Posted on May 31, 2007,

Haze vs. Crysis Screenshot by Screenshot


You have to admit, the PS3 definitely has some power behind it.

PSU has a feature displaying screenshots of two games, which one might see as a comparison of the PS3 to the PC. These screenshots are side-by-side comparisons of Haze and Crysis, the former being an upcoming release for the PS3 and the latter for the PC.

From the looks of it, the PS3 is going to be a huge competitor for Alienware. PC gaming could go the way of the arcade if the exclusive titles don’t hold the gaming audience.

Join the Conversation   

* required field

By submitting a comment here you grant GameFront a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. Inappropriate or irrelevant comments will be removed at an admin's discretion.

63 Comments on Haze vs. Crysis Screenshot by Screenshot


On June 1, 2007 at 7:05 am

Not a chance. Crysis looks so much better… GoW looks better then haze too.

PC gaming will forever own console gaming because PC’s are much higher spec, you can mod files you self creating limitless oppurtunities for replayability.


On June 1, 2007 at 8:52 am

So small pics… should be full res´…


On June 1, 2007 at 12:04 pm

dude what were you smoking when you wrote that article?! The Haze shot isnt even in the same league as the Crysis one let alone give Alienware a run for its money! (Alienware PC’s being the most over priced peices of crap in the PC market too) Hahaha


On June 1, 2007 at 12:21 pm


I was waiting with anticipation for f4nb0yz to come out of the woodwork… :lol:


On June 1, 2007 at 12:45 pm

Haze and Crysis both look stunning, but since they both got different settings (Nature, Surroundings, ect.) its really hard to compare them.

But i must say, of Haze and Crysis, Crysis wins for the stunning graphics detail.


On June 1, 2007 at 2:42 pm

OK, Crysis looks nice, but for me to play it would require a major upgrade to my pc. £400 gfx card 2gb mem……… Aww , cheapaer to buy a console… :)


On June 1, 2007 at 3:31 pm

PC’s will always look better than consoles, and Crysis kicks Haze’s ass at every turn


On June 3, 2007 at 9:20 am

both screenshots look nice….cant wait to get both games on my pc :razz:

Andrew L

On June 3, 2007 at 9:55 am

I think we should compare moving animations once the game is completed. Still life photos with the games only partially completed is unfair to the games. Crysis is best looking so far. Haze is a PS3 exclusive. If you want a good pc game(and have an awesome pc) go for Crysis. If you want a good console game go with Haze. Everybdoy wins.

Andrew L

On June 3, 2007 at 9:59 am

The videos on the webpage made my cry they were so awesome.



On June 5, 2007 at 2:45 pm

lol Haze is NOT a Ps3 exclusive, its coming out for the 360 as well….

Who Knew

On July 1, 2007 at 12:26 am

:mrgreen: Andrew your post made YOU sound like a fan boy and no the other posters. Give the PC a run for it’s money, I severely doubt it. Could it turn out to be a good game, yeah but no way does this game look anywhere near as good as crysis but who knows the gameplay might even be better than crysis, we’ll have to wait and see. The screenshot you put up makes it impossible to really compare the two so I had to look around for some better quality shots, I really don’t think that pc gamers have anything to worry about in the graphics department!


On July 18, 2007 at 11:33 pm

Well gameplay really doesnt matter when we r comparing the strength of the systems. they can always make more games.

p.s. lets see a ps3 compete with my quad core system :lol:


On July 19, 2007 at 6:08 am

To all those who say things like “PC’s will always be better than consoles”. The average PC is in no way as good at gaming as a console. The average PC couldn’t even play a game like God of War 2 as well as the PS2. If you want to play the latest games at high resolutions you have to upgrade your graphics card at least every 2 years or your frame rate will suck. In fact of you want to play Crysis in all it’s DX10 glory you not only have to buy a new GPU but also you have to upgrade to Vista.

When I built my current PC last year I bought a brand new X1900XTX at launch which cost me £370 ($740). It was by far the best gaming card on the market but just 1 year later it’s incapable of playing some new games at a decent frame rate.

If you plan on PC gaming any future increase in graphical performance will come at a financial cost whereas a consoles graphics will just keep on getting better and better.

I guarantee you that in a few years time the graphics on 360 and PS3 games will be better than the best current $3000+ gaming PC unless they upgrade their GPU’s every few years.

