Modern Warfare 2 graphics close to photorealism with downsampling

The guys at PCGH show screenshots of Modern Warfare 2, originally screenshotted in 3.360 x 1.200 with so-called downsampling LCD techniques (essentially you force the LCD to use a higher internal resolution and then output it at the native res). The outcome is spectacular according to PCGH as jaggies are not visible anymore and the pictures come close to photorealism.

[Nambassa]

The shots look impressive but nowhere near photo-realism.
The graphics still can't hold a candle to Crysis, Killzone 2 or Uncharted 2.

[JsonHenry]

I think STALKER: Call of Pripyat in DX11 is about the best looking I have seen to date it terms of lighting/environment looking photo realistic at high resolutions.

[Saaking]

lol

[nycredude]

Lately N4g has gotten me thinking about a question I saw a long time ago. "Does too much video games make you stupid?"

To which I say, one needs only spend some time on N4g to find the answer to that, and unfortunately I have to say... a resounding YES!

Edit: This isn't entirely based on this one article, it's just an observation of mine. On topic, though Even the pc version of MW2 on high settings would never in a million years be mistaken for Real life. This is s joke.

[Maddens Raiders]

...so this is what photorealism is? wow, I guess this is why it got a 10 in graphics.

Uncharted 2 never stood a chance. /sarc

[Trebius]

But come on...

Lets be real here...

You really think thats even CLOSE to photo-realism?

Im just glad i'm not the only one that disagrees...

[PS3PCFTW]

they should hype the 3.5 hour campaign.

[edgeofblade]

Once again, people confuse framerate and fidelity. Honestly, I prefer framerate. I like it smooth, minimal tearing, and 60 frames per second minimum. After that, I want it to be in HD, at any level as long as it's 720p or higher. And after THAT, I want high-rez textures and mapping. (For example, Goldeneye 007 is an unplayable mess, since it chugs at like 15 FPS inconsistently.)

But we should not confuse framerate with photo realism. When you get down to it, the textures and facial animation in MW2, in particular, are not all that photo realistic.

All that being said, I think 60 frames consistent is more important to visuals than textures or even HD. I'm the kind of person who buys TV's with dejudder (120Hz) processing because I like my movies to be buttery smooth. That should be hailed as the next jump beyond HD, not gimmicky 3DTV. And in this day and age, if our game machines are so advanced, why can't we deliver this framerate on every game?

In short, I think this guy should care more about the game in motion, but yes, I think more games should look like MW2.

And yes, MW2 "holds a candle" to all those PS3 games because those PS3 games don't maintain a consistent 60 FPS, unless it's a PC.

[PinkUni]

just saw a video on it right now

and it really doesn't look that good, honestly it reminds me of cod4 on the overall layout

maybe the texturing is realistic but when you look at it like a screenshot in the layout of the game it doesn't look very advanced in realism

you should take a look at "The Last Guardian" for ps3

the little boy may look all that realistic but the creature is far more advanced then anything i've seen on a pc game

[DiffusionE]

WHOA! Don't try to divert the topic. We're talking about "photo-realistic graphics", which MW2 is nowhere near achieving. Frame-rates are not the issue here.

"...I think more games should look like MW2."

lol....if Crysis 2 looks anything like MW2, Crytek better be prepared for a civil war.

Anyway, more games are gonna look like MW2. Games like MW3, MW4, MW5, MW6, MW7, MW8 and MW9 will all still look like MW2, so don't worry.
*faceplam*

[nycredude]

Edgeofblade

I agree with you that framerate is very important and achieving 60 fps is no small feat, even on today's hardware, but I wouldn't sacrafice resolution AND texture quality to achieve it, which is clearly what COD MW2 does!

I would much rather have 30 fps, high def, and hig quality textures! Think Uncharted 2 and you'll know what I mean. Imaging MW2 with UC2 graphics!

And don't forget Killzone 2, which I think is more of a technical marvel than UC2.

[Information Minister]

Sorry edgeofblade but it looks like you don't have a clue about what you're talking about. In fact you are contradicting yourself. First you claim that "we should not confuse framerate with photo realism", but then you say "60 frames consistent is more important to visuals than textures or even HD". So which is it?

Perhaps you should look for the word "photorealism" on a good dictionary. You will see that frame rate has nothing to do with it. And I have no idea where you got that from, but I know exactly WHY you said that MW2 is visually comparable to those acclaimed PS3 exclusives. Maybe you should just stick to Halo.

