Um...why?

Well obviously Crysis looks better, but U2 does put up a decent fight.

but not on your pc

keep upgrading your rigs, nerds.. using the money you save by not dating ladies

LMAO!!1!

Going up against The Looking PC Game
Only on PS3 can a Game Get Compared to The Best Looking PC Game
Now we are Not BoTs
And we wont Cry Unfair and spit our Dummies out Like They do Every Time Flopza gets Compared to GT5
We Say it's a Honor to be Compared to Crysis in terms of Graphics
And it's a Good Victory for The PS3
Now Kiss my Ass PC Nerds
I'm Sat on a Big Comfy Leather Chair in Front of a 50" HD 1080p TV
Not a Crap 17" Monitor on a Cheap Office Chair in the Corner

Come on now we don't need this.

The TITLE itself blew me away !!!

Grrrrrr Site is not working for me. This happens too much on N4G.

Funny thing is they tried to compare the two by blowing U2 up to a resolution it does not support, at least a resolution the retail version doesn't support. Obviously Crysis will look better. Keep U2 at the appropriate size and it will be a lot closer.

Yeah, crysis is much, much clearer, higher resolution and has amazing AA.

But considering the GPU in the PS3 is basically a GeForce 7800, it is pretty incredible. Naughty dog, woo!

uncharted 2 is far better
well crisis got 91% metascore lets wait for u2... it seems to be higher than crisis

.... F1 Ferrari and a Honda Civic....let's see which is faster huh???

this is a dumb comparison haha

Two different art styles. Why aren't 360 games being compared. Wait nvm.

On Split Screen.Com
Halo ODST Vs Doom
http://blastmagazine.com/im...

Crysis looks good but it also looks cartoony at the same time and so does Uncharted 2 but in a different way.

This is actually why I've hated on Crysis all these years because it looks too shiny and some things just look out of place like the water.

I think Uncharted does the water better than Crysis (talking about the looks) but Crysis has done a better job in making the leaves look like shiny plastic but the jungle environments look great in both.

They said it was, "The best looking Video Game Ever"

Crysis looks amazing, but you have to take into account animations, art style, varied environments and scale....not just resolution and frame rate.

face the truth-- crisis got 91% metascore, uncharted 2 seems to be higher maybe 95-96% its perfect game.... and uncharted 2 will sell more, MANY MORE. when you compare graphics try choose exclusive one.... once i will play crisis on my PS3 you dont stop me.. but when will you play uncharted 2??? only hard pc fanboys can tell crisis looks better

well to me as a ps3 gamer is an honor that uncharted 2 is compered to the best looking pc game. But at the same time we don't need this

i dont think it would take too much for a pc to run uncharted 2 in great quality 9600 gt would do the job.

crysis got a pass because of the graphics its been happening quite a bit this generation if it has amazing graphics then bam 9s and 10s.. Uncharted however looks like an amazing game all around story, graphics but most importantly gameplay.

Would I rather play Crysis on max or Uncharted 2 on my PS3?

Uncharted 2 on visuals alone because of how smooth everything looks and feels in the BETA.

then i would say,"of course uncharted 2 looks good for a console game, but come on now, this is no contest pc games wipe the floor with anything on any console" or "no console can ever come close to the unrivled might of the all powerful pc" or "why even start these articles pc clearly wins" or heres one from the fake ps3 fans posing as pc fans "im a ps3 fan and i support it whole heartedly, but i cannot deny the obvious its nothing compared to crysis" or "i love ps3 but i must admit crysis looks 3000000 times better'now the sad thing about pc fans is that you get to the point where you know their statements are full of bs when no matter how good a game looks even if it looks like cgi and pixar and ingame fmv they still say crysis looks better, i fount out how delusionalized pc fans were when i saw how closely uncharted 1 was compared to crysis and how after a long battle the rulling thanks to pc fans said that crysis looks better, time has gone on and several ps3 games trumped uncharted 1 and yet somehow

