I don't know about Crysis being modded looking more photorealistic than Driveclub seeing as how the game lacks in physically based rendering ... 

You need more than cherry picked shots of a modded Crysis to be able to claim that it is technically superior to Driveclub. I often get the feeling that a lot of objects in Crysis reacts like plastic when lighting is applied to them hence Driveclub's advantage in being more consistent in it's shading model. What's more is that Driveclub also has a dynamic local reflection system in place so that reflections are applied to glossy and wet surfaces. Another thing about Driveclub is that it has higher detailed meshes too compared to Crysis. The particle system in Driveclub is also more impressive than Crysis. 

Drive Club is limited by being on console hardware though.

And its world is more static; it's not filled with destructible scenery and interactive foliage like Crysis. Part of realism is the dynamic nature of the game world. Not saying Drive Club isn't impressive in this regard, but it's no Crysis.

Being limited by console doesn't mean much really seeing as how it's not hard to beat past half a decade old game despite setting the standards in the past ... 

Yes in some respects Driveclub maybe pared back in the interative physics department however I remember this thread being about realistic graphics rather than realistic physics and besides Crysis isn't exactly perfect in that aspect yet compared to this ... 

Physics are graphics when they are used as visual dressings, like swaying vegetation.

Crysis is an old game, true, but I'm not talking about vanilla Crysis from 2007, (DC easily beats that) I meant mods using much more modern tech.

What i find funny is that you seem to sincerely believe that that image of a modded crysis you put up looks more photorealistic than the GIF i showed you.

What I am not finding surprising is that just like clockwork your argument is deteriorating into a specs war. And deviating from the actual focus of this thread. Like some PC fans feel throwing numbers at everything helps them win a case. And you are also resorting to try and classify the gamesvisuals by what kinda game they are and thus "how much more is running in the background".

Look at the thread title again, "most photorealistic game"..... having said all that I give up with this argument. If "we" were all being sincere or without bias here, we wouldn't even be having this conversation to begin with. I have no qualms with you thinking that crysis is the most photorealistic looking game you have seen, thats your opinion and you are entitled to it. What I had a problem with was you making it out to seem as if defacto gaming photorealism can only ever be tied to PCs cause they are more powerful. I find that myopic cause its like saying the artist with the best brush will always make the finest painting.

Physics are graphics when they are used as visual dressings, like swaying vegetation.

Crysis is an old game, true, but I'm not talking about vanilla Crysis from 2007, (DC easily beats that) I meant mods using much more modern tech.

Technologically, a high end PC > PS4.

Aesthetics, on the other hand, are a matter of opinion. That's all I'm saying.

And I'm not a PC fan, I don't even have a gaming PC.

Physics aren't exactly graphics ... Physics deals more with object interaction rather than focusing on quantitative graphical aspects such as lighting, textures, or meshes.

No one in their right minds would argue that a bidirectionally path traced scene with no physics looks less realistic than say a rasterized image with only direct lighting that has realistic structural stress simulation ...

Object destruction may look real but a game doesn't depend on that to achieve realistic graphics. 

Sigh....

I doubt any sane thinking person will argue or disagree with you on that.

But My point is, how does that in ANY WAY have anything to do with the topic of this thread. 

Physics can contribue to realistic graphics, because in real life there are physics like swaying vegetation.