This will be my one and only post on the issue for this thread.
Summary of OP:
Positions:
1) OP is unable to get their PC to play Crysis at the fidelity of certain screenshots.
2) OP lacks the ability and/or knowledge of how to build a good (yet affordable) gaming rig and relies on the assumed competence of others to make his point of how difficult he supposes it is to do.
3) OP thinks that "price VS price" comparison of "console VS PC" is fair.
Flaws:
1) Your computer sucks =P
2) Building a capable rig requires experience and like any skill it requires that you work at it. You can build a rig that plays Crysis at High 1680x for under $800 which is quite comparable to consoles when you consider point #3.
3) You are going to purchase a PC even if you own a console...because everyone has a PC these days, especially people that are "into" gaming. Whatever base price you pay for your PC could have gone towards the price of a gaming PC and for most people this is $400 to $600. For an additional cost that is less than a console you could have made it very capable a gaming rig.
My Positions:
1) PC gaming is not as open and inviting to the masses as console gaming is. It is far more accessible to those with PC knowledge or to those who just have cash to throw about. With that said most who do have the knowledge happily share it to those who ask for assistance and are willing to put in the effort to learn.
2) That lack of accessibility does not change the fact that the PC has a superior technical capacity and specifically that Crysis overshadows KZ2. Whether or not you are able to realize the potential of one and not the other, the fact remains that under a comparison of ideal circumstances Crysis wins (as you yourself admit).
3) The issue of less than ideal circumstances is obviously somewhat less clear as I would point out that less than ideal circumstances for KZ includes non-HD TVs and stereo sound the same way that you point out that non-ideal circumstances for Crysis includes underpowered video cards. Both sets of ideal circumstances include substantial financial investments to achieve beyond the basics. But the OP would ask we ignore this additional cost for one but not the other, and the answer to what should be included in the cost is itself subjective. As a result the ideal circumstance is the only objective standard to compare if one wants an objective answer to the question because it is the best possible for both.
4) For the non-objective answer it is left to each person to make a subjective determination about whether or not any two setups (one for KZ2 one for Crysis) are equivalent in whatever categories of equivalence they deem important and thus fair to compare. The result of that determination being the basis upon which the comparison's validity would rest. That determination being entirely subjective the validity only remains valid for the person who deems it so and not for anyone else. The result is that no basis for reasoned debate or discussion can exist over the subjective comparison among a group with widely differing views and is thus useless in that context.
Conclusion: The ideal circumstances for the two games shows that Crysis is the winner but in less than ideal-circumstances an argument can be made that things are not so clear. The gaming world being what it is (ie full of fanboys) it seems the only thing assured when discussing non-ideal scenarios is that it is a waste of time because the basis of the discussion is at the whim its fanboy participants because they are the most extreme and an internet debate is defined by the extreme points of view held by its participants.
Therefor the only conclusion to have is that Crysis is the better technical accomplishment but that KZ2 holds its own quite well as very few console games even merit any comparison at all and KZ2 merits a close comparison at that. Beyond that I can conclude that there is nothing worthwhile to conclude.
 |
| To Each Man, Responsibility |
