Yep Crysis wins for looks. But I'd have to spend 3 times (at least) what I spent on my PS3 to have a PC capable of the graphics processing powah! needed to make Crysis look this good. One observation is that htey showed a lot of close up foliage in the Crysis screens but all the foliage in U2 was middle to far distance.

Still last gen no one would even have dared put up a console game against the best of PC games for a graphics comparison. So, console graphics is catching up to PC graphics.

You must be pretty new here.

Crysis looks better, but not by much in imo.

The Crysis screens look a touch better, but then many have said that most people's PCs don't make Crysis look as good as the screens.

Further, when you compare Uncharted 2 against non-CryEngine PC games (most games out there), I bet Uncharted 2 fares even better....

dsister44 said: Crysis looks a lot better.

This. No comparision. Doesn't U2 top off at 720P?

The Crysis pics look better imo.

Why don't these guys do a "Crysis vs Pixar" comparison? Comparing (Render Farms... perhaps composed of PS3s) to a (high-end PC + GPU that costs 2x the PS3, and has 2x the memory by itself) to the (PS3), seems similar to me.

You are either very young, or you didn't play much in the 90's. PC was beat in graphics by the N64 for a couple of years, and PC developers struggled to make their games better visually than the N64 games. In the PS2 gen it was the same thing, except the consoles' visual dominance was much shorter. This gen is probably the first gen ever that PC actually beat consoles since the beginning.

Here's some more Crysis pics:

What these screens dont show is the effects in all the games like lighting, explosions, physics etc. I would be interested to see how these work out in U2, but i know that in crysis the water itself is amazing, especially the lighting when you're just under the surface. Also its so much fun to blow up a house with a fuel tank just to see how everything falls!

shio: you joke us.

In 1999 my PC already destroyed the PS2 with a 16MB VooDoo3 3000, and a 500 MHz P3, along with *loads* more memory.  By 2001, before the XBox's release, people had 1 GHz P3s, with Geforce 2 GTX's (which were *faster* than the modified GeForce3 in the XBox, despite lacking pixel shading).  PCs have always, always, been ahead of consoles -- right from the day of release, and usually well before.

By nature of capitalism, and the fact that consoles are not sold for profit (games are), and are made to sell cheaply (relatively), consoles are naturally inferior hardware from day 1 of their release.  Its only the revolutionary Xenos (X360) and Cell (PS3) (both of which cost those companies billions to produce and research) that even allow consoles to be considered close to modern PCs of any calibur.

With the kind of horsepower required to run Crysis at decent framerates and those resolutions, I'm sure Naughty Dog, Guerilla, Epic, etc.'s engines would be absolutely stunning.

If it is indeed a PC vs. Console discussion, why do you only use Crysis pics? Let's get Uncharted and Gears of War and KZ2 pics and then compare them to better looking PC games, not just the one PC game which is sure to win IF it's played on a powerful rig.  PC must not be that great if PC afficionados fall back to one and only one game when it comes time to do comparisons.  This thread started as Uncharted 2 vs. Crysis, but if it's PC vs console we need more examples.  And we really need the price of the PC rigs rendering the game, and the date, because that will count for a lot.

Again, and many in this thread have said: Crysis screens look better than Crysis being played on a PC unless the PC is pretty powerful.