Another Upscaled Console Game: Battlefield Hardline 225
jones_supa writes Video game developer Visceral Games has confirmed the actual resolution that the coming Battlefield Hardline will run on when it is launched on the Xbox One and on the PlayStation 4. An official message from the Twitter account of the studio explains that gamers will get a 720p resolution on the Microsoft console and Sony platform gamers will get the game running in 900p. 60 frames per second is promised for both consoles, but many fans are still expressing their disappointment that neither of the two versions will be able to properly deliver the native 1080p resolution of the consoles. When development started, Visceral Games and publisher Electronic Arts said they were aiming to use the power of the modern consoles to push the game engine as far as it would go, but they clearly couldn't fit that target without cutting corners. This is similar to what happened with Titanfall, which renders into an 1408x792 framebuffer on Xbox One.
Another FPS (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps if they pushed the boundaries in other ways, other than graphics? Like Story? Idea? Gameplay?
Sorry but I'm sick of these endless FPS! And the graphics alone aren't going to hold a jaded player.
Re: (Score:2)
You're asking a industry that been pushed into graphics for 20+ years to do something they just can't into anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it's really because they have focus groups of old moms who keep telling them that the blurred+film grained + shitted all over with post effects looks better than a sharp 1080p picture.
that's really the gist of things and why they don't do 1080p. it would have been real easy for them to limit things to so that they could have that.
Re:Another FPS (Score:5, Insightful)
Then don't play it. It isn't like there aren't thousands of other games in dozens of other genres to play.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? There's a rather large group of players who care nought for crap like that. They just want to get the game, and go frag their friends 27 hours a day. There's a large contingent of players who will do just that, which is why games like that sell billions of dollars on the first day.
And to be honest, it's a
Re: (Score:2)
You mean "biased"?
Re: (Score:2)
I really enjoy when the current generation uses "feels" as a plural noun.
They think it's cute. :(
They're spoilt with lots of FPS and it bias them in favor of ignoring things like the use of apostrophes when the games pretty fun.
But, since we provided the technology they grew up on, it's probably all our fault that's all they "learnt".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Another FPS (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
When someone feels the need to tell you, "I'm fine", you best believe they're a long way from OK.
Re: (Score:2)
your friends who still play CS?
and you fail to see that there has been 30+ games that could replace CS as their game?
I mean, why this game now? have you played any other game after cs came out? I could understand your comment that they might be playing it for a few years if there wasn't such games coming out by the numbers every year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Lots of people play CS.
http://steamcharts.com/ [steamcharts.com] 207,620 people play CS:GO right now (max 463,265, 178 million hours played.) 44,475 plays Team Fortress 2. 19,343 play original Counter Strike.
"could replace"? That's not as replace. 12.55 % of all people who play a game on Steam plays CS:GO right now.
Why not this game? Isn't it the standard for competitive gaming / esport in the FPS area?
I don't know in what way it's superior if anything but I guess people play it because it's the one which matter kinda. Also most media focus, most people who care, maybe good maps, maybe because of investments into customizing ones character, maybe because it's very cheap relative all the money they have put into it and they don't normally purchase games?
He's asking why they would switch to Hardline instead of any of the other CS potential replacements that have been released since. What is so good about hardline that the others lacked. The short answer is nothing, these 'friends' will likely stick to CS.
Re: (Score:2)
Battlefield is not that kind of game. It's a AAA that's a crown jewel for EA.
Further, there just isn't a reason to downgrade the experience of PC customers except to tell them their money just isn't important. If the new consoles can only do resolutions from 2003, so be it, but the money EA/Visceral will collect from PC gamers certainly would seem to be enough to make the PC version current-gen resolution.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe because they had a bigger selling point. The I don't know highly destructible environments. Gamers who think games need to have the best graphics first and then everything else are just wastes of space.
Re: (Score:2)
I gave up with BF2. Unlockable weapons kills game balance and they started prioritising graphics above gameplay.
I disagree with you about BF:Vietnam though. One of my all-time favourite games, it had the claustrophobic jungle maps, the open expanses, the city maps, the PBRs, the tunnel mechanic, great balance, a nice mix of weapons and weapon styles, and the 'Ride of the Valkyries' button on the choppers. I liked that game!
