Are gamers expecting too much with the Xbox One X/PS4 Pro?

[The Living Tribunal]

My opinion piece on the subject. Contains some language. Not terrible but might be NSFW.

I made this video to discuss the current state of console gaming as I see it. I don't own either console (I did own both but sold them to family members).



In the video I discuss the resolution discussion that seems to be once again a defining narrative within the console space.

My question to you. Is 4K really needed ATM for consoles? What resolution would you be okay with gaming on a console in 2017/2018?

Also hit the subscribe button when you are finished. At some point and time I'm also going to have Plainview on to talk with him and also discuss random other things going on in the world!

SO LEAVE A LIKE AND SUBSCRIBE OR I'll BAN YOU!

J/K...kinda.

 

[Frozpot]

My opinion piece on the subject. Contains some language. Not terrible but might be NSFW.

I made this video to discuss the current state of console gaming as I see it. I don't own either console (I did own both but sold them to family members).



In the video I discuss the resolution discussion that seems to be once again a defining narrative within the console space.

My question to you. Is 4K really needed ATM for consoles? What resolution would you be okay with gaming on a console in 2017/2018?

Also hit the subscribe button when you are finished. At some point and time I'm also going to have Plainview on to talk with him and also discuss random other things going on in the world!

SO LEAVE A LIKE AND SUBSCRIBE OR I'll BAN YOU!

J/K...kinda.

I am definitely ready for it. I will add this caveat- It doesn't have to be native. Checkerboard, 1800p scaled, Dynamic, whatever. I want that image quality.

I think Image quality has been a large part of why games look better on PS4. I think you make good points on how people constantly worrying about not being as good, then they are not gaming for the right reasons. I always look at res/framerate on a game to game basis for whether or not it's acceptable. I've played and enjoyed many, many games @30fps. I don't find it a hinderance (usually).

If a game can be 60fps, then great, but there are times (regardless of platform) that having incredible visuals impacts the game more than it's framerate (as long as it stays above 30). Of course, certain genres benefit more or less from either.

Having done the majority of my gaming on the XBOne, then seeing and comparing uncompressed footage of FM7 with in person, native 1080p gameplay in FM6- that jump in resolution is pretty amazing.

I also like that this mid-cycle gets us above 1080p into territory that provides this great IQ as much more of a standard. Now we can focus on making full use of the pixel space within that resolution. We were never gonna get there until resolutions got to a point where diminishing returns really kick in. The next console iteration (after the One X/Pro) should hopefully put the emphasis back to other things.

To go back to the OT- I'm cool with any resolution above 1080p, but having seen Native 4k gameplay... I definitely want that on a frequent basis. It's awesome that now 1080p is the absolute bottom. I'm especially excited for the X because That boost in IQ will come with higher settings and higher res textures/materials. I think for a "mid-gen" cycle these consoles make a lot of sense (less the Pro, though games on it definitely do look better from the IQ alone, not to mention have more stable frames). They offer us the ability to upgrade our existing games in a way that PC players have enjoyed for a long time. It obviously doesn't come with the ability to tweak, and it doesn't have the same level of upgrade a PC can do without patches, but it also doesn't have the same stability or compatibility problems.

I think they are doing it right. I think having a base, stable IQ IS important (playing DOOM above 900p will be nice ). Framerates aren't as big an issue for me- though some games (*cough*Just Cause 3 *Cough*) have an impactful issue. Frankly I can't wait until resolution isn't even worthy of a checkbox.

Hope that wasn't too rambly....

 

[Andy]

I agree with what you're saying. If obtaining ultra-high resolution is really that important to you, you should be investing in a beefy PC. Expecting 100% 4K console gaming at this stage of the game is unrealistic. We've only recently reached a point where 1080p is reliably achieved. And now people are getting pissy because everything isn't native 4K. It's going to be years before that's the standard.

However, I don't think these people are really all that concerned about resolution. I think it's about console wars -- building your console up, tearing the other console down, defending your machine against attacks, etc. If you unplugged these guys from the internet and forums for a few months, I think they would realize that they really, ultimately, do not care all that much. And that would be a good thing.

My question to you. Is 4K really needed ATM for consoles? What resolution would you be okay with gaming on a console in 2017/2018?

Not "needed," no. Wanted, but not needed.

What resolution would I be okay with? 1080p is fine with me for the next few years. I appreciate the benefits of downscaling and the extra visual touches that come with the more powerful machines, but I'm not going to bother upgrading to a 4K set until it's more established.