If you disagree just look at a screenshot of God of War 2 and remember that it’s being played on 7 year old hardware. No gaming PC from 7 years ago could play that game smoothly.


On July 19, 2007 at 6:50 am

Who Knew said: “I really don’t think that pc gamers have anything to worry about in the graphics department!”

Only a very small minority of PC gamers will ever be able to play Crysis with the settings as high as those screenshots whereas every PS3 can play Haze as good as that.


On October 7, 2007 at 5:25 am

Ha ha ha, who cares? Crytek oficcially said that PS3 could run Crysis like it’s PC version, but there is no Crysis because they want to make it nr1 on PC, and than port it to PS3. Besides, it’s proved that PS3 mutch more powerfull than Vista+Core 2 Duo+nVidia 8th Series+DX10. Besides, PS3 uses some kind of DX10. Try to think logically, PS3 beats all consoles and PCs out there, it uses only 30% of what it can, and it already have games that look better than PC Crysis, Killzone 2 for example, can’t be run’t on eaven newest PC, says developers, so why Crysis can’t be runt on PS3, whereas Killzone 2 can? Answer me. This is marketing thing, that’s why Crytek said it can’t be runt on PS3, actually it can be runt on PS3 eaven better than on PC. In few or one year, PS3 will kick PC and Xbox 360 so far, that you all will buy PS3, be sure about that. :twisted:


On October 15, 2007 at 2:23 am

consoles will always be more powerfull than eaven newest bleeding edge PC’s because consoles hawe unique hardware. just look at PS3′s hardware. it is future. PS3′s technologies juped far ahead of other tech. PS3 needs a time to show it’s power. Crysis pushes PC to it’s limits while Haze use so small percentage of PS3′s power, so after couple of years Crysis will look like a Tetris compared to PS3 games. just look at GT5, it’s already looks more real than Crysis. i know it’s another jeanre, but still look at it. consoles always will be more powerfull than PC’s. look at Revenge for PS2, PC’s could run it only with crazy specs, and it is runing on 8 years old console. consoles will always be better in games in all points (graphics, physics etc.)


On October 15, 2007 at 3:44 am

You’re both console fanboys.

The reason a ps3 is more powerful than the vista machine, is because the vista machine is running vista.
ing bull operating system that is.

PC’s will always be superior in hardware, because it’s the end user that controls the hardware, even if there isn’t a match up to the PS3′s cpu technology, there will be, and you’ll be able to upgrade your PC. While you’ll be waiting around for another 3 years for sony to come up with the ps4.I mean, look at ps2 graphics and capability and compare it to the most capable computer of a year ago. It doesn’t really match up, does it? PS2 couldn’t even run Half-life 2, only 1.

If there’s anything that’s ever been proven in the console wars it’s not the specs that make the successful console. Look at the Pea Green Gameboy, who did it compete with? The 16bit full color gamegear.

Who won? Nintendo.
Without some really killer apps for PS3 and a more affordable price tag, the PS3 will still be considered the subpar console. No argument that it whoops all other machines on specs though.


On October 15, 2007 at 3:44 am

also, check out my crysis video to see how well it runs on my pc, lol.


On October 15, 2007 at 5:24 am

Was that multicolored mess at the end the actual game-play? lol

You REALLY need a new graphics card lol

I’ve got a X1900XTX and I’m not going anywhere near Cyrsis ’till I upgrade.


On October 15, 2007 at 9:43 am

hahah, yes I do.


On October 15, 2007 at 9:50 am

weclock is right about vista being , cause it is. As for performance, I ran the Crysis beta cranked up as high as it would go at 28 fps average on my 8600 GTS , and that card costs less than 200 bucks.


On October 20, 2007 at 1:50 am

Haze looks mutch better in my opinion. If true, Crysis is nothing new in graphics, look at UT3, looks way sharper. As I know PS3 will get Crysis that will look better and I will be not surprised if it will look and perform better. Yes, I agree that Vista is . :grin:


On October 20, 2007 at 2:01 am

wecloc, Revenge would seriously lagg on hardcore PC’s, and it is running on PS2. Crysis push limits of PC, while Haze is not eaven a half of what PS3 can do and looks better, you think Crysis looks better only because it has those tropical forrests, and did you saw how look Haze forests? Also, PS3 can do 4D, eaven PC’s can’t do it. In some 2 years, PS3 will get games so cool that Crysis and Haze will look like old nintendo’s . Thank you for listening. I hope you ain’t mad because I say only true. Maybe in 4 years (MAYBE)PC will hawe better looking and performing games, but PS4 will come. I know that PS4 will hawe upgraded Cell, Blue-ray, but I don’t know what kind of GPU it will hawe, maybe newest in future. It will offer new tipe of graphics, search google. I saw the screens, and WOW, so realistic. You should check it out.


