Really? Halo 4's pic/gifs looked more impressive than the actual game to be honest :/

which screens? The offline renders? Or the the screen from the video in the OP that some seem to think is 360 (and you thought was CGI) but is almost certainly PC footage? And what does that have to do with the discussion at hand, in which you belive that the footage shown looks worse than GTA V?

It's easier to make a linear game pretty then it is to make an open world game pretty

Plus

Find a crysis 3 screenshot that compares to this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJAwKK74o_8

KZ3 is the best graphics on consoles.

This is how the game looks in online. Uncharted3 or other games can't be even compared which looks too inferior in online.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJAwKK74o_8

People don't rate KZ3 so much because of its location, colors.

Eurogamer do their face-off and other articles for hits everyone knows that. If people cared so much they would go to other sites where they talk about PC gfx and high end video cards.

Crysis3 looks great, but the gun looks so big, FOV is so ugly. Otherwise it looks beautiful. Have to wait and see when it releases.

Yes everyone knows that, you still posted that GTA V looked better on top of being open world... That is what I was argueing with.

And the level of detail in that screen is not even close. Textures lack detail and character models outside of the head look quite poor. Graphically it's not even in the same league. Your appreciation for the art style notwithstanding.

As you say an open world game is not going to look better than a linear one, or even a semi open game like Crysis 3. 

A 7 year old PC can run Crysis 2 just fine, albeit with massively reduced quality settings, Crysis 3 won't be that much demanding that tweaking couldn't fix.
However, you don't buy a AAA game to run it worst than a console, it's the leading edge in terms of graphical fidelity, why settle for anything less than at max?
Sure it's not cheap, but it's well worth it.
For instance, show me a console that can run this at 5760x1080 or higher with 8x AA/AF with everything on max.

Jesus!

I'm truly impress by the beauty of the graphics... It looks even more real than reality.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-killzone-3

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-halo-4

DF never said that and I'm a regular at Eurogamer. Sticking to just FPS, KZ3 as a whole is easily the most technically demanding. Just look at the at the later levels with the amount of stuff happening at the same time. There's nothing in any Halo game that can compete with that. The thing Halo has over Killzone is the sandboxy level design, loads of full res alpha effects, light sourcing for weapons i.e light source for every Convenant particle fired and controller lag  (Killzone uses quater res alpha, smaller play areas and slower controller response). In fact both Halo Reach and Killzone 2 pushed each of their respective consoles very hard to the point where they made great advances in the engines for the sequels they also had to make some obvious cut backs. For Killzone 3 they cut back on the post processing and weapon particle effects and for Halo 4 they got rid of SSAO and motion blur as well as draw down the light sourcing.

Check out 5.40 onwards with the Mawler in the background wrecking havoc. There's nothing in a Halo game to compare from an audio visual perspective. Just so much going on explosions, particle effects, smoke density, lighting...and KZ3 does this at a very solid 720p/30fps/triple buffering and MLAA. I understand the play area is small compared to Halo games and the alpha explosions are low res with sometimes dodgy animation but even taking that into account it's still unbelievable.