Support NeoGAF

[Nikorasu]

apart from a few rts, and perhaps farcry 2, there really aren't many pc games in the same stratosphere as crysis... those two new space mmos look incredible though

ME looks nice on pc, but there are quite a lot of better looking games...even gears looks better by a fair margin

GET OUT OF HERE STALKER.

Also, Empire total war is stunning.

 

[SolidSnakex]

 

[Gully State]

Mirror's Edge looks ridiculously good on PC. AA makes a huge difference in this title because the art style has such an emphasis on clean lines.

 

[SapientWolf]

:lol

That's best graphics of this gen?

Some of these posts, sheesh.

That question is highly subjective. In fact, I would be extremely disappointed if everyone simply parroted the same one or two games. If you asked people which movie had the best visuals you would get tons of different answers. So why should games be any different?

The groupthink and fanboyism has turned what could have been a great thread into a boring rehash of the same tired arguments.

 

[J-Rzez]

oh cool, it's drab and gray outside, too. nice to know they didn't want to scare the console kiddies by giving them some varied colors. I'm only going off media released of the game because there's no way I'd buy a $400 console to play inferior controlled shooters and one SRPG. maybe there are some more exciting brown and gray and gunmetal colored levels that take place in other environments!

Now you're pushing it. Is it actually scaring you that controllers are becoming a preference to many? And the $400 comment on two games is pretty lame too, there's more than enough games on that machine now that impress and are damn fun. And sorry it's not all rainbow land, as it's a ravaged dying planet.

I enjoy my PC games too for the visuals, I just find it funny how offended some people are that a console game can actually be mentioned in the same breath as a PC tech showpiece is. Sorry, but it's not hard to grasp that KZ2 is a top looking game, and to people the art will push it beyond Crysis not necessarily as a tech display, but overall visual package. "Console kiddies" is telling too, shows how scared people are over a closed box that is actually a powerhouse that can put out games to compete with PCs. Maybe to some the $400 machine with a lot of good games that also can look incredible is worth more than a $800+ machine to play Crysis and others.

Now get back to grinding emblems or shards so you can get your alt some shoulders for that 10% xp gain which takes a lot of the pain out of leveling. (If I remember that was you )

 

[blackMamba1187]

360: Gears of War 2, Res Evil 5
PS3: Killzone 2, Uncharted, Naruto UNS
Wii: Mario Galaxy
PC: Crysis/Warhead

Multiplatform games almost always look stunning on PC, but they look great on consoles as well: Assassin's Creed, Bioshock, Prince of Persia, DMC4, FC2, Mass Effect

 

[Shins]

(about the only thing it's "guilty" of is not featuring any colorful vegetation, which sort of makes sense given the setting).

convenient

 

[charsace]

apart from a few rts, and perhaps farcry 2, there really aren't many pc games in the same stratosphere as crysis... those two new space mmos look incredible though

ME looks nice on pc, but there are quite a lot of better looking games...even gears looks better by a fair margin

Hell no. ME has some great textures and high poly models.

 

[[Nintex]]

Now you're pushing it. Is it actually scaring you that controllers are becoming a preference to many? And the $400 comment on two games is pretty lame too, there's more than enough games on that machine now that impress and are damn fun. And sorry it's not all rainbow land, as it's a ravaged dying planet.

I enjoy my PC games too for the visuals, I just find it funny how offended some people are that a console game can actually be mentioned in the same breath as a PC tech showpiece is. Sorry, but it's not hard to grasp that KZ2 is a top looking game, and to people the art will push it beyond Crysis not necessarily as a tech display, but overall visual package. "Console kiddies" is telling too, shows how scared people are over a closed box that is actually a powerhouse that can put out games to compete with PCs. Maybe to some the $400 machine with a lot of good games that also can look incredible is worth more than a $800+ machine to play Crysis and others.

Now get back to grinding emblems or shards so you can get your alt some shoulders for that 10% xp gain which takes a lot of the pain out of leveling. (If I remember that was you )

It doesn't matter now what happens, I will never give up the fight!

 

[Minsc]

That question is highly subjective. In fact, I would be extremely disappointed if everyone simply parroted the same one or two games. If you asked people which movie had the best visuals you would get tons of different answers. So why should games be any different?