On October 28, 2007 at 7:45 pm

Played the crysis demo, its the best looking game ever made by FAR. pc runs everything at very high and, not to talk , but haze is just a different generation of game. Crysis is going to revolutionize what you thought was possible with videogames


On October 28, 2007 at 11:52 pm

The PS3 fanboys are coming out of the wordwork.

PC > Consoles.

Its just the way it is, deal with it.


On October 29, 2007 at 4:38 am

“PC > Consoles.

Its just the way it is, deal with it.”

The vast majority of people who play games on PC are using equipment that isn’t capable of what a 360 or PS is.

Oblivion run at 30 fps on the 360 and PS3 but the minimum GPU needed to do that on a PC is an 8800GTS.

What spec is your PC? (and if its very high I want proof)

The worst fanboys are the PC ones because they try and make everything about hardware while completely ignoring reality. I’m a PC gamer but PCs do not one consoles for the simple reason that there are loads of console exclusive games. Next year how exactly would a PC own Gran Truismo 5, Final Fantasy 13, LittleBigPlanet and Metal gear Solid 4 for example?

wolrd owner

On October 29, 2007 at 9:33 am

PS3 = Over ing Rated :twisted: :twisted:

:idea: :idea: :idea: get a 360 and play the orange box

wolrd owner

On October 29, 2007 at 9:36 am

Also haze is a timed exclusive next year it well be coming out on pc and 360. :mrgreen:

Ron Whitaker

On October 29, 2007 at 9:49 am

Norbit, I have to call you on this one. An 8800 GTS will run Oblivion at 37 avg fps on a PC, but only at a resolution of 2560 X 1600 (, and will all options turned all the way up, including HDR. At the resolutions that a 360 or PS3 run at, my 7900GT will run Oblivion at nearly twice that framerate.

The argument that console have better graphical hardware than PC is fallacious at best. The 360 and the PS3 are both built using what is now last-gen graphics technology. PC’s have already moved beyond that. Granted, if you don’t upgrade often you may see similar performance, but hardcore PC gamers saw performance similar to that of the 360 when the 360 was in development.


On October 29, 2007 at 10:15 am

Athlon64 3700
2gb RAM
7950GT 256mb

Thats a mid range comp right now, and can’t run Crysis on very high (well, it can, but at only about 10fps), but I would take it over a 360 or a PS3 any day of the week.

And I can run Oblivion just fine.


On November 2, 2007 at 5:59 pm

plz haze is a ps3 exclusive and it owns agears in graphics o and haze and killzone 2 look better then any 360 game out. I looked on xbox.xom for upcoming games cause i used to own one but their so i dont liek them and none of 360 games has graphics close to haze or killzone 2 or even mgs4 for that matter so keep dreaming 360 boys its just not as good a ps3


On November 2, 2007 at 6:21 pm

Ron I’m sorry but you are wrong. Even my X1900XTX will only get 29fps at the lowest resolution 1024x768x outdoors on Oblivion. Your 7900GT wont get 20fps. The 512mb version of the GT7950GT only gets 18fps so Stalkers 250mb version surely scores lower.

At 1920×1200 outdoors it gets even worse.

X1900XTX – 16FPS
7900GT – 7FPS
7950GT (512BM) – 7FPS

This is by far the best site for comparing cards on different benchmarks.,263.html?p=457%2C428%2C424%2C463%2C423%2C462%2C435%2C473%2C471%2C476%2C482%2C468%2C436%2C446%2C448%2C456%2C439%2C443


On November 6, 2007 at 4:16 am

Personally, the biggest flaw in the PS3′s design has to be the RSX. The chip can be compared to a 7800GTX and it doesn’t compliment the massive power of the Cell processor. So in that retrospect, regardless how awesome the games physics etc. can be, the graphics will be a bottleneck. Agreed that the processor is indeed awesome, but in terms of graphics …. well thats another matter.