And console owners feel pc (Score:2, Interesting)
I guess they think it's 2006 and with pride at work gloat their $389 dollar machine can still kill my $1600 pc. It's starting to piss me off and I have proof now. Even a $399 netbook has more gpu power than a ps4
Re: (Score:2)
Right, but more people are buying console games, just as more people bought iPhones compared to much more powerful Samsung phones, what does that tell you?
I'll give you a hint: people don't care about power, they care about things like ease of use and polish.
I don't even like Sony or Apple and I can tell you this. It's not rocket science that raw underlying power isn't everything to the consumer. More often they just want something that's quick and easy to use and reliable. As much as I love Android it's no
The last instant-on console was the Nintendo 64 (Score:2)
no one wants a big buzzing PC in their living room
You say this as if the first PS3 and the first Xbox 360 weren't likewise louder than my laptop PC.
that takes a bit of time to boot up
The last instant-on console was the Nintendo 64. Every console since then has included system software that takes longer to start than my laptop takes to come out of suspend and pop up the password box.
typically requires navigation with a mouse and keyboard and so forth
The Steam client in Big Picture mode can be navigated with a USB gamepad. Beyond that, if you can text, you can use a Lenovo N5901 Bluetooth handheld keyboard with trackball [dx.com].
platformers tend to be awful on PCs
Where does that leave people who want
Re: (Score:2)
I agree things have changed, but the earlier 360 models were really the exception, everything else since has been pretty quiet compared to the cooling required in a decent gaming PC.
"The last instant-on console was the Nintendo 64. Every console since then has included system software that takes longer to start than my laptop takes to come out of suspend and pop up the password box."
Not really true, instant-on mode on the Xbox One is instant-on and the Wii U is quick to boot.
"The Steam client in Big Picture
Re: (Score:2)
If only I had mod points...
Counter-Strike (Score:2)
instant-on mode on the Xbox One is instant-on
Thank you for clarifying that resume time is now comparable. So neither platform "takes a bit of time to boot up" anymore.
[Modding] sounds like an incredibly small market - effectively you're bringing a statistical outlier into a discussion about general cases.
I disagree that only "an incredibly small market" want to mod games. Consider GoldenEye 007 and Half-Life, both ground-breaking first-person shooters of the late 1990s. GoldenEye was for console, and Half-Life was for PC. If Half-Life were a console exclusive when first introduced, well adapted to the console environment the way GoldenEye was, would there have even been a Counter-Strike?
Re: (Score:2)
"I disagree that only "an incredibly small market" want to mod games."
You're changing the discussion now though, there's a difference between modding in general and modding platformers. Modding FPS on the PC works well because FPS games on the PC work well. That doesn't change the fact that platformers on the PC don't typically work well however.
"would there have even been a Counter-Strike?"
Probably yes, because CounterStrike was just an evolution of Action Quake and Special Forces Quake.
"Locked-down tablet
Modding platformers (Score:2)
You're changing the discussion now though, there's a difference between modding in general and modding platformers.
Consider the following statement, derived from the present status quo: "Platformers, fighting games, and platform fighters ought not to be moddable, and startup developers ought not to have the ability to develop original games in these genres." Do you agree? If so, why?
That's a laptop with a keyboard, not a tablet. I don't really know what your point is here.
My point is that I was disappointed that tablets killed the 10 inch size of laptops when 10 inch was my optimal size.
Again, it's entirely about the best tool for the job
In principle, I agree that one ought to use the best tool for the job. In practice, overlapping requirements appear to exclu
Re: (Score:2)
I agree things have changed, but the earlier 360 models were really the exception, everything else since has been pretty quiet compared to the cooling required in a decent gaming PC.
I believe you overestimate the noise created by a properly set up PC cooling system. My PC is pretty high up the ladder with an i7-4790K and SLI GTX970s, but it's also incredibly quiet most of the time. It is capable of getting loud if I turn all the fans up to maximum manually, but that never happens in actual use because it's not capable of getting hot enough to need it. Even running a GPU burn-in test and Prime95 simultaneously, pulling 730 watts from the wall, the GPU fans never exceed 1000 RPM and t
Re: (Score:2)
My XBOne can boot faster than my gaming PC most of the time (PC is booting off SSD). So I don't get the complaint. I don't have a PS4 yet so I can't attest to it's boot time.
Re: (Score:2)
no one wants a big buzzing PC in their living room that takes a bit of time to boot up, typically requires navigation with a mouse and keyboard and so forth when they can just chuck a console under the TV,
still have the fan noise and spinning-disc buzzing, wait longer for it to boot, and still have to navigate menus, but with an inferior (for that particular task) input device.
