@psmithiv I'm a PC gamer. I use a 40" XBR with a Yamaha 5.1 4 3-way speaker setup. Atleast my PC can take advantage of that 1080p resolution you've never seen in action. Blame your shitty gamebox you console peasant. Or maybe since you have a nice TV, stop being a cheap **** and build a game rig so you can realize how stupid you were when you made this comment.
@enderx @wowgrandpa Same here. I use my xbox controller for everything but FPS', MMOs and RTS'. With my 40" Bravia on my comfy couch. You can go to home depot and get a nice sanded 2'x3' board. Fits both my Razer Deathstalker and Deathadder mouse with a nice large Steel Series mousepad. Works out beautifully used as a "laptop".
@KelboDelta I have to disagree. I had an Intel Q6600 system with a GTX 460. If I had that system now, Which is probably only worth about $300-$400, would STILL play any game at a much better quality than it's console counterpart. So no, you're wrong. You can upgrade and spend cash to have the latest and greatest, but even if you choose to a cheapskate and never upgrade, you'd still have a better than console experience.
60 FPS is over rated. I'm a PC gamer with a fairly powerful rig and I cap ALL my games at 30 FPS even though I hit over 60 in most games. It allows you to beef up the eye candy to ultra without overworking your GPU. That responsiveness excuse is a load of crap. IMO a steady CONSTANT 30 FPS is totally fine. Any drops and the experience is ruined. I'd take that over an FPS that fluctuated wildly between 30-60. It makes for an inconsistent game experience. If you have a PC, fire up afterburner and try it.
@scrooge_drake I don't blame you. These videos are downscaled and downsampled. It's a difference you have to see for yourself. And trust me when I tell you THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. BF3 on PS3, running a little lower than 720p with graphics settings below "low settings" on PC vs my PC running the game at ultra 1080p with 4xMSAA.. My friends can't believe their eyes when they see a full scale 64 player battle in all it's beauty. Very VERY big difference.
@Xyllix Get the parts one by one and no it's doesn't take $1500 to get BF4 running in ultra 1080p. $800 tops if you're not overclocking and concentrate in CPU and GPU power.
@Nightmare338 @Laedipiros You do understand the X360 and PS3 don't have the raw power to run more than 24 people right? Crippling a game because of old hardware is incredibly stupid. Use your head, idiot.
Why hold off over ONE game that doesn't even look that good? I know it's an opinion but I was way more impressed with KZ4, The Order 1886 and even Dead Rising 3 even though I'm not getting an XBone. Stupid logic.
24Hz or 30Hz is much more natural to me. You don't see life at 60 FPS through your eyes. Which is why things become out of focus and blurry as soon as you move your eyes or turn your head.
Anywho cool debate, it's just preference in the end as always.
@willzihang There is a difference. I just saw it the other day. Still, I prefer 24fps. It's what the source material was recorded at. All these 120Hz, 240Hz tv's are a gimmick unless the source can natively push out those FPS'.
Still, 30 FPS is just fine as long as it's a constant 30 FPS. I'd rather have more eye candy than FPS. If they decided to make Watch Dogs run at 60 FPS it wouldn't look half as good as it does. Considering that Ubisoft also has to also release the same game on the much weaker XBone, this move makes complete sense.
Rushaoz's comments