By the way, this is a little off topic, but did you guys realize that the PS3 version of MW2 defaults to 1080p (upscaled obviously) if you've got your system connected to a full HD set? That's interesting considering that COD4 would only do that if you removed the 720p option and forced the game to run in 1080p.

[Elaine Benes]

Are retarded.

UC2.....Lmao

[Hellsvacancy]

They r photo realistic cant u c, there photo realistic pics of game, not photo realistic pics of summin real

U want photo realism look at GT5

[kevoncox]

Modern Warfare looks better than Killzone 2. It's easy to create an Alien world with nothing in it than to create a realistic modern day enviroment. I believe the character models to be better looking and the enviroments to be more life like. I have a ps3 and killzone 2 and it has been surpassed.

[bednet]

ok, if you say so!

[IdleLeeSiuLung]

I think edgeofblade meant that a locked high frame rate at 60fps ensure smooth viewing experience i.e. affecting what you see on the screen, just not in the "photorealism" sense, but in the animation sense. In my opinion both are visual though.

I agree with edge of blade on the preference on higher frame rate as opposed to higher resolution. After all, I like to have my games be responsive and I know of quite a few games that in my book fail because they are just chugging along.

Can I say Mass Effect and Heavenly Sword!

[ColdFire]

Aside from many games, particularly Crysis and Shattered Horizon, looking way better than MW2. What they have done looks basically the same as just putting AA on.

(I run MW2 with maxed AA, supersampleing, Full HD, 60fps)

[cleanhealthy12]

"Does too much video games make you stupid?"

looks like they got you.

[beardpapa]

Ugh.... photorealism? Sorry but no. You want photorealism? Try crysis. MW2 graphics come no where close to Crysis.

[MNicholas]

The process of rendering at a much higher resolution than the display resolution is called super-sampling not down-sampling.

Down-sampling is just one step in the process of displaying super-sampled images.

In any case, the images aren't particularly mind-blowing.

[maxbyte]

hallelujah brother! GT5 = photorealism.
To others: people, quit fighting over this. It is so obvious. The poster is an AI and has never seen real life. Hence such a gross misrepresentation of what would a photo realistic screen shot look like.

[BWS1982]

shots look sharp, but they're not realistic, there's not enough geometry, it's too saturated, and the textures are still off...and it still doesn't match Crysis.

Edge of Blade, you're diluting the conversation just because you hate PS3. Stop. You call GoldenEye unplayable just because of sporadic frame dips? You're being sensationalist. How is anyone to take you seriously?

[Pennywise]

LOL.

[St0]

These guys obviously haven't played Uncharted 2

[Nihilism]

UC2 photo realism???

It looks good for a console game, but seriously, what the hell are you smoking

[BYE]

You haven't played Uncharted 2, did you?

It looks way better, especially the animations, environments and lightning effects.

[JsonHenry]

While UC2 does look the best that I have ever witnessed on a console... NOWHERE NEAR CLOSE TO PHOTOREALISM. Seriously, look at the textures, LOW REZ just like every other console game. Certainly the best looking low rez textures to date, but still low rez no matter how you slice it.

[Nihilism]

"it looks way better"

What are you on about, I never said mw2 looks good. 99% of games look better than mw2. But the point of discussion is PHOTOREALISM, which are effects and environments that could pass for real life images. As many others have stated, there are only 2 games that can claim that. Hint: they are not console games.

When playing a game with massive amounts of aliasing and low res textures like uc2, you are very aware that you are playing a game, don't overstate it.

[FantasyStar]

I'm with dchalfont.

UC2 looks very good and is probably the best-looking console game on the market right now. But UC2 is anything, but photorealistic.

[DARK WITNESS]

uncharted to looks way better then MW2 yes !.... but it does not look photo real in the slightest.

Great Graphics don't necessarily mean = photo real.

killzone also looks amazing, but not photo real at all. its more to do with art style and colour palate.

and before anyone asks, yes I have played both killzone 2 and uncharted 2. I agree they are the best looking games on console for many reason, but they don't look photo real at all.

if you want an example of photo real graphics lets talk about GT5

[raztad]

St0 didnt say UC2 was photo realistic.

@Hryen

Uc2 has some low textures here and there, but the way you say it sounds like UC2 got low textures everywhere. This is the first time I see someone saying a low texture game can produce gorgeous visuals.