crysis looks better yet better than killzone 2's e3 2005 trailer from pc fan logic to bad thats hypocritical since the pc fans said those visuals wouldnt be possible for 3 generations from now, but all of a sudden crysis has trumped it despite failing to meet its target render and the e3 2005 footage on 2005 hardware, so much for the"4 year old hardware is LEGIONS behind 2009 hardware statement" face it theres no need of going into an article like this pc fans will show up in hives saying the same crap they always say as i have stated above, even if wardevil looks like wall-e ingame they will yet say crysis looks better, so pc fans won anyone else contrary to their unviersal belief of crysis you lost simple as that, 98% of the internet is pc fans, you will have no backup hardly if you were on the side them that know uncharted 2 looks better, so leave it alone

u can lie to yourself but dont change truth. window is very consumption OS. remember y.2001, GT3, ICO was out and every pc gamer cried because they dont have such a beautiful games until 2005/06. it is pure gaming power, it is playstation, it only does everything
bigrudowsky: u can hardly run PS2 on yor pc with 10fps, u better take care about your beloved last few exclusives 4 pc

hey why don't you compare Uncharted 2 with Halo ODST ?! or better than that, let's compare our c0cks! i happen to have a big one, look at the photo:
http://www.the-swizzlestick...

To have a console game compared to Crysis (graphically) is quite the achievement and is a testament to the talent of Naughty Dog.

only $5000 pc's can make crysis look better than uncharted 2 but even then not by much

I'm more impressed by U2 than I was with Crysis, but Crysis looks better.

I'm sorry, but those comparisons make UC2 look like a cheap copy of FarCry original. It looks good on it's own, but against Crysis? C'mon, you'd have to be blind to think it looks better. Look at the photo-realism in Crysis, and compare it to the 3D-animation look UC2 has and you'll see why Crysis is still unchallenged. You don't have to agree, I don't care, but it's the truth.

I think we don't have to argue too long about this. Firstly, this is an unfair comparison. PC v. PS3 is a ludicrous comparison. However, Crytek is making Crysis 2 on all platforms, and when that happens we will be able to compare Uncharted 2 with Crysis 2, to see which developer managed to work the power of the PS3 the best.

'GoldenEye' WINS!!! ;-D

YAWN...Crysis this, Crysis that...blah blah blah...i'd rather have my 'AAA' PS3 Games Line-up anyday!!! ;-P ;-P ;-P

Sorry i have to disagree with some of you:)

Firstly two different games, going for two different looks. but ok.

Compare snow in crysis and uncharted 2, uncharted 2 wins that one.
I've just been playing the beta and the snow caverns are like OMFG.

And please, whoever took those pics, seriously needs to adjust the dof in uncharted 2.

Also what the hell is with the comparison pics, no.6 for instance uncharted 2 a statue, crysis open environment.?

Go into a hut or building or even on the ship in crysis and take a few snaps(i don't have the game anymore)

Look at comparison 1.

Look at the wheel base on the cars, wow strange shape, 50p?
Look at the textures on the buildings.

I think crysis is a great game, but most of it's resources were spent on foilage and ground textures. Underwater was nice, but some of it look wrong. Open world is good, i loved explosions in crysis giving you a sense of the feel, like can't hear properly and feel like your staggering about after an explosion.

Then one is a fps and one a tps.

I think if you want to compare PS3'S graphics to crysis, your going to have to wait for Crytek.

After all, It's going to look like it in some way.

why the best looking ps3 games (KZ2, U2...) need to be compare by someone with crysis?

and no the 360 games?

oh..wait...yeah, i forgot, sorry

Is Crysis a cinematic-type quality game?

Does it have better voice acting?

Does it have better sound/music?

so how many ps3 games have been compared to crysis?

now how many 360 games have been compared to NES?

