You're expecting a seriously balanced opinion from users with less than 100 posts?  Let them get their first ban out of the way first then you have a chance of a balanced discussion.

You really need to compare the games in motion to get an accurate picture.

Specifically, Killzone 2 displays at a hardlocked 30 FPS with some framerate drops at 1280x720 with quincunx AA (about the equivalent of 2x MSAA, except with motion blur). Even the first Crysis can easily display at >30 FPS w/4X MSAA at, say, 1680x1050 on a modern mid-range gaming system. That'll look a helluva lot better than KZ2.

Seriously, the PS3 is running like three-generations-old graphical hardware. There's no chance at all that a PS3 game can look as good as modern graphically intensive PC titles, especially in the near future with DX11 games featuring heavy tessellation effects on the horizon (something which the PS360's DX9-era hardware could never dream of).

EDIT: Long since beaten, but it bears repeating because some people can't seem to understand it.

And I'd assume that this is the reason why Killzone2 looks better in motion than in screenshots, because there are so many visual tricks they use to hide the textures on non-important assets, including the heavy motion blur in the game.  

I've also heard that some textures were blurred to reduce the presence of jaggies in the game.

Of course, most of these things don't matter because you're not paying attention to them while the game is in motion-especially since the motion blur AND the animation are so damn good.

True you need to see them in motion, but it really would make much of a difference in the debate because of the vast differences in the art style and preferences of the developers. As for frame rate its one of the things you can't see in still images, KZ2 has tons of low frame rate sections but the devs decided to keep them in and not compromise the graphic fidelity of the other sections by changing the code; there choice to do so will Crysis 2 keep the settings bar higher or will they smooth the frame rate? will they cut down on the action to keep the frame rate? who knows; to many variables these days.

and just a quick question? does anybody know of a presentation or interview that has the amount of time qincunx AA takes on the PS3? Just wondering if it could be easily replaced by the analytical anti-aliasing used in the Metro2033 engine, similar results without the blurry textures.

I study this stuff right now.. I could get technical into this stuff but I won't.... I'll make it simple Cell processor combined with RSX produces more GFLOPS than any Personal computer available...(prove me wrong) First party developers study Cell all day and all night and nothing else.. They take advantage of it and produce games like God of War 3.. You don't have that with PC games.. no dedicated developers to make games on specific CPU/GPU specs..... Anyways I have seen Crysis in Ultra High ... I have seen God of War 3 in 720p ... I promise you God of War 3 is technically more impressive then any pc game.... More proof is that the games are racking up 35 Gb of space on blu-ray discs PC doesn't have that By the way just because Im new to the site doesn't mean i dont know what I'm talking about.... In the end you might be upset that the ps3 is just like your gaming pc but hundreds cheaper... lol i got upset about that too its no big deal tho you have both.. Oh and also why compare killzone 2 to crysis... Boys ill give you all crysis on that battle...but crysis to GOW3 noway lolol

When you learn to structure a sentence so people can be bothered reading it then you'll get owned in a debate quite easily.  The end of a sentence is denoted by a single full stop and commonly preceeded by 2 spaces before the next one.  It's also quite handy to seperate your argument into paragraphs for easier reading too.  I'm only saying this because I'd love to see Shio and the rest of the PC fan brigade destroy your claims which is unlikely as they'll just browse straight past your hard to read post.

By the way you do have absolutely no idea what you're talking about saying God Of War 3 is more impressive technically than anything on the PC, even some of the most staunch PS3 supporters will not be mad enough to back you up on that ridiculous claim.  Finally why in the hell can't my PS3 play COD4 at 1920x1080 natively at 120+FPS when my PC can if its so great?

ok yea its hard to read, I can see that now.  But bring on the brigade! . Have you seen God of war 3, if not, then shut the hell up lol because your clueless.

Oh and quit with the resolution comparisons lol. Thats just one of many aspects that define good graphics and technology.

Ill debate circles around any person. PS3 is more powerful then any pc. It also has game developers who are dedicated to take advantage of that hardware..