[Nihilism]

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

I'll put it to vote. Which of the two looks more realistic, lol

EDIT:

@raztad

St0's response to this article (check the title for reference), saying 'they obviously haven't seen uc2', suggesting that he thinks uc2 is MORE photorealistic than mw2....when they are both no-where near.

[FragMnTagM]

Crysis obviously looks a hell of a lot better. Uncharted 2 is definitely no slouch when it comes to graphics for a console game, but it cannot touch Crysis in the photorealistic department.

Check this vid out, I think it looks even better than the link you posted.

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

[HowarthsNJ]

...and are not designed to be photo-realistic. Why compare?

[DiffusionE]

Exactly. Why compare? But St0 actually did compare it to photo-realism. That is why dchalfont gave his reply. No need to be a fanboy here. Everyone knows UC2 looks much better than MW2.

[raztad]

@dlchant

I dont understand it that way. St0 just may be saying that MW2 dont even look as good as UC2, let alone to be photorealistic

[GamerSciz]

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

I haven't seen a whole lot more real than that.

Also as far as UC2 in-engine looking photo real, well...

http://www.nikonu.net/image...

[edgeofblade]

Why do people keep holding UC2 up as the new benchmark? I saw nothing photo-realistic. It looks good, same as any other random hyped PS3 game, but if you want to say photo-realistic, you suddenly opened up a whole new world of critical analysis.

Want to look back at what has been called photo realistic in the past? Need for Speed: Most Wanted. Half-Life 2. Gears of War. Oblivion. Looking back, don't those statements look silly now? What do you think we will say in hindsight in five years about UC2?

[GamerSciz]

In probably less than a year we will be saying "Enter game here" is photorealistic. We are just saying which ones are closest as of right now. I mean "good graphics" does not necessarily mean photoreal. Check this out...
http://i29.tinypic.com/148g...

That's amazing graphics but not necessarily photoreal. But if we truly want to see what is the most photorealistic in the scheme of things...I say this is...
http://www.funps3.com/wp-co...

[JayD-1K]

GT5 for photo realism. the developers put a lot of time into making the cars look and respond like real cars.

[nycredude]

"Want to look back at what has been called photo realistic in the past? Need for Speed: Most Wanted. Half-Life 2. Gears of War. Oblivion. Looking back, don't those statements look silly now? What do you think we will say in hindsight in five years about UC2?"

In all honesty, why wait? Just look at the first uncharted, two years and change later and it still holds up well and beats most games now. I am pretty sure UC2 will be the same.

As for these shots being photorealistic, umm no. There is only one shot that could be even remotely considered photorealistic and it's the prison shot from the heli, adn that is stretching it. GT5 is the only game that comes close.

[ape007]

wrote a nearly perfect comment

explains the difference between high specs and art style in good way

bubble up man

[BWS1982]

the visual fidelity of something is partly related to art style and palette/saturation, so I agree with Dark Witness as well. UC2 is the prettiest console game, rivaling most (I say most) of what PC's can do as far as "sheer beauty"...but "photo-realism" is something else, and isn't the same always. GT5 shots I've seen come close to photo realism, mainly with the cars (not always the environments). UC2 is a little too bright to be "real" and KZ2 is actually closer because its darker. But I don't think ND were going for "photo realism" and I love it the way it is, it doesn't have to look "real", just jaw dropping, and it grabs that by the balls. UC2 excels in animation though, flawlessly.

This is coming from someone who has been to years of study in the art form (BFA in Media arts and animation) and done professional work, so yes, I know what I'm talking about. The saturation and style of UC2 and to the same extent, KZ2 are both keeping them from being "real" looking. But that wasn't the goal I'm sure, as the games are still stellar and beyond pretty. Heavy Rain's models (and rigging systems for animation) are astonishing, but still look fake. Even Crysis often still lacks the geometry/vertices in some spots (but definitely not textures/lighting) to be realistic enough, but it's probably the closest on PC's I've seen, though I haven't seen "everything" I suppose. I'm just going off my own exposures, that's all.

We're getting closer and closer, but nothing I've ever seen in a game was mistook for a real photo, maybe that's because of the critical scrutiny I as an artist have had to develop, but the closest I've seen has not been in a game, it was in renders from Maya or 3DS Max by professionals. With games there are physics and animation and frame rates to be concerned with for starters, not to mention user interface, AI, particle systems, etc...

[theEnemy]

No.

Crysis is.