I'm playing Yakuza 0 right now, which looks like a PS3 game. I'm enjoying it more than most games I've played this gen, even though most of them looked better than this. I appreciate a nice-looking screen as much as anyone (Horizon was beautiful, for example), but I can also enjoy games that are not cutting-edge visually, if the gameplay and story are fun. And otoh, the prettiest visuals in the world won't hook me into a game with mediocre gameplay/story.

 

[Larry]

As long as there's a noticeable difference in resolution and framerates over the base consoles, I'm okay with it. I knew when I bought the Pro that it wouldn't be a big difference over the base model, and that's what I've come to expect with each new game I buy. Any resolution 1440p or above is a pretty noticeable difference for me and I'm pleased with that.

 

[menace-uk-]

My opinion piece on the subject. Contains some language. Not terrible but might be NSFW.

I made this video to discuss the current state of console gaming as I see it. I don't own either console (I did own both but sold them to family members).



In the video I discuss the resolution discussion that seems to be once again a defining narrative within the console space.

My question to you. Is 4K really needed ATM for consoles? What resolution would you be okay with gaming on a console in 2017/2018?

Also hit the subscribe button when you are finished. At some point and time I'm also going to have Plainview on to talk with him and also discuss random other things going on in the world!

SO LEAVE A LIKE AND SUBSCRIBE OR I'll BAN YOU!

J/K...kinda.

I'll watch the video later. But i'll respond to the 4k question now.

Is 4K needed ATM? Simple answer, no. but I see no real problems having the power to do so now.

The big issue really are gamers, they continuely drone on about resolution/power and it sends the wrong message to publishers/developers and hardware makers. Resolution is one of the least important factors in gaming, imo. That isn't to say we should still be rocking 480P, but all the crap we have seen over the last 10 years because a game runs 180 less(or fewer) pixels is ridiculous.

For me, gaming is stuck in this constant power and res spiral and no real strides are being made in far more imporgant areas, like A.I and physics. I blame gamers for this.

 

[Frozpot]

I'll watch the video later. But i'll respond to the 4k question now.

Is 4K needed ATM? Simple answer, no. but I see no real problems having the power to do so now.

The big issue really are gamers, they continuely drone on about resolution/power and it sends the wrong message to publishers/developers and hardware makers. Resolution is one of the least important factors in gaming, imo. That isn't to say we should still be rocking 480P, but all the crap we have seen over the last 10 years because a game runs 180 less(or fewer) pixels is ridiculous.

For me, gaming is stuck in this constant power and res spiral and no real strides are being made in far more imporgant areas, like A.I and physics. I blame gamers for this.

What's really crazy is that it certainly seems like there was a larger push for physics-based stuff last gen. What happened to the Euphoria Engine? How does Bad Company and Red Faction have better destruction than anything outside of Just Cause 3 that runs like a dog? I remember Epic pushing destructible environments in their hype videos. Did they lose interest? Is it just coincidence and there is some cool stuff around the corner? I figured we'd get a ton of it this gen...

 

[menace-uk-]

What's really crazy is that it certainly seems like there was a larger push for physics-based stuff last gen. What happened to the Euphoria Engine? How does Bad Company and Red Faction have better destruction than anything outside of Just Cause 3 that runs like a dog? I remember Epic pushing destructible environments in their hype videos. Did they lose interest? Is it just coincidence and there is some cool stuff around the corner? I figured we'd get a ton of it this gen...

Well the Bad Company and BF destruction differences I explained in another thread. Essentially the destruction in BC2 highlighted a flaw with total destruction in an online environment and changed how the game played and messed up balancing betwween armor and infantry. As a result-due to community feedback-destruction was ttoned down in future BF games.

But yeah, in general I agree.

 

[hrudey]

If a game is a piece of crap but is in 4K, that just means you can see each individual fleck of turd.

 

[Frozpot]

Well the Bad Company and BF destruction differences I explained in another thread. Essentially the destruction in BC2 highlighted a flaw with total destruction in an online environment and changed how the game played and messed up balancing betwween armor and infantry. As a result-due to community feedback-destruction was ttoned down in future BF games.

But yeah, in general I agree.

I know some people complained about that level of destruction, but I loved it. I loved seeing the entire map reduced to craters. Still, there were plenty of times I played that didn't end in full destruction. There are also things they can do to keep it playable, though they'd have to have more persistent debris. Rush also helped by moving to a different area. Being able to collapse buildings was great too. I also remember being able to blow out parts of barriers that I could shoot through.