A console gamer just fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Vanilla Android is fine, but frankly Samsung's phones are so full of poorly written clutter that they're not easier to use and that's the problem. The same is true of a number of other Android manufacturers like HTC- the crap they install just ruins the Android experience.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're being disingenuous now, ignoring the fact that you're probably wrong (Apple looks to have taken the crown again given latest trajectories: http://www.idc.com/prodserv/sm... [idc.com]) we're not talking about all phone sales, we were talking about comparative smartphone sales- i.e. Samsung's high powered models vs. Apple's high powered models, like for like you get more power with Samsung, yet Apple shifts more units.
You can't simply throw some random extra figures in the mix to try and make a point when in fac
Re: (Score:2)
Typical Apple fanboy. When Apple loses in some metric you redefine the metric to be something that Apple can win at. Pathetic.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh god, your post makes me want to utterly facepalm. Please, I implore you, go read my post history since 2007 when the iPhone came out if you think I'm an Apple fanboy. Seriously, I beg you, you'll be so utterly embarrassed by that post when you do. You will find literally years of criticism of Apple and hype for Android, stemming back to a point in which criticising Apple and talking up Android got you regularly modded down here. I'm about as far from an Apple fanboy as you can get without becoming an out
Re: (Score:2)
Samsung has more models. Apple has less models. Of course if you account for phone models on an individual basis it is hardly surprising Apple sells more of a given model. So what? What matters is the market segment share. Both companies have different market strategies that is all.
Samsung has like seven Galaxy S5 models alone and that is if you ignore the Galaxy Note and the other smartphone lines they have. They have two Galaxy S6 models so far. The difference is one has a bent edge and the other doesn't
Re: (Score:2)
PS: My next phone is probably going to be some Chinese Android phone anyway. If I had to buy a phone now it would probably be the OnePlus One.
Compaq is dead long live ASUS.
What kind of case? (Score:2)
That said, you can build a desktop PC that can outperform a console for about the same price.
Including a living room-friendly case?
Just be sure to pirate Winblows.
How is Steam OS insufficient?
Re: (Score:3)
You mean other than 'most of my games won't work on it'?
Re: (Score:2)
Fix gameplay related issues first (Score:5, Insightful)
As a BF4 player, I would rather they focus on gameplay related issues (rubberbanding, etc), rather than spending a huge effort on getting the last 180 pixels on the screen.
Sure, it's nice to have 1080p resolution, but it's worthless if the game isn't fun. If the game is fun at 900px, who cares about that last 180px.
Re:Fix gameplay related issues first (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree. The focus on resolution seems ridiculously overblown. It doesn't help that the press breathlessly reports on it every time it happens. Faux outrage makes for lots of page views, I guess. It's pretty damn clear the current generation of consoles are far too underpowered to render a complex scene in high resolution, so we shouldn't be surprised at this anymore. The developers probably looked at how much rendering detail would be lost to try to boost it to full resolution, and decided it wasn't worth the tradeoff.
From TFA:
some of the worst fears of the community are becoming reality.
720p is really what they fear most? Not bugs, crappy frame rate, day-one DLC, broken matchmaking, overloaded servers, or cookie-cutter gameplay? Really?
Re: (Score:2)
What it should have said was:
some of the worst fears of the developers are becoming reality.
i.e., that they can't market their game as "1080p!" even though most people probably wouldn't notice if they were playing a decent game at 720p instead of 1080p. It's not like it makes your eyes bleed. Sure, 1080p looks sharper, but if I'm after pretty pictures I'll watch a movie. I play games to play a decent game, whether it runs at 1080p, 720p, 480p, or 224p.
Re: (Score:2)
You should see it more in terms of power. Let me provide you with a car analogy:
1080p is like 1080hp and 200p is like 200hp.
Now do you understand why resolution is so important?! POWERRRR!
An Xbox game with 720hp is obviously inferior to a Playstation game with 900hp!
On a serious note: in an FPS, the difference between 320x200 and 1920x1080 does make for a difference in the ability to play the game (remember going back to Quake in 320x200 after having played GLQuake?). The same can be said for interface-heav
Re: (Score:2)
The only time I ever noticed resolution as a factor was back in the old days when I'd take my PC around to a mates house for lan games and he had this ridiculously high res (Like, oh probably 1024, it was the old days) to my shitty 800 , and seemed to be able to get headshots sniping from a distance when I couldn't bloody see him as more than a pixel or two.
