Anywho, he's right though it did have those things but it also had pop-in. Game still played pretty good, story was good as well. Ending? Not so much.

Too bad no one really cares what you think.

Don't mind this guy. He thinks Marcus Fenix looks like a normal person.

lol at gaystation pretending to be british, he's really a towel head indian for real..

Why don't you ever get 360 games being compared to real life? lol we all know the answer to that one. There's a reason they're always compared to Playstation games instead XD

They tried that with Forza and even the 360 fanbase ran away from that cause it was obvious what was real life and what was a forza bullshot lol

"Real life doesn't have screen-tearing and framerate problems! "\

Nope, just the 360.

edit

Imagine what they're gonna do in the future. It can only get better from here my friends

After seeing those Crysis shots, WOW. Uncharted 2 does a nice job but I wouldn't say "Rivals Real Life", Crysis would fit that title more. Still, WOW

I have a bad habit of loading up the CryEngine 2 Editor, flooding a hilly area with dense grass, (like one of the screenshots I posted) super-sampling the 16x anti-aliasing and taking 50 megapixel screenshots. My harddrive is full of the 150 MB targa files...

But it's just so freaking pretty. I should go to a print shop and make 10 foot print out of one of the pictures. lol.

Console only players are missing out so bad

That's bs. It might be Crysis on there but its definitely being played on a supercomputer. It definitely has EVERYTHING turned up. I can't get mine past 8xAA before its unplayable. They need to get us those gigaflop cards pronto. Crysis FTMFW!

@likedamaster
Not really my friend. You don't really need a supercomputer anymore. I run crysis on 2 gtx295 cards with everything turned to max and AA turned to 16XQ and it runs pretty smoothly at 1920x1080. It really looks mind blowing. Plus when you play the Photorealistic mod of crysis, you won't believe your eyes. Its a sight to behold. No other game really comes close to Crysis/Crysis Warhead when running on highest settings even on PC.

(I'm Panda's alt)

Unless my computer is classified as a supercomputer...

When I'm playing Crysis, I play at 1680 x 1050 on DX10 very high for 30-60 FPS.

When I'm running around taking screenshots I use x16 AA and super-sampling (which means I run the game at a way higher res than my monitor supports, and it just squishes the game into a smaller area, making it look better because of the pixel density, etc)

@jkhan

Oh my god, I know,

RealLife-sis is incredible. I set my FRAPS to tack a screenshot every 25 seconds for like 4 hours of game time.

All those screenshots are just so flipping beautiful.

i still think that Uncharted looks fantastic. You can't compare crysis to uncharted, since so many people are stating facts to try and compare, otherwise there's no use in posting a crysis shot. There is no pc game that looks as good as uncharted if you were to match a PC's components to a console part for part settings to settings(same cpu,memory,board, graphics card,AA,...etc).Its obvious that a pc will always look better than a console simply because you're able to upgrade, thats a fact. But the graphics are insane!, but the gameplay is whats f@cken amazing, can't wait to get back at the MP. Scoring head shots while hanging of the edge of a building just hits the spot.

i guess its ps3 vs. pc from now on (more like from killzone 2 on) and the "other" one isn't even in the same league.

Yes Uncharted looks great, but it isn't designed to be photorealistic.
All of ND's games have a very vibrant and bright colour scheme, in direct contrast with Greys of war and others.

Crysis was built for photorealism, a job it does incredibly, Uncharted on the otherhand, was built to be vibrant, and I think it looks just as gorgeous.

Comes to mind after all this blah blah about how life-like crysis looks, that said game is just a technical showcase of Crytek engine. The real deal for PC owners is much more humble technically and graphically speaking. It's called Valve games.

Yeah, the aging Source engine, which can run almost on a Pentium Pro powers many of the most popular games in the Pc realm. Why is it so? because even the elitist, ultra graphic whores pc owners like to have fun with their games not just to look at them. In this regard, UC2 is the whole package, gameplay + awesome visuals. Game is getting everything. Happy to own a PS3.

