Crysis 2 Graphics What? Killzone 3 Still Best Looking FPS

Desz March 19, 2011 PlayStation, PlayStation 3, Xbox

There has been lots of talk around the web regarding the Crysis 2 PS3 and Xbox 360 comparison, some say the Xbox 360 version looks better, while others claim that the PS3 is far superior. While it’s great to have these types of arguments right before the game releases, let’s not forget that the truth is…Killzone 3 wipes the floor with the Crysis 2 console screens and remains the best looking FPS on a console this generation. check out the comparison and screens.

Here are the recent PS3/360 Crysis 2 screens by VGhq, but Look below for the real Graphical King!

Killzone 3 Screens. (Click on Images to see full size)

In conclusion, whether you buy it for the PS3 or Xbox 360, the game will look great, but just remember that there is a bigger beast out in the wild. Unless you get the PC version of course. But you decide.

Killzone 3 is only $24.99 FREE Shipping!

Crysis 2 – PlayStation 3 – $33.19

Crysis 2 Killzone 3

About the Author

I do many things around the TQcast community. I sweep, clean the windows, and from time to time, I take out the trash. My favorite games are, Friday the 13th for the SNES and my favorite cologne is "sex panther" by odion. Catch me on the PSN or Xbox LIVE - "TQcast"

Twitter -

kz3bigshit

kz3 is a big shit
MarkT

You will eat your words when you’ve seen the single player campaign of Crysis 2…
what

I disagree, Killzone 3 has a lot of blur to hide low res textures, and it’s in my opinion that the texture detail is higher in Crysis 2.
Diago

Killzone 3 blows Crysis out of the water on every single front but specialy GFX.
The filters rendered in KZ3 make Crysis look like a Direct X7 game.
Joe

I have to agree, I was not imperssed with the Crysis 2 beta graphics after playing Killzone 3.
Denoch

It’s hard to compare one game like KZ3 to a beta of a game that is not out yet, only upon release can we truly compare both.
fg

KILLZONE 3 IS THE BEST LOOKING GAME EVAR!!!!!!!!!!!onconsoles!!!!!!!!!!!!

as a ps3 pc owner its always fun to see people go on about their 720p, 30fps, tiny fov, linear shooter.

killzone is a fantastic achievement but people like diago are idiots;

“Killzone 3 blows Crysis out of the water on every single front but specialy GFX.
The filters rendered in KZ3 make Crysis look like a Direct X7 game.”

kz = dx 9
crysis = dx 11

besides can you name a multiplat that comes close to crysis? no

its just a damned shame it didnt stay on pc
zarx

comparing a low res animated Gif of multiplayer vs Campaign screens…
classy
SteveM

I agree, Killzone 3′s graphics is much better then Crysis 2. After playing crysis 2 and killzone 3 I would have to agree with this. Every body tought Crysis was a graphical beast turns out the there is even a bigger beast out there.
Guru007

Yes, tell them what is up Desz. Killzone is the shit. Best looking FPS to date.

I
sklorbit

downloaded crysis demo on xbox and was super disappointed. the graphics are good, but not on the same level as killzone 3 or uncharted 2 or even gears 2. there is just nothing special about it, i guess it looks nicer than the average fps, but cmon! killzone 3? nah dog. i noticed a lot of shitty textures in the demo as well, the water looks maybe half as good as killzones, the lighting is a little too drastic, and the character models leave a lot to be desired especially when considering kz3
What is a noob

@What.

Lol… you joking?? Crysis 2 has motion blur and even THAT does not hide its hideous textures…..

Btw, even Lot said killzoneTWO and THRee looks better than 360 Crysis… stop crying
- who uses noob anymore wow
  
  Seriously? Where in that post was I crying you child? I have played Killzone 2, 3 AND Crysis 2, so I can make my own judgements, unlike most of the posters in these comments.
  
  KZ2 definitely doesn’t look as good. And please point me to these “hideous” textures you’re seeing.
  
  Also, good job downvoting anyone that doesn’t hail Killzone 3 as the second coming of christ, you bunch of tools.
FTQ

I don’t get it, what’s the point of showing a low resolution image of Crysis 2 multiplayer in .gif format and then basing a comparison on that? It’s not even a proper screengrab.

And what’s the point of showing these average looking KZ3 screenshot? To show us how washed out the texture is? how low resolution the quarter buffer effects are? How many bad artifacts the MLAA effect causes (on the stairs for example)? How simple the character models are?

KZ3 is an averagely looking game. But if you try to claim that it’s good looking, at least present us with good screenshots. KZ3 has some much better screenshots if you wish showcase its tech while hiding the ugly things and weaknesses of the engine.
masa2009

That comparison is bull. It makes for an easy punchline but lacks any kind of journalistic slant.
By all accounts Crysis 2 will have much larger level design KZ3, which is strictly a scripted corridor shooter.
Crysis will have much more verticality, many more environmental interactions, as well as non linear gunfights.