Buuut I don't even take my xbox360 online so...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I used to turn off all the prettiness to get smooth framerates at higher resolutions on Unreal Tournament exactly for those easier headshots.
Sorry, those more precise headshots. You had to move the mouse across more pixels to get to them, it must've been harder. I was crippling myself really.
Re: (Score:2)
Well yeah, but you have to bear in mind that no actual console gamer fears 720p at all. The only people who claim they fear that are people who still haven't gotten over the fact that AAA attention was primarily switched to consoles about 10 years ago now and think that by spreading such falsehoods the AAA world will suddenly jump up and switch their allegiance to PC and only PC making it the one true master race gaming platform.
It wont though of course, because those devs will just go where the money and p
Re: (Score:2)
The only people who claim they fear that are people who still haven't gotten over the fact that AAA attention was primarily switched to consoles about 10 years ago now and think that by spreading such falsehoods the AAA world will suddenly jump up and switch their allegiance to PC and only PC making it the one true master race gaming platform.
And haven't you noticed that it's the European game sites that run articles like these? Whether Eurogamer and their PC vs console comparisons, or Romania based Softpedia with this one. Europe has always been more PC partisan, partly because of all the @#$@# pirates in eastern Europe. They really don't "understand" "why consoles exist"
I once communicated with a Hungarian online. We talked a bit about gaming. He was a fervent PC Master race sort of guy. He said consoles were for rich kids and said the games
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly, I'm from the UK myself but I try not to listen to the gaming media. I've been aware for many many years now how the gaming media is effectively a protection racket. I've seen great games get poor reviews because they didn't pay their protection money and vice versa. Mostly where I've encountered this attitude is here in the comments section of Slashdot. I was late to even hear about the whole Gamergate thing for exactly this reason. When it filtered through to me on the media I do pay attention to
Re: (Score:3)
The focus on resolution seems ridiculously overblown.
We don't buy 1080p consoles and displays to have graphics muddied up by scaling.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't buy 1080p consoles full stop. We just buy consoles.
The fact they can do 1080p in theory is neither here nor there, last gen could do 1080p in theory but struggled in practice. This gen can do 4k in theory, but will struggle in practice.
There's a lot of things consoles can theoretically do but suck at in practice, it seems silly to get caught up on one more so than another.
I personally prefer gameplay over graphics, and if this game is notably fun then I couldn't care what it looks like. I remember
Re: (Score:3)
We don't buy 1080p consoles full stop. We just buy consoles.
Disingenuous, since you know what I meant, and proved that full well in the next sentence.
I personally prefer gameplay over graphics,
It's not all about you.
Assassins Creed Unity was full of bugs, regularly crashed, and ran like shit, but hey at least it was pretty and ran at 1080p right? No, I'd much rather they'd just dropped it to 720p
I'd much rather they fixed the bugs and I could play at 1080p. The hardware's capabilities are known before the game hits the street, they decide how to tune it, it's their decision. They increase poly counts too much to hit their resolution targets and then act surprised.
That way I wouldn't have wasted ã40 on a turd.
You could also have just not made your purchasing decision until after it was demonstrated whether it would be a good one. I d
Re: (Score:2)
"Disingenuous, since you know what I meant, and proved that full well in the next sentence."
Not really, my point was that there's no obligation that because a console can do something, that it should do something for every game. I agree that this generation should be more capable of hitting 1080p on more occasions than last gen, but I don't agree that it should be expected as a given. I couldn't give a toss if something like Minecraft is only 720p if it means I get better draw distances and bigger worlds fo
Re: (Score:2)
it's clear that even track record doesn't mean anything anymore in the games industry.
Having a track record at least gives your startup studio the opportunity to become a licensed developer of console games.
Re: (Score:2)
"Simple fact is the screens is running at one resolution and up-scaling a lower one will bring artifacts and less sharpness." ...and better FPS, more polygon detail and greater responsiveness.
It's a trade-off, it's not a one way thing like you're implying. You can't simply up to 1080p native without a cost and that cost isn't always inherently a negative - it's entirely dependent on what you're doing.