Edit: I forgot about another game:

(Go figure)

[thief]

Left4Dead2

[theEnemy]

nope.

[mastiffchild]

Look people this is all Bullsh1t, totally bollox. NO game approaches ANYTHING like photorealism and we're YEARS away fromanything dloing so which makes this whole argument pointless, imo.

Crysis is still the most technically advanced attempt at creating human models and backdrops that fit the cill but anyone imagining that it gets near photo realism is off their head. U1 and U2 don't even try for it-ND use over saturated , almost cartooby colours to evoke the over saturated feel of older, matniee action flicks, Killzone2 has some great lighting, particle and physics effects but is an imagining of a war on an alien world-it doesn't really try to be realistic in a meaningful way but rather adds touches of it to create some verisimilitude of a "real" world to engance immersion-like a whole bunch of games do including MW2 and, ultimately, like Crysis does too as we're not near powerful enough tech to render photo realistic graphics yet-or at least not enough to produce an interactive game running at a playable framerate. Nowehere near it, imo.

GT5 is a good example of a dev really going for a realistic feel and I think it's maionly because they don't need to model loads of human models or spend too much time on the backgrounds as they're fizzing past(the close up textures anyway) in game and further away stuff is easier to pull off as "real" just as car models are a whole lot more simple than human models to get looking like a photo. Yes, my mum and my kids(and even me at times) mistake GT5 footage for TC coverage of motor racing but even then would we if the two were running side by side? I doubt it-which isn't to down[play how well PD have done at all but meant to illustrate that we just aren't quite there yet even when the subject is a more simple to render model like a car is. However, overall it's certainly the game that comes closest to really looking like what it's representing onscreen and is very impressive to see.

Mainly, though, games don't really even try to be photo realistic in the ultimate sense-I doubt Crytek would even say they attempted it with Crysis even if it's the closest game we have to doing so right now. I truly don't believe that the complicated models and backgrounds of the game, impressive tugh they are ever come close to the true meaning of photo realism. Thing is we use the phrase to describe many different things which aren't all actually involved with it. We get the smoopth animations that feel lifelike in U2, or we get the convincing colours used in conjuction with amazing physics in Crysis even the incedibly clever and real FEELING lighting and particle effects in KZ2 but nothing you could strictly call photo realistic-not to me.

Think about the arguments over how close R&C gets to pixar film quality in game, yes? Personally I don't think it's reallyclose but it does approach it a lot more closely than any game does real life style graphics. Heavy Rain has some great looking moments where for a split second it does look like live actors in a film but even then it can't keep it up AND films aren't real anyway, are they? IMO MW2(even these messed with screens)looks mothing like photo realism and it's possibly best we just use the phrase to describe the games with a more realistic LOOK to them for now-the kind of look that while it takes a lot of tech to get right (and IS impressive), the kind of look that the Wii can't really do at all well but also a lokk that's still, even in GT5 with it's easier subject matter, is a long way off being anything like true photo realism. So, yes, use it for games that try to add moments, pieces of realism to our experience but don't yet be fooled into thinking we're very close to it really happening.

I think it's true that while many guffawed when it was suggested that aCiT was near to Pixar they'd be mistaken in thinking it wasn't WAY, WAY closer to it than any game is to photo realism. We don't get it on console and we don't get it on PC and, really, it's no loss at all as we play games to get away from real life-I'd rather a slightly righter or exaggerated gameworld than a verbatim representation of the Somme or whatever myself. We're surrounded by the real world every day and while it's a place of amazing beauty and mystery even then games have more freedom to take us places formerly only available within the minds of the imaginative folk of this world. I think we can deal with "super" real for now, no? There's plenty of wet, miserable reality outside my window right now and it makes the lush vistas of Crysis, the cel shaded badlands of Borderlands lor the colouful universe of Halo(or Ratchet)much more interesting to be honest. And who wants a photo realistic Mario anyway! Games will always be a bigger, badder and over the top place to play compared to the real world even when the tech does arrive to convince us that we're playing in a real world enviroment but as that time is still a way off can't we drop the arguments over his one -at least til a game comes along that even attempts it seriously?

[MajesticBeast]

Some textures in this game can be found in a ps2 game.

[theEnemy]

Look at the f'ing car models.