The groupthink and fanboyism has turned what could have been a great thread into a boring rehash of the same tired arguments.

There's nothing subjective about lack of pixels, AA, and polygons and textures, all extremely absent in that screenshot.

I don't see how you could even consider anything running at sub 1080p, 4xAA (preferably 16), and games which exhibit sub 30 fps framerates or tearing, just to name a few things which should be inexcusable in this contest.

 

[Dabookerman]

While Halo 3 isn't the best looking game on a technical level, I always loved it when matchmaking picks out Standoff.
Halo 3 has one of the best lighting engines this gen, that's for sure.

 

[Nikorasu]

I enjoy my PC games too for the visuals, I just find it funny how offended some people are that a console game can actually be mentioned in the same breath as a PC tech showpiece is. Sorry, but it's not hard to grasp that KZ2 is a top looking game, and to people the art will push it beyond Crysis not necessarily as a tech display, but overall visual package. "Console kiddies" is telling too, shows how scared people are over a closed box that is actually a powerhouse that can put out games to compete with PCs. Maybe to some the $400 machine with a lot of good games that also can look incredible is worth more than a $800+ machine to play Crysis and others.

The only thing that is really 'offensive' (if you can call it that) is the insistence on calling Crysis a mere tech demo. But really, the OP didn't specify any sort of focus for the discussion so it's inevitable that it will go all over the place. I would love a thread where people present games that are impressive for their incredible art and presentation regardless of technical limitations, but without a focus people start criticizing other games for image quality and technicalities and that inevitably leads to the Crysis card and the cycle repeats.

 

[mentalfloss]

There's nothing subjective about lack of pixels, AA, and polygons and textures, all extremely absent in that screenshot.

I don't see how you could even consider anything running at sub 1080p, 4xAA (preferably 16), and games which exhibit sub 30 fps framerates or tearing, just to name a few things which should be inexcusable in this contest.

I disagree. Killzone 2 is a pretty fugly game, imo.

 

[CitizenCope]

I missed the last 20 pages. Did the majority agree with me that Bioshock is tops?

 

[[Nintex]]

I missed the last 20 pages. Did the majority agree with me that Bioshock is tops?

I think we all agree that Banjo looks best on consoles.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

There's nothing subjective about lack of pixels, AA, and polygons and textures, all extremely absent in that screenshot.

I don't see how you could even consider anything running at sub 1080p, 4xAA (preferably 16), and games which exhibit sub 30 fps framerates or tearing, just to name a few things which should be inexcusable in this contest.

This argument strikes me as borderline necrophiliac. If a game is attractive and stylistically well crafted, which the game in question is, then you'd have to slightly dead, or in love with what slightly to fully dead, to exclude it on the basis of technological shortcomings. There are scores of PC games that I could run at the "required" settings, yet they are nowhere near as attractive no matter how far I crank up the resolution. To me, it's more about craftsmanship, strong direction and a sense of balance.

 

[jett]

Mirror's Edge is beautiful in ways Crysis can never be...

Although it'd be interesting to see someone try to make a custom map in Crysis with a ME asthetic.

 

[h3ro]

I disagree. Killzone 2 is a pretty fugly game, imo.

I disagree. Mortal Kombat is a very good game, but I think Donkey Kong is the best game ever.

 

[MvmntInGrn]

These threads always come down to this.

Insult trading since visuals are either looked at artistically or technically.

 

[antiloop]

There can't be just one.

 

[Dever]

I genuinely hope most of you are just trolling by now, this thread is retarded. :lol

 

[Rad Agast]

Lacking in detail? Maybe, but that doesn't change the fact that ME is one of the better-looking UE3 games on the market. The game has stunning scenery.

Maybe I used the wrong expression? The level of detail on the character models is way better than the rest of the environment (especially during the side quest planets). Played the game to completion 7 times now so I can't say I don't enjoy it but Gears 2 is more impressive when you look at the the full picture.