Hot Damn! Never knew Crysis was THAT beautiful.

honestly I think PC ONLY gamers are missing out a lot more.

lol @ people about photorealistic crysis

this is photorealistic it's a game from 2006 ;) gt hd

http://www.miastogier.pl/ba...

crysis is miles away from being photorealistic

but considering type of engine is 1st in his own class

It costs thousands to get a computer which maxes out crysis, yet the ps3 will soon cost $299. You get a lot more for your money with the ps3, and the pc only players are definitely missing out on a lot more, I think if piracy didn't exist the effort would have been put in for a better looking game than crysis already, but developes are afraid of developing such a game then making no money.

Edit: Guy above it is easier to make photorealistic cars than jungles

Ugh, will this never end? The whole PC vs Console debate?

Jesus, and doesn't it occur to anybody that it's possible to own a high end PC ANNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDDDD a console like the 360 or PS3?

Gamers are dead, now all we have is politicians and fanboys.

@sarcasm

Agreed. I have a ps3, 360 and a PC which plays crysis on very high 50fps. (note, I don't have a wii)

@hero
The PC I have is a year old and cost 800 dollars...

8gigs of ram
Quad core 2.66
Ati HD4870

For those who claim it cost thousands for a quite nice gaming PC, it doesn't.

Don't bring up Crysis. Leave that boring game to the PC only gamers. That's the only game they can brag about.

I think calling Crysis a game is a bit generous, it's a graphics engine with some sound and physics thrown in, oh and something that resembles a plot.

"If one thing is certain about Uncharted 2, it's that the graphics engine is one of the most magnificent engines crafted to date. Far surpassing the original Uncharted in graphical terms, Naughty Dog is showing what kind of potential there is waiting in the PS3 for developers to tap. Finally, we have a game that we can truly call photo-realistic. Uncharted 2 is setting a new graphical plateau for developers to achieve.

Graphics aside, you can clearly tell Naughty Dog took a lot of time to create such a true to life vision of Kathmandu. With minor details matching so perfectly, you really have to stop and think about the amount of time Naughty Dog took to make sure everything matched up with the real environment. This is dedication on a grand scale.

You can see a full image comparing several locations right here"

it doesn't say ANYTHING about crysis. it has NOTHING to do with crysis. so why are so many of you going completely off topic to vent your feelings on crysis? it's not the subject here. and, why does many of the articles on ps3 exclusives turn into a bunch of crysis/PC fanboys spamming posts with their usual crysis/PC rants?

ON TOPIC: UC2 looks insanely good. i thought that if i just glanced at the comparison photos.......UC2 did do a decent job of comparing to real life. and i agree (with author) that the ps3 has loads of potential in the coming years. i can't wait to see what insomniac, ND, SM studios, GG (or any 3rd party devs) can do with the system.

I know my PC cannot run stuff like that.

Ok back to consoles...Uncharted 2 looks pretty good but until you can make a game look like a PC one, then it's not close.

Consoles again, because of their known limitations, will often use Smoke n Mirrors to get the best looking results and sometimes that does mean really good FPS either.

You have to remember that Uncharted 2 is more than a tech demo like Crysis was. Uncharted 2 is actually a game.

ND should put a photo shot mode in, where it allows you to save a game scene in 4K res with supersampling and what not. Might take 2 sec to render that frame, but then we could all post those shots to the internetz and claim, look it looks like Crysis...

And if not, I will simply enjoy PLAYing that game instead of watching it.

This whole rumor that it costs $2000-$3000 to run Crysis decently is completely false. You can easily build an $800-$1000 PC that will run every game out there on max settings smoothly, and Crysis with mostly very high and some high. If that's too much, you can build one for $500 that will still run every game out there on max smoothly, and Crysis at high with about 2 settings at very high.

You need to play Crysis. It got amazing reviews for a reason.

The graphics and physics are good, yes...but the gameplay and storyline are also incredible!

They pulled off things that no game had even attempted so far!

Why are PC boys posting crysis pics?. Art you guys this insecure?.

