shows that Killzone uses far more anti-aliasing and smoothing of textures than Crysis, this means it is BETTER than Crysis even if you favour one visual style over another.
The same is true of the explosion, the Killzone(is that killzone?) explosion uses motion blur and deformation tech that Crysis does not.
And finally with the weapon comparison, that one you have failed worst of all. The lack of detail in killzone weapons is due to the use of depth of field simulation. This is a very new and advanced graphical technology that Crysis does not use to great extent.
You sir, are not qualified to perform a graphical comparison, and you obviously decided which game would ‘win’ this article before you even began ripping low quality screenshots from google.
For shame.
Undoubtedly, Crysis has the most realistic graphics, this is a fact, but we can’t overlook that Killzone 2 is a game with great graphics and physics as well. Overall Crysis has the lead but Killzone 2 will be a great success too.
KZ2 compared to Gears2 looks OK but not jaw dropping
Journalism Fail…
Why in God’s name would somebody waste time comparing a game on a $400 console to a game on a $2000 computer?
The bigger question is how does the gameplay compare? I think Killzone 2 will win there, just on virtue of NOT being, you know, Crysis. There’s a reason why, when people praise Crysis, they usually stop with the graphics.
I can’t believe you can do a game comparison like this but NOT have at least a 1280 x 720 side by side to do some comparisons. This is a lame duck of an article and just about every person reading here think you are pulling factoids out of your ass. You can’t hide behind tiny pics like that and think nobody will notice Mr. amateur that you DID NOT do ANY research. You know what having a lack of pics mean? It means you can’t even stand by what you say and are playing it “SAFE”
You’re all just a bunch of PS3 / KZ2 fanboys who can’t seem to get a grip that KZ2 isn’t better than everything by a super huge margin. Everyone has the right to their preference of game and there is nothing that anyone or anything can to change their opinion of a game. That’s why Halo still has a very large fan base, same with Gears of War and Call of Duty. This is Sony’s chance to get that kind of game fan base and personally I hope they get it.
The Crysis screenshots do look far better, but those Killzone 2 screenshots you have don’t even look like any of the screenshots i’ve seen, i mean none of us can really be sure if they are even Killzone 2 screenshots i mean yea the the first one is definatly but the rest im not so sure, they all look horrible compared to the pics i’ve seen, you sure your not a jealous 360 fanboy? Bless i find it sad you took the time to even write this article lol you’ve proved nothing idiot.
plz
can’t ppl just let it go pc’s are the most powerful systems you can get there for will always be able to run games @ higher settings im sick and tired of hearing about cell proccessors!!!!! most of a systems graphics proccessing comes from the graphics proccessor hence the name gpu (graphics proccessor unit) jesus. as long as you have a cpu and motherboard thats able to not bottle neck the gpu your going to get the best frames that gpu can push. AND SINCE I HEAR OVER AND OVER AGAIN HOW GOOD THE CELL PROCCESSOR IS. IM SURE IT DOESN’T BOTTLENECK ITS OLD NVIDIA 7900 CARD WHICH IS ALL THAT THE PS3 HAS IN IT IS A MODIFIED VERSION OF THE 7900 WHICH IS 3 GENERATIONS BEHIND PCS NOW. that should settle every freakin graphics power argument. now if you console fanboys could start learning to use mouse and keyboard like a real gamer should maybe you would learn pc isn’t all about graphics either because fps should only really be played on the pc thats where they started but then again thats were most games start even ur ps3 games are developed on a pc INCLUDING UR PS3 GAMES!!!! BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY THE PS3 IS JUST A PC WITH LIMITED CAPABILITIES.
thats why games like gta 4 for the ps3 and xbox 360 can’t be ran @ true 1080p even if ur conosles set to 1080p its really only running @ 720p because the graphics cards can’t handle the higher resolutions on the console im currently running gta4 on pc @ 1920×1200 and it looks alot better all around not just the clerity, i do have a gtx 280 though. but also remember gta4 was coded for the consoles architecture so if that game was totally re done and coded for pc’s my system could run it even better and thats how powerful pc’s are you just port it and u can crank the settings up even higher than consoles though it wasn’t coded for the pc’s diversed architecture and it can still handle it
we leave all these comments ripping the person behind the bullshit article, i think he should comment on our comments, ad luv to hear what he has to say about this bs article, so if your out there reading please dont be a fokin pussy and hide behind your mothers ass please come forward and explain to us why u have submitted such bullshit to us, please get back to us ?
@Jellybalboa: Good point. I should get back to you guys. You take the time to respond to the article, even though our site was unavailable all day because every one loved it so much. Many would think I’d use crass insults to reflect a distinct presence of intellect rather than it’s absence (and possible violation, as is the case with some of you critics). But that’s not how I roll. Sorry but your main attraction is just a boring service announcement.
It’s an opinion article. I used high-res pics. All those pics are from the build of Killzone 2 i played, which according to one set of people is the latest and according to another set of people, is from E3 ‘07. The pics off the net looked pretty much the same as the actual game. The third comparison shot was my bad; I submitted the wrong pic. It happens, and once again, the site was unavailable long enough that not much could be done to rectify it.
