There's so much wrong with this post, I scarcely know where to begin. But I will say this: it's a great example of what's so distinctly wrong with this generation of gamers. When you actually think games are automatically better because they perform better, you're up against the thick of it.
30 frames locked or unlock doesn't automatically make a good game is my point. I don't feel entitled to have either in my games. I feel entitled to enjoying a game for what if offers per my enjoyment.
If performance does not make a game better, then would it be safe to assume you would not mind playing buggy, shutter-fest games?
My words exactly. This performance battle between the two are so overblown it's fantastic. You would think 100 less pixels or 30 frames less meant broken going by the Internet.
No one's up in arms or even hostile about this topic. There isn't a reason to be. One console has an edge in power, the other stacks up very well against it, plus it's an excellent multi media box with great features and services. I'll take less pixels or less frames in exchange for everything else. I wouldn't change a thing if given the chance. But the Internet has blown all this out of proportion. Because one version has less pixels or a few less frames in no way means it's less or even inferior.
I concur. The exclusives have been amazing. Plus the multi plats are amazing as well. A good game is a good game, regardless the resolution or less frames.
With the consoles being so close in power, the multi-tasking ability of the X1 is a no brainer for me.
Thanks for proving my point Dno69. It may not have been as smooth but you'd be perfectly happy regardless. These aren't deal breaker here. The games aren't broken and you still get one hundred percent satisfaction with your purchase with less frames. Plus, you still can check on your friends, take a Skype call, read an article on Reddit, switch to netflix when you've played enough and your game will be waiting for you when you decide to play again, right where you left it.