@cmrbe

No, it's because we all know that Uncharted 2 doesn't look photorealistic at all, and it's not going for that look, it's going for a colorful, viibrant, cartoony look. But there are alot of people saying that it looks like real life. Then we show them the Crysis pics, and they say that the gameplay sucks and it's a glorified tech demo. If they have actually played the game, they would know that it's a very fun game.

Don't take this the wrong way. It's actually a compliment that a PS3 game is compared to the best looking PC game at the moment but I just find it strange that crysis is always brought up in most PS3 game article by PC fans. It happened with KZ2 and now U2 and I am sure it will happen again with GT5.

don't blame us because Crysis is the only game both console and PC wise to stand the test of time this long.

Honestly when you read the "UC2 Graphics Rival Real Life" title. I bet for a split second Crysis popped into your head. As much as I hate the game being more of a competitive gamer. It does look purty.

You knew it was doomed to be pitted against Crysis anyway. As usual Crysis had to lay the smack down when it comes down real life comparison photos. To think otherwise is just being Naive...

LooooL

Yes, a synthetic world can "rival" reality. Someone plays far too many videogames.

Those are nice screen shots, but...
-Those jungle environments don't seem very 'inspired'. yes the graphics engine is phenomenal, but it seems like a 'make three plant models, then copy and paste' job.
-that city screen shot looks nice, but it is way too sterile to be believable. Where are the textures? There's hardly any objects in the environment. It doesn't feel like people live in this environment because there isn't anything in it that feels human like garbage on the streets or other personal and unique objects lying around. It's probably why this game goes for the most part unnoticed by the gaming world, because it is too pristine and sterile.
I'm just saying that while the Cry engine is impressive, they really don't do much in the way of artistry to make some really impressive and believable environments.

Uncharted on the other hand goes all out with great models, lighting, textures, animations, and artistic touch to make us believe that we are in the actual places being depicted.

FFS. no. not at all. UC2 is great looking, but no where near real life. WTH is wrong with you people?

Although I can tell you're just trolling, you actually bring up a point:

The writer of this article doesn't really understand what Naughty Dog is setting out to do with Uncharted's graphics. They aren't necessarily going for hyper-realism, but for a picturesque scene rather.

If you look at the characters of the game, They really aren't proportioned to look like real people, but the way they use textures, animation, and voice-work, they still feel like they are real people right in front of you.

It's like watching Final Fantasy 3D feature films, there are many moments where things look hyper real, but there's also many things that are just style choices and don't transfer over to real life, like crazy hairstyles and clothes, physics, and of course, fantasy elements.

pretty much all games do this. I can't really think of any other games that go for hyper-realism other than Crysis or Call of Duty.

"Why are PC boys posting crysis pics?."

Because the very first post, if you read it.

Why are people complaining about the pics posted?

The game can't help if it's the best-looking thing out right now. Might not be the best game overall imo, but nothing on consoles will come close to the visuals. Not UC2, not KZ2. They're good-looking games, but the best consoles have to offer will never look better than the best PC offers. That's just the nature of the two platforms because of PC hardware. It's ridiculous seeing people try to fake equate console games with PC. Consoles don't win on specs so the games don't look better. How simple can that be to understand?

So get over it. Even an average gaming PC has much better specs than a console. But as console owners we have all the games (usually first), they work right off, and we don't have to do anything extra to get them on a bigger screen. Top developers choose to work on consoles first and PC as an afterthought. Crysis only stands out because these days you rarely see PC exclusives that show exactly what beefier specs mean. Mostly multiplats which don't even try and the visual boost is nominal.

im not trolling. its outrageous articles like this that make me /facepalm.

@venemo: Solar isn't trolling, he's the only one making any sense. Sorry, it's not photorealistic, real life, etc. Anyone who thinks that this game is close to real life needs better glasses. I know, you've said "they're not supposed to be RL, it's supposed to be vibrant and colorful!" Yes yes, you posted that 5 times now Venemo, we get that...now come up with something new or move on.

Comparing Uncharted to real life? Uncharted is not SUPPOSED to look real. Hence the use of all hand painted textures rather than read photos. They did that on purpose; They said it in a developer diary.