I bet if Naughty Dog were to create something for pc it would blow Crytek out of this world, jut look at what they can create with the supposedtly "bottleneck restrictions of the ps3".

give them the latest graphic cards, ram, cpu processors, and let them do their magic.

The graphics aren't good as Crysis but it's not bad.

Uncharted 1 & 2's story, voice acting, animation, atmosphere, and characters are all FAR, FAR, FAR more compelling than Crysis could ever BEGIN to hope to be.

Each of your PS3 fanboys comments are based on a choice you made not so long ago, to buy your beloved console. You have no factual evidence on the matter. All you are doing is excersizing your stubbly little fingers. When you show me one game that is for PS3 and PC and the PS3 version has better graphics, then maybe, maybe Ill listen.

IMO there are 3 key elements to gaming and immersion:

Flow of the game (gameplay, story, control or what you like)
Graphics
Sound

Each one of these if badly done can ruin the immersion that the others would bring. If all of these are done correctly, but then you have one element which is outstanding, it will exponentially help improve the overall result.
When comparing Crysis to U2 i think everybody seems to forget this important facet. U2 is coming as a package where graphical art and wow factor only adds to the rest. Of the things i read Crysis only excels in graphical prowess. So, for me, this kind of screenshot comparison is pure technical talk out of context, because the games aren't on the same level.

It's been many years that i'm almost exclusively a console gamer, and this is due to the hassle of setting up your pc, checking specs with each game, configuring hard/soft, and many times having to play with underpar results (framerate, ...) if i didn't upgrade.
I think those Crysis shots don't necessarily correspond to what the average joe would be able to obtain on his not necessarily new, not necessarily optimized pc.
This is why i think this comparisons fail: it's like saying a 12000 rpm engine can spin faster than a 8000 rpm engine. In fact there are pcs out there from 4000 to 16000 rpm. Get the idea?

I think this comparison is a compliment for UC2. A console game being compared to one of the best (maybe even the best) looking PC games out at this moment.

What happened to that (in)famous comment that PS3 fanboys like to pull out on Xbox 360 - "Hahaha, Forza 3 isn't capable of beating 2 year old demo (GT5:P)".

Well, if Sony and fanboys (again, not fans, but fanboys) is to be believed, PS3, with it's "limitless CELL power" should be capable of beating 2 years old PC game. Right?

Oh, wait...

Now, do you see what I did here?

This article (and sadly, just like majority of articles on this site lately) = potential flamebait.

Cheers! :)

I a sorry but the cry engine is superior.

What next, 3-way Uncharted 2 vs Crysis vs Pong screenshots?

I'm getting tired of every single game being compared to Crysis. I'm sure that the PC has other games that PS3 games can be compared with.

oh wait Sony fanboys aka Anime ***get loving worshippers that's who PC/360 have hardware the PS3 can't touch KZ2 didn't even look that special aside from bigger textures it's funny that people say the 360 can't even match uncharted 1 type visuals when plenty of multiplatforms have already surpassed such as COD4 and Bioshock I don't care if they weren't 360 exclusives MS exclusive developers are already lazy as it is but yet Forza 3 tends to look better then any PS3 out on the market and I'm sure even PC's from 2006 would be able to run UC2 without any hitches and it will still look better

what about grand turismo 5 vs crysis!!but just saying people

the only thing that they say is crysis looks better with no legit proof, saying,"crysis looks better" is an opinion no matter how wide spread it seems that belief is, what kind of rediculous excuses do pc fans make for crysis looking the best, heres a list:

1. crysis is the most technologically advanced ever to grace the gaming world, no mere console game can ever touch it

-but the verdict here is number one ps3 isnt a console

-number two is that we have no idea what kind of tech they are putting in the best of ps3 or 360 games so its not even factual to say that

2. console games can look better in small corridor areas but the scale of crysis is massive so it outpaces any console game in that right

-first of all we dont know if theres been a developer thats really talented that has tried to make such a huge game with good graphics on ps3, that really understands how the machine works