On November 8, 2007 at 5:26 pm

:shock: lol Norbit that 8800 GTX SLI FPS rates @ 53.80 in the chart is leaving everybody in the dust, but the consoles do offer the way more games too choose from. Still i’ll wait for the 8800 gtx sli on the pc side at those times.

sam unit

On November 8, 2007 at 8:35 pm

oi guys will crysis come out on ps3? anytime soon?


On November 10, 2007 at 11:22 am

o and haze is not a timed exclusive the 360 and pc ideas have been blank and free radical said they have no plans for 360 or pc in the future


On November 12, 2007 at 1:06 pm

PS3 and 360 kicks PCs. PS3 is future. Cell + RSX + Blue-ray = 5x or more times realistic games than Crysis. Just look at Uncharted, it uses 30% of PS3′s hardware power, I mean in all terms, graphics, physics and other stuff, and it looks and plays mutch better from my opinion. Look at Killzone 2, it is in Alpha status, it will ship only in middle or eaven fall 2008, and it already looks better than any other game. It is just a matter of time when well see reality on PS3. When will you PC fans realise that consoles will always dominate in terms of games? Look at God of War on PS2. Graphics are awesome, and they are runt on almost 8 years old system. So how cool will look PS3 games in future, and how cool they will play. I played Crysis demo at full specs and I wasn’t so impressed. Yeah, yeah, graphics, but gameplay and physics? Sure, you can destroy almost everithing (BF: Bad Company is better at destruction, mutch better than Crysis), but does this destruction is realistic? Buildings are made from what, from paper? Unrealistic. Only when you destroy trees, than it looks great, but look at BF: Bad Company destruction and graphics are quite similar, if not cooler. Crysis looks better just because of it’s tropical forests, but if you take those forests off the game? Phe! Crysis is just like Far Cry, eaven Far Cry was more interesting for me, but that’s my opinion. I hope you understand it. I hawe more to say about all this stuff. I like 360 as well, and it can run Crysis at full specs too, but it would need 2 DVD9. :mrgreen:


On November 12, 2007 at 1:23 pm

Hahaha, PC is the best because what it is capable of. You don’t have to buy a new PC every 5 years, you have to buy new parts.

and the library for PC is massive, you can play every game all the way back to windows 95, you can play n64, ps1, and some ps2, dreamcast, and gamecube games (thanks emulation!).

Not to mention snes, mame, nes, sega genesis, sega cd, sega saturn, and all the others.

I mean, every one knows any game that is on pc is immediately better than it’s console version because of your ability to 1. Mod it 2. Control how well the game runs/plays


On November 13, 2007 at 5:46 am

You console boys are pathetic. So you really think your $350 console is better than a $2000 monster? The clue is in the price ‘boys’. You really think you’ve got good quality components in that hideous black object, please. PC’s have and always will dominate. PS3 is using an already 2 years old GPU. The only reason they get better graphics as the years pass is because Dev’s spend dedicated time optimizing. This doesn’t happen on the PC, which then means that graphics are pushed even more requiring you to upgrade. Haze Vs Crysis lol don’t make me laugh. Even a PS3 and Xbox 360 put together couldn’t run it at ultra settings. It’s like trying to compare Westlife to The Beatles! Not even remotely in the same league…


On November 20, 2007 at 5:04 am

What’s with you console boys? An Xbox 360 running Crysis at maxed out settings? Give me a break! The 360 couldn’t even handle Oblivion. And what about Gears of War? It runs MUCH better on a PC than on the 360.

And regarding the PS3, Crytek themselves even said that they would have to tone down the graphics to run it on the PS3. The PS3 has a fast CPU but the GPU is not good enough to run Crysis.

It’s kind of funny that the PS is already old compared to PCs.

What is it with console fanboys and their ignorance?


On November 20, 2007 at 7:30 am

@ Fred.

Only a tiny minority of PCs can produce better graphics than a 360 or PS3. I have an X1900XTX which cost me $700 18 months ago. It was the best gaming card money could buy back then and while It can run Bioshock better than it looks on the 360 I doubt it would be capable of producing graphics like Uncharted: Drakes Fortune or Ratchet & Clank. What really makes me laugh is that most of the time the people saying that PCs pwn consoles normally dont own high end PCs themselves. They are the dumbest fanboys of all. You say Gears of War runs better on the PC but you fail to understand that it doesn’t on most of the PCs that are playing it. It doesn’t run as well on my PC as on the 360 and my PC cost a total of over $3000 to build. To look better than on the 360 you would need to be running 1 or 2 8800GTS’s.

