@huyi12: as long as the don't over due the openness it should be fine. i haven't heard of them going full open world with side missions and such so it should just lead to more variety in approaching different situations, which I'm okay with. The first three games are a little too confined at times which resulted in little options from the players. Most sections of the game could be completed by staying in cover in one spot and eliminating all threats. Very rarely is the player encouraged to explore the area, although 3 opened the game up a little more than the first two games.
@Razor10000: I guess we'll see what happens. There is the rumored ps4.5 with 4k capabilities. My guess would be that if the system can display a 4k is should be capable of 1080p, 60 fps quite easily.
I just hope that Sony offers some sort of collateral for people that were early adopters. Even something like "trade in your current ps4 model and get half off the new ps4.5 model!"
"there is definitely a large amont of gamers that care about high framerate, resolution and better graphics"
Most of those people own gaming PCs. Whenever you see these articles about resolution and frame rate the majority of negative comments are from PC gamers trashing consoles and console gamers where as most console gamers are just like "whatever the game looks good enough for me. As long as the gameplay and story is good I don't care."
I'm not sure thats exactly possible if I'm understanding you correctly. If a new ps4 model was released the existing games wouldn't automatically have their resolution and frame rate bumped up because of the improve tech. The developers of these games would either have y release a patch to optimize the game further or release a new game specifically for the new model.
I'm also not quite sure how it would work for new games. Developers would have to make sure their games good run on both systems, not just the newer hardware. Maybe it could work similar to PC where the user can go in and just tinker with the settings but I feel like it would end up hindering developers a bit because they can't just go in and fully optimize their game.
Not true at all. You can currently trade in a copy of madden 16 or Bloodborne right now and get $20 back ($22 for pro members)...that's more than 20% back let alone 10%. Thats assuming the games were purchased full price, and I've seen both games on sale for $30 if not less.
Gamestop might not be the best place to go to get money back for games but as long as you don't wait a year + to trade in the game you still get a pretty decent return.
Edit: just checked a couple more games. Witcher 3 will also net you $20 but a game like Arkham Knight is only $7.70. So it is hit or miss. Still better than 10% though. I wonder how they determine trade value because Arkham Knight came out after Bloodborne and Witcher but has a far less trade value.
@Razor10000: that would be a slap in the face to people that already purchased the systems. "Hey I know you just spent about $400 on a system within the last 3 years but how about dishing out another $400 on the same system with slightly better visual fidelity!"
If they could just release a graphics card or something that we could install right into our current console I wouldn't mind, even though at that point we might as well just own PCs, but a "new" system just 3 years after launch with slight improvements is disingenuous to the customers.
@Xristophoros: I hate it. Visuals and graphics were almost always an aspect of games. It catches our eyes and it is quite impressive to see games push the limits; however we are now at a point where people are judging visuals based solely on a resolution number oppose to what their eyes see and it isn't a fair or accurate indication of whether or not a game looks good.
And that goes without even mentioning the aspect of, regardless of visuals, is the game good. A game like The Order looked great but the gameplay and story was average throughout. Likewise there are a bunch of smaller indie games out there that aren't visual showcases but are a blast to play such as rocket league or broforce (been having a blast with this one).
I've been disappointed from what I have seen from this game so far gameplay wise, it just doesn't look as interesting as the concept soinds, but the graphics still look pretty good. They aren't mind blowing but people won't mistake the game for being last gen. Based on footahe an screenshots I don't think anyone would have thought the game was running at 720p.
I get the arguement of "it should be running at 1080p" but what happened to the days when visuals were judge on aesthics and not resolution? If this article said the game was running at 1080p there wouldn't be many people saying the game looks bad but when you see anything less all the sudden the graphics don't look good.
scottyp360's comments