Having said all that, I can't wait for ME 2

 

[Esch]

Some people find it really really hard to acknowledge that Killzone 2 looks beautiful. It's always cute how they go after the color pallette as well. That complaint in particular has always struck me as quite stupid, because anyone who's played the game through can easily note the color diversity in the game. Sure, that color might be desaturated and each individual level may not have an abundance of every color, but to pin the entire game as monotonous gray is an uninformed statement.

 

[Kadey]

PC screenshots should only be posted by people's own setup & from the retail game.

All screenshots posted by me are all my setups, unless noted.

 

[thelastword]

Crysis is a great looking game, but I want to interprete great graphics as what we see on screen, rather than how much power a game can draw from a typical GTX 295.

In my opinion, KZ2 and UNCHARTED are more impressive than what I witnessed in Crysis. With Crysis, there was the initial WOW. I mean the first time I saw it running on my PC, (opening plane scene, halo jump etc..down to the beach side..to the forest...IMPRESSIVE), but that was what Crysis looked like for the most part. When I got to the snow section that looked amazing too, maybe even moreso than the prior part, but that was basically it in terms of WOW moments.

One thing can't be denied though, as amazing a looker as Crysis is, vegetation in the game is pretty much the same throughout, also; the detail on vehicles, explosions and destructability, lighting and effects are not as impressive as what's shown in KZ2. Trees all break in a cookie cutter fashion in Crysis which can look a bit repetitive and jarring. I've heard some mention on textures, well, the people who are trying to knock KZ2's textures are pushing it, because these are some of the best textures in a shooter today, up close they really stand up. Crysis textures are amazing too, but there was this section near a small boating dock that really looked sloppy to me, sand and water looks AMAZING in Crysis, but rocks need some work.

In essence there's always something to nitpick in graphics, but I believe we must be a bit more level headed with our blows everything out of the water comments. In terms of shooters, Crysis does some things better and KZ2 does some things better, nothing blows anything OUT OF THE STRATOSPHERE between those games. IMO, it all boils down to scale against more conservative levels.

Having said all that, UNCHARTED had the most WOW moments ever for me this gen, still have to play MGS4 (though I've had it day 1). Just platinumed UC recently and boy does it hold up, it could be easily argued as the best looking game to date. I remember when I first played it, I was really floored by the fortress level, the lighting at the customs warehouse, the detail in the underground caves when the flashlight lit it up etc etc. Replaying it again recently, I was wowed by the lighting in chapter 21, that's when you come back to the church to face the final onslaught. The lighting typified the wake of morn and it's probably the most impressive I've seen in terms of believability, and yes, the last level impresses time and time again, with the rainfall and the last cutscene is the best I've seen in a game to date.

Point is we can all argue, what uses the most specs out of which or what. I've presented what has impressed me from a visual standpoint, I don't care how it's done, just that it's done. The variety of the environs, the best texture work in the biz and some of the most impressive lit scenes makes UNCHARTED the most impressive game IMO.

 

[Chinner]

Maybe I used the wrong expression? The level of detail on the character models is way better than the rest of the environment (especially during the side quest planets). Played the game to completion 7 times now so I can't say I don't enjoy it but Gears 2 is more impressive when you look at the the full picture.

Having said all that, I can't wait for ME 2

Well of course GOW2 looks more 'impressive'. It came out a year after ME with the upgraded UE3 engine and the developers knew how to use it (as opposed to Bioware who struggled to get their shit together). GOW2 may be more impressive technically, but the art style is butt ugly compared to ME.

Anyway, from the sounds of it development for ME2 is going smoothly and the videos we do have do show a more concrete fps, but we'll find out more at E3 I guess.

ME looks nice on pc, but there are quite a lot of better looking games...even gears looks better by a fair margin

No. ME1 looks better than Gears1.

 

[Minsc]

This argument strikes me as borderline necrophiliac. If a game is attractive and stylistically well crafted, which the game in question is, then you'd have to slightly dead, or in love with what slightly to fully dead, to exclude it on the basis of technological shortcomings. There are scores of PC games that I could run at the "required" settings, yet they are nowhere near as attractive no matter how far I crank up the resolution. To me, it's more about craftsmanship, strong direction and a sense of balance.