The fact is that the 360 and PS3 are both more capable gaming platforms than the best PCs that were released at the same time as they were. If you bought a PC on the 360 and PS3 launch days it will look pretty terrible compared to them in a few years unless you spend more on it and if you spend more on it that makes all comparisons totally unfair and completely void.


On November 20, 2007 at 8:33 am

Norbit: Yes, the 360 and PS3 are bargains compared to a top notch computer, can’t argue on that. The people I addressed with my post were mainly those who believe that the 360 and PS3 are better than any PC and will be for years to come. That’s simply nonsense. Ultimately the consoles are based on computer technology, and the ability to change components in a computer (primarily CPU and GPU) is what makes it better than consoles. Even if a console is state of the art when it is released computers soon go past.

But sure, many people would probably be better off with a console than the crappy computers they are using. Computers are expensive, but ultimately also the best performers.


On November 20, 2007 at 8:44 am

Btw, someone mentioned Uncharted on PS3 and how it looks better than Crysis. Well, I looked at some screen shots and sure, it looks good, but the graphics are very simple compared to Crysis. It’s clear just by looking at a couple of screen shots that Uncharted is not nearly as hardware demanding as Crysis.

I guess we will see in the future if there will ever be a game as good looking as Crysis on the PS3. Probably not.


On November 25, 2007 at 12:35 pm

LOL I can’t believe these fanboys are trying to compare their last-gen consoles to the PC.

$550.00 for a core duo 2 + 2 gb ram + ATI 3850 already blows away anything the cheapy consoles can do.

It took a year for PCs to just crush the consoles. The remainder of the xbox/PS3 life cycle will continue with them having to hold their heads even lower and lower in shame if a PC happens to pass by.

fany boy hater

On December 10, 2007 at 11:36 pm

Lol i cant belive these console fanboys i own a 360 but this is funny they actually think there consoles compere to pc and millions of people and dual core pc’s and 8800gt and there better than the ps3 and xboxes grapics cards with out getting into to much detail stupid dumb ases these are the ones who always get ripped in online games and this guy writting this compararison wheres your head at dude lmfao haze is bull sorry free radical lol will probly end up being a good game gameplay wise maybe but from what ive seen ugly ass ing game. Sorry for provanitys but this makes me mad that guys like this saying this crap people listen to and get ripped off and sucked into the storm.

fany boy hater

On December 10, 2007 at 11:37 pm

millions of people own dual core pc sorry. and they compere to xbox and ps3 and more ram not to mention 8800gt on top of that much much better graphics.


On December 13, 2007 at 3:53 pm

Some of you guys are idiots. Thinking that you have to buy a new video card every two years. The XFX GeFirce 8600 GT XXX can run crysis on high settings. Guess how much it costs. How about $99 CDN. idiots. ZNorbits, your bumb for paying $740 a year ago for a X1900. You ould have just bought an 8800 card for the same price. Consoles get raped by PCs spec wise. The only reason they run slower was mentioned. They are simultaneously running an OS on top of the game, how do you think you can Alt = F4 or Ctrl+Alt+Del and imidiately be placed at the desktop without reloading your OS. dumbasses. there are 50-100 dollar video cards on th market that rape the 360 and PS3 video cards. Even combined with some video cards. The two screen shots aren’t even close. Crysis wins handily.


On January 14, 2008 at 12:42 pm

As far as level of detail, they look the same to me in these pics… as far as LAYERS of detail, Crysis has more of that as far as I can tell, but whether it’s accessable or not will make it relevant or not; so as it stands to me, they might as well be the same.


On January 14, 2008 at 12:49 pm

@ Sean

I bought the X1900XTX in Feb 2006. When I bought it the card was the best gaming card money could buy. The 8800 cards weren’t released until about 9 months later.


On February 1, 2008 at 9:44 pm

I have a great pc. Q6600 @ 3.0ghz, 2 gig ram, 8800GTX oc. I basiclly built the pc for the new gen games like crysis. So when i went out and brought the game and installed it on my system, i was excpecting to run it on very high as crytek said you could run it maxed out with a 8800 and core 2 duo. Well that game has made me hate gaming on pc’s. It runs like absolute . So now im very happy with my xbox and ps3. Because they are guarenteed to run good on the console. Thank god that valve know how to build games that run on the pc as they should. Crytek should be shot. There game is complete rubbish simply because it doesn’t run the way it should and the way the creaters said it would.

