It isn't a console game.

@sc94597, Vlad.

yes PC's are more powerful. yes crysis has the most amazing shaders and it looks drop dead gorgeous. But the OP "was will any console game look as good as crysis"..

Now lets examine a fact from that IGN article someone posted. When the game released in 2007, most people could barely run it on low/medium settings and ultra high was impossible. its been over a year since its been out now and you have the
ATI 4xxxx x2 series etc and more powerful processors so these ultra high settings are possible.

Next year, you may very well have them release a super ultra high patch that makes it even more ridiculously real. But is that a fair comparison? since PC hardware evolves constantly, its easier for developers to just release a game and wait for hardware to catch up. Plus most people who bought crysis had powerful PC's to begin with. That is not the case with the xbox/ps3. Comparisons with medium settings, games like alan wake and KZ2 are nearing the PC level of realism. Sure it may never get there but it can get close. GT5 looks pretty damn real to me..more so than NFS on the PC

So yea, Console games may never look as pretty as Crysis on ultra high settings, but it can and will compete on medium ones and hopefully the high settings as well before the end of this hardware cycle.

the consoles will never beat the PC NEVER

On topic: I agree with HappySquirrel and a couple others who believe that there will be console games that, for all practical purposes, at least match Crysis. We'll see how FFXIII and Killzone 2 measure up, but even if they don't, later in this gen it WILL happen.

can the 360 run gears at full 1080p with 60fps .. ofcorse not but the PC can
can Killzone 2 run at 1080p with 60fps in the PS3 ? ... ofcorce not.

Can the PC run your mom?

I'm iwlling to bet money on the fact that it WILL NOT happen this gen, it won't happen until the next generation of games start getting churned out.

@azurearsenic

For all you know I could have bought that $8k Falcon Northwest rig and I'm running it smoothly at 1920x1200 with everything on ultra. The point is, the game looks better than anything the consoles can offer. There's no ands, buts, or howevers about this. I bet you Crysis looks better on my computer even at medium setting than do any of your HD games on my 100 dollar, 4 year-old, SDTV.

@Happy, FinalFan and others

I don't understand how you are supposed to have graphics on par with High level settings on Crysis with a GC ala 7800 GS / GT which is both RAM (256 Mo + 256 Mo with high latency) and bandwith (128 bits bus) limited ?

If you speak about art direction, i too expect wonders in the coming years from the HD console, but technically Crysis won't be acheived this gen ...

On a final note, are you sure you have looked at Crysis with decent set up ? (honest question)

Because several people compare Uncharted to Crysis in this very topic.

In all honesty, Uncharted look like a Wii game compared to Crysis on my setup ...

And HD consoles are been there done that to PC's who have been outputting to HD for a long time. But the Wii isn't the PS2 unless the PS2 had a motion controller that was supported by a significant number of games (whether somebody likes the Wiimote or not is irrelevant as to whether it is different to the DS2).

As for the aim of your experiment being to show that consoles are more efficient than Pc then yes, I agree, and it is indeed a well known fact and is due to the number of variations of PC hardware; power and flexibility come at a price. I did not understand the point of your experiment as it is totally off topic, you might have been a bit more explicit.

QFT. All 3 represent different power/price/flexibility compromises and none of them are intrinsically right/wrong. They can only be right or wrong for a particular person (and apparently there are far more persons for whom the Wii is right than for HD consoles).

@arsenicazure: a test at 720p would be more in line as many if not most PS360 FPS currently out do not even do that. Here you would be comparing Crysis at 2 megapixels against consoles whose games can't even run at 0.92 megapixel (720p). Not really fair is it? If you think it doesn't matter then why not use a crysis test at 2560x1600  (4 megapixel) to compare its low framerate to those console games that can't even push 720p. You say: "KZ2 looks quite nice and is comparable to crysis" but it isn't unless it runs at a comparable resolution.

Fixd1