Though I don't know why you suggest less sharpness and artifacts are a given of upscaling, the whole point i
Re: (Score:2)
What upscaling does is reduce per-pixel detail
Upscaling fits a smaller image onto a larger screen. By necessity, it blurs the image slightly, thereby reducing sharpness.
Okay, I'm ready, tell me I'm wrong.
Does resolution matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
There was some Nielsen market-research data published recently on why current-generation console owners had published the console they had. For PS4 owners, the answer was "better resolution", for Xbox One owners it was "brand" and for the Wii-U it was "fun-factor". There's been a lot written about this data since it was published.
But what I suspect is that it tells us very little about either the consoles themselves. Rather, it tells us a lot about the self-image of the people who buy them. So the PS4 fans are the ones who want to be able to point at the bigger numbers. The Xbox-One fans are the ones who honestly do care about brand (and given this is US survey data, "buy American" is probably a big part of it). And Wii-U fans have a strange obsession that they have some kind of monopoly on fun. Watch the fanboy-wars on any gaming forum of your choice (and they are more vicious this generation than I've ever seen them before) and you will find that each of those stereotypes holds up remarkably well.
And does resolution actually matter hugely? I'm unconvinced. If I want technical perfection (and sometimes I do), I'm playing on a PC anyway. Some of my favourite console games of the last generation were a technical mess.
I would argue that framerate matters more for certain genres. For anything requiring fast reactions and/or fine control, such as a shooter, high-end driving game or fighting game, a steady 60fps translates into a huge increase in responsiveness.
I think it's generally accepted now that in performance terms, the new console hardware has disappointed; promises of 1080p x 60fps haven't materialised. Given the constraints of a fixed hardware platform, I'd rather developers drop resolution or image quality in return for a higher/steadier framerate.
Re: (Score:2)
And does resolution actually matter hugely? I'm unconvinced. If I want technical perfection (and sometimes I do), I'm playing on a PC anyway.
Yes, and there you can have proper resolution, and see that it does matter a great deal. Native resolution is clearer.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends. When the game demands it, ie frantic action shooter, like q3a or cs and even the slower ones like arma/cod/battlefield, most players will sacrifice visual details and/or resolution till they get smooth 45-60 FPS.
Conversely games not that epilepsy-inducing (RTS and anything slower than that up to casual gaming), 30fps is often enough and the rest of GPU power can be spent on finer details.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it matters, Dark Souls 1 on the PC is locked at 1024x720 at 30 FPS upscaled to the resolution you specify at the settings menu, a modder made a patch to configure that. Going from that to 1080p at 60FPS made it COMPLETELY ANOTHER GAME, a much better one in fact.
Re: (Score:2)
I bought a PS4 because the next generation of games I want to play are going to start coming out on them. Even if it's multiplatform, I'd rather have the PS4 versions because they do actually look nicer, because eventually there won't be PS3 versions.
So put me down for "higher resolution" but also put a big asterisk there because I know my PS3 is about to become obsolete soon.
Re: (Score:3)
Whereas in reality, the differences between the PS4 and Xbox-One (and their respective software lineups) are vanishingly small. The PS4 generally offers a marginal performance benefit. The Xbox-One has marginally better multimedia functionality (though still not as good as the old PS3). But you're really down to splitting hairs here and only pedants or perfectionists will ever notice the difference.
And on the games/franchises front? Exclusives are fewer and further between than ever and the PS/Xbox franchis
Re: (Score:3)
Platform-exclusives tend to happen for one of three reasons:
1) The platform owner has funded the development of the game, or paid the publisher a large amount of money for exclusivity.
2) The developer/publisher only expects development for one platform to be profitable and considers that investment in porting would be wasted expenditure.
3) There are particular hardware features of one platform, such as mouse/keyboard on the PC, or the Wiimote on the Wii/Wii-U, which the game has been specifically designed t
oh who cares... (Score:3)
I think all this resolution talk is just nonsense, if nobody told the gamers what the actual resolution was, they wouldn't care...
Just play the freaking game, and care about the gameplay, because the graphics will look good enough (it's still a major improvement over the previous generation consoles)..
Re: (Score:2)
Could it be Nintendo games are so good they make the hardware irrelevant.
Or it could be that the games are so simple and the graphics so outdated that they can run on any crappy hardware. Many if not most Wii games would have been fine on the cube.
Re: (Score:2)
Man! (insert AAA Nintendo made Wii U game here) looks awful!