Bottom line yes pc are better than consoles. Only if you own a $5000 system….


On February 3, 2008 at 6:22 am

Not to take side with PC or PS3 fanboys out there, (even though I am a PC fan myself) but, what’s up with comparing PCs and PS3s and XBOX 360s and such? Consoles are designed for gaming, while computers are general purpose. The truth is though, PC technologies are developed before consoles (after all the hardware of the 360 and PS3 has to be tested in a PC before it is built into a console) as for those that say “PS3′s potential is not being used to its maximum blah blah) look up the PS3s specs, it has a cell processor (impressive) but it’s still only a single 3.2ghz. Any Dual Core PC can outmatch that easily. Also, the PS3 features an Nvidia RSX GPU, going only by the bandwidth it can process, it’s 22.4GB/s. So please, whoever said “to have PS3 equivalency you need an 8800GTS at least) was wrong. A 7600GT overclocked can achieve 22.4GB/s and as for core clock, textures/second and the rest, a 7900GTX Can match it with no problems. Interestingly enough, a 8800GT can outmatch a 7900GTX.
As for “PCs need major upgrades to be able to play blah blah and it’s expensive”
Consider this. In the end, both consoles and PCs end up costing the same. You buy a PS3 for i dont know.. 400-600, then you have to buy them precious 60 dollar games. A good PC will last well over a year without any major upgrades, and once you do upgrade it then it’s another year before you need something else. Truth, PCs end up being more longlasting than consoles. Once the new console comes out PS4 and whatnot, good PCs will be able to match up with a good upgrade… While the console fanboys will have to spend another 600+ dollars like the PS3 was priced in the beginning. And eventually, the PC being the universal system, ends up getting most of the games released for consoles.
In the end, it’s down to personal preference.
Just for the record:
Gateway GT 5220
AMD 64×2 4200+ (Dual-core 2.2GHZ) completely stock.
3GB DDR2 4200 of RAM
Crysis plays at a framerate of 35FPS highest, 25FPS lowest with all settings on high and 8xAA. 1440×900 Resolution.

My PC still hasn’t gone over a $2000 pricetag.

And… Playing on a full 5.1 surround system is amazing.
Just had to add that :P It’s awesome to hear enemies behind you in Crysis turn around.. and they are behind you… heh

And for those that are curious:
PS3 Specs:
Product name: PLAYSTATION 3

CPU: Cell Processor

* PowerPC-base Core @3.2GHz
* 1 VMX vector unit per core
* 512KB L2 cache
* 7 x SPE @3.2GHz
* 7 x 128b 128 SIMD GPRs
* 7 x 256KB SRAM for SPE
* * 1 of 8 SPEs reserved for redundancy total floating point performance: 218 GFLOPS

GPU: RSX @550MHz

* 1.8 TFLOPS floating point performance
* Full HD (up to 1080p) x 2 channels
* Multi-way programmable parallel floating point shader pipelines

Sound: Dolby 5.1ch, DTS, LPCM, etc. (Cell-base processing)


* 256MB XDR Main RAM @3.2GHz
* 256MB GDDR3 VRAM @700MHz

System Bandwidth:

* Main RAM: 25.6GB/s
* VRAM: 22.4GB/s
* RSX: 20GB/s (write) + 15GB/s (read)
* SB: 2.5GB/s (write) + 2.5GB/s (read)

As you can see the “games are not using full PS3 potential” might be true… to a certain point. But please don’t say PS3 is the “ultimate and cannot be matched by any PC” because it simply couldn’t be any more wrong.