Again, Uncharted is supposed to look HAND PAINTED, not REALISTIC.

Gaaaah. >.< It's so frustrating to see how stupid the people who wright these articles are, but it's even more annoying to see that everybody in the comments can't tell - when even just looking at Nate's dace - that Uncharted doesn't use real images as textures.

And Crysis looks realistic. But it doesn't "feel" as realistic as Uncharted. I'm not dissing Crysis - i liked Crysis - Im just saying... Uncharted is a much more free flowing, fun, fluid game with a much better story, voice acting, etc. I would much rather play Uncharted than Crysis.

looks like you get it, too.

But make sure you SCREEN ALL OF YOUR COMMENTS THROUGH NEXGEN, because he knows better than all of us about writing comments on a message board. Don't you dare stain the reputation of the quality comments on N4G.

NEXGEN, you're a dweeb. Get a life.

Lol@ dweeb. I'm just saying you sound like a broken record, causew you said the same thing six times now. That's all. You sound butthurt because people aren't jumping on your bandwagon.

All the Crisis Fans gtfo with the BS. Sure crisis looks great blah blah blah but anyone can make a game look that good when they have unlimited resourse to use. I'll be impress when they make a game that looks like that on console specs, which uncharted is doing.

Also Uncharted is also the better game!

I have TWO high-end gaming PCs and i can honestly say that Crysis is a boring game with very little imagination. The art style has NO style and it's completely boring in every aspect, it's all quantity without an emphasis on quality.

Reality is a weak goal for graphics anyway, stylized graphics are way more interesting for people over the age of 13

@1.6

I don't play video games to admire the graphics. Not at all. I mean, it's nice to marvel at games like Gears of War, Grant Turismo, and Killzone 2; but it never has any priority.

I'm not into FPSs that much. I don't think I'm missing out all that much... at all.

cant be arsed does no1 know how to ,get a fact and substanciate it?

but how much do you think it'll cost you to play "that" smoothly ?

just sayin'..

Again, like Killzone 2, we have a game on the PS3 being compared, not with a PC game, but a PC game engine renders with mods and resolution that make it practically unplayable on a reasonably priced PC.

Here's a more meaningful question: What kind of PC do you need to get that Crysis engine to match Uncharted 2's image quality at a solid 30fps?

@above

500 dollars roughly.

Im not saying uncharted doesn't look great, it does. I loved the first and can't wait for the second, but that's no reason to spread disinformation about PC gaming which is clearly the underdog compared to console gaming. I don't think all the people in here talking about crysis are knocking UC2, just that it's a better example of photo realism in gaming. Plus, like a lot of people have said and I agree, UC2 is much more stylized and it fits the game much better than a more realistic art style.

You claim $500. What kind of CPU/Motherboard/GPU/RAM/HDD, etc?

I'm not talking about a gaming PC with specs similar to the RSX, I mean one that can match the graphical fidelity (lighting, shaders, polygons, etc,) in an actual interactive game at playable frame-rates.

If you can demonstrate a PC that does it for under $1000 I'd like to see a component breakdown. Remember that stable frame-rate means an average of 45fps. To make your job easier, keep in mind that your target resolution is only 720P so, for example, if you can find a setup that does 25fps at 1080P you've hit gold since in terms of pixel throughput, 1080P at 25fps average is the same as 720P at 50 fps as long as the slow performance is due to CPU or polygon throughput, where Uncharted 2 is doing a massive amount of work, from physics to character models and animations.

I understand what u mean, but why downplay one of this generation of consoles best looking games, by comparing it with undoubtedly the best looking game on the PC- the highly modifiable, always available to upgrade console"? It IS a gen back, but downplaying those incredible graphics being done on 2006 hardware isnt valid. I will be continue to be "over-awed" cause nothing was this impressive on the PC in 2006, if we will continue to compare consoles with PC's. at least thats my honest take.