- No gamer ever
Seriously. Pop in Mario Kart 8, Pikmin 3, Super Mario 3D World, Super Smash Bros Wii U, etc... and then tell us all how it looks outdated.
Re: (Score:2)
Pop in Mario Kart 8, Pikmin 3, Super Mario 3D World, Super Smash Bros Wii U, etc... and then tell us all how it looks outdated.
Do these look closer to PS3 or PS4 levels of detail?
Re: (Score:2)
PS4. I honestly don't think these fantastic looking games would look even more fantastic on a PS4.
Re: (Score:2)
Nintendo's WiiU exclusives do tend to run at a solid 60fps at 1080p.
However, in large part that's because of the art design. The models and textures used are simply easier for the hardware to handle.
When you throw something like Bayonetta at it, the WiiU starts to chug in spots.
You can see that at work in other situations, too. World of Warcraft kept its models simple for a long time to keep performance up. But because the models and textures they used suited their art direction, it wasn't glaringly obvious
Re: (Score:2)
And I think that's a good thing. Back when I was a kid, everyone made fun of me for liking Street Fighter II better than the "realistic" Mortal Kombat III. I would hear how cartoony SFII was and how that somehow made it suck. Fast forward a couple decades and the vast majority of gamers today would say that SFII looks a lot better than MKIII. This, of course, was due to its timeless stylized graphics. Likewise, if you pop in "Jet Set Radio" for the Dreamcast, it still looks nice. But if you pop in a "realis
Glorious PC Master Race (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This gamepad thing. You mean like the one I have for my PC? Along with the HOTAS and the steering wheel?
Don't use them often, but when I fancy that sort of game, they still work.
You also forgot MMOs, or indeed any game in which text based conversation is a factor. Sure, the kids these days all want Teamspeak because they grew up with ubiquitous voice comms, but you can't beat a proper keyboard for holding seven concurrent conversations.
Take this shit back to NeoGAF (Score:2)
I'm so fucking sick of it, I'm SO SICK OF IT.
If you want 1080p ALL the time and 60fps ALL the time then buy a goddamned PC.
Consoles are not the be all and end all of power, the new consoles are not ultra beast powerhouses, they are affordable gaming boxes, which are surprisingly powerful for the cost.
I can't believe I once identified as a PC gamer who loved insulting peasant console people. Now that I'm older, I just want to play some games, I really dont' give a damn. :( :( Nope
60fps MANDATORY or QQ!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Tell that to my coworkers who rub it in your face how the ps4 is God?
In 2007 it was a loss leader with advanced technology but today it has an atom like cpu.
I hope the pc is prime for a comeback as this shows
Re: (Score:2)
I find it slightly disappointing that AAA studios couldn't be bothered to get the job done right just so they could meet some arbitrary ship deadline.
Still, I agree. I think anyone who's having a full on rage hardon for this should really rethink their life choices.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm so fucking sick of it, I'm SO SICK OF IT.
If you want 1080p ALL the time and 60fps ALL the time then buy a goddamned PC.
Consoles are not the be all and end all of power, the new consoles are not ultra beast powerhouses, they are affordable gaming boxes, which are surprisingly powerful for the cost.
I can't believe I once identified as a PC gamer who loved insulting peasant console people. Now that I'm older, I just want to play some games, I really dont' give a damn. :( :( Nope! - only 60fps mandatory games, 2D fighting, racing, online fps high intensity twitch shooters.
60fps MANDATORY or QQ!!!
You wanna demand 60fps minimum in my single player storyline focused games? Nope. Shut up. Stop whining, stop badgering developers. Go to NeoGAF and cry with the rest of them.
Look, this isn't reddit, and this isn't the pcmasterrace, so while you are claiming you aren't about that, you use the "peasant" which tells me you actually do believe you are a pcmasterrace. Only peeps in that sub called console users "peasants".
obvious (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So they create a console that is a computer and a year or two in, it's too slow because they didn't travel into the future and grab a GPU fast enough to keep up with PCs. What else is new? Welcome to desktops vs consoles. The next 5 years are going to be a joke for consoles.
Or we are going to get another 5 years of lame PC ports and GPU's that never reach there full potential unless you go with 3 4k monitors.
Probably oversimplifying, but... (Score:2)
Where t is the time for a problem size of 1
speed = (t(n^m))/hardware_speedup
A bit of algebra and we get...