On March 12, 2008 at 6:42 pm

Crysis will always have the upper hand in graphics period.I have the ps3 and the 360.There great counsels to have around,and good for friends and family,but in the end if your a hardcore gamer.You want to play those graphic hungry ass games and willing to spend some good hard earn cash to play it,but one thing is once you spend the money it’ll last you a very long time(depends on what kind of performance you want)I say if you get the best stuff out’ll last you a few years.and a ps3 and 360 could be obsolete visionally.They could of pushed the systems past it’s limits and can’t push anymore.Where pc comes in.There’s no such thing as limits.You could push the performance(overclocking) even farther if you want and whenever you want.So in the end,pc will always be superior.And how can you not like pc games?They play at higher resolution and is capable of getting monster frames:Gear of war(360)max it went was 30.Gears of war(pc)not only better looking cause of the option of higher rez but can you play the game on the 360 with a whopping 90fps or unreal at 143fps.I don’t think so.Haze will be a good game and ps3 is still a good system,but come on people pc vs. consels.That’s not a fair match.ps3-360(gets curbed stomp).Crysis has awesome dynamatic lighting(not to mention the orgasmic god rays effect).Crysis has better visuals,better dynamatic lighting effects,better soft shadows,better texturing,better character models,basically stomps it in every category.PC>ps3,360


On March 12, 2008 at 7:14 pm

and one more.I actually decided to read the comments morons :evil: !I swear.You guys remind of heads like adem from g4 and reviewers like ign and .You exagurate too much.I only spend about 720 max on my pc to play the top games out and future games.I got a amd 3200+(it’s pretty good i have to say).A asus a8n-slir delux motherboard.1gb of kingston ddr3 memory.8800gt oc(700/1750/950). and it runs on ultra high settings(xp tweaked) at no less than 30fps at a 1680×1050.I needed a new computer so i bought individual parts(the smartest and cheapest way to go) and build it.Your just a dumbass to pay that much.with 5000 i could build a complete monster super computer that’ll stomp out 20ps3′s and 20 360′s at the same time. :twisted:


On March 12, 2008 at 9:12 pm

David, your last post is as correct as it is hard to read. Anyone that says you have to spend more than $1,000 on a PC to play ANY game at high settings is one of 2 things. Either misinformed or spreading misinformation. I built a PC in June 2007 for less than $600 that will run Crysis at high settings near flawlessly. Its not like building a PC is hard either, it took me 1 evening to put my PC together and i was gaming before bed that night. Its all color coded and idiot proof these days. There is simply no reason anyone should have to spend more than a grand on a PC unless they are just future proofing.


On March 18, 2008 at 3:32 pm

Haze is the farthest the console could possibly maybe lucky a little more in visuals,but not much.People think the ps3 is better cause of the cell.But it’s a cpu not a gpu.The cell yea could do a little graphic coding but what that means you get better physics,and animations but it doesn’t improve graphics.The war now between these 2 monster consoles is graphics.I honestly think the ps3 in going to go down in this category,cause the obsolete rsx chip.nvidia already announced that it’s a little weaker than the 7800gtx.The ati gpu not only the first console to support unfied shaders but it seems to have a little support for can’t operate it fully but could use some of the applications,and the other thing it has 512mb of on board ram which means the 360 will have no problem handling higher resolutions without taxing the gpu too much.If they want.They could have there consoles support some 16:10 resolutions(where i’m still waiting for them to make a update for)So it’s possible it could handle a rez as high as 1920×1200 and maybe a 2560×1600 resolution.But that’s where the ps3 falls.the reason why the games are stuck at 720p(1280×720)is cause of the ineffectual on board has only 256mb,so in real terms the ps3 is no true hd console.

360 wins:gpu
ps3 wins:cpu

stop being a fanboy and learn some facts before you shoot your mouth off,cause in the end you just sound like a complete frinking moron and like a person with a helmet trying to figure out how to tie your own shoes and flips out over having the wrong color laces.If you want more proof here’s a you tube vid link that compares the specs and what they exactly do(made specifically for ps3 fanboys) or if the link not working just type:why the ps3 suck 2nd edition, to get video on youtube


On June 13, 2008 at 4:12 am

Just look at the idiots supporting the PS3…its no better than the geforce 7800. And why in the freaking world would developers only tap 30% of the potential. I agree that they don’t reach a 100% but come on!

Haze looks like a cartoon…not photo-realistic!

Instead of typing all the crap glorifying the PS3, why don’t you freaks give specifications to support your claims.

GeForce 8 Series is way superior to the PS3 GPU. [Fact]
PS3 is the most powerful machine on Earth and is a machine from the future [Total BS & Fiction]


On June 15, 2008 at 3:16 pm

Comparing a PS3 to last-gen or low-end “average” computers is just scraping at the bottom. Of course the PS3 could beat most cheap OEM machines in game performance, because those PCs aren’t made for gaming. If a PS3 outperforms an outdated gaming PC that’s obviously not relevant to todays hardware either.