You need rules for a contest. There's nothing about 1080p, proper AA, high quality textures, and 30+ fps which should pose a problem to a game in 2009. We were gaming at ~1080p back with quake, no reason why you have to make sacrifices to accommodate developers and hardware that aren't up to the task in producing top notch graphics.

Besides the OP is titled BEST graphics, not good graphics for limited hardware.

 

[Majmun]

I think we all agree that Banjo looks best on consoles.

Not really. :lol

 

[tfur]

You need rules for a contest. There's nothing about 1080p, proper AA, high quality textures, and 30+ fps which should pose a problem to a game in 2009. We were gaming at ~1080p back with quake and doom, no reason why you have to make sacrifices to accommodate developers and hardware that aren't up to the task in producing top notch graphics.

Besides the OP is titled BEST graphics, not good graphics for limited hardware.

That is bit of revisionist history.

 

[[Nintex]]

Crysis is a great looking game, but I want to interprete great graphics as what we see on screen, rather than how much power a game can draw from a typical GTX 295.

In my opinion, KZ2 and UNCHARTED are more impressive than what I witnessed in Crysis. With Crysis, there was the initial WOW. I mean the first time I saw it running on my PC, (opening plane scene, halo jump etc..down to the beach side..to the forest...IMPRESSIVE), but that was what Crysis looked like for the most part. When I got to the snow section that looked amazing too, maybe even moreso than the prior part, but that was basically it in terms of WOW moments.

One thing can't be denied though, as amazing a looker as Crysis is, vegetation in the game is pretty much the same throughout, also; the detail on vehicles, explosions and destructability, lighting and effects are not as impressive as what's shown in KZ2. Trees all break in a cookie cutter fashion in Crysis which can look a bit repetitive and jarring. I've heard some mention on textures, well, the people who are trying to knock KZ2's textures are pushing it, because these are some of the best textures in a shooter today, up close they really stand up. Crysis textures are amazing too, but there was this section near a small boating dock that really looked sloppy to me, sand and water looks AMAZING in Crysis, but rocks need some work.

In essence there's always something to nitpick in graphics, but I believe we must be a bit more level headed with our blows everything out of the water comments. In terms of shooters, Crysis does some things better and KZ2 does some things better, nothing blows anything OUT OF THE STRATOSPHERE between those games. IMO, it all boils down to scale against more conservative levels.

Having said all that, UNCHARTED had the most WOW moments ever for me this gen, still have to play MGS4 (though I've had it day 1). Just platinumed UC recently and boy does it hold up, it could be easily argued as the best looking game to date. I remember when I first played it, I was really floored by the fortress level, the lighting at the customs warehouse, the detail in the underground caves when the flashlight lit it up etc etc. Replaying it again recently, I was wowed by the lighting in chapter 21, that's when you come back to the church to face the final onslaught. The lighting typified the wake of morn and it's probably the most impressive I've seen in terms of believability, and yes, the last level impresses time and time again, with the rainfall and the last cutscene is the best I've seen in a game to date.

Point is we can all argue, what uses the most specs out of which or what. I've presented what has impressed me from a visual standpoint, I don't care how it's done, just that it's done. The variety of the environs, the best texture work in the biz and some of the most impressive lit scenes makes UNCHARTED the most impressive game IMO.

When all alone in my sleep, I just go about dreaming

 

[Esch]

One thing can't be denied though, as amazing a looker as Crysis is, vegetation in the game is pretty much the same throughout, also; the detail on vehicles, explosions and destructability, lighting and effects are not as impressive as what's shown in KZ2. Trees all break in a cookie cutter fashion in Crysis which can look a bit repetitive and jarring. I've heard some mention on textures, well, the people who are trying to knock KZ2's textures are pushing it, because these are some of the best textures in a shooter today, up close they really stand up. Crysis textures are amazing too, but there was this section near a small boating dock that really looked sloppy to me, sand and water looks AMAZING in Crysis, but rocks need some work.

Oh come on now. I prefer Killzone over Crysis visually for sure, but in terms of effects work Crysis slays Killzone. Those DX10 explosions are nothing short of incredible. As for lighting, Crysis has HDR and Killzone doesn't. KZ2 might be capable of more dynamic lights, but the overall quality of lighting is superior in Crysis. I don't even see how you can say Crysis loses when it comes to destructability either, that one just seems like a no-brainer to me. As for Crysis lacking some small scale detail, what the fuck do you expect? The environments in each level are huge, how could they not skimp on the detail in some sections? It's incredible that they do have the LoD that they have now.