Oh and the immovable chess board. :D

[hoops]

The only game this generation that comes close to this type of realism in all areas and not just a few is Crysis and Crysis Warhead

[Hideo_Kojima]

gt5

[Grandreaper9999]

I think the biggest downfall of MW2's graphics is a combination of lighting and cheesy textures. Those lockers, although they are a photograph of a real lockers mapped to the objects, looks gross. Maybe it's the lighting, but that whole environment looks very very ugly to me.

Not saying the game looks all-around terrible, it's just not up there with....well...you know.

[madpuppy]

Photo realistic... I don't think so...BLAH.

[lrn2hate]

awesome. I love starting my morning off with a good laugh. lol

[evilmonkey501]

but that downsampling LCD technique seems cool...it definitely makes mw2 look better.

[Matix]

This just looks like a less efficient anti-aliasing method to me...

Also, photo-realism? Aha... ahahahahah... bahahahahahahahahahahaah!

[Rocket Sauce]

Dammit, why didn't they just make a game out of The Rock instead?

[firetaw]

its technicly the same thing in the only difference is that it takes a bigger rendered picture and sizes it down. while anti aliasing works only on making those jagysz go away and smooths out lines. probably anti-aliasing takes more computing power then to render something bigger. depending how much bigger your rendering though.

[IWentBrokeForGaming]

don't care about this game... I came to see the hooplah over the title, not impressed!

[Perkel]

lol there is only one photorealistic game so far . And it isn't crysis which looks good but no photorealistic

GT5 :D

[monstrado]

I haven't seen a game really look photo realistic yet, reason why is because most developers spend so much time developing a "skybox engine" or a "water engine" or a "normal mapping" engine that they end up lacking in some other aspect of the game which will give the picture away as not-realistic.

Something simple, like a blotch texture on the gun or what have you, I'm no game developer but I can definitely pick out things in an image that gives it away as a game.

For all of you that say Crysis is a photorealistic game, you're dead wrong. It's a very beautiful game don't get me wrong...but not good enough for me to say "that's real life". Not to mention that engine is pretty out dated, we'll see what their next attempt is :).

*edit*
Also, I forgot to say...MW2 is no where near photorealistic LOL that is the funniest title I've seen in a while. Infinity Ward has horrible textures in their game, why do you think they boast of 60fps?

[Perkel]

try gt5 :)

[monstrado]

Trust me, I'm an avid Grand Turismo fan. I admire their graphics compared to the competition such as Forza 2 who yeah has decent graphics goes the wrong way with their overlay engine which in return just makes things look like plastic.

With that being said, You can always find a flaw in GT5 in-game screenshots. Notice I said in-game, that is because they are notorious for releasing shots that rendered to a state that is not achievable in-game. Even so, if their screens show any sort of environmental detail I can tell it's a game. Race car games can't pay too much detail to that sort of things, it would kill the FPS tremendously since you would need to render complex scenery WAY more often than any other type of game.

Take for instance...flying games :)

[dkgshiz]

No reason to even say anything.

[JonnyBigBoss]

This game isn't even top 5. Period.

[MathiasT-s]

" What are you on about, I never said mw2 looks good. 99% of games look better than mw2. "

Complete bullshit, MW2 looks brilliant. It gets 10 on graphics for a reason, stop being delusional ignorant fanboys and wake the f*ck up. Before you start sucking even more at life and think I'm a fanboy or something, NO. I'm just seeing this the way they are.

[Pennywise]

NEEEEEEEEEEEEERRDDDDDDDDDRAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAGE!

MW2 looks good, no doubt. But not as good as people are making it out to be. Call me whatever you want and rage out on me, but I disagree with you.

[DiffusionE]

No offense, but have you played Crysis on max. settings? That is the kind of game that deserves 10 for graphics.

If you're saying MW2 deserves 10 for graphics, then you must mean MW2 looks as good as Crysis. Which means either one of two things -

1. You're a MW2 fanboy who would follow the game even to hell. In which case, I won't waste my time arguing with you.
OR
2. You haven't played Crysis at all or don't know the meaning of photo-realistic graphics at all. In which case, you need wiki help.

[peeps]

mw2's graphics are great and certainly get the job done. what they are not are 'photorealistic' i mean even crysis on max has a way to go to be able to give us photo realistic graphics.

[TheMailman]

Photorealism my a@ss!

[itsralf]

lol, modern warfare 2 graphics are crap... the incredibly low-res textures ruined it. I don't know why, but I think w@w looks better. Especially in the second mission "Little Resistance" when you come out of the water after the boat goes under. MW2 water looked like crap. Maybe it's just my imagination, I know they used the same engine. I just remembered better textures in w@w.