If any of you have a problem with my opinion, that’s your luxury. I have as much right to create such an opinion based on my own experiences and judgment as you have to criticize it. You can say I’m wrong and you’re right, and nothing I could do will convince you otherwise. Hence, if you think I’m wrong, then good for you. At least you had enough to conviction to say so.
I always find feedback useful, when I can wade through the sewage far enough to find it. If my methods of comparison are not good enough, I’ll endeavor to improve them for the future.
Thank you, and if you’ve already gotten off to a bad start on your Monday morning, good afternoon, good evening and good night.
I disagree with the facial animation comparison and the gun model comparison. I see alot of Crysis gameplay videos and killzone 2 gameplay videos and I would say the gun models on the killzone 2 one look way sharper and more upclose and as I see the Crysis gun models they look a little far off and they did not impress me as much as the killzone 2 models. The Crysis facial animation is intended to look realistic but it looks a little too blocky and jaggie and the killzone 2 one looks more soothing to the eye; If I wanted to put one of those facial animations in a cgi film I would use the killzone 2 model. I do like the explosions more in Crysis than in killzone 2. But overral killzone 2 is a winner to me.
” Cost for seeing Crysis the way those pics show it: 5000 dollars
Cost for seeing Killzone 2 : 450-550 dollars ”
Wow, talk about being clueless about how much a good gaming PC costs. ^^
Can’t we just agree that both games look pretty? I loved everything with Crysis, from graphics to gameplay, but KZ2 looks pretty sweet as well. I won’t be buying it though cause I don’t like FPS games on console.
So unless they edited this article to “fix ” the screen shots….There are NO Far Cry 2 Pics in this at all…..I own Crysis and Far Cry2…..this is not FAR CRY 2. the (third screenshot on the right, which is what everyone is saying) FAR CRY 2 takes place in an African terrain….and it sure as hell doesn’t look like that. And CRYSIS will destroy any killzone comparison.
Nice review. I prefer the gun models and animation over Crysis just because it is a little more pleasing to the eye. I even prefer the particle effects over Crysis. Crysis has slightly better explosion effects but killzone 2 has decent effects too. In my opinion killzone 2 is better than Crysis though I understand why you prefer Crysis over Killzone 2. I guess its just that people have different tastes in different things.
PS3 > PC.
Killzone 2 > Crysis.
crysis still looks ok but thre gameplay is boring and the story sucks, thats why i love Killzone the story is top notch and not just another generic shooter.
OMG!!! ! It’s a FarCry 2 pic!!! ololol ))).
btw > it’s a sh*tty comparison .
Just go f*ck out from this planet! =)
first of all, this guy should be fired… second, you cant compare a game thats out, to a game you havent even played the final release, it makes no sense…third, you cant just take two pictures from an explosion and say thats the better looking, i wanna know the circumstances, was it a car exploding, was it a hand granade, was it a rpg, where where you standing, an explosion doesnt look the same from 100m distance and right in front your face,… all goes for all the other pictures… and now, youve got to be a complete imbecil to say that crysis is tehnicaly more advanced, youve got to be a geniuse to make a game that can compare with a game made for a 3000$ machine, for a 500$ machine that hasnt even been explored that much
Ok i played the demo and the beta and seriously now, wtf are you guys on?
-Iv never seen such a load of bullshit on one webpage. The comparison is just stupid – i mean, come on how can you even compare KZ2 to Crysis? You should be comparing it to COD4 since it looks like almost the same game with nicer textures or a UE3 game.
-Crysis is what a year and a half old now? and you fanboys are crying because they used screenshots from 07?? Get a grip.
-Now the comments about needing a super computer to run Cryisis on highest settings. THAT IS A LOAD OF ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT. Get that into your thick skulls. If you had any idea at all what your talking about you wouldnt say such stupid words. Go on ebuyer and you can price up a computer for around £400 – £450 that will more than run Crysis on very high. So fuck off with your inferior knowledge of hardware requirements.
-OMG its a Farcry 2 pic, unfair WAAAAH! – Honestly, FC2 looks better than KZ2, yeah wake up fanboys, (‘’snap snap” hellooooo?) it really does.
Honestly if any of you have actually played Crysis on anything above low settings you would realise how wrong you all are. Yes, im saying even MEDIUM settings on Crysis are better than KZ2. Killzone 2 is a FPS that has some nice design, it also has stupid ai, (wich we were led to believe would be groundbreaking…) the enemy ai also sound like they have downs syndrome, this gets quite annoying after a while. The levels are small. The so called destructable envinroments are limited to a few scripted events and bricks on pillars that break (in selected areas.) Woooooooooo! …amazing pfft! what-ever… Play Crysis and then you will know what a destructible envinroment really is.
After reading these idiotic comments left by some of you idiots i feel embarrased to associate myself to a community of PS3 gamers. Iv been waiting a long time for a really good game to come out for PS3 and after being dissapointed with MGS4 and EXTREMELY dissapointed in KZ2, i was really considering putting my ps3 on ebay. after reading these comments, I reached a decision.
