Yeah and I think you fail to realize that PC hardware by this point has dropped off even more, a year ago you could buil  a computer to run Crysis on Medium for $600, right now you can build a computer for about 500 to run it on a decent resolutoin (at THE LEAST your magical 720p) and on higher settings. Also the drop in Arcade wasn't up until a few months ago, not a year, thus up until a few months ago HD consoles were still more expensive, and they'd still rank on the Wii for haiving subpar graphics. Well same thing here, my PC's graphics are better than on your console (I can run most of the recent games at 1920x1200, which is equivalent to 1200p WITHOUT any upscaling or anything), live with it.

@arsenicazure - cpu($65)/mobo(70$)/video(100$)/ram(40$)/case&psu(150$)/hdd(70$) - granted, it's not locked @ 30 fps with maxed settings/1680x1050 yet but i didnt even install the optimization pack yet.  also shouldn't have spent so much on the case and bought a better cpu lol... still well under 1000$

@manifico - gears of war, same rig but @ 1440x900 and a 1600pro ran it fine maxed out.

dunno why's everyone talkin about prices and all that either, PCs do a lot more than games you know?  besides, i thought this topic was about crysis vs console games, not about running the best looking game on the cheapest hardware.

@vtx Not a snide remark on my end, but does that include a copy of windows by any chance? Or stuff like your mouse and keyboard etc etc.

I think alot of it just boils down to the know how, and many people just don't know how. I never started with PC gaming, so I have no idea what any of that AMD Triathlon UMX 48,000 stuff means :P PC gaming in general just isn't as user friendly as it is for consoles. And I think if you have the knowledge of all that, then yes you will be able to see better performance than that of consoles. But my thought's still stand, Crysis isn't lightyears beyond anything the consoles can put out. It's not the benchmark for the next generation of consoles.

Got my copy from my school, around 10$ for kb/m and what's the etc?  Can't think of anything missing right now.

I agree with what you said about people not knowing how to spec and build a comp but how hard is it to ask someone who does or copy someone's build.

If that's what you think, that's fine.  Given how console centric this site is, pretty sure that most people here wouldn't change their minds either.

@vtx Oh I "could" get into pc gaming, I'm just waiting for more of they're games to adapt proper controller support. I can't stand playing at a desk with a monitor... I want my big screen and I want to lay down on my couch as a very awkwardly comfortable angle. I just can't do keyboard and mouse for gaming very well xD And I think tech upgrades are fascinating :P Although I would be much quicker to the experience if Windows was not the primary gaming os >_>;;;

I see both pro's and con's to pc and console gaming. So I'm not terribly biased as far as that goes ^_^

i just dont care, bring on a new warioware game please :)

I played Crysis before I bought my ps3. The story sucked. And the gameplay sucked from the point where the aliens jumped in. Then there was Warhead which was even worse. The graphics on my pc where worse and the framerate was worse. I don't really care for graphics as long as it doesn't look like a old ps2 game. Conclusion: Crysis isn't worth it.

I think you completely fail at reading or at following directions, we're talking about just the graphics here. I agree the game sucks, though I would argue it's better than most of the recent shooters that have come out this year nontheless. Graphic wasie it's far superior to anything on the HD consoles.

A year ago, people were not having such an easy time with it.

"- For mere mortals, Crysis chugs. There, I said it. Those five words clear up years of speculation and misinformation. Unless you have an SLI setup with at least two 8800GTX video cards, do not expect Crysis to look like the oil paintings that EA has been passing off as in-game screenshots for the last 18 months. Well, to be totally truthful, the game can look this gorgeous on a single video card… if you prefer your framerate to run at a pace that makes the Lambert Glacier look hasty.

During your first days with Crysis, you'll spend more time staring at the advanced graphics options menu and various tweak guides on the Net (which are going to see some amazing traffic spikes when Crysis hits shelves) than the lush jungles within the game. I know I did - every time I managed to get a playable frame rate, I'd dick around with the options to try and get more eye candy without sacrificing frame rate. Which never happened.

This poor performance is a massive slap to the face with a reality trout, and one that we should have known was coming given the game's poor performance in the beta and demo. Our test machine is by no means a slouch - with a Core 2 Duo processor overclocked to 3.3GHz, 2GB of DDRII-800 memory, a GeForce 8800GTX and 680i SLI motherboard, this ninja cuts through every other game like a ninjato through decomposing manatee flesh. Yet in Crysis, this machine is lucky to get 25 frames a second… with all settings on medium, a resolution of 1680 x 1050 and no anti-aliasing (which, by the way, appears to be incompatible with the game's higher level shaders). A crafty motion blur effect goes some way to hide the sloth-like framerate, making turning seem much smoother than it is, but it won't fool anybody after a short while."

http://pc.ign.com/articles/835/835139p1.html

Well, one person at least.

If you have a computer that can actually max out the settings in Crysis, then yah, thats probably better than anything you've seen on a console. Sadly Crysis just wasn't all that fun :/