[hoops]

The very reason the talk of graphics gets thrown around for MW2 is simply the fact they made this game look Good, not GREAT and it runs at 60fps on a console. How many FPS games on ANY of these consoles runs at 60fps and looks above average in console terms?
This is why this game is getting the "talk" on about how great the visuals are.
You want as close to photo realism as possible in games this generation? Play Crysis...actually play Crysis Warhead which actually looks better then Crysis. Play that game on MAX settings on a 30" monitor and you then begin to see how dated console graphics look.

[piroh]

http://www6.incrysis.com/sc...
http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/i...
1st pic: look at the cap and nanosuit
2nd pic: look to the face and on the fingers
its soo ugly game... resolution may be good but polygons, effects and art style is bad
this isnt comparable to uncharted 2 or photorealistic GT5
lets face the truth and dont smoke hard material... what about COD? its joke. isnt it?

[hoops]

LOL....Lay off the pipe if you are saying U2 looks better then Crysis or especially Crysis Warhead

[Arnon]

It's ok. It's just Barragan trying to agree with himself. Pretty sure anyone with eyes could see that looks absolutely gorgeous.

[sephy 9 2 5]

Crysis with mods, and Mirrors Edge on PC look photorealistic.

Uncharted 2 even though stylized can approach photorealism during some of its cutscenes.

[CommandOptionPR]

Sorry, Modern Warfare doesn't have a graphics engine that is designed to come even close to photorealism. The only thing good it's got is the framerate. Everything else sucks.

All Battlefield: Bad Company 2 needs is some AA and it totally mops the floor with Modern Warfare.

[MathiasT-s]

Straight from IGN : " 10 Graphics
What was already an impressive graphical engine has only improved over the last two years. More effects, grander environments, and a truly spectacular overall visual offering. "

Oh, and yes. As a matter of fact I have probably played Crysis more than most people ( with mods ) and I love the game. However, this does not change the fact that games such as MW2 and Killzone 2 looks phenomenal and I'm not a MW2 "fanboy" I'm discussing the graphics here so I'm not sure where you have gotten the idea from from as I have not stated anything "fanboyish" ( fanboyish in your head probably though when YOU read it which you have proven with what you said, fanboy. )

[Arcturus]

what a joke, MW2 is no where near photorealism with it's ugly low rez textures and crappy models.

[Barragan]

it would have to be crysis and crysis warhead, it may look like most on the internet hail it as the best looking game ever and that it still is, but that internet thought is fueled by cryteks hype of their engine and pc fanboys that back it cause its the only pc game that looks good, truly its getting old, its not and never was the best looking game

[Arnon]

See. There's a reason why everyone is disagreeing with you. It might be hard to except the fact that Crysis DOES perform better than anything on a console at this time, but you just need to live with it, really.

It seems no matter how many facts are thrown your way, you try and phase them out and say people are lying. You have to open your mind and realize that not everyone who disagrees with you is a PC fan. The fact is, is that Crysis on medium settings is pretty much what consoles run at, and this can be PROVEN.

You are, by far, the true definition of delusional, especially when you sent me 12 PMs stating how a PC is technologically inferior to a PS3 and 360, and you didn't even provide a single link to prove your statements.

52 minutes ago | By: Barragan

"its still opinion it was announced in 2005, but no ps3 was existent then, so YOU fail, it was in development then yes, in the form of game art and voice casting and story writing, but as far as any game visual making and anything else playable it wasnt, ok and hows this, crysis original 2005 trailer with the pretty forest fails miserably against sonys killzone 2 e3 trailer which was done to ps3 spec, and its original 2005 looks WAAAAAAAAAY better than the final offering of the game that was released, and the actual killzone 2 game comes near that original killzone 2 e3 2005 trailer, that easily means if anything of crysis looks better than killzone 2 its the old 2005 trailer, but at best equal to it, as for the current crysis offering, meh, its nothing better looking than perfect dark zero in hd.

you just said something pointless, crysis was supposed to release WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY earlier than that, but mysteriously after the sony e3 2007 press conference and the introduction of killzone 2, they pushed the original release date back further, they were scared playa.

on your comment about your friends, they are most definately pc fans if you showed the comments to anyone at all, you are a die hard pc fan and your friends are also, you and they fail if you believe something other than what ive posted.