 

[Minsc]

That is bit of revisionist history.

Guess the revisionist history did get the best of me, I'm spoiled by the modern front ends, which do run Quake & DooM in 1080p, but at least Quake ran in 1024x768 back in the day, though I remember having running a 1600x1200 display back then, and I could have sworn I ran it at that maximum resolution, but I guess maybe I'm confusing it with quake 2 or counterstrike.

 

[Haunted]

The screens are the best thing that's come out of this thread. I've splooged over the Mirror's Edge/PoP and Crysis (omg unbeatable) ones already, so it's only fair to say that some of those Killzone screens jett posted are also gorgeous.

The first desert level in SP (with the wind turbines before entering Suljeva village) is definitely the best looking and most impressive segment of the game (bar the opening cutscene).

:lol how many sony exclusives have been mentioned?

All of them.

I missed the last 20 pages. Did the majority agree with me that Bioshock is tops?

Wait, modified Unreal Engine 2 games are eligible now? Red Steel! Red Steel!

Also, WE GET IT. CRYSIS WINS.

Can we switch this over to console specific screen shots now?

Fuck no!

This thread has been an awesome screenshot war so far - who'd be so stupid as to remove the best looking ones?

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

You need rules for a contest. There's nothing about 1080p, proper AA, high quality textures, and 30+ fps which should pose a problem to a game in 2009. We were gaming at ~1080p back with quake, no reason why you have to make sacrifices to accommodate developers and hardware that aren't up to the task in producing top notch graphics.

That is of course if you see it as a contest, and one that can be accurately judged. The problem then is that you would need to find a system that also measures craftsmanship, direction and balance. Stating that a game is disqualified because it lacks technical features would mean that a somewhat bumpy wall rendered in 1080p and with perfect IQ is superior to a game like the one that sparked the debate. No reasonable person would suggest this.

Alternatively, you can accept that the graphics debate has one subjective element too many to actually ever be resolved, and enjoy talking about very pretty games.

 

[Esch]

The first desert level in SP (with the wind turbines before entering Suljeva village) is definitely the best looking and most impressive segment of the game (bar the opening cutscene).

I'd give it to the

Spoiler

mech level personally. Suljeva might look a little better but tearing stuff up in that machine is awesome, and that level is packed with destructable structures, explosions, and flying bodies.

 

[RedRedSuit]

convenient

The lack of jungle in any graphically advanced game is "convenient"?

The game does plenty of advanced stuff to compensate for having lots of pretty trees.

 

[Rad Agast]

Guess the revisionist history did get the best of me, I'm spoiled by the modern front ends, which do run Quake & DooM in 1080p, but at least Quake ran in 1024x768 back in the day, though I remember having running a 1600x1200 display back then, and I could have sworn I ran it at that maximum resolution, but I guess maybe I'm confusing it with quake 2 or counterstrike.

Are you sure you're not confusing the time-line a bit? The res settings sound like the Quake 3 days to me.

 

[tfur]

Guess the revisionist history did get the best of me, I'm spoiled by the modern front ends, which do run Quake & DooM in 1080p, but at least Quake ran in 1024x768 back in the day, though I remember having running a 1600x1200 display back then, and I could have sworn I ran it at that maximum resolution, but I guess maybe I'm confusing it with quake 2 or counterstrike.

Yeah, I am pretty sure the first GLquake had a default res of 640x400. I remember tweeking the crap out of my Voodoo 1 card to get a decent performance.

The longevity of quake 1 and quake 2 allowed for generations of cpus and 3D cards to "catch up" to the 3D demands.

 

[Haunted]

I'd give it to the

Spoiler

mech level personally. Suljeva might look a little better but tearing stuff up in that machine is awesome, and that level is packed with destructable structures, explosions, and flying bodies.

