In that big thread on Neogaf someone said; "He only meant that it was sad that everyone is talking about resolution when it should be about the games".
Then someone replied to him (and this seemed to be repeated by a lot of posters); "so when ps3 has the worse resolution and FPS its a big deal, but when xbox has it, it doesn't matter?".
My thoughts on this is and always has been that it didn't matter to much if PS3 looked slightly inferior. the difference was not that extreme in many cases. What was extreme however was the extreme-unplayable levels of framerate drops in some ps3 games. Bayonetta dipping to the 10-15 fps is unacceptable and borderline unplayable. An animation is 7 FPS, so it's very close to the most basic slide show.
And so I think it's unfair to put these two things up against each other. a game dropping into the 40s and 35s is not the same as a game dropping into unplayable levels.
But several posters at Neogaf are mad not only at Sessler. But also at Digital Foundry(Eurogamer) and other news outlets. they are convinced they are shills and paid by microsofts. I have no idea how many feel this way on GAF, but it's very loud voices that seem very anti-Microsoft right now.
I've played 2560x1440 on my pc for a couple of years now, so I am tired of this console discussion. I think it's silly and redundant. I think frames per second, smooth animations and advancements in AI is a much better thing to focus on. I feel that once again it's numbers being turned and nuanced to further someones point. I have quake 3 engine based games that run on pc in 2560x1440. I played Jedi Knight II yesterday in that resolution. I really don't see the point.
My Iphone has a higher resolution than what PS4 and Xbox One has. Is this really an area where all gamers passion should go towards?
Then someone replied to him (and this seemed to be repeated by a lot of posters); "so when ps3 has the worse resolution and FPS its a big deal, but when xbox has it, it doesn't matter?".
My thoughts on this is and always has been that it didn't matter to much if PS3 looked slightly inferior. the difference was not that extreme in many cases. What was extreme however was the extreme-unplayable levels of framerate drops in some ps3 games. Bayonetta dipping to the 10-15 fps is unacceptable and borderline unplayable. An animation is 7 FPS, so it's very close to the most basic slide show.
And so I think it's unfair to put these two things up against each other. a game dropping into the 40s and 35s is not the same as a game dropping into unplayable levels.
But several posters at Neogaf are mad not only at Sessler. But also at Digital Foundry(Eurogamer) and other news outlets. they are convinced they are shills and paid by microsofts. I have no idea how many feel this way on GAF, but it's very loud voices that seem very anti-Microsoft right now.
I've played 2560x1440 on my pc for a couple of years now, so I am tired of this console discussion. I think it's silly and redundant. I think frames per second, smooth animations and advancements in AI is a much better thing to focus on. I feel that once again it's numbers being turned and nuanced to further someones point. I have quake 3 engine based games that run on pc in 2560x1440. I played Jedi Knight II yesterday in that resolution. I really don't see the point.
My Iphone has a higher resolution than what PS4 and Xbox One has. Is this really an area where all gamers passion should go towards?