I think the idea of having to change your tactics based on a constantly changing environment is a good thing. I think the solution is to have a more realistic damage model for some things as it's very difficult to fully wipe out structures in real life. Tanks, of course, are far more difficult to kill than they are in games, but there could be a way to apply gameplay mechanics/ scenarios that make it more fun to take them out. I don't know, but they definitely tuned it down too much.

I think they need to keep the highly destructible environs in Bad Company and keep it toned down for the main series.

 

[Registered User 1]

The Living Tribunal, When you said "Sure, Lara's boobs don't look as smooth as they could but they still great games.." I totally expected you to say "aren't as smooth as they could be, but they're still boobs."

And ragging on people for being reluctant to join the PC Master race, but then following up with being console fans?

I agree though. If you're going to live and die by the pixel count, then shut up and buy yourself a Titan. When people were posting those idiotic pictures of the distant trees in the Witcher, I really hope it didn't deter people from enjoying an amazing game.

All those DF videos would be far more helpful if they spent time concentrating on if it actually negatively impacted a gaming experience. There's only been one game that Ive felt was lackluster in resolution enough to effect gameplay. Battlefield 4 on the Xbox one.

The rest of it is just fluff. A few pretty bits here and there. I'm never going to play the game side by side with another version, so I really don't care. Would I rather the better version? Sure. Will I wait years if I don't own the better platform? Nah. I'm a gamer. I want those sweet gaming moments.

As far as "Do we need 4k?" is concerned, to me It's all about personal perception. I vs others.

I don't need 4K. But others probably do.

I feel perfectly happy with my Friday morning ritual.

My neighbour hates me breaking into his house whilst he is at work and leaving knuckle babies behind.

See? I vs Others. A simple difference of view.

 

[Registered User 1]

The next console iteration (after the One X/Pro) should hopefully put the emphasis back to other things.

My dearest darling Froz, yet another brilliant post (not that I expect anything less from one as amazing as you), but do you honestly believe that?

MS and Sony are aggressive about resolution and 4k, and MS seems to be wanting to keep generations open ended.

That makes me woried that they'll want future games to still work on Xbox One S even after the successor to the One X comes out.

I think a large part of the future of gaming will be dependent on their plans to keep supporting the older formats.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just worried, but hopeful.

 

[menace-uk-]

I know some people complained about that level of destruction, but I loved it. I loved seeing the entire map reduced to craters. Still, there were plenty of times I played that didn't end in full destruction. There are also things they can do to keep it playable, though they'd have to have more persistent debris. Rush also helped by moving to a different area. Being able to collapse buildings was great too. I also remember being able to blow out parts of barriers that I could shoot through.

I think the idea of having to change your tactics based on a constantly changing environment is a good thing. I think the solution is to have a more realistic damage model for some things as it's very difficult to fully wipe out structures in real life. Tanks, of course, are far more difficult to kill than they are in games, but there could be a way to apply gameplay mechanics/ scenarios that make it more fun to take them out. I don't know, but they definitely tuned it down too much.

I think they need to keep the highly destructible environs in Bad Company and keep it toned down for the main series.

Yes, it was cool...and having to adapt to an ever changing enviroment is cool too, but you are forgetting the important thing, balance. You can't really balance it because you have no clue how many will adapt, or how good they are with different classes. A bit of rubble isn't enough, an AT player needs cover not only for protection but for evasion also, and so does armor.

I agree that they toned it down too much.

As for BC, that series is dead, it only ever existed because consoles couldn't do a full on BF game. Now they can.

 

[JinCA]

Is 4K needed? No, is it something that's a nice bonus when you can get it? yep. Neither console is really capable of doing all games in 4K anyway, thanks to creative programming techniques there are ways to get a look that's very close to 4K though so it's hard to complain. I am glad the Pro and One X are available, it gives people with a 4K tv an option to play something that will at least partially take advantage of it instead of waiting for years for a console to release that catches up with the display technology.

Look what happened last gen, when they launched 720p was fine, we went 7-8 years with those console and 1080p TV owners rarely got games that could take advantage of their sets. By the time the new consoles released display tech was already moving on from 1080p to 4K so I think giving us "4K" gaming options are a good thing.