Right now if you can afford a $100 video card like a 9600GT you’ve already got a superior graphics solution then the PS3′s RSX/7800 will ever provide.

Most PS3 games natively run at only 720P/1280×720 (GTA4 apparently “640P”), PC games can run at “1600P”/2560×1600 smoothly on max detail on a high end machine (even Crysis on GTX280 3way SLI). Anti-aliasing is another feature which (although taxing on performance) is optionally higher on PC games making them look smoother and more realistic. Modern gaming PCs also tend to have much larger harddrives and a lot more RAM then the PS3 allowing games to be bigger and more detailed.

PS3 games will probably become more optimized over the console’s lifetime but the hardware is still redundant. The best PC today will eventually be worthless too, but apart from it performing far better then a PS3 in the meantime it can be upgraded multiple times. Even after a PC has reached it’s upgrade limit (incompatibility with newer hardware etc.) it still has plenty of other uses, for example a gaming machine can become a multimedia machine then a simple web browser over it’s lifetime and interchange parts with other older computers. Whilst the PS3 probably eventually becomes a bulky old BluRay player.

As far as pure game performance and visuals go the PS3s currently reign supreme in the console hardware word and probably will until the PS4 comes out. But not compared to a modern gaming PC with a $100 video card, not even close.

Can’t forget online PC gaming either, I don’t see WoW or any other MMOs on the PS3. That can’t be ruined by piracy either because a unique CD key or user account has to be purchased to play online. There is decent sized online games on consoles like Warhawk and BF Bad Company on PS3 or Frontlines (w/ 50 players) on XB360, But the same type of games have been around on PCs for about a decade already.

Consoles like the PS3 are undeniably successful and suit their purpose sufficiently, they just don’t compare to todays gaming computers in graphics peformance anything like some people have commented above.


On June 20, 2008 at 2:39 am

please stop these console to pc comparison, it’s all non-sense. i’m once a pc gamer and i agree that it’s still more expensive as a gaming machine (the reason i bought a 360), but i also agree that no console can match the power of a high end pc. BUT, not all gamers are pc enthusiasts that can tweak their system or have the knowledge on the right specs to run certain games. so in the end, a GAME console is still the BEST GAMING MACHINE but PC is still the MOST POWERFUL… but PS3 is the MOST HYPED


On July 15, 2008 at 9:14 pm

hahahaha this is one of the funniest threads ive read in a while. all the fan boys saying that the ps3 is future proof for 10 years lol with current tech pcs already blow away the consoles so untill the playstation 4 is released… it is outdated technology. of course a console will beat most mid range pcs because they arent built for gaming where as a console is, its not rocket science. put it up against a gaming rig and it will itself. if you were a real gamer and not just a stupid fan boy you would understand that the PS3, 360 and PC all have different attributes that attract different audiiences but when it comes down to raw power a PC will always dominate


On August 25, 2008 at 5:39 pm

dm and stu are right. anyway the pc is the most powerful. all the games on consoles are developed on the pc. the pc is crazy powerful. its really annoying when console owners try to say that they are more powerful than the pc. that whole cell processor for the ps3 is overrated. and im not being a pc fanboy. i like console games as well, but when it comes to a difference of power, the pc’s power is deffinatly greater. but then agian it also depends on whats in ur rig. and y are developers only using 30% of the ps3′s power when they can use all 100% of it. i think that whole 30% thing is crap. developers of games are always taking advantage of the power of the system their developing on. and isnt it kind of strange that if the ps3 is so powerful, that its competitors run the same game smoother? take the orange box or cod4 for instance on the 360. ive noticed smoother frame rates on the 360 than the ps3.


On September 20, 2009 at 4:33 am

A what now?… Haze has so much fog and little dynamic lighting there you can’t really tell… where is the dynamic depth of feild… the high detailed normal maps…. ah no point arguing my point if you need glasses this bad… haze looks nice but doesnt even compair to UT3 of all things and anyone with half a brain knows Crysis kicks Unreal3 engine around the court…


On December 20, 2012 at 10:23 am

Five years later, Crysis is still hailed as a pinnacle of graphical excellence, and HAZE is all but forgotten, a flop title that didn’t even come close to competing with the fidelity of the PC exclusive.