-secondly its been said that crysis maps arent as big as it appears from the vast distances you see on the beaches

3. crysis is the best looking game of this generation

-first that statement was said so long ago over and over again when it was never true, it was fueled by crytek promoting there flagship title crysis, crytek talked so much crap about ps3 and 360, they talked mess about ps3 before it even came out, the reason that that statement is so widely accepted is cause pc fans flood gaming forums and always state that garbage, and all the stuff i said in my previous post, the pc fans have said it so much no matter how good a game looks even if it looks like the latest disney pixar movie it still doesnt look better than crysis, but pc fans are so unaware that going so far as to say crysis looks better than cgi, which many ps3 games this gen have already hit cgi level in realtime, so crysis does look better than even the highest end cgi, in order to say crysis looks better than killzone 2, motorstorm and motorstorm pacific rift, heavy rain, gt5,uncharted 2, mgs4, ratchet and clank future tools of destruction, ratchet and clank a crack in time, uncharted drakes fortune, mag(on its size and scale with 256 players on screen), resistance 2, and the last guardian; then i would have to say that your saying sony hasnt delivered on what they said ps3 is capable of, but that would be a lie since sony's ps3 has been doing just as much if not sometimes more than those e3 2005 trailers showed, if the ps3 wasnt delivering, then you would have several articles out on the net saying ps3 was a lie from sony, but where are they. i remember back in 2006 or so when people were saying if killzone 2 makes 20% of the e3 2005 trailer crysis would bite the dust, but instead id say the finalized version of killzone 2 met and even beat the 2005 trailer in alot of areas, so kz2 was on one side about 95% of the trailer and some places over 100% and it even had stuff that the 2005 trailer didnt have fire and smoke trails are the only areas that didnt fully make it, face detail also, crysis's original footage in 2005 looked WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better than the final offering shown these days and that still looked a long ways behind killzone 2's 2005 trailer, wardevil was the only thing that was a challenger in e3 2005 for kz2, killing day also and motorstorm, pc fans are lucky killing day was cancelled

now that thats over, i will move to some shocking discoveries i have noticed about pc fans and their crysis:

1. ever notice how a forum topic or article anything to do with visuals magically a pc fan throws crysis into the mix? i have, it could be titled "uncharted 2 best looking game ever" and some pc fan HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD to have been searching the internet to find the article or forum in order to find out about the game and graphics and how good it looks, never had an account on the site or anything, then just signed up and starts posting the same things ive just shown you above and some how although its on a ps3 forum or article about ps3 or any other platform, here comes the pc fans by hives and they outnumber the fans of the ps3 on its own forum, this is how im at the conclusion that pc fans run over 98% of the net, EVERY talk of graphics a pc fan pops up and says some rediculous mumbo jumbo about crysis being something its not

2. go to any forum and just type insert (any game) looks better than crysis, now note that if you type something like banjo kazooie looks better than crysis, crysis fans wont get mad, but type any game like uncharted or uncharted 2 and any other game that actually looks like a challenge for it or that actually looks better than it, watch how many pc fans show up, like ive said before you wont have much backup for you even in your own forum topic even on a ps3 site cause the 98% of pc fans on the net, this is true ive done it before

3. pc fans wont even recognize a game on there own platform that looks better than crysis, this goes back to when i said no matter how good a game looks even if it looks like wall-e it wont look better than crysis, via pc fan logic. pc fans obviously think crysis looks better than arma 2 although i personally dont think it does, but no matter none of them look better than top line ps3 games

