Look at it this way. If every single publisher and developer allowed full access to every game's features and such through share play, can you imagine how many people would abuse that system and end up never buyin the game, in turn limiting sales?
Thankfully I never played it last gen. I'll eventually get it on ps4. From what I've heard, the second season runs perfectly fine and the first season on ps4 still has issues, but runs better on ps4
The last of us can go as low as the 40's, especially in multiplayer, so it is not a true 1080p 60fps game. Metro Redux is 1080p 60fps on PS4 and 900p 60fps on Xbox One and that is locked 60 fps. Maybe on rare occasions it can dip to 58, but that is not a common occurrence and never goes lower than that. And the only difference between them visually with the last of us 30 or 60 option is higher quality shadows up close, but they're the same quality at a distance
I'll be impressed once you guys show me an actual game running the engine. So far the 2 games to use it, Daylight and Fortnite, look terrible.
People talk about how amazing P.T. looked visually, but I thought it just looked okay. I don't get it. It's not that good looking. I'm hoping the final version of Silent Hills will be more than just a negligible difference visually. Yes, we know the graphics were downgraded, but the question is by how much. PT as it stands is an okay looking demo/teaser thing.
Am I the only person that has yet to be impressed by a single game or environment recreation using unreal engine 4? Is the engine itself really that underwhelming or are the artists/programmers poor? Anything that has the UE 4 name on it thus far has failed to impress me in the slightest.
Well that's true, but if you were to single out the 2 genres that absolutely need 60fps, it would be racing games and fighting games. Every other genre, I'm perfectly okay with a locked 30fps as long as it means better visuals and other more technical jargon.
*impatiently waits for the playstation plus edition still*
I'm not composing about better graphics and frames rates with these remasters at all. It's just a better experience overall, so I'm all for it. I got DOA5 on launch day and enjoyed it, but never got any dlc or DOA5 Ultimate, so this new gen version of DOA 5 for $40 with the stuff I never bought and better visuals is something I endorse.
I suspected. It's usual for microsoft's console exclusives to eventually go to pc.
PC. Mass Effect, Alan Wake, Dead Rising 3, Ryse, etc.. This has been going on since last gen. If anything, it's a surprise when an Xbox exclusive doesn't eventually make it to pc
@spartan
Yes there was a demo, but that was the only demo. The demo they showed at e3 was the same demo released to the public and there was nothing else they showed of the game until it released...
God of War 3 showed practically nothing leading up to release except one gameplay slice and everything else, such as the opening boss, ended up being a huge surprise to everyone
The new console versions are making use of better lighting character models along with a larger amount of animations? Resolution is not all the makes a game. Jeez. I hate people like you that think resolution is the only component that goes into how good a game looks. There's lighting, polygons, textures, subsurface scattering, particle effects, shaders, etc... that effect how good a game looks and how much of the horsepower it is using. Resolution is a very small part of the visual makeu...
My point is this guy is a blatant fanboy calling an Xbox one exclusive gross for running at a resolution that some of his beloved multiplats and exclusives run at.
Assassin's Creed Unity is 900p. Is that game gross too?
Edit: You list the Order? That's 900p. Surely that must be gross, yet sunset overdrive is gross for the same reason??
I take it you don't play very many games made then, do you?
There is no way in hell dropping the resolution from 1080p to 900p frees up enough resources to increase the frame rate that much.
It's not a remake of a remake. It's a remaster of a remake. Get it right.
I seriously think the Vita version's reviews have been way too good. The frame rate stutters often enough to be noticeable. The online co-op was dropped to 4 from 8 players. The draw distance is PITIFUL! And it doesn't feel like it runs at the vita's native resolution as it feels a bit too murky and has far too many jagged edges on distant objects. Underneath it all, it is still minecraft and that's great, but this port does not deserve such a high score at all.
I can't tell if you're trolling, over-exaggerating, or really that blind.