Agree with Knavex. I think PC owners are way too defensive at the topic of visual fidelity. No way a system with 500M Ram, and a 2006 GPU can compete with a 2009 ever upgradeable PC. Lets acknowledge UC2 gorgeous visual and the prowess of the system is running on. Good news is still very early on Ps3 lifespan and surely UC2 will be surpassed soon enough.

Agreed, while this is probably a gen behind what crysis "could" do on a high end rig, I believe Uncharted 2 would look better than crysis IF we did a comparison of a PC running with 512mb shared system AND GP memory.

I think both Uncharted2 and KZ2 are both in their own right, a generation above what we've seen coming out from any console title so far. Let's face it, the PS3 has the most graphically impressive games this gen. Short of crysis, it is definitely in the realm of high quality even for a "pc" game. That's the bottom line truth and even you PC enthusiasts can't deny that. KZ2 or UC2 look better than the vast majority of PC titles released to date and would easily qualify in the PC Top Ten.

...and here's something that's gonna piss off a bunch of PC elitists: UC2 is more interesting to look at, has vastly superior animations and if anything like the fist UC, will be a far superior overall game.

That being said, this article wasn't UC2 vs. Crysis. If you want something that's truely real to life, racing games are about the only thing close at the moment, and that's only because it's hardware modeling, which is about 1000x easier to replicate. Nothing is even all that close to being real life in terms of overall organics. Crysis is the best at it so far, but none of the shots I have ever seen would I ever mistake for real life, and when you throw in the character models and buildings, well, there's a reason no show-pics of Crysis show them when trying to show realism. Please don't think I'm downplaying the graphics, as they are without equal. Back on UC2 though, it's not meant to be true-to-life like Crysis tries to be, as it's slightly stylized and has quite a bit of artistic value.

the same as saying "8 core", yes they can run separate threads/code, but it isn't classed as "8 core" when compared to something like an i7 or dual-core...it's not the same from my understanding, but beyond what I know, maybe someone more knowledgeable can get into the details of why it's not the same. All I can recall when I read up on the PS3 is that engineers said not to think of it as 8 core...

@3.8

The Cell has 7 SPE's (Synergistic Processing Elements, 7 active out of 8 possible for the ps3 version of the Cell, but one of the 7 is reserved for the OS and not usable by developers, so really 6 SPE's) that are co-processors that each have individual functions. It's very different from, say, a dual-core, which is two separate processors on one chip. The PPE (Power Processing Element) in the Cell is what controls the functions of the SPE's and decides which one does what. I guess you could call the Cell a dual-"core" with the SPE's and PPE both being separate processors, but it's not really accurate.

@above

Not expert here but what I understand is that SPEs are designed to be extremely fast, so they have been stripped down of certain logical operations and execute less instructions per cycle than a full multipurpose processor as the core2 duo. Still they can operate as a multipurpose processor compensating its deficiencies with brute force (at 3.2 GHz, each SPE gives a theoretical 25.6 GFLOPS of single precision performance -Wikipedia)

Care to compare racing games?

@Myze, the PPE does not control the SPE. The SPE are fully functional cpu cores, out of order, with its own local ram and instruction set. A DMA unit can initiate memory transfer into and off the on chip SRAM (SPUs RAM, basically) as well as the PPU can initiate a DMA transfer, but they work autonomously. The SPUs and PPU communicate thru a HW based "post box system", basically a HW message passing system to sync PPU and the SPUs, etc. SPUs can initiate a ringbus transfer without transferring any data to XDRAM (waterfall algorithm within the SPUs), without ever touching the PPU. This is a very complex multi core setup and can easily match a coherent quad core configuration today.

Dont over-awe? Sure.

Nothing wrong with aweing at a beautiful game though. I don't care the about the specs, I'm not a techy guy. Uncharted 2 looks great to me.

@2.3

It's kind of silly that you are telling someone to change their mind about a game they've played because Zero Punctuation wasn't positive in his review of it. Not to mention, that ZP review is one of the worst as he's REALLY reaching for most of his criticism's, more so than usual. That's not even mentioning that there's a very good chance (50/50) that you have never actually played Uncharted all the way through.