Any 360 fanboys who are sucked into the Killzone2 hype that want a PS3? Buy mine -> (Link below)
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/PS3-CONSOLE-60GB-with-3-games-and-1-sixaxis-controler_W0QQitemZ260365812968QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_VideoGames_VideoGameConsoles_VideoGameConsoles?hash=item260365812968&_trksid=p4295.c0.m299&_trkparms=240%3A1318
Thankyou so much im glad im not the only PS3 owner who thinks KZ2 isnt all that great.
I agree with EVERYTHING you said every last word is right. I also played the beta and the demo of KZ2 and at first it seemed ok. The graphics were nice, nothing spectacular but nice. But it got very boring, very fast. All the time i was thinking same thing, diferent story… and i agree the ai does suck and they do sound like they have down syndrome, i just never realised until you mentioned it. I lol’ed in real life when i read that. I already sold my PS3, well i have someone who said they want to buy it but i havent heard anything for a while. I recently baught a new PC as my old one was shit and it came to a grand total of $724.99. it could have been cheaper but i splashed out a bit. Im now playing games like Crysis on max settings and i effing love it! Its just a totally diferent experience that you or i could never get on console. KZ2 doesnt even come close, and i mean that. Im PC all the way from now on, no more consoles for me ever, im done with them.
Console owners take my advice, get yourselves a dcent PC. Honestly, you will be glad you did. Look it up and you will find that like the last poster said, PCs are not as expensive as the people with ‘inferior hardware knowlegde’ and the console fanboys would have you believe.
Yeah i baught KZ2 and i must say i am dissapointed. Its certainly not everything its cracked up to be. I also own a gaming rig and after playing Crysis, well lets just say that KZ2 certainly looks good ‘graphically’ for a console game but after Crysis nothing really gives me that wow factor. (looking forward to Allan Wake though)
I would not say KZ2 is a bad game. Its dissapointing in a lot of ways, but certainly not bad. On a side note though Im enjoying F.E.A.R 2 more than i have KZ2 so far. But yeah you cant really compare Crysis to KZ2 anyone who has really played Crysis can understand this. Theres just so much going on in crysis that KZ2 engine cant match. Crysis not only looks and plays good. but everything thats going on, all the destruction, the attention to detail. Its allmost real! KZ2 doesnt come close. BTW anyone who baught KZ2 notice how bad the frame rate is at certain points in the game?
I think its an interesting challenge and nice to see where the Crysis engine can go, but another than that I think such a compare is not relevant. Killzone 2 has been created for gaming experience to fit the current gaming scene and experiences within PS3 game development. I dont think the focus was ’super realizm’ or squeezing out the CELL processor till it drops dead – thats a rather a Crysis thing, where you can scale your PC….. can you run this technical comparison on at least 50% of PC’s? 30% of PC’s? Or do you need a quad core CPU, two graphics card and 4GB of RAM? There is simply a different idea behind it. With progressing PC hardware, of course you can always push the limit.
No you need a 2ghz dual core 2GB or ram an 8800GTS < or better
A grand total of around £400 (as has allready been stated in an above post) to run crysis on High.
“Killzone 2 has been created for gaming experience to fit the current gaming scene and experiences within PS3 game development.”
How can this be true when console players are allways crying about there being too many FPS’s.
Your another one of thoe people with ‘inferior hardware knowledge’ that some poster above made reference to. We are fed up of people posting false information and lies to support the PS3. Its why I wont ever buy one. Truth is though the PS3 is a decent console, it had a poor start and no matter how much you argue, the truth is that the 360 has had a better life and much better games. On paper the PS3 is the most powerful console, but is it the best gaming platform? Not even close.
Iv seen so many posts with people expressing their dissapoinment with KZ2 and every single one sound similar to what was posted above. So it looks like KZ2 was an overhyped flying pig shit after all. No surprise there…
the only reason yall thing crysis sucks is because you dont have a good enough computer to run its expensive yes but with high sttings it looks amazing an PSN=najotasi101 i agree with everything you just said but sorry i dont want kz2 enough to buy a ps3
almost everyones comments say its from far cry, you guys are fuckin retards
I don’t see any Far Cry 2 images… Probably edited them out.
lol even Halo2 looks better than Far cry 2. and Killzone2 > crysis 4, sorry fanboys, that’s a fact you all need to face.
and I wish gamespot would take my crysis + C:WH copy for $10. but they won’t.
all of u killzone2 fanboys suck, just admit it because at the moment crysis looks a lot better (when put on ultra high WITH DX10) and by the time killzone 3 is made there will be crysis 2 which will completely pwn killzone again. Killzone creators need to think ahead, becuase by the time they release theyre game, theres alredy better games out there. (CRYSIS CAME OUT 2 YEARS BEFORE KILLZONE 2 AND IS STILL BETTER!)
Killzone 2 looks much better and it’s alot more fun.
Trackbacks
Leave a Reply