how did i admit crysis looks better than kz2 or uncharted 2? your making yourself look dumb, crysis looks great to the pc community and thats all, pc performs better than ps3 only cause of the fact that its straitforward hardware, ps3 cant just get used to a max, cause it doesnt have a max, your the idiot, and your nerd pc fan friends are all crysis nut suckers.

no ibm wont develop anything for a console, nor a pc, it WILL develop it for a supercomputer though, they did announce a game in development for ps3 though, it wouldnt be on their site nimwit.

correction to the above quote by barragan, "i know uncharted 2 and killzone 2 are better looking than crysis cause they look like cgi ingame and dont need to hide behind beautiful beach and rainforest areas and real life environments just to look halfway good, and they dont need 5 years of non stop development time and 650 developers for one game"

your so much of an idiot, you pointed to your own post and said its an opinion and not a fact, but then you would be right, get owned.

as stated by Arnon, "i agree that crysis is incredibly overrated cause of its old news graphics and attempt to hide behind real life environments and pretty forest, instead of being set in a war torn area, man i wish there was a pc game that could look NEAR good as killzone 2 and uncharted 2 in a wartorn area, but i wont dare talk about the games that are up and coming for ps3 after uncharted 2 and killzone 2, metal gear 4 still owns crysis and heavy owns crysis also, maybe that anime game next gen being developed on amd processors next gen for pc can hold a candle to the incredible graphics of ps3, cause this gen its no hope."

first quote is fact, and so is the second"

----------------------------- ------------------------------ -----

1 hour ago | By: Arnon

"Conclusion as stated by Barragan:

Crysis performs leaps and bounds better than Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2, but I think KZ2 and UC2 are better because of their art styles.

^^^

THIS IS CALLED AN OPINION, NOT A FACT."

How is this pointing to my own post? Oh, by the way, my 8 friends only play console games. Sorry kid.

[lh_swe]

Too bad I'll be getting this for console though, not that it would matter my PC couldn't handle that anyways.

[piroh]

PC fanboys are only jealous of their exclusive games because every of their former exclusives comes to the consoles (doom, TES, BF, crysis 2, FEAR, fallout, wolfenstein, HL ...). they have nothing... so they pick up their last PC exclusive crysis to compare to the other games but the truth is crysis is ugly in these days. look at pics above

[hoops]

Crysis engine is 2 years old and blows away anything the consoles can do. Too much crack in that pipe for you lol

[hoops]

http://leimrod.com/wp-conte...

http://www.pcgameshardware....

http://www.pcgameshardware....

http://www.pcgameshardware....

http://cache.gizmodo.com/as...

http://ui04.gamespot.com/3/...

Btw. ALL THOSE are running at MEDIUM GRAPHIC SETTINGS.

Keep smoking if you think consoles can match those visuals with that destructible environments

[BWS1982]

@ Piroh and his claims about console tech prowess next to a high end PC. Look, I've got an i7, a PS3, and an Elite 360. Crysis Warhead is gorgeous, Uncharted 2 is astounding, and Gears is solid, but you have to be kidding to think that consoles can pump out the resolution, AA, and FPS that an advanced PC can. I love all my gaming, but I know, visually, what the hierarchy tends to be.

This is the meh GTA 4 game, but on PC, with mods helping it look better:

http://i40.tinypic.com/jaxm...

And here's Crysis at settings that can't currently be done on consoles:

https://www.msu.edu/~cohenj...

If you seriously think todays consoles could render out an image at at least 30 FPS that looks this good, at a resolution (NATIVE) that rivals the crispness of this, you're a fool:

http://www.helderpinto.com/...

[devilhunterx]

2 words. Bad Mojo.

[MonopolyRSV]

Totally absurd headline.

[AEtherbane]

kinda.... not really.... im pretty sure outside looks way better than this game..

[OhMyGandhi]

so all the anti MW2 articles just put so much pressure on these guys, they had to go out and sound like idiots.
They game looks nice, at least in screenshots, but my god.

It WAS THE POOR TEXTURE QUALITY THAT REMINDED ME OF THE OLD TOMB RAIDER GAMES FOR PS1.

[xg-ei8ht]

120hz you speak of is tv side only.

Nothing to do with input, i'm sure your aware of that.

But yeah, the smoother,crisper the better.

But also, there's also this.

I watched a film on a tv of that kind and the film looked like it was live, not pre-recorded, was weird. I suppose i'd get used to it.

Anywayz, BFBC2 best war game imo sofar. And it's only a beta.

