Considering this games graphically superior to KZ:Shadowfall, there isnt anywhere near as much discussion about it

People might rage about it after reading that even if it's true. :P I have no interest in the game though, I'm too addicted to Planetside 2 on a MP FPS front right now, being pretty doesn't do anything for me in online MP lol, I just want to cap people.

LOL you clearly dont understand how Console architecture works so i will leave you in your ign.

Killzone already looks better than this and isnt even reaching 10% of Ps4 full potential.

In 4 years after next gen came out, BF4 will be seen as an ugly ugly game.

The only thing you need to do is compare Launch 360 tittle to games like Halo 4 now or many others, it isnt even close. Console evolve with time and new ways of reaching Console Full Potentials, Uncharted 4 will make this game look like a Ps One Game running at 20fps per second.

Just wait and see the magic from the Gods.

So, no mention of the optimization that games undergo for consoles? Just looking at the Digital Foundry analysis of Bioshock Infinite for PC vs PS3 and, visually, there's not much between the 2. Negligle is probably a good word to define the difference between what would be provided by the PS4 and the PC.

if higher resolution output and higher resolution texture assets are, as you put it, only "negligle" differences, then the difference in the PS3 and PS4, to you will only be "negligle" too, you can't have it both ways.

Graphics have reached a plateau for a long time now. It's the artstyle that have mattered for some years now. Why do you think games like Uncharted, GoW and Journey beat out a lot of PC games when it comes to best graphics awards? And PS4 will bring console gaming back to console gaming. No more waiting for installs, patches, etc...

Uncharted, Gears of War (Or god of war, if you want to stick to sony only games) and Journey, are indeed beautiful games in their own right, but theyre also exclusives with no direct comparison for PC or other consoles which detracts from the ability to do a proper comparison, but i can tell you - having been working in the games industry for the past decade, working on several extremely well received games that the PS3 and 360 have always been behind graphically, compared to PC's, and the same is true for the next generation of consoles, what you, and many other console fans seem to neglect when thinking about things, for the most part major multiplatform releases are designed with "the consoles" in mind, which results in the PC versions up to now being often either a shell of what they could be, or direct console ports - when developers actually push the games to give current high end hardware a good roasting, consoles don't stand a chance. - Bumping up the baseline with a new breed of console just means that multiplat games won't suffer as much, giving PC users better quality games that utilize their hardware better.

Consider this, Crysis 3 looks amazing, as does battlefield 3, compare them to these console games youre championing, almost always sub-720p and struggling to hit 30FPS, where crysis 3 and battlefield 3 on high end rigs hit 70fps and 120fps respecctive on average - if you put in the effort to build a game that a PC would have to run at 30fps and sub-720p resolution - then that game would, by a country mile, blow away anything else you could come up with.

PC's run at whatever resolution you want, with much better processing and aliasing.

Before the consoles have even released the limitations of them is already starting to show it's head - don't believe me? go watch the shadowfall trailer - as he walks under the blossom trees petals on the ground go from invisable to visible due to the texture aliasing having banding issues from gradiated distance bias.

Of course, if you want to argue about this, i'll happily take every single game you can come up with and show you direct, damning examples of why these games are on every level technologically behind the PC counterparts.

What you're saying does not change anything to the fact that a lot of people consider games running on 7 or 8 years old hardware to be some of the best looking game of all time. Do you remember that scene in Journey where you're sliding on the sand with the sunken city in the sunset? Who can deny that that is nothing in Crysis 3 (running on the most powerful card available) comes remotely close in terms of beauty? And that's running on a $250 system.

Aesthetic preference is not technical capability, some people would consider one car "the best looking ever" but others would call it ugly, so the only subjective way to look at things would be comparing the technological advancements and overall complexity and attention to detail in creating a scene, and in those regards the benefits of the high end pc system are large strides ahead of the console counterparts.

Again, personal preference does not equate to overall graphical detail.

Additionally, you tout the benefits of a closed system in being more optimized - and yet despite these optmizations, despite API and OS overheads and driver overheads, PC versions of games are still visually on a level current (and in many ways the next generation) consoles are quite behind.

Also i don't know where people are getting the idea that the 7990 is only 1.7 times a 7970.  AMD is famous for making double cards that are double cards.  They plan to beat the ARES II, which already putperforms 2 x 7970's.