No, it won't play the same if one is @30fps and the other @60fps.
Well, that's a new low, when developers have to assure consumers that their games will WORK once they're released.
Deep down everybody is a graphics whore. It's impossible not to be one.
I look at it in another way. If I glance over the screen and see a difference, then that's the difference I'm going to see ingame. If you have to look hard at stills and even worse, zoom in - then it's a negligible difference.
I don't really see THAT big of a difference except for a higher rendering resolution and higher quality textures. The differences are really subtle.
Why didn't they fix her ridiculously small head?
This article is strangely written.
MS are pretty cloudy when it comes to releasing PC games. Halo 1 and Halo 2 are on PC. Gears of War 1 is on PC. Fable 1 and 3 are on PC. It's like they don't know what to do with games sometimes.
I guess if Xbox sales are poor, they'll keep a game exclusive to the console. If Xbox sales are good, MAYBE they'll release it on PC.
I do wish they'd release Gears of War 2 3 and Judgement on PC, as well as the Halo Collection. The Xbox 360 is p...
I guess, for those who care, that's a lot of games to play.
You've got to remember that most Battlefield trailers look freaking awesome and then end up not awesome at all.
The thing is, for instance, that EA makes almost anything DLC. They have DLC packs containing 2 cars for NFS Rivals. Basically, their DLC isn't worth shit and is probably cut out of the game in the first place only to be sold later.
The only game EA releases that is worth buying is a "complete pack" game a year later. Then you get the game that you should have gotten in the first place.
With Rockstar, for example, that's not the case. Rememb...
I've hooked up my PS3 both to my 1080p PC monitor via HDMI and my living room HD ready TV and in both instances Crysis 1 looked like crap and Red Dead was blurry.
I believe both games aren't even rendered at 720p, so everything a little far off is a blurry blob.
Still doesn't change my point though.
It's more CPU demanding than graphically demanding. GTA5 will be both, I suppose.
I get Battlefield 4, but what was wrong with Dead Space 2?
While I do agree on the point of gameplay > graphics, I have a point to make as well.
Yesterday I played Crysis on a PS3. The image was so blurry and washed out I could hardly recognize enemies in the level. I've played Red Dead Redemption, which is an excellent game by itself, and it's also so blurry at times you don't even know what the hell you're shooting at.
So, does gameplay matter more than graphics? Yes it does. Can bad image qual...
Although I love MGS4's references to the Playstation brand through the entire game and the fact that MGS4's home is the PS3, I would love to play it again, preferably on my PC since my 2 PS3s got the dreaded YLOD.
The complete MGS collection on all platforms would be like a wet dream come true.
Here's to hoping it will be. I have a feeling it might.
Not worth the wait.
I forgot about AC! Man, those were long talks.
I was playing Metal Gear Rising last week and all I could think about is how much bullshit every character spewed. Bullshit not suitable for a B-rate movie. Then I remembered the earlier DMC games, RE games which fall in the same category.
I guess that's just how Japan works.
The positive outcome of this can be that it actually turns out a good game when no one is expecting it to be one.