PC vs Killzone 2 (graphics)

Crysis is technically most advanced game because it eats hardware uke2:

KZ2 has some slightly worst textures etc but it also has some nice textures for console game



However it is most advanced console game because of its special effects.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSGY4qxF0kI

 

Lol. I wonder where Vinnie has been.

 

I know what you meant. It still cracks me up to this day what people were saying about Crysis prior to it's release. Even though I was more than vindicated, I still can't believe that even with my new rig, it is difficult to run it at Enthusiast level at at my monitor's native resolution.

 

vdtwo: I was talking about KZ2 looks like just another fps, not in graphics but in gameplay. Crysis looks insane but those shots you showed would bring many a top of the line pc to it's knees at my res with aa but awsome screens!

 

Yea classic satch that starts up a whole other argument about it was coded like crap and so on and so forth, For me when ever I can get the money to get my hands on a GTX295 high settings on crysis will be just fine for me. lol. The still make my jaw drop and I know I can get a solid 60fps with 2xaa at 1920 x 1080. Also the only reason I have kept it is for the up coming mods and for me to start learning how to mod. In that since it was worth every bit of the $50 I paid for it but I won't be able to see that until I get my 295 my current cards just aren't giving me the performance in it that I want at the settings I want.

Ankit kukreti: nice shots, I am not in the camp saying the game looks bad or anthing it looks stunning for what it is a console game. I know we PC guys have this thing about us that a game can only look good if it is on a PC and I am not saying that but when people start to compare anything graphicly from the consoles to crysis then they need to be put in their place lol. The game has a great art direction and it looks stunning from what I have seen but in terms of gameplay it looks like anyother fps for mass market. Blood with no wounds, no dismemberment, and only some objects are distrutable. If they weren't trying to sell so many copies to so many ages and just made it adult only I would really be amazed.

 

I know exactly what you're talking about.

 

Peerless: I totally get your point but I guess it's also more like a taboo to compare a game like Crysis to anything graphically , especially to a console that has a 7800 under the hood !
But I have to tell you , Killzone 2 does win the opportunity/luxuary to be compared , even if it's at a loss at that..
Crysis Warhead is my most favorite PC title atm..
But Killzone 2 does alot of beautiful stuff too , it may not have the best or comparable environmental physics etc..
It's clearly not a sandbox game , doesn't have extremely large open areas but at the end of the day it's Graphically one of the best games one could find in the gaming world , coming in second after Crysis..
Also, it runs surprisingly well for the kind of weight it carries..

 

second best for a price of 1 of your gpu's
makes u think ha :infinity:
p.s. warhead is everything but a "sand box" game btw

 

thats a matter of taste imho... tbh GOW2 looks heaps better then gow1 for example has more colour too <3...

but imo its kinda hard to compare these games. all are imo technically almost at same lvl but the artistic style is way different in every game.

i like artistic style of gow more then kz2.

 

Why does it come down to taste when Killzone 2 really does have better graphics then GOW2 , it's a matter of taste following saying if it aint but I dont think it's something to do with taste of I believe Killzone 2 graphically does alot better then GOW2 !

Other then that also if you only compare the physics , lighting effects , you'll be able to understand the difference in standards between the two titles..
The rag doll effect in GOW2 is horrible , also the game has loads of jaggies and looks like a low res Unreal Tournament with some key effects missing..
It's basically a low res version of Unreal with stuff like (Unreal's Rag Doll effect and plenty of other stuff that I dont know how to name missing)
I believe they're at a much different level technically , we're comparing a cut down graphical version of Unreal 2k7 to Killzone 2..
I have GOD2 , Killzone 2 Demo and Unreal 2k7 , hopefully I'm not passing on the wrong judgment here, I'm not the only one saying Kill2 has the best graphics on consoles , lots of reviews are saying the same thing..

Correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm not talking about the Story/Concept/Art but the general graphical aspect.

 

while facts are facts, what a person thinks about a game's presentation is opinionated. Some think Warhead looks better than the original and vice versa, etc. It's like arguing about what fps you're getting that's at a playable level, also opinion-based.

in my opinion killzone 2 does indeed look better than Gears of War 2 (when looking at the effects), but it's not as graphically tantalizing as Crysis and Crysis: Warhead.

