看完这个测评觉得有点蛋疼，KZ3压倒性的各方面完胜，360版孤岛2几乎差了一个档次，根本算不上一个强大的对手。

Welcome back for another exciting Head2Head! This week we put two of this generations best looking games against one another in a classic battle for the title of current FPS “King of Graphics”. Of course the two games we’re talking about are the PlayStation 3’s Killzone 3, and the Xbox 360 version of Crysis 2. We’ve had so many requests for this one we just couldn’t avoid it. So come on in and relax for a bit while we show you the battle of the century, (well, at least this year anyway). Enjoy!


Graphics: The first thing we need to remember about these two games is that they have two very different styles.  Killzone 3 seems to be shooting for a very realistic, yet strong, sci fi feeling with both setting and character models while Crysis 2 tries to capture a more true to life realism.  Needless to say, both versions set out to do what they aim for.  Everything from character detail to the texture of the terrain is done perfectly.  While the difference is so minimal that it will go unnoticed, Killzone 3 seems to have a resolution advantage here.  While Killzone 3 runs at full native 720p, Crysis2 runs in very SLIGHT sub HD resolution of 1152 x 720.  However Crysis 2 doesn’t hesitate to hit back with slightly better HDR lighting throughout.
Furthermore, both Crysis 2 and Killzone 3 have a slew of next generation rendering techniques that only high end PC’s with decked out SLI graphics cards are able to achieve. For example, the physics engine handling the water and fluid effects, as well as destructible environments react in a very realistic manner. Although both games had these effects implemented, they both handled them slightly different - let us explain.  For starters,  environments in Killzone 3 seemed more destructible throughout. In some scenes you can literally make entire buildings collapse if certain support beams were destroyed.  In addition, walls, concrete pillars, and even bathroom toilets could be obliterated. On the flip side, Crysis2 had its fair share of destructible objects, but the selection was a much less than those found in Killzone 3.  Instead, Crysis 2 focuses on allowing players the option of interaction with a slew of objects. For example, almost any object in a scene can be picked up and used as a weapon, and there were tons of them in every level.


Finally, what really got our attention, and what sets Killzone 3 apart from the competition are its’ in-game cinematics. Aside from Killzone 3’s opening cut scene, all others used in-game props, and were rendered using Killzone 3’s in-game graphics engine. Let us just say, they look amazing. As for Crysis 2, we were really disappointed with the FMV’s it presented. To be honest, a few of the cut scenes looked down right ugly showing signs of compression and pixelation (reference the image below). This is something we haven’t seen since the 32bit era. Overall, the graphics in Killzone 3 were more polished throughout.

Performance: This category had some noticeable differences.  For the most part Killzone 3 ran a consistent 30 FPS with a few occasional, and very slight, drops with no screen tearing at all.  Crysis 2 on the other hand dropped FPS noticeably more than Killzone 3 however.  The worst of these drops seem to happen in the heavier fire fights more often than anywhere else.  Also there was some very slight screen tearing at the top of the screen in Crysis 2, but it was so slight that it will go mainly unnoticed.  Another problem that Crysis 2 seemed to have that was absent from Killzone 3 is a few random pop-ins.  While the game looks fantastic, pop-ins can take from the beauty of even the best looking games.  Luckily however, they aren’t that bad and you probably won’t notice them in action therefore they won’t take away from the experience overall.  In the end however the differences are there, no matter how small they may be.  Killzone 3 takes the win here with a better average in FPS with little to no pop-ins or tearing.

Loading: The loading is another category with a clear cut winner.  Most of the load times for both Killzone 3 and Crysis 2 were masked by pre rendered cut scenes and make them almost invisible your first time through.  Even when you try to skip the scenes, it isn’t that bad.  Crysis 2  however had some seriously horrific loads when you boot up your save file as you start the game.  We believe the numbers speak for themselves.



总结：虽然孤岛2在2个平台上表现不错，但仔细分析比较后画面王的桂冠毫无疑问的被KZ3夺走。KZ3不但画面更好，而且帧数稳定没有撕裂。
KZ3画面王的地位能维持多久，让我们拭目以待。

Conclusion: Although Crysis 2 looks fantastic on both the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, the graphics crown still belongs to Guerrilla’s Killzone 3. Not only does Killzone 3 look graphically better, the performance its more stable throughout. That being said, with serious graphical contenders on the horizon such as Battlefield 3 and RAGE, how long can Killzone 3 hold on to the title? We’ll just have to wait and see!

http://www.lensoftruth.com/head2 ... -crysis-2-analysis/

[ 本帖最后由 极品三红 于 2011-4-11 01:17 编辑 ]

引用:

原帖由 pigudada 于 2011-4-11 01:35 发表
KZ3是画面王
？？

原文的确是这么说，当然是指主机，找PC当外援的话就另当别论了。

引用:

原帖由 lili2k2 于 2011-4-11 02:39 发表
兰州智商配合该贴内容，绝了~~~

:D :D :D

连你这种货都来谈智商？我曹。难怪核都泄漏了

引用:

原帖由 survivorcn 于 2011-4-11 06:54 发表
这得多无聊才会去做这种测评

IGN无聊了很多年了

引用:

原帖由 ddr911 于 2011-4-11 10:14 发表
KZ不是一直以光环和战争机器做为假想敌的吗?怎么又跟PC移植游戏干上了??

人家不是在那比画面吗，光环和战争机器假想根毛？

尾行猫头和那个咸鸭蛋2个低能儿，好像除了人参攻击，放放地图跑，啥事都不会。

[ 本帖最后由 极品三红 于 2011-4-11 20:21 编辑 ]

引用:

原帖由 littlezoo 于 2011-4-11 20:19 发表
主机版CRYSIS 2还没出的时候我帖一些PC版的图片都能被天师喷得一无是处，如今主机板被天师喷成渣我也不奇怪了。。。
=。=

只是多亏有了CRYSIS 2出现在主机平台，才能把以前被吹上天的画面”神作“比得像上个时代 ...

那枪对着地板写回忆录