((speed*hardware_speedup)/t)^(1/m) = n
That is, for, say, an order n^2 algorithm your speedup from hardware on a similar sized problem gets thrown under a big-ol square root. Such that, if your code sucks, "...aiming to use the power of the modern consoles to push the game engine as far as it would go" won't get you nearly as far as you would hope.
AA enabled? (Score:2)
A lower resolution with AA enable in some respects is better than a higher resolution with no AA, specifically the jagged corners.
Forfuxsake (Score:2)
Re: PC gaming is dead (Score:2)
1> Gameplay > graphics . I have a beefy PC but since I get the most gameplay out of indie games that aren't visual that great, I seriously doubt that graphics are the key in what makes games great.
2> Your ultraresolution / gazillion of shaders doesn't change the fact that games these days are shoddy console ports that sometimes even run great. That isn't the fault of the owners of those machines or the machines them-self but the economic motives be
Re: (Score:2)
Whenever a PC Master Race elitist comes in, I know they're not actually a gamer. Real gamers recognize that the gaming has roots in the arcades and consoles of 70s and 80s.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't deny that the PC is the more powerful platform. What I'm talking about is the sentiment that PC elitists have that console gamers are not real or can't be hard/core gamers. Trying to associate the console gamer with the casual smartphone gamer. When the fact of the matter is that consoles were a big part of the initial evolution of video games.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But that's a whole different debate and not exclusive to the PC Master Race crowd, as console gamers also complain about excessive QTE and overly easy games (Order 1886 is a good recent example). There are dumb downed easy games on PC as well. It's not some phenomenon that's due to consoles. I hear the same bitching and moaning about the dumbing down for MMOs as well. I hear it for the new Diablo from veteran Diablo players who think the loot rates are stupid high compared to the older games. To some degree
Re: (Score:2)
Consoles were perpetuated by the game industry's want of money. They decided that the only way they'd get cash from tweens, teens and twenty-somethings was to lock down the hardware. To bait them, they offered kit that rivaled mid-spec PCs (at least in some metrics) at a price that meant they be taking a loss on each sale. They figured they could play Lexmark's game--cheap kit, absurdly expensive ink--and make up for it selling games. Evidently their plan worked.
Console owners of course are now realizin
Re: (Score:2)
"i buy pc and consoles i haz money for everything, consoles have exclusives so need to have those to play exclusives"
"the graphics don't matter, the gameplay matters"
which is a bit strange, when the article is about a game that downgrades resolution because the publisher thinks that graphics matter that much that it's ok to cheat a little bit on fidelity to get an extra graphical effect into the game.
so, gameplay matters? but the resolution affects gameplay directly! the extra effects that made the downgrad
Re: (Score:2)
The best games you can play on PC run at 240p/480p.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it can run Mad Dog McCree in several different formats.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but the average customer doesn't know or care what resolution the game is running at, only that it runs.
The thing is, some of us would be happy to pay $100 more for a console fast enough to run it at 1080p properly, but is that enough to complicate the market?
Re: (Score:2)
The gap will never truly be closed until they have a mouse on consoles, thereby allowing people to compete against PC gamers.
Re: (Score:2)
The gap will never truly be closed until they have a mouse on consoles
We've been able to hook up mice to consoles since what was it? 2000? Where have you been that last 14 years?
thereby allowing people to compete against PC gamers.
Not everyone wants to play deathmatch FPS's thank you very much.
Re: (Score:3)
Marketing; so nobody can say it's just "720p".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They probably just started at 720p and walked their way up to 1080p in various stages to see what they could get away with without sacrificing the 60fps "holy grail".
It's probably just that that's as far as they got. At the end of the day, 20% more is 20% more. No point dropping 20% detail to 720p if there's no benefit because they're aiming to sync to 60fps regardless of resolution.
Re: (Score:2)
As AC says above [slashdot.org]: because that's not how it works.
50 fps looks awful, because it's mapped onto the 60fps refresh-rate of the monitor.
If G-Sync [geforce.co.uk] and/or FreeSync were in widespread use, you'd be right to say that 50fps looks almost as good as 60fps.
Maybe in a few years dynamic-refresh-rate will be a standard feature. Here's hoping.
Console market is mostly 60-land (Score:2)
TVs can display 50 FPS just fine.
The console market is mostly North America and Japan if this post is believed [slashdot.org]. TVs in the United States and Japan have run at 60 Hz for longer than consoles have been around.