 

Well it definitely looks better then GoW2.. I mean the UT3 engine is getting pretty old now, although it can still put out some pretty damn good effects and as always, is the easiest and cheapest solution to develop on.

 

i just tried the demo, i looks very impressive, but its far to grey and black. I dont even see how KZ2 could be compared to Crysis on graphics, theyre nothing alike. Crysis is full of organic objects( very high polycount objects with physics applied, i.e. leaves that bend as you walk through them, also these complex organic shapes increase the lighting calculation ). Killzones environment is like GoW, angular buildings( low polygon count compared to organic )

KZ2 is very impressive for the PS3 but other than the fact that theyre both FPS theyre nothing alike in the graphics department

 

though Mirror's Edge looks amazing, and that's using the UT3 engine.

 

I totally agree with you. I find this comparing of Crysis vs Killzone 2 coming from people with utter and complete lack of understanding what separates those 2 games.

From a technically view, Crysis is a fairly open ended game, with wast areas to roam around in. The share complexity of terrain and fauna with lightning and physics alone is stunning, and not even remotely matched by anything the consoles have to offer. Farcry 2 / GTA 4 both look straight out like an ugly joke to me on the consoles.

Killzone 2 is a shoe box fps viewed through the bottom of two coke bottles with dried coke on, to give the right dark / brownish "war" look. Or to cover up the low res textures and resolution. Whatever you want to believe.

From an artistic point of view, Killzone 2 looks nice. But to hold it up against Crysis as an technical achievement is straight out ignorant.

 

Maybe we should settle this by saying that KZ2 graphics are to the PS3 what Crysis graphics are to PC. They're both outstanding in their own right. The gameplay should be fantastic in KZ2, I'm downloading the demo now yay.

 

MMmmm yes, but at least you can play it straight away, rather than waiting years for hardware to catch up to be able to enjoy it, and even then, the storyline is rather dull.

Not everybody is into pixel peeping the textures, I don't notice it when playing games, especially with things constantly exploding around me, amazing atmosphere, which is incredibly involving.

Maybe uncharted 2 will compare better to Crysis, it will have more "foliage" to drool over

 

Nice try for sarcasm there. No, the OP says: "PC vs Killzone 2 (graphics)" and that is the issue at hand here, not your favored reason to play console games.

As goes for the Uncharted series, they are just not comparable graphics vise. Uncharted is VERY limited in your freedom to move around, like most games of that type are. So when you limit the freedom to go to places you see, then you save tons of rendering power for other things. I only love Crysis for the achievement of "freedom" and keeping such high graphical level on such a grand scale.

Both Uncharted and Killzone are confined to very small areas, and you advance through a very narrow "road", step by step. With pre-scripted events dropping in your head every 5 or so second. That is what allows for decent visuals, and to keep the action going.

If ether the 360 or PS3 had the power to pull of something like Crysis, they would have done so already. Do not fool yourself thinking that they hold back on making such a game on the PS3, because some people (you included), do not like Crysis game play.

As someone so nicely put it, PS3 games are an achievement for the PS3, but holds nothing against what is achievable on todays PC hardware, it is as simple as that.

 

I agree with this, having played the demo yesterday.


Played with my friend on a widescreen HD, the same monitor used for PC games.

Gameplay is normal FPS stuff, lots of explosive barrels, gas canisters, usual FPS fare - not original but pretty fun.

Graphics look good, certainly up there with all best console graphics.

Don't get me wrong - it looks good at "console range", e.g. you sat on your chair far a metre or so from the screen. But for those of you who plug their PS3 into their gaming monitor like we did yesterday, it becomes clear that the textures are low quality, espesically the environment.

These Crysis comparisons are ridiculous - but NOT for the reason everyone is thinking. Bani's final comment is on the mark - the game got that level of graphics by turning down texture quality and resolution. Crysis is hardly the only game which will look better played at "PC distance".

This isn't the fault of anyone - its just how consoles work, I had great fun on little-big-planet but if you sit like its a PC game the lack of resolution really burns.

However, this thread is titled PC V Killzone 2 (graphics) and once again Bani is correct, on those particular terms no fair comparision can be made. Give the Killzone developers a PC to work on, and ah, that would be a better fight.

edit: I totally agree with the post above me, read that!

In any case, before you try and argue with this post take into consideration I have actually tested and played this game, I'm not saying PS3 is bad or anything - I enjoyed both KZ2 and LBP.