Diminishing returns tho. From the same distance away from a large tv in a living room 900p to 1080p is more noticeable than 1300p to 1700p.
Only so many pixels your eyes can see on a tv at a set distance. the gap gets smaller the higher the resolution gets to the point you couldn't tell the difference between 4k and 16k unless you were only a metre away from a tv or the screen were the size of a whole wall
same for phones you can tell 720p to 1080p ph...
You mean they WANTED to make a PC game that purposely incorporates mandatory upscaling in the game engine and you can't turn it off?
*Remedy sits around a table*
"Do you know what PC gamers will LOVE?"
"Forced upscaling so you can't have native resolution rendering! Hell Yeah! Let's do that!"
LOLZ plz don't troll
Mmmm I suspected as much the very instant I saw the comparison. The image quality was so bad for what is claimed as 1080p!
It is IMPOSSIBLE that the game cannot look quite a lot better and crisper on a PC running higher resolution if the assets are the same.
Unless of course the game isn't running at a higher resolution at all....
Wow, the image quality is still quite bad on PC. I expected the game to look much crisper but they must be still employing this blurry previous frame AA fudging even on a platform that is drowning with superior anti aliasing options and the performance to pull them off.
It must be inherent inside the game engine, and hasn't been sorted at all for the PC version. It's also plainly not the only thing wrong with the PC port. According to most reports and tests on it, it&...
@ starchild The distribution of reviews are't all 9s and 1s though are they? It's irrelevant to even bring that up when that is simply not the case.
It's clearly a pretty even spread. You can't have the highest critical reviews without taking the lowest and vice versa. Minor anomalous scores at both ends, remove the minimum and maximum scores and you still end up with pretty much the exact same average.
And I'm not sorry, 74 reviews (it...
"Well if you eliminate the two lowest scores from GB and Time, the game probably would be 80"
But it wouldn't be, because the sample size is large enough it wouldn't jump 2 points. That's the idea of averages, more sample size = better. 74 reviews is a LOT for this game. It's a very broad sample.
Secondly you don't just arbitrarily remove the lowest scores. You can remove the lowest and the highest, but fiddling the data to suit ...
It averages 78 rating spread across a now massive sample on metacritic, 74 separate reviews. Breaking down this data is pretty useless. It's the even spread you expect. No shocking anomalies. Tells us nothing more.
Across the massive sample, most thought it to be an ok game, good, not great.
That's it. No need to defend the score this extensively. No need to go into deep analysis. It speaks for itself.
I can't help be actually put...
Would anyone even notice if they did?
78 on metacritic over 65 reviews. Take it or leave it. Solid if unspectacular. Wolfenstein kind of rating.
I think I'll wait til it's in the bargain bin for PC, can't imagine that would be more than a few months by the look of the reviews and user ratings.
"If you hadn't been told QB's native resolution, you wouldn't even know"
I called it a while ago, easily visible very low resolution of the 1080p direct feed youtube videos when they were released 3 weeks ago.
Be even easier to notice in front of the actual game.
The game still has a wobbly framerate and screen tearing when the action heats up. It's hardly as if they traded off huge amounts of pixels for rock solid p...
Seems I can tell rather a lot from Youtube videos.
Meh I called this quite a while ago, and the screen tearing. Not news for me. Looked very low resolution and screen teary way back when on the Xbox One direct feed footage. It presented itself with very soft image quality.
Think the engine will show it's full potential on PC, but it'll be demanding I imagine.
Remedy have indeed claimed a 1080p output, but it's not the same thing as 1080p native when Remedy talk about it. They claimed Alan Wake was 720p because of the final image output, but geometry resolution was actually 960 x 540. Just over half the resolution of 1280 x 720. It showed, being one of the lowest resolution games released last generation, and thus they have prior history for this sort of talk.
Post processing elements may be 1080p e.g the UI as I said, but the ...
This game can't be 1080p surely on Xbox One. Screenies were from PC, but direct capture was only allowed from Xbox One apparently. This a graphical observation, not critique of the game.
The image is so soft and blurry in the videos, while the text elements are pin sharp. In other words, it's not the encoding of the 1080p video feeds. The UI overlay might be full 1080p, but the actual game surely isn't.
I'll wait to be proven wrong (and hope I...
It honestly doesn't look as good (graphically) as I thought it would on Xbox One. A LOT of screen tear. I'm a tad underwhelmed.
I don't know if it's the capture, plus resolution of the effects, just....it's very soft.
I wonder if they have been showing the PC version all this time up until now. Well, at least running on a PC, earlier versions.
The Downgrade.
From one of the best looking games I have ever seen, to an average looking online shooter.
Ubisoft.
Only by a nose? Was it this nose?
http://www.conservationinst...
If you want twice the resolution and twice the image quality, you'll pay twice as much. That's life.
Otherwise why bother? The PS3/PS4 versions will never, ever, ever look like this no matter how much money you throw at them either right now, or at any point in the future.
Whereas as time goes along PC hardware that can make it look this amazing will get less expensive. At some point even budget PC gamers will be able to make the game look as good as ...
You need a magnifying glass to see the difference on static images. It'll be virtually impossible 2 metres away from the screen with the game in motion