I don't know but there is not a single game right now that can claim it's THE graphics king. At least according to me each and every video games in current generation are ahead as well as behind in terms of graphics.

For example take the last of us 2 the animations and the motion capture(or whatever tech they used for those ridiculously realistic facial expressions) are up and above anything that has been shown.

But do you really believe that when it comes to other things like GI or textures and other stuffs it can match games like metro exodus or anthem(on PC that is)? I don't think so.

People still believe that whatever is shown at E3 will play out exactly like that? Really? You have to be special kind of ignorant or even stupid to believe that. It's all scripted. Sometimes even fake too(looking at ubisoft here). Even graphics are almost entirely downgraded to some extent in the final version.

Naughty Dogs are not exception. It's all just a part of building up the hype.

It's just like with a pc game, after so many bad ports, feature like uncapped fps and resolution are touted as something praiseworthy when instead it should've been a given at this point in time.

Same is with these loot box and MT. Companies now think that removing them from an already full priced game is some sort of praiseworthy move.

And wtf single player?? That's mentioned as a feature now?? Smh.

It seems people can't keep to their preferred platform without feeling the need to constantly downplay other's preference.

Insecurity at it's best. It's just sad at this point.

@Juub1990: no you're not. I still think that with a somewhat better(interesting?) storyline and without all those ridiculous bugs, unity would've been one of the best games in the series.

@Zero_epyon: Desmond is dead. Hasn't been in any ac games after 3. There's no consistent present day storyline since ac 3. Ubisoft has fu***** up modern day storyline.

To name a few,

Mass effect 2

Bad company 2(the best imo)

battlefield 3,1

Just to be clear you didn't seem to have liked any post EA games after Crysis that doesn't make any of the above listed or any other EA games bad. EA itself is a bad publisher though.

Played witcher 3 at ultra with hairworks on at 30 fps capped as it didn't run very well with uncapped frames(50 fps with dips to 40fps). Played it at ultra with hairworks off at 60 fps locked.

I prefer 60fps option much more. It felt much smother and more responsive.

And tbh if today's console gave the option to choose from 60fps or 30fps I'm sure most of the guys who say fps doesn't matter would go for 60fps. Just because majority of console games don't have 60fps option you see most of them saying stuffs like fps doesn't matter. It matters even if a game is not of fps genre. Play dark souls 3 or witcher 3 on pc and you'll never go back to console version.

However i would like to add that personally i would prefer both graphics and high fps at the same time if possible.

Can't compare both at the same level as I don't consider BOTW as an rpg. As for what I consider better is Witcher 3 simply because the world was more immersive and it's characters were more interesting than that of BOTW. The things however that I liked more in BOTW were the sandbox style gameplay and the real freedom of traversal.Physics were great too.

So I guess overall gameplay felt better in BOTW but everything else felt better in Witcher 3. From immersion to story to music Witcher 3 felt far more superior to me.

@DragonfireXZ95: Kingdon of amlaur is an melee focused rpg and no other rpg came close to it even dark souls IMO. Also dragon's dogma also has better combat than witcher 3. Again my opinion.