While it might've been more fun than the village, I didn't think the brown cliffs everywhere came even close to the amazing modelling on the turbines and the atmosphere in the village. And gameplay-wise... I thought the second mech level in FEAR 2 (which I played around the same time) was more fun, there was much more shit happening on screen then in Killzone, which was actually pretty tame (never more than 7-8 Helghast on screen, only two tanks at the same time, etc.) in comparison.


After the Badlands, the first level on the ISA cruiser would be my top choice for best looking Killzone environments.

 

[Spoit]

I don't understand the "Crysis obviously looks the best so that automatically excludes all other PC games" mentality. There are tons of games (even console ports) you have to consider before you even start getting into console exclusives.

The texture work in Mirror's edge PC is some of the best I've seen, too bad they don't use SSAO like crysis. Also, the addition of AA helps imensely with the IQ compared to the console versions. Also, while completely gratuitous, physix

 

[Esch]

While it might've been more fun than the village, I didn't think the brown cliffs everywhere came even close to the amazing modelling on the turbines and the atmosphere in the village. And gameplay-wise... I thought the second mech level in FEAR 2 (which I played around the same time) was more fun, there was much more shit happening on screen then in Killzone, which was actually pretty tame (never more than 7-8 Helghast on screen, only two tanks at the same time, etc.) in comparison.


After the Badlands, the first level on the ISA cruiser would be my top choice for best looking Killzone environments.

Ah. You've definitely got a point about the atmosphere of the village(the post-proc really shines there imo). As for the F2 v K2 mech-off, I'm giving it to K2 because i fucking hate the HUD and display of the Fear 2 mech, it makes firefights confusing as hell for me. I'd also say that the K2 mech is much more mobile. I can't quite recall how many soldiers onscreen there are in that level, but i'm sure it's more than 8ish. I'll have to replay that section.

EDIT: Visari Palace is pretty impressive actually. A lot going on there, and it showcases the game's fire effects.

 

[eso76]

why the hell is lack of colour being considered a technical shortcoming now ???
do some of you guys think current gen hardware finds it easier to run a game without red and orange ?

are you guys just saying "game x doesn't look appealing to me because everything is green or brown or gray" ? in that case 1) entirely subjective 2) why is the focus constantly, conveniently switching between what's technically impressive and what looks good ?

 

[Nikorasu]

why the hell is lack of colour being considered a technical shortcoming now ???
do some of you guys think current gen hardware finds it easier to run a game without red and orange ?

:lol well said. But again, this is just people going back and forth between visual preference and actual technical proficiency. Thread has no focus.

 

[Cuth]

Some people find it really really hard to acknowledge that Killzone 2 looks beautiful. It's always cute how they go after the color pallette as well. That complaint in particular has always struck me as quite stupid, because anyone who's played the game through can easily note the color diversity in the game. Sure, that color might be desaturated and each individual level may not have an abundance of every color, but to pin the entire game as monotonous gray is an uninformed statement.

It certainly looks great. Still, maybe the people you're referring to just don't know the right way to describe what they see as a lack of variety.
I think they're referring to the fact that KZ2 is limited to a single lighting model on all objects, "thanks" to its deferred renderer engine. It certainly has less variety in that compared to other games.

 

[teepo]

why the hell is lack of colour being considered a technical shortcoming now ???
do some of you guys think current gen hardware finds it easier to run a game without red and orange ?

are you guys just saying "game x doesn't look appealing to me because everything is green or brown or gray" ? in that case 1) entirely subjective 2) why is the focus constantly, conveniently switching between what's technically impressive and what looks good ?

LOGIC? RATIONALITY? DOES NOT COMPUTE

 

[Minsc]

Yeah, I am pretty sure the first GLquake had a default res of 640x400. I remember tweeking the crap out of my Voodoo 1 card to get a decent performance.

The longevity of quake 1 and quake 2 allowed for generations of cpus and 3D cards to "catch up" to the 3D demands.

Yeah, I remember owning a Voodoo 2 (ran it SLI for a while too), and this site seems to confirm earlier versions did support 1024x768 while running SLI Voodoo 2s. I probably did run 800x600 & 640x480 as well it seems, but damnit if I can't remember much else, the Voodoo 2 was the only graphics card I've ever had running in SLI.

