I am pretty sure a lot of gamers today hate a game if it has a high difficulty, look at Mario 3D Land, it wasn't much of a challenge until you unlocked the special worlds. No wonder we get games easy to complete, and only unlock some extras that present a challenge afterward.
Its like the developers realize people will rage if the main game becomes too difficult for them.
It doesn't matter if the games are designed to use it or not, if there are any performance issues like frame rate dips and the newer chips are actually faster, it would give better performance at least in those areas.
Wouldn't playing media in 1080p look pretty pixellated/grainy on such a large screen going down from native 4k? Because it will on PC monitors.
For TV i can see 4k being popular, but for games its currently not much good as even strong PC hardware only runs games at 30fps at that resolution..
1080p and 60+ fps for me.
Some games do tend to be noob friendly lately, Mario games show that a lot.
I remember my friend was complaining because he couldn't beat the last boss in the first Sonic Rush game. I prefer a long game that gets pretty challenging rather than start off really easy and have little to no problem beating it.
I still haven't played Generations, not the main version anyway.. i got it in the Steam sale for cheap and have yet to try it.
I have the 3DS version, not quite as fun as the Sonic Rush games but it is pretty good along with the special stages.. too bad there wasn't at least 1 stage of each zone in 3D play, that game could've really used it. Level design was a bit disjointed, but still a pretty good game.
If they make any more 2D games though i th...
Well 4k brings 30fps, thats about it.
Personally i'd take 1080p or 1440p and 60+fps over 4k, 4k is only double 1080p anyway.. i guess some people still think 4k is actually 4x better just because of the 4.
Besides if you were stuck with a 4k display, you'd need to lower the resolution down from native to get more speed, and lowering from native will make it look pixellated..
I wouldn't trust this on my 100mbps download 10mbps upload connection, dedicated hardware is always better, this has too many overheads.
Better graphics is always good, though i prefer the way Valve takes things.. Release a major engine and do incremental updates to it for each game release until it's time for a new one, in this case.. Source 2.
Seems some developers still prefer graphics over performance, 60fps is important in almost any game.. and if developers like Crytek continue to make games with visuals that push too far, or are poorly optimized, it will just continue as it has been with lame frame ...
While 3DS has a lot of quality games, Vita also has it's own strengths, one being it is very comfortable to hold for long periods whereas 3DS is not with its square sides, & not so great grip on the thumbstick.
Other plus's i like about the Vita is it's much better browser & YouTube player. It even plays videos from other websites in the main web browser which i didn't find out until recently by accident, like dailymotion.
Sonic Adventure on DC is like one of the only games i'm surprised that runs at 30fps, i can usually spot the difference straight away because 60fps is really fluid.
Frame rate is always best at least 60fps, and for those with 120hz monitors like myself.. it's also nice to hit 120fps, though the difference isn't as big as from 30 to 60.
I wish some people would stop saying 30fps is fine though just because some videos run at that frame rate, video is pre-rendered and playing a game is being computated in real time. Huge difference, plus with camera's and video the frame rate works differently than games, if you go so fast with...
I remember playing Mario 64 that ran at full speed on my first computer, a 366mhz Celeron. That was on the Corn emulator, it had really low compatibility but was extremely fast due to the way it worked. Trying to play the same game on Project 64 on a computer like that would likely lag a lot.
So, i wonder if Mantle will be able to produce some great results with optimization.. This will literally take away the only advantage that consoles have over PC.
If so,...
No it's not a bad move, it makes PC gaming even more attractive if this is as good as they say.
This "should" mean that even mid end hardware should run games even better at high frame rates and high in game detail settings.
That's N4G for you.
On another note, good news that AMD are doing this with Mantle, hopefully now we get higher fps in games like above 60+ even on newer releases.
Eh? that's how resolutions are typed.. either way what i said is still true, 4k IS 2 x (two times) 1920x1080 (Full HD) not 4 x (four times)
This article writer is clueless, 4k is not four times the resolution of full HD 1080p, its 2x.. 1920x1080 x2 = 3840x2160
are people really getting confused because its called 4k? its just double the resolution, not a huge 4x increase that people seem to think for some reason.
Movies, good, games, not worth the performance loss.. 1080p and 1440p aren't going anywhere and don't look much worse anyway, in game detail settings count more towards quality....
1080p 120hz is actually pretty nice for performance. you see the difference in fluidity at 120fps, not as big as from 30->60 but it is there.
1440p though is literally the max to go if you want performance, higher makes the frame rate too low.
4k might look sharper, but its only double full HD anyway. the difference from 1440p to 4k would look even smaller.
4k is just not playable really, even the r9 290x card can only manage 30fps or so at that resolution as shown in recent benchmarks. For me that's too slow, it may not be for a few people but once you play at 60+ you don't want to go to 30.
1080p or 1440p is the best for 60+fps, or even 120hz 1080p for 120fps max.. but if performance is your thing, you shouldn't go higher than 1440p.
4k is only double HD anyway, simply not worth the performance los...
I agree with most of your post except the last bit, Crysis 3 still struggles to get 60fps @ 1080p on PC... so yeah. No way PS4 will get a constant 60+fps, that will likely be the average framerate, not minimum.
Well, if Half Life gets a film, they will have to make the mute Gordon finally talk. Then he would have to talk in his games.
With Zelda, i think they should add voice acting as long as they can get the right actor to do it. I think people are maybe only put off because of the terrible CDI Zelda games.
Look at GTA 3, my least favorite of the GTA's, every character except the main one could speak.. which was a bit weird, but every game after had voice acti...