Gully State said:You're talking about movement. But movement in an FPS is not just the analog vs. keyboard.
Yes, and I factored out the 'turning' by giving both theoretical interface methods a mouse.
Gully State said:You're talking about movement. But movement in an FPS is not just the analog vs. keyboard.
OuterWorldVoice said:This was a terrible thread to begin with - let us be clear: An objectively handsome game being assaulted for using a simple resolution solution to enhance its already good looks (frame rate/shader perf, etc) and now the entire thread has fallen firmly into Clown School.
We know PCs have higher resolution.
We know consoles are simple and convenient to use.
We know mouselook is more accurate.
We know analog sticks are comfy.
We know that many gaf-ers prefer one over the other for a multitude of reasons.
We know that lots of people play and enjoy both.
Just let this thread DIE. It is worthless and we are all stupider for participating in it.
Tenks said:Pixel whores get out. MF1 looked damn good for the time and the footage from E3 made MF2 look even better.
Gwanatu T said:Seriously? Seriously? Seriously. Good Lord, what's the point of the "HD generation" if the highest of high profile games aren't even in the lowest HD resolution?
Gwanatu T said:Seriously? Seriously? Seriously. Good Lord, what's the point of the "HD generation" if the highest of high profile games aren't even in the lowest HD resolution?
oh look console defence force.OuterWorldVoice said:This was a terrible thread to begin with - let us be clear: An objectively handsome game being assaulted for using a simple resolution solution to enhance its already good looks (frame rate/shader perf, etc) and now the entire thread has fallen firmly into Clown School.
We know PCs have higher resolution.
We know consoles are simple and convenient to use.
We know mouselook is more accurate.
We know analog sticks are comfy.
We know that many gaf-ers prefer one over the other for a multitude of reasons.
We know that lots of people play and enjoy both.
Just let this thread DIE. It is worthless and we are all stupider for participating in it.
It's like you're making sense but you're not. The graphics suck, yet they don't?OuterWorldVoice said:Ignoring your avatar for a second:
1. The RAM, CP and GPUs contained in the HD consoles give them the flexibility to approach image quality from many angles, including compromising on actual pixels for other features - such as frame rate, shader detail, particle effects, AA and so on.
2. The end results often look so good that they require shitty threads to explain using text why the great looking graphics suck after all.
3. Because they output to HD TVs properly in the first place - the handshake between TV and console makes everything look better, as opposed to say, my non HD console which looks especially bad as a result of not doing that.
How is it a console defense force when he is not saying that consoles are better?Chinner said:oh look console defence force.
Topher said:It is absolutely pathetic that this warrants 14 pages. You guys are psychotic. Who cares? Come on.
dojokun said:How is it a console defense force when he is not saying that consoles are better?
duk said:u guys really have this much free time?
*envious
stuburns 38
Asmodai 32
TheExodu5 30
brain_stew 27
deepbrown 22
TheHeretic 22
You can't base it off one thread.Dabanton said:These guys seem to have loads of time.
my badOuterWorldVoice said:Chinner is makadajokes.
Dabanton said:These guys seem to have loads of time.
I think the point is that good graphics is not a 1 dimensional thing. Resolution is not the only way to have impressive graphics.Dax01 said:It's like you're making sense but you're not. The graphics suck, yet they don't?
Click on the post count next to the thread.duk said:i have always wondered how you can keep track of posts in a thread?
Topher said:Click on the post count next to the thread.
FireFly said:Because at the end of the day, that's what matters: the graphics and the framerate, and for a console title, the original excelled in both areas.
Davidion said:Who the fuck keeps necro-ing this thread?
Dax01 said:It's like you're making sense but you're not. The graphics suck, yet they don't?
Chrange said:Does that - at 60 fps - really look BAD? :lol
Asmodai said:Dax, you like Halo, right? Would you rather Halo 3 ran at 30 FPS with 640p like it does now, or have it run at 20 FPS with 720p and other compromises? Seems like a no brainer.
Edit: 22 posts a day?? You've got to be kidding me.
vocab said:FPS doesn't matter when the were talking about image quality.
Dax01 said:I was just joking around. I thought it was obvious. :/
Hey.
FixedAsmodai said:Edit: 23 posts a day?? You've got to be kidding me. :lol
I know. But if you're wondering, just look at my post history. PoliGAF, Halo 3 thread... other threads. I don't know!Asmodai said:I was just kidding about that anyway. But really, where do you post? I would have thought I would see a lot more of your posts around if you posted that much.
Anti-aliasing? What is that? Jaggies are all I know.Full Recovery said:must be the anti aliasing =P
Asmodai said:Except that you need to lower image quality to get higher framerate!
What is wrong with some of you people? Would you rather have perfect IQ and the game running at 5 frames a second? You can't have your cake and eat it too.
bran said:lol.
nope what? that you don't know what 600p stretched to a 1080p TV looks like?