That being said I do wish developers would focus on other graphical effects over higher native resolution though. Look at rain effects this gen, we still get a ton of games that have white toothpicks dropping from the sky in slow motion, a lot of games don't even have the water running down walls or trees when it's raining and some don't even show any puddles on the ground, that was pretty standard last gen yet this gen in a lot of games that kind of thing has been scaled back. In a perfect world rain would always catch the light and they'd be doing drops with a transparent look version plain white lines. I know that sounds nitpicky but I'm big on weather effects lol.

Being that there are no exclusive games for these consoles I find it hard for anyone to actually complain about their existence, would it be nice if they got significant CPU upgrades instead of the modest ones they ended up with? absolutely! but these machines are meant to make games look better and they do that just fine.

 

[JinCA]

What's really crazy is that it certainly seems like there was a larger push for physics-based stuff last gen. What happened to the Euphoria Engine? How does Bad Company and Red Faction have better destruction than anything outside of Just Cause 3 that runs like a dog? I remember Epic pushing destructible environments in their hype videos. Did they lose interest? Is it just coincidence and there is some cool stuff around the corner? I figured we'd get a ton of it this gen...

Jaguar is what happened
That dev Matt over at neogaf said Sony and MS were both unhappy with how the performance turned out on the CPU's but they basically had no other choice at that point.

 

[Z A C K]

Yes. Who cares?

 

[Kerosene31]

My thoughts on the video:

-Toxicity is a problem - yep

4k is a number. It is a quantifiable thing that can be measured. Your game is either 4k, upscaled 4k or something else. That's a fact.

However, when it comes to a "Great game" what makes a game great? What makes a game great looking? That's an opinion. 4k is just a part of a much more complicated thing.

If I were to ask this forum of mostly men, "Who is the hottest woman in Hollywood right now?" We'd get different answers.

If I asked "who has the biggest boobs?" - Assuming we could get permission to measure every woman in Hollywood, we'd get an answer.

The point is (boobs are great) that the biggest boobs doesn't necessarily make the hottest woman.


Also, the hottest woman in Hollywood is Allison Brie btw. That's a fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alison_Brie

 

[Frozpot]

Jaguar is what happened
That dev Matt over at neogaf said Sony and MS were both unhappy with how the performance turned out on the CPU's but they basically had no other choice at that point.

But still presumably better than last gen. Obviously because the instances where physics are used, they are at a higher level. Look at collisions in sports games, Just Cause 3 couldn't be done last gen, Driving games, etc. It's a design thing, and an appetite to do the work, imo.

 

[JinCA]

But still presumably better than last gen. Obviously because the instances where physics are used, they are at a higher level. Look at collisions in sports games, Just Cause 3 couldn't be done last gen, Driving games, etc. It's a design thing, and an appetite to do the work, imo.

Just Cause 3 could barely be done this gen it takes boost mode on the Pro to get the game to run even half way decently. I haven't seen or played many sports games this gen but when I played madden the thing I noticed the most was the better graphics, to me most of the other stuff looked pretty much par for the course.

I think the issue with the CPU's is that the consoles aren't balanced, especially these refresh consoles. Last gen the CPU's were pretty good considering what they were doing, this gen the GPU was the main focus and even more so with the Pro and the One X. These aren't even standard jaguars, the PS4 CPU was already highly customized and MS did more work with the One X CPU than they did with the standard X1 but they can't get away from their roots unfortunately. That being said some of that stuff can be offloaded to the GPU but that ends up taking away from what can be done with visuals so it all depends on what the devs prioritize I guess.

 

[menace-uk-]

My thoughts on the video:

-Toxicity is a problem - yep

4k is a number. It is a quantifiable thing that can be measured. Your game is either 4k, upscaled 4k or something else. That's a fact.

However, when it comes to a "Great game" what makes a game great? What makes a game great looking? That's an opinion. 4k is just a part of a much more complicated thing.

If I were to ask this forum of mostly men, "Who is the hottest woman in Hollywood right now?" We'd get different answers.

If I asked "who has the biggest boobs?" - Assuming we could get permission to measure every woman in Hollywood, we'd get an answer.

The point is (boobs are great) that the biggest boobs doesn't necessarily make the hottest woman.


Also, the hottest woman in Hollywood is Allison Brie btw. That's a fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alison_Brie

Is it an opinion? Sure, we all have our opinions on what games look great, but what makes those games look great tends to be the same things. For example: A game with terrible lighting doesn't get touted as a great looking game.