4. pc fans are HIGHLY hypocritical, when HAZE first came out and before it came out it was closely compared to crysis and crysis was barely declared the winner, then uncharted 1 came out and crysis was again some how crysis was barely declared the winner, then metal gear came out and crysis i dont know how was declared the winner, then gt prologue came out and i dont know how but crysis was the winner again, then killzone 2 came out and crysis was the winner somehow, then and now both ratchet and clank games somehow even being pixar quality are still no match for crysis via pc fan logic, and now even uncharted 2 doesnt look better than crysis, point in saying every one of these games after one another improved A WHOLE LOT from the last one, haze comparison showed crysis really wasnt all that and now we have uncharted 2 which destroys haze, but pc fan logic says crysis still trumps that, but continuing

5. when a fan of something other than pc proves that there are MANY games that look better than crysis the pc fan will resort to stating several excuses like stating technical mumbo jumbo that doesnt equate to anything i see on screen, such as" the HDR lighting destroys this by a mile" or "crysis's foliage is unmatched yet to this day" or "ground textures in crysis murder any game" you get the point? no one is going to care about that, i care about what i see on screen if i looked at crysis and uncharted 2 on two screens at once uncharted 2 would wow me MUCH more than crysis and many others, but a pc fan would like crysis even though its the uglier game

6. when pc fans establish that your right about a game looking better than their best, they will get you kicked off a forum and banned. this has happened to me millions of times EVEN on playstation forums talking about crysis and versus killzone 2, shows even more that pc fans consume 98% of the internet, why would a playstation forum give a care about me saying killzone 2 looks better on its own forum? even if it didnt, why would they care? and even more so why ban me for saying something like that on its own forum, i could see if i said crysis looks better on a playstation forum, but the other way around?

now that thats out of the way, lets establish what has people brainwashed about cryteks cryengine 2 and their best looking games crysis and crysis warhead:

1. the photo realism gimick- now, the main reason why anyone would probably say crysis looks the best is cause of its aim at real life visuals, but the problem is that the only reason that thats even established now at whats actually good graphics is cause of what we back in the day said visuals were going to make it to in games, remember playing madden back in the day or nba live? we said some years down the road games will look like real life and we will literally be playing real people in a game, this is how crysis has sucked many pc fans into really thinking crysis looks the best, they think looking like real life looks the best, real life looks the best any way but a game failing to make it there makes it really look like its not the best looking game

now lets look at why crysis looks any kind of good at all:

1. crytek was developing crysis since before farcry 1 came out, through the original cryengine into cryengine 2, and they game is literally still being built, THATS A LONG TIME to build a graphics engine

2. crytek was developing the game but didnt have to wait for 1 2 or 3 years for new hardware to come out pc hardware comes out in a stream no cycles so development just goes up they engine could keep growing with no break

3. crysis's crutch is its choice of environments, you have a beach you have beautiful forests, even beautiful snow areas and underwater, this is the reason it "looked" better than killzone 2, killzone 2 was set in an "ugly" area a real warzone, imagine if crysis and killzone 2 switched environments and used killzone 2's engine in a loose area like crysis's no big huge 3d buildings just flat beach land and forests, kz2s cgi looking engine wouldve looked WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better than crysis

4. pcs hardware is EXTREMELY straitforward, developers can use it to the max at the moment of their choosing, so when crysis came out against many first round ps3 games they could just max out gpus and any pc hardware, ps3 cant be maxed out so that was impossible to have a true knockout game for ps3 at that time in 2007 when crysis came out