 

[Zeliard]

One thing can't be denied though, as amazing a looker as Crysis is, vegetation in the game is pretty much the same throughout, also; the detail on vehicles, explosions and destructability, lighting and effects are not as impressive as what's shown in KZ2. Trees all break in a cookie cutter fashion in Crysis which can look a bit repetitive and jarring. I've heard some mention on textures, well, the people who are trying to knock KZ2's textures are pushing it, because these are some of the best textures in a shooter today, up close they really stand up. Crysis textures are amazing too, but there was this section near a small boating dock that really looked sloppy to me, sand and water looks AMAZING in Crysis, but rocks need some work.

:lol

 

[thelastword]

Oh come on now. I prefer Killzone over Crysis visually for sure, but in terms of effects work Crysis slays Killzone. Those DX10 explosions are nothing short of incredible. As for lighting, Crysis has HDR and Killzone doesn't. KZ2 might be capable of more dynamic lights, but the overall quality of lighting is superior in Crysis. I don't even see how you can say Crysis loses when it comes to destructability either, that one just seems like a no-brainer to me. As for Crysis lacking some small scale detail, what the fuck do you expect? The environments in each level are huge, how could they not skimp on the detail in some sections? It's incredible that they do have the LoD that they have now.

There's no doubt that Crysis has impressive explosions, but the after effects after that explosion are not as detailed as in KZ2. In essence, the rubble effects and debris on ground after you've shot through a wall or the detailed after effects of a rocket boom blast are more detailed and believable in KZ2.


One thing I've witnessed on many forums is that certain graphical terms are used as automatic benchmark setters, but let me tell you, that is not always the case in graphical discussions of know. I will only attempt to argue this from a logical standpoint though, or perhaps I'll just ask you a question or two. Do you think that implementing typical "HDR" into KZ2's dark foreboding environments would have been the best lighting implementation for it? Would plopping HDR lighting into KZ2's engine mix, make it a better lit game? Do you think a game's lighting is automatically inferior because the godly "HDR" lighting wasn't used? I'll leave you to ponder. Still I'll just say this. It seems somewhat festered in your mind that the dynamic lighting in KZ2 is inferior to "your typical" "HDR" at least the implementations on consoles and PC so far, but that is so far from the truth, technologies evolve all the time and the lighting in KZ2 is easily one of the most impressive uses of light technology in a VG.

 

[BruceLeeRoy]

While it might've been more fun than the village, I didn't think the brown cliffs everywhere came even close to the amazing modelling on the turbines and the atmosphere in the village. And gameplay-wise... I thought the second mech level in FEAR 2 (which I played around the same time) was more fun, there was much more shit happening on screen then in Killzone, which was actually pretty tame (never more than 7-8 Helghast on screen, only two tanks at the same time, etc.) in comparison.


After the Badlands, the first level on the ISA cruiser would be my top choice for best looking Killzone environments.

The first time you come up to the bridge and you see the other ISA cruisers all along the skyline on fire with really bright oranges and reds contrasted against the soft blue of the bridge is my favorite visual moment in the game.

 

[Nikorasu]

One thing I've witnessed on many forums is that certain graphical terms are used as automatic benchmark setters, but let me tell you, that is not always the case in graphical discussions of know. I will only attempt to argue this from a logical standpoint though, or perhaps I'll just ask you a question or two. Do you think that implementing typical "HDR" into KZ2's dark foreboding environments would have been the best lighting implementation for it? Would plopping HDR lighting into KZ2's engine mix, make it a better lit game? Do you think a game's lighting is automatically inferior because the godly "HDR" lighting wasn't used? I'll leave you to ponder. Still I'll just say this. It seems somewhat festered in your mind that the dynamic lighting in KZ2 is inferior to "your typical" "HDR" at least the implementations on consoles and PC so far, but that is so far from the truth, technologies evolve all the time and the lighting in KZ2 is easily one of the most impressive uses of light technology in a VG.

HDR isn't a lighting model in the sense that you seem to think it is. It has nothing to do with the lighting of the actual environment, it just keeps the contrast between light and dark at a certain level. Not all implementations of HDR are equally good, but technically any HDR would give a tangible benefit to the appearance of any game. And I'm pretty sure KZ2 uses a form of HDR as it is.