 

[TeKPhaN]

My thoughts on the video:

-Toxicity is a problem - yep

4k is a number. It is a quantifiable thing that can be measured. Your game is either 4k, upscaled 4k or something else. That's a fact.

However, when it comes to a "Great game" what makes a game great? What makes a game great looking? That's an opinion. 4k is just a part of a much more complicated thing.

If I were to ask this forum of mostly men, "Who is the hottest woman in Hollywood right now?" We'd get different answers.

If I asked "who has the biggest boobs?" - Assuming we could get permission to measure every woman in Hollywood, we'd get an answer.

The point is (boobs are great) that the biggest boobs doesn't necessarily make the hottest woman.


Also, the hottest woman in Hollywood is Allison Brie btw. That's a fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alison_Brie

Um Kate Upton covers the boobs(darn auto spell) and looks part.

 

[Andy]

My thoughts on the video:

-Toxicity is a problem - yep

4k is a number. It is a quantifiable thing that can be measured. Your game is either 4k, upscaled 4k or something else. That's a fact.

However, when it comes to a "Great game" what makes a game great? What makes a game great looking? That's an opinion. 4k is just a part of a much more complicated thing.

I think one reason arguments get so toxic about the issue of 4K is precisely because it's a quantifiable, objective thing. Put aside whether it's actually that important or not. Put aside whether resources are better spent elsewhere. Just focus on 4K. It is a number. It is a verifiable yes/no.

I think that makes it very appealing to console warriors. Follow me now. Pretend you're a console warrior. You can argue all day about game libraries, and ultimately, it all comes down to opinion/preference. You can argue all day about the number of exclusives, but ultimately, that comes down to preference, too (because if I don't like the exclusives, numbers don't matter). You can argue all day about variety of game catalog, and ultimately, that's a matter of preference, too. You can argue all day about metacritic review averages, but ultimately, that's just an average of opinions/preferences, too.

So if you're a console warrior, there's no real way to "win" any of these arguments. They ultimately boil down to individual preference and opinion (I'd argue it's more than that, in some cases, but I don't want to get in the way of the point I'm trying to make). But numbers -- ah, numbers! Numbers are hard, objective reality. 4K is a number. It's an objective thing.

Numbers are good for console warriors, because they provide an objective ground to stand on, to prove that "my console is better than your console." And likewise, if Phil promises a number but some games don't hit it, then oh my, the cannons must be fired.

There is something more at stake here than just opinion and preference. There is objective truth. There is the objective proof that "my console is better than your console." That is at stake. On this hill we shall make our stand.

And so, 4K is a huge, toxic, console war-inspiring issue.

That's my theory of the day, anyhow.

 

[menace-uk-]

I think one reason arguments get so toxic about the issue of 4K is precisely because it's a quantifiable, objective thing. Put aside whether it's actually that important or not. Put aside whether resources are better spent elsewhere. Just focus on 4K. It is a number. It is a verifiable yes/no.

I think that makes it very appealing to console warriors. Follow me now. Pretend you're a console warrior. You can argue all day about game libraries, and ultimately, it all comes down to opinion/preference. You can argue all day about the number of exclusives, but ultimately, that comes down to preference, too (because if I don't like the exclusives, numbers don't matter). You can argue all day about variety of game catalog, and ultimately, that's a matter of preference, too. You can argue all day about metacritic review averages, but ultimately, that's just an average of opinions/preferences, too.

So if you're a console warrior, there's no real way to "win" any of these arguments. They ultimately boil down to individual preference and opinion (I'd argue it's more than that, in some cases, but I don't want to get in the way of the point I'm trying to make). But numbers -- ah, numbers! Numbers are hard, objective reality. 4K is a number. It's an objective thing.

Numbers are good for console warriors, because they provide an objective ground to stand on, to prove that "my console is better than your console." And likewise, if Phil promises a number but some games don't hit it, then oh my, the cannons must be fired.

There is something more at stake here than just opinion and preference. There is objective truth. There is the objective proof that "my console is better than your console." That is at stake. On this hill we shall make our stand.

And so, 4K is a huge, toxic, console war-inspiring issue.

That's my theory of the day, anyhow.

Quality CB rendering is near identical to native unless you specifically analyize a side by side comparison or read a DF artical. So doesn't that make the importance of this quantifyable number opinion based rather than factual? And therefor as pointless a point as all the other stuff.

Even more so when you factor in that most AAA games will be CB not native...