KZ3 looked great for the most part, but it was as formulaic and restrictive as they come. I own a PS3 but I’m not gonna defend that kind of exclusive that brings nothing to the table, based on glitz alone.

I must admit that Crysis 2 looks a bit underwhelming on the PS3, but let’s see Guerilla achieve the same kind of level design and we’ll talk.
Bob Walker

Even if KZ3 did look better, which we don’t know yet, they both look great. They’re both good enough to the point where a comparison isn’t really necessary. The real question is which will be more fun? In my opinion, Crysis 2 just looks like it would be more enjoyable, even though I love KZ3′s multiplayer.
Thetruth

It’s better to see both games running not screenshots, I remember when I saw the first screenshots of Killzone 2 wasn’t impressive at all, but when you put the game and see it running in front of your eyes damn the thing feels like it’s alive, the dusts, shadows, lightining, the wind… jesus, the same thing happen with Killzone 3, and well I don’t know about Crysis 2 has these effects, but I don’t think I am going to buy it for a console, the best option for that game is PC… but what a PC you should have to run that thing…
solid snake

Crytek have been exaggerating how good the game was running on PS3,down playing every other developers game engine that runs on PS3,was very secretive about the PS3 version for months well other versions were being showed off months earlier & didn’t show it until it got closer to release so obviously they eat their own words & failed to top other developers work on PS3 & max out the hardware so they deserve all the criticism they get they made their own bed so they can lay in it too.
Brian

Crysis 2 is a much more impressive console game and it’s largly due to the lighting system which is beyond what either Killzone 2 or 3 bring to the table.

The AA solution in Killzone 3 is also really terrible and I have no idea why they didn’t use the same from Killzone 2.

The PS3 version of Crysis 2 runs at some stupid low resolution which makes the game look worse upscaled. The 360 version runs at a much higher resolution and the Single Player campaign is absolutely stunning.
TheFatherofLies

While there are better fps’s out there, in broader terms KZ3 is probably the graphical titan of consoles atm. It’s single player is especially stunning. Despite looking quite good across all consoles I think Crysis 2 will likely fall short of it’s claim of beauty pageant champion, PC version of course has a natural advantage and should mop the floor up with both consoles.
PS3 SUCKS

Battlefield 3 will pwn both games in graphics & gameplay…just wait & see
jeegee

tch! kz3 is great on ps fair enough, but crysis2 on pc (a gaming pc/decent spec pc) is much nicer graphically. yes, imho, kz3 is the best looking fps on any console (i say any, but we mean 360 or ps3 yeah??) but you cant expect a console in its fifth year to out perform a pc upgraded last year….. the difference between having 2 relatively cheap 1gb gfx cards in SLI + 4gb fastram with a still quite cheap quad core (or even a speedy dual core) and a 5yr old chipset is MASSIVE! i say all this as a Sony fanboy too!
i guess when sony/ms introduce an expandable console (ie their own pc), the days of console limitations will be exceeded. and yes i am aware both companies have been in the home computer game before…. ^^
kz ftw, death to lame cod, and a pox on halo!
Riseer

Lol Kz3 has no blur at all,if you would lay off the drugs you could see that.
Heimdall

maybe Kz3 looks better, but as a game is awful compared to second part.
Snippy

Crysis 2 renders a vast majority of its lighting in real time, where as Killzone 3 still relies on Beast’s lightmaps. Technically speaking, Crysis 2 has far, far better graphics. With hardware improvements, CryEngine 3 can be scaled up.
Snippy

Also, just check out this. http://crytek.com/assets/Crysis-2-Key-Rendering-Features.pdf
Ondine

Can people stop pretending that graphics in beta versions of games are vastly different from the final releases? They NEVER are! That goes for Crysis 2 AND Killzone 3. Also… stop using tech specs to argue which game looks better! How about you use your eyes for once?? Clearly, KZ3 looks better (at least as far as consoles, that’s for sure).
DaLeGiT$hiT

now that both games are out, kz3 still looks better.
jj123

Kz3 one of few pure ps3 FPS for ps3 player. it make you want to kill someone again and again, and you have visualy feeling to shooting enemies

Crysis 2 is nothing different with tons of Fps in ps3,Xbox 360 and pc. This game would make you throw the controller hardly on the ground,and you fell nothing but boring to shooting enemies

I have been play both, and that is my result, I cannot finished the Crysis2 because it is horrible and overrate
ss

crysis 2 on console looks like crap compared to killzone . killzone 3 looks much, mcuh better. people who hate on killzone 3 are just xbox fanboiz…