Prove me wrong buddy.

If you are supposedly so knowledgeable about game creation, you'd know that GFLOPs are not the be-all, end-all of game production, especially when it comes to actual implementation of code and the fact that the PS3 is bottle-necked up the ass because of its RAM/VRAM size and speed.

I'm not knocking God of War, it's a beautiful game, just like all other GoW games were in their time. But compared to a PC? Nah. The texture resolutions, framerate, and many other aspects of the physics and lighting engines just can't be done on a PS3 compared to the raw power found in a nice gaming rig. PS3 (and all console) games are more optimized because of their singular platform but the sheer processing power and RAM in a PC outstrips all of that by a wide margin.

I'll take a shot at this one.

The PS3's Cell processor features a single main PowerPC-based core clocked at 3.2 GHz and seven vectorized SPUs. While pretty powerful technology in 2006, however, the Cell cannot hold a candle to today's PC CPUs for gaming. In synthetic benchmarks and without its SPUs, the Cell ranks at about the speed of a low-end (1.6 GHz) PowerPC G5 - a CPU based off of circa-2002 technology. This is the most useful metric in comparing the Cell to modern processors, because despite theoretically making the Cell an eight-core CPU, the SPUs are (in layman's terms) highly crippled: among other things, they require a vectorized instruction set and have no local cache. This means that, not only do programs need to be developed specifically around the Cell's architecture, but the program itself also needs to be suited exactly to the Cell's architecture to take full advantage of it. Therefore, while the Cell has very high theoretical processing muscle, this muscle only really shows in synthetic benchmarks and doesn't really have much practical application in games without using the SPUs in a highly unoptimized way. This is why, despite having greater theoretical processing power than, say, a good Core 2 Duo, games optimized for the C2D can feature more processor-intensive tricks and effects than games optimized for the Cell. And furthermore, this is why the Cell can't even touch a modern high-end LGA1366 CPU for most applications. (If it could, then people would just use the much cheaper, 4-year-old technology instead.)

And while we're at it, let's talk about the PS3's graphical architecture for a sec. The PS3 runs an NVidia GPU that's somewhere close to a 7800 GTX in performance, albeit with a slightly higher clockspeed and crippled VRAM. The 7800 GTX was a high-end card in 2005, but today it's slow as hell. Here's a rough comparison between it and modern cards (synthetic benchmark results, but I can't find a more direct comparison). As you can see, the 7800 GTX is (theoretically) beaten in performance today by a $60 Radeon 4670. It's this weakness in graphical hardware that has led to many PS3-exclusive developers ignoring the GPU and using the Cell's SPUs to emulate a GPU instead - a workable, but imperfect, solution that still leads to most graphically intensive games being capped at 30 FPS at 1280x720.

Finally, we get to God of War 3. The God of War series has always used certain cheap tricks to make the game look better than it really should; specifically, locking the camera so that the game never renders too much at once, making the environments as non-interactive as possible, and pre-scripting nearly every possible interaction via QTEs and canned animations. Compare this to the first Crysis, where environments are heavily interactive: Grass and foliage sway as you walk through it, buildings crumble under artillery fire, hell, pretty much anything short of the ground itself can be destroyed or interacted with in some fashion. By comparison, God of War 3 doesn't even have a physics engine. So while GoW3 may look impressive (at only 1280x720 with morphological AA, the benefits of which over multisampling AA are questionable), graphics aside it's basically a circa-2003 PS2 game with a shiny coat of paint. The lack of anything else for the PS3's hardware to do meant that the devs could free up pretty much everything else for graphical processing, and furthermore the complete lack of interactivity, combined with the game's linearity, meant that the devs could control exactly what was onscreen at any given time, a luxury that few other games can share. This is why GoW3 is perhaps the best looking game on the PS3: The devs made every sacrifice possible in other areas of the game in order to increase the eye candy factor.

I'm sure some of the other PC gurus can add to this explanation, too.