 

[TeKPhaN]

The way I look at it is......

GAMEPLAY 1st
Graphics 2nd

PC gaming is still to expensive,cumbersome 4 most and the online in many cases isn't as good as console's...BUT it has the most games,at lower prices,most control options,mods,endless visual enhancements,no psn/xbl forced to pay to play online bs and they are up-gradable,as your hardware increases over the years your library of games reap the benefits.

 

[Kerosene31]

Is it an opinion? Sure, we all have our opinions on what games look great, but what makes those games look great tends to be the same things. For example: A game with terrible lighting doesn't get touted as a great looking game.

Opinions are opinions and facts are facts.

HOWEVER, opinions can be formed based on objective measures. You can use specific facts to form your opinion.

Who's hotter in Game of Thrones? Dany or Lady Olenna? Well, that opinion poll would be very one sided, and you could point to an objective measure (age) to support a very reasonable argument, but it would still be subjective.

An opinion can be rather one sided. An opinion can be based on specific facts. Subjective things cannot be "proven". Ever. Once you start arguing over subjective things, you're just wasting time.

 

[menace-uk-]

Opinions are opinions and facts are facts.

HOWEVER, opinions can be formed based on objective measures. You can use specific facts to form your opinion.

Who's hotter in Game of Thrones? Dany or Lady Olenna? Well, that opinion poll would be very one sided, and you could point to an objective measure (age) to support a very reasonable argument, but it would still be subjective.

An opinion can be rather one sided. An opinion can be based on specific facts. Subjective things cannot be "proven". Ever. Once you start arguing over subjective things, you're just wasting time.

But that is my point. What makes a game visually great isn't really all that subjective. Which game is visually great is subjective.

 

[Andy]

Quality CB rendering is near identical to native unless you specifically analyize a side by side comparison or read a DF artical. So doesn't that make the importance of this quantifyable number opinion based rather than factual? And therefor as pointless a point as all the other stuff.

Even more so when you factor in that most AAA games will be CB not native...

I agree with the bolded part.

I'm not saying 4K is objectively important. That's part of why I said, "Put aside whether it's actually important or not." I'm talking about this from the point of view of why it would appeal to console warriors (and so, why the argument has gotten so toxic, going back to the OP).

I'm saying console warriors grab hold of 4K because it is a number. It feels hard and tangible. It feels like an "objective" metric, a true determinant of console worth.

I'm not saying they're right. I'm not saying it actually is an objective measure of worth. I think subjectivity and misunderstanding is all over this subject. I'm just trying to help explain why some people get so wound up about it. I think it's because it feels like hard and objective ammo for console wars.

 

[Kerosene31]

But that is my point. What makes a game visually great isn't really all that subjective. Which game is visually great is subjective.

It is still subjective. It can be broken down into quantifiable pieces which are not. A casual gamer might not even be able to notice something even if it is quantifiable.

Again you can always have the edge cases, Olenna vs Dany. A $10 budget game vs an AAA title.

Most games have trade-offs though and what one person notices, another may not. Art style comes into it as do a million other things. What about open world vs corridor shooters? What about draw distance? What about realism vs art style... it can just go on and on.

Would a gamer who doesn't know what anti aliasing is or anything like that opinion carry less weight? (I bet you and I would disagree on that). Do I have to understand about pixels to have an opinion? I can listen to a beautiful piece of music without understanding the slightest bit that goes into it.

Even then, we're just talking about visuals. That's still only part of the whole package, and that bias enters in. I'd bet I would say games that I enjoyed more look a little better... because that's human nature.

 

[hrudey]

Um Kate Upton covers the boobs(darn auto spell) and looks part.

Ideally, she'd uncover the boobs.

 

[TeKPhaN]

 

[JinCA]

The way I look at it is......

GAMEPLAY 1st
Graphics 2nd

PC gaming is still to expensive,cumbersome 4 most and the online in many cases isn't as good as console's...BUT it has the most games,at lower prices,most control options,mods,endless visual enhancements,no psn/xbl forced to pay to play online bs and they are up-gradable,as your hardware increases over the years your library of games reap the benefits.

While I agree with the gameplay 1st and graphics 2nd sentiment I think it's reasonable to expect great gameplay and great graphics. Now if your idea of great gameplay is that a game HAS to be 60 fps then yeah that's an area where great graphics can impact gameplay. To me 30 fps is just fine for most games, especially if it's a solid 30 fps.