5. crysis's second crutch is its way it had its graphics made, you see crytek uses in their engine EVERYTHING real world, if youve seen how crytek and ubisoft made crysis and farcry 2 and farcry 1 and crysis warhead they record hours of real world footage to the last grain, ground air trees faces grass everything guns clothing explosions smoke trails water, while games like killzone 2 use game art since guerilla games and any of the ps3 developers aim for the cgi style of visuals that is the real future of visuals in games, crysis really doesnt have any game art, everything is captured in real life, now you may say uncharted 2 uses real world environments but naughty dog didnt have since 2003-2004 and onward to make and engine, and most of their engine is cgi style anyway, so it has an animated style on to it other than just a photo real side, if you add up that crysis took so long to make and all i just showed you about it, it really isnt impressive of a game at all, especially since the earliest a ps3 game could have been made is feb 2006 since thats when the first prototype ps3 hardware was presented and any incomplete ps3 hardware was given in development kits were issued out to developers, finalized hardware didnt come til august 2006, meaning no TRUE ps3 development started til august 2006, and sony said in e3 2005 that it would take 4 years for ps3 to really start being used and understood, technically we are still not at 4 years, thats why developers so many times say we are still only scratching the surface with ps3, theyve only had 3 years out of the 4 that sony said there would be an understanding of it, wardevil is the real start of ps3, even if uncharted 2 didnt look good as crysis so what, you pc fans have wasted your best against the weak bombs of ps3 matter of fact no developers other than digi guys REALLY know how to use ps3 in the right way since sony made ps3 out of there movie hardware cell processor the purpose of it was to separate the line between cgi and realtime, and they have done that already even without any real cgi developers, digi guys will be the first, you speak all this nonsense of ps3 being old hardware and insufficient memory but the sad thing is you dont know how ps3 works and how it has everything developers need to bring movies in realtime into games

this is all for now, but its not over guaranteed

Pootangpie

You lost me@ COD4.

you do realise that just about all the ps3 fan comments on this article have been postive towards pc gaming and gamers complimenting crysis and accepting it as the better looking game look at the 360 fanboy comments on the gt5 vs forza 3 graphics comparisons.."OH ITS CGI ITS NOT REAL." then look at the forza 3 vs GT5P comparisons..."sony uses tricks so it looks better." i mean come on man how many sony fans have said anything close to that in this article?

Can somebody take screenshots of Crysis on a $299 PC and running at 60FPS?!?!?!? lmfao... that would be funny to see.

As things are in these shots Crysis is better, but I can never justify the financial outlay to get a game looking that good on a PC. That is why I have a PS3.

I think it's easier for developers to design realistic plants, trees, flowers, anything that's related to that. So I believe this is why Crysis looks a bit better than Uncharted 2, because UC2 is not just about forests and etc, its also about urban areas. Cuz if we think about it Lost Planet2 has some good graphics too.

and not only in terms of overall quality (check metacritic-crisis 91%,U2 97%) but also in terms of graphic.. crisis is only forest, U2 is forest, ultra realistic snow and city... PC gamers are talking only about crisis but what else? ps3=crisis-killer heavy rain, most realistic cars GT5, universal U2, brutal bloody GOW3 and ultra detailed Last Guardian

This game looks crap just like every other PS3 game.

This is an article about which game has the more realistic graphics & visuals alone. It's not about which has better story, voice-acting or gameplay, and it's not about how much the hardware costs. I definitely agree that UC2 would be better in terms of overall quality but if you think it beats Crysis in photo-realism then you need to have your eyes examined.

The best looking console game of all time.

Uncharted may have a better stry and stuff but better graphics???

Considering people are syaing that todays PC's arnt maxing it out fully yet I doubt it. I mean look at the stills being generated, some of them near real life.

Its way beyond what consoles can do this gen.

http://www.gameplaymonthly....

I mean look at that. Its near photo realism.

diffusione: let me repeat it: crisis is boring forest, U2 is forest + ultra realistic snow + city,got that.
ninjamonky: your pic is blur,look at that
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...
http://www.gameswire.net/sc...
http://www.gameswire.net/sc...
http://www.gameswire.net/sc...
http://www.gameswire.net/sc...
U2, GT5, heavy rain

.

It is future proof. I haven't played a game like Crysis since and probably never will. Wasn't the greatest FPS but certainly it was special

Crysis looked MINDBLOWING in 2007 (at least the few frames I could render on my PC did), still looks good today, which is an amazing feat. But has definitely aged when you consider the wow factor it once had. Braid is a game from 2007 that's future proof bc the graphical style is so simple. Looked good then, looks as good now.