I think you misunderstood. Yes, in 5 years the PC will blow away what the PS3 can do, but in 5 years the PS3 will blow away what the PC did 5 years before it. (meaning today).

If we had this conversion in 2001 with respect to PC gaming and the PS2, we probably would we talking about Return to Castle Wolfensteine. In 2001, that game had the best graphics ever for a FPS, and no one would have thought a PS2 game could compete with those visuals. 5 years later, along comes a game called Black, that looks a lot better then RtCW.

I agree that what the PC was doing when Black came out blew Black out of the water, but the exact same pice of hardware that people thought could never surpass RtCW did just that.

I think the same thing will happen here. If 5 years the PC will be blowing the PS3 out of the water, but what the PS3 will be producing will have surpassed Crysis. 

Leave it on the PC, not another shooter game.

No, it won't. Crysis has far surpassed PS3's limits, and you will never see a game at Crysis level on PS3 or any other console this gen.

If a Quadcore with 4gb RAM and 2x 8800GTX Sli can't run Crysis smoothly on max settings, then no way in hell PS3 will ever max it.

Infact, I remember a Crysis developer say that the PS3 would only be able to run Crysis with settings between Medium and High (at 720p and 30fps). Nowhere near the Very High settings.

^^As far as specs can go the PS3 could run Crysis on its highest settings. Crysis looks like an average FPS game. The competition with Resistance 2, Kill Zone 2 and SOCOM all look better and play better than Crysis.

Back to my argument. RtCW required a 16 meg video card, and 128 meg of ram, and a 400mgz PII to run at its minimum, that's not full quality.

5 years later, a 32 meg (total) system with a slower CPU has games that blow RtCW at it’s highest quality out of the water.

Hardware moves way too fast for software developers to get the full potential out of anything. It's a waste of time in the PC world. By the time you tweak the shit out of your code, you could just put quicker developed code on new hardware, and outperform it. In the console world where everything stays the same for 5-10 years, it’s a totally different story.

A game that looks better then Crysis will be on the PS3. I have no doubt about that.

I'm sorry but you are still confused, you keep comparing HD resolution from PC games to SD from the PS2 games, maybe the PS2 game looks better to you, but you need to understand what does it needed to make it look good, lower poly count, low res textures, and SD resolution...

The same will happend with the consoles, Call of duty4 doesn't run @ 720, Killzone 2 will be @ 720 and 30 fps, and it doesn't feature a huge a detailed enviroment like Crysis...

We can bet if you want, but there is not going to be any game for the PS3 or the 360 that looks better than Crisys featuring huge enviroments with tons of objects, huge render distance and running a 720 @ 30fps...

 Have you seen the developer demo of Kill Zone 2? The guy paused what looked like a cutsceen, and paned across the entire map. Nothing in it was a flat background. The draw distance was amazing, the textures were great, it had tons of objects in the scene, and it's 90% of what I think Crysis looks like.

In 5 years, Kill Zone 2 will look old and dated by PS3 FPS standards. Whatever game does that (and one will), will also make Crysis look dated.

Here is a link to the video I am talking about. It's interesting to watch, aside from this argument. This video is old. The game has seen a lot of improvements since.

http://videogame2play.com/2007/09/03/849/

I'm sorry, but if you really think Killzone 2 looks anywhere near Crysis's level you should NOT be participating in a graphical discussion. Killzone 2's graphics are extremely shoddy. The cloth textures and facial animations look like 2 year old PC graphics. The environments are constricted and the textures are simplistic. In fact, the floor textures in the city level in the demo were downright awful. Worse than Half-Life 2.

The only thing even remotely impressive in Killzone 2 is the lighting, which I admit was very good, but people who are honestly comparing Killzone 2 to Crysis seriously should not be participating in this discussion. Killzone 2 isn't even up to Call of Duty 4 standards, much less Crysis.

No, the draw distance is not amazing, most of the in-game part of the video is on a closed small enviroment...

The textures are kinda bad, you can check this everytime he get close to a wall or a piece of metal, they look like low res textures (256*256)...

Where a those objects??? there are very few of them, and how do they interact with the player??

"90% of Crysis looks like" mmm fanboy glasses...

@naznatips and FJ-Warez

I just went and looked again at Crysis... you're right, I forgot just how good that game looks.