Y do people assume resolution is most important? It isn't. The game engine, shading, frame rate, lighting and gameplay are all more important, yet people assume if it ain't 1080p@60fps it must be rubbish. Besides, resolution doesn't even make a real difference unless its a large screen and ur sitting close to it.
This is hardly proof, if u do a comparison, do the same video next to one another like mgs:gz did, not showing two completely different vids and claiming one looks different, Ofcourse it will its a different video!
When i say arrogance, i mean that fanboys blindly defend and refuse to see anything remotely wrong with their chosen platform, and refuse to acknowledge anything positive about the rival platform. For my money that is the very definition of a fan-boy.
Do pc elitist moan at steam for that? No one bats an eye when that happens, yet when Microsoft do it, everyone loses their minds! Not that Microsoft do everything right, they are often guilty of profit first, fans second. But then again they are a company who makes money, the aim of every company is profit. Sony are guilty of unprofessionalism when the going is good and complacency when things are bad.
Any kind of fanboy is pathetic, regardless of which platform/game/genre they support. The mentality being "if it ain't what i like it sucks" is just the most arrogant mindset possible. Different people have different preferences, why cant people accept that?
There was no downgrade.
Quality over quantity. Excellent.
Actually Ubisoft and Sony both confirmed its a 6 month timed exclusive. Look it up.
Its a 6 month timed exclusive from what Sony have said
Timed exclusive no? I read somewhere its a six month timed exclusive
Cutscenes are one thing, but gameplay footage wise the graphics quality simply hasn't changed.
I think this game has had so much hype and so high expectations that a some people are going to be disappointed with it regardless of the quality of the game, even if it exceeds its already high expectations there will be some idiot trying to say its rubbish. Personally i think this game will be magnificent, the idea and premise of the game intrigued me from the start, and the gameplay only drew me in further. So i doubt mediocre is the word a majority of people will describe it.
Xbox version seems darker, pc being a bit clearer. But in the dust and wind seems more noticeable on xbox one, apart from that they seem quite similar. Just my opinion though, i may have missed summin
People often confuse loyalty with fanboyism.
they think their actions just being loyal to a particular brand and so hate anything from its rival, regardless of quality. When in fact they are being childish. Titanfall is a good game and will no doubt be successful. And Sony fanboys simply don't want it to happen, so they don't like it, even if they secretly wish they had it.
First, the ones shown at e3 were done on a high end pc, so it will look better.
second, the gameplay on the right is showing mainly during the day, which means it didn't get a chance to show off the weather effects like rain or wind. I still think itll look brilliant.
Well compared to high end pc graphics which were shown at e3 ofcourse it wont look as good but its still good graphics from wot i saw on the link u gave me
Like the article said, the guy on twitter who said it was ps4 graphics isn't an official Ubisoft guy, so we cnt take his word as proof. But we do know that the trailer was initially leaked on the xbox 360 preview dashboard, it seems there is more evidence to suggest the story trailer is the 360/ps3 version and not next gen.
Uve seen the gameplay right? That's what got peoples attention in the first place and no-one is arguing that's been downgraded, the gameplay looks amazing with impressive depth. And if ur wondering about the statement that Ubisoft made regarding wether they have downgraded their graphics for watch dogs, they said no they haven't. And if u watch the gameplay footage from last year, ull c it hasn't been downgraded. So they didn't tell me they told everyone.
...
Im talking from a purely technical standpoint, and when i say that i dnt just mean graphics, facial animation and clothing animation are two parts of graphics that aren't half as talked about as they should. Bf4 cant beat ryse for facial or clothing animations, the texture and shading is inferior, i gotta admit crysis 3 will still impress people in years to come graphically. But i still maintain my argument that when u look at all the games for the new gen, nothing comes close to ryse.
Even if it compromises on other elements? We've seen games already downgraded graphically due to demand for 1080@60. 60fps isn't necessary in all games, fps and racers need them because of the games fast paced nature, but other games that are slower like open world games or some action games.
most movies go at 24fps, dnt see anyone crying about that.
and on resolution, has everyone forgotten the best game in purely graphical quality is not 1080p? I said before, the gam...