There’s been a lot of debate lately about graphics and resolution, particularly as things like Assassin’s Creed: Unity, and the Evil Within come out with locked in 30 FPS with statements such as “It’s more cinematic” or the resolution only getting 900px due to console limitations.
For more or less the first time in memory, game creators are calling for people to stop worrying about the graphics as much. For years, publishers and developers have been selling games based on constantly increasing the resolution, graphical fidelity and other graphic parts… and now it seems they have hit a bit of a wall and are trying to come up with various reasons to say stop worrying about it.
The best way to experience a unique chapter in AC franchise history.
Give me a proper PS5 port with trophy list, Syndicate too and I'd happily buy them both again
The French Revolution waits for no one.
But now it runs at 60 FPS on PlayStation and Xbox Series X.
Rediscover Assassin’s Creed Unity in breathtaking clarity.
The Outerhaven writes: While I hold Bethesda's The Evil Within series as some of the best Survival Horror games available, it's clear that Bethesda has no intention of revisiting the series. While Capcom is still working on its Resident Evil series, I look back at the now-dead survival horror series from Bethesda, wondering why the series was left wide open, and yet still not revisited.
An OK horror series left behind. It had some great ideas, but it never knew how to play to its strengths. Instead, it came out like just another RE4 clone.
I would love for a third entry to come out, but it needs to learn to lean in on the psychological aspect and move away from the generic "pew pew" ideology at the center of the gameplay loop. It doesn't need to abandon it; it just needs to put it into better context, is all.
Also, try a first-person perspective instead. Too many 3rd-person games with nothing to offer but an avatar taking precious screen space. At least make it an actual option and not that janky-ass mess the second game pretended to have.
Graphics matter. They can get a player more immersed, and as gamers it is only logical we demand the best that technology can bring us. However, consoles are not the best route to achieve some desires. To get 1080p everytime (and usually more), and get 60fps, a gaming PC is obviously the way to go. I feel as though the resolution debate came from fanboys trying to get their console of choice somewhat more justification for their own personal purchase. I myself am not a massive PC gamer, but I know how pathetic it is to argue 900p vs 1080p when 1440p+ is easily achievable on hardware that is....just better. I mean think about it, consoles are suppose to be cheap and popular to the masses. Under $500, all the time (for the most part). Anymore doesn't sell well, so compromises have to be made.
The last of Us was 720p on the ps3 and still it was one of the best game ever created.
This proves that a game can still be a gem if the res is a bit lower.
You won't see massive differences on 900p vs 1080p on a screenshot.
But if you play the game on a 1080p tv, you will. I can tell straight off if a game isn't hd.
As for PC, I have one and play many games on it.
But many games that consoles get do not come to PC.
My PC/PS4 combo works for me.
Smooth 60fps over anything in my opinion. But games being set to 30fps is not a drawback for all of them just a lot of them.
Isn't it only natural to expect my games to be the 10 year industry standard of 1080p by now? No excuse my 11 month old console can't match my prehistoric TVs image output!