[111111]

Definitly NOT. lol

[exnihilonihilfit]

The real reason why one might claim that MW2 is photorealistic is because the art style is photorealistic, they're trying very hard to make it look like reality. Uncharted, in my opinion, has the superior graphical engine, but the art style is not intended to be fully photorealistic, the characters and environments are stylized in such a way as to resemble the original concept art more than a photograph; it's kind of like what gearbox did in changing Borderlands. Take a cutscene from final fantasy for example, Square Enix has worked for years and years to produce some of the highest quality FMV's all of which are indisputably far beyond any in game graphics, but they still don't look quite photorealistic, and that's because the art style is intended to replicate anime/manga more than it is intended to represent reality.

MW2 unlike many games, is much more concerned with being photorealistic, so they come much closer to achieving it, rather than produce images that are closer to the concept art, they want to produce visuals that are closer to the real pictures. Yet, when compared to other games that are comparably concerned with photorealism, Crysis or Killzone 2, MW2 simply doesn't compare, but even these two games don't try as hard to be photorealistic as IW's game because they're set in environments and deal with a subject matter that isn't real. MW2 on the other hand has the advantage of being about a subject matter that is very real. Though the story is fictional, all of the environments and subjects are real. Where MW2 also gets an advantage is pretty darn good lighting effects implemented in what are generally low light settings. Take a look at the photos provided in this article, all of them are either at night or in an otherwise dark setting, but when you take a look at the scenes in fully lit areas, they don't come close to anything that UC2, KZ2 or Crysis have to offer.

[TABSF]

Crysis 2

Consoles = Crysis on Medium

PC = 8th Gen ready

PC Cryengine 3, Real time all the time.

[DJ]

Same damn look as the 2007 version. The models are all low-poly, and the textures belong in the PS2 era. You want photorealism? Take a gander at Uncharted 2.

[hakis86]

DISagree@ story title

[ryguy3309]

anygame could do the graphics of that if half the game your watching a video liek that whole game you are barely playing it your watching it and thats not realistic it looks like a cartoon and the guy moves like a moron. Killzone 2 on the other hand is an amazing game to play

[BWS1982]

then how is UC2 doing it seamlessly, phasing into gameplay without any visible loss of quality?

Are you seriously condemning the animation quality in UC2? Really?

Go away.

[Xi]

At the highest setting on my PC it looks better then killzone 2 and it's step for step with uncharted 2, hell the console versions themselves are almost as good looking as killzone 2, had they optimized the games for each specific console I'm sure it'd be the second best looking console game this year.

People can disagree with me if they want but that's more of an indication of people's blind fanatacism and not an objective view on the game.

[Lazard]

Sure, it looks awesome -- but photorealism, no way -- not that close either. In my mind the Call of Duty-series has always had a sort of cartoonish/anime look, so photorealism it's not.

[piroh]

btw GT5 will destroy those 3 games no matter you are PC fanboy. PC is dieing R.I.P
wonder if the next COD will be for PC too...

this is review of uncharted 2 by ps3 haters:
http://n4g.com/ps3/News-410...
"Graphics: Quite simply the best looking game around, with impressive tech matched by excellent art design."
PC is worth nothing. no games, no graphics, inconvenient gaming...
crysis on max set:
http://www6.incrysis.com/sc...
look at the pot on his head:D this is crysis...

ps3 games:
http://www.gameswire.net/sc...
http://www.gameswire.net/sc...
http://www.gameswire.net/sc...
http://www.gameswire.net/sc...
http://www.gameswire.net/sc...
http://www.gameswire.net/sc...

[levy]

you must be the most rabid fanboy I've seen in the Gamer Zone in quite a while. making yourself look like an idiot is an understatement.
You seriously hate computers don't you? but you do know that game developers use computers to create their games right....?

I must say that I'm ashamed to be a ps3-owner when I read your posts. Open Zone is that way --->

[Arnon]

http://www6.incrysis.com/sc...
http://i37.tinypic.com/i78w...
http://www6.incrysis.com/sc...

and lolol:
http://www.split-screen.com...

Sorry, but you fail.

[Rixynator]

very disappointed by the story line. defiantly not worth buying

[trgz]

Bollocks!

[napoleon_ist]

the game renders 1024x600p... SD.

[YonasJonas]

It's going to take a lot of hard drugs to make these stills look photorealistic.

[Gun_Senshi]

To who wrote this article: You need some glasses