The fact that Killzone 2 is being compared to Crysis shows how good the viral marketing has been, and how much fanboys love it. It's not a show of how powerful the PS3 is. The difference is night and day. It's just being touted as a graphical powerhouse everywhere, and Fanboys are calling it better than Crysis. Naturally the comparison comes up, but that's because of koolaid drinkers.
A

"It'd be fascinating to compare KZ2 to Crysis, on a PC with 256MB memory an NVidia 7800 GTX with 256MB."

Why? PC games aren't optimized on account of the lack of standardized systems. Consoles can always get more out of less because for years you will have the exact same system and architecture across the board to work with. But it again goes to show what lengths people are willing to go to give the "Moral victory" as it were to KZ2. Doesn't make sense. I bet if Metroid Prime 3 was given cell, 256 MB of ram, and a better graphics card, four years and tens of millions of dollars to make it would look just as good or better than KZ2! I can make assinine statements with the best of them.

I don't think comparing shooters on platforms that are radically different (i.e. PC with anything, or PS360 to Wii) is a worthwhile comparsion at all.

Most of the fanboy hype revolves around KZ2 being the best looking shooter on the PS3 or 360, which are very comparable platforms. No other comparison makes sense, or even matters.  What kind of sense does it make to compare F1s against midget racers?  And who cares?

If you're comparing Crysis to KZ2, you have to use a NVidia 7800 GTX with 256MB, plain and simple.  Don't even worry about main memory or the PC CPU.  You can do it, its not even hard.  If you use a different video card, you're no longer comparing games... you're comparing video hardware.

Ok, groucho. Do you understand that there is a difference between a PC having 256MB of RAM and a console having the same? You do realize that trying to gimp a PC so KZ2 can win is just assinine? Why not gimp KZ2 so it can compete with Metroid Prime 3? Because that would be dumb as hell that's why.

I said the PC can have as much main memory as it needs.  3GB, 4GB, whatever.  The video card needs to have 256MB though.  There's no overhead for the PC there.  As a matter of fact, the extra main memory and the PCIe bus will help the PC Crysis out considerably in that dept.

PC: Any CPU, Any amount of main RAM, any HDD, NVidia 7800 GTX with 256MB DDR3.

vs.

PS3: (the RSX is practically identical to a 7800 GTX with 256MB of DDR3)

Compare away.  The hardware ball is still in the PCs court, IMO, but I sincerely doubt any PC game could compare against KZ2 with those specs.

And it's still not going to be optimized because Crytec wasn't making it with any specific rig in mind. And it's still stupid as hell to gimp one game to make it comprable to another. That completely invalidates the comparison. I'm still going to claim KZ2 would look worse than the conduit on wii specs, simply because that's a dumb ass thing to say.

You want to say KZ2 is better optimized than Crysis, great. You win, nobody is going to argue.

I'm asking what the point of comparing the PS3 to a PC with dual high end PC graphics boards is?

What is it?

I have some great ideas for Conduit and Gears comparsions if you can come up with a good enough reason to compare the PS3 with hardware that has evolved 3 years past it.

"You want to say KZ2 is better optimized than Crysis, great. You win, nobody is going to argue."

How about this:  KZ2 is good enough to justify comparison to games running on hardware about an order of magnitude more powerful.  "Optimized" doesn't even begin to describe that.

The point of comparing them is to see which looks better, and has better tech behind it. Obviously Crysis does, but the fact that fanboys seem to think that KZ2 is soo close, maybe even just as good, necessitates actually comparing crysis. I mean if you take away it's horsepower, graphical effects, lower it's resolution and textures what are you comparing exactly? Art style?

well honestly it doesn't compare. Crysis has better physics than any game has dreamt of, it has open world gameplay, making the scale of the graphics amazing. It has huge draw distances, better textures, better AA and all at higher resolutions. Heck it even has better lighting on every object.

The only point of comparing KZ2 to a game like Crysis, at all, would be to demostrate that the PS3, being hardware from 2006, still compares reasonably to PC hardware of the modern day, as a gaming platform -- primarily due to Sony's, apparently true, claims that the PS3 was much more capable than PCs of the day (and the X360), and that it could (not would) lead console gaming into the next generation with an exceptional level of quality.

I don't understand how this could be misinterpreted as "Killzone 2 needs to be be better than modern PC shooters in order to accomplish its goal of being the best looking shooter available on any console of the current day and age"

The implications of the relative comparable nature of KZ2 to Crysis, despite Crysis' HUGE tech advantage are obvious. The PS3 is shaping up to be the great platform Sony advertised it to be, from a technological standpoint in 2006.

I would wager that that's the point of quite a number of Sony 1st party titles this year, as a matter of fact. To up the bar past what the X360 can provide. Not past what the PC can provide, at any time, or at any cost. (lol?)

I think that's what alot of people forget. The sheer scope of Crysis. Even if KZ2 managed to get close in fidelity of it's character models, lighting, and textures (which it's not) it's going to be on a much much smaller scale than crysis's gigantic open world. KZ2 looks great on PS3, but it's tech just isn't in the same league. Even if comparing guns makes it seem so.