Haha. Dude i have the game. Iv played through it twice. I never said it looked BETTER than crysis 3 i said it was pretty close. Yes it has its share of low res textures in places, but the majority of them are high resolution. And just look at the poly count on the characters, they look better than the characters rendered in crysis 3. I dont know how you guys dont think those screens dont look amazing for an 8 year console. No 8 year old pc could do that and that was my whole entire point proven.
Also the 8800 was not out in 2005 it was the 7800 that was top end. And no, a 7800GTX in a PC could not do that. Your blind if you think COD MW2 looks remotely as good as the last of us. I cant even believe its being compared to that. Thats almost a joke.
And there no prerendered cutscenes in the last of us. It is all rendered from the console. How do the details on the screen I posted differ from the details seen in the other ones posted? If they are pre-rendered, then I dont even know why they bothered since there is no change in the graphic quality going from a cutscene to gameplay. Iv played through the game, and believe me thats the first thing I analyzed.
The PS3 was not out in 2005 either
Just like the GeForce 8 series, it was out in 2006/2007, depending on where you are in the world. You also seem to be mistaking a 7800 for the top card in the 7 series, forgetting completely about the 7950.
Nobody said that you said it was better than Crysis either, nor did anyone say that it looked bad for a 7 year old console (not 8), the fact of the matter is that there is a huge difference between the shot you put and the in game. The hair is less detailed, the clothes less detailed, the faces less detailed, there are more jaggies, I don't know how you cannot see that.
A 7 year old system (Q6600, 8800GT, 4GB DDR2) would play games like that no problem at 30 FPS and more, just go and look at Crysis 1 as an example, an 8800GT, or if you want to be more pedantic about release dates, an 8800GTS, would run Crysis no problem at medium-high settings, which is as good or better than the graphics in The Last of Us.
You are not the only person on this planet that has played any of these games, so you can carry on repeating over and over that you have played the games, it gives you no more authority on the matter than anyone else because guess what, I have too and so have a lot of others, and even if they had not, videos are readily available to people to see for themselves. When everyone else that has played the game is then saying it is not all that graphically and you are the only one saying it is, does that not make you question whether you are right or wrong?
The problem that we have is lazy developers. We have so much more grunt now on PC's compared to relatively ancient hardware that is in the previous gen consoles that developers do not need to optimize code when porting over, they can keep it sloppy and inefficient and we can still max it out. If they put any modicum of time and effort into porting it over, people could very easily sit on their systems from 7 years ago and wouldn't have to upgrade as often.
With regards to price, PC gaming is cheaper, just not with the initial investment. You start off out of pocket but once you factor in the price difference in games and the fact that you are offsetting some of that cost by only needing one PC to game and use as a PC, instead of two, a PC for a PC and a console for games, the prices start to swing in favour of computers rather than consoles.
As Punk said though, people cannot just fork out nearly double the price as and when, you have to plan large investments like that unless you are fortunate enough to be rolling in it, so that large initial sum could very easily be a deal breaker