1080p? 60 FPS? Microsoft Challenges Gamers to Spot The Difference
- Thread starter Leasy
- Start date
That's the quote. no specific numbers listed in it at all. Means there's a decent amount of wiggle room in that quote. The man himself didn't say you can't tell the difference between 30FPS and 60FPS he said slightly different frame rates. The fanboys that read that article assigned those specific numbers to it.
Breh... No one has to make a statement on whether there is a perceptible difference between games running at different framerates on different consoles. It's as if some people are taking people for idiots. When I played Bayonetta on 360 for example, playing the PS3 version later it was apparent that something was different.
Back in 2010 I didn't really know much about framerates or w/e but Bayonetta on PS3 looked less smooth and uglier. When I played RDR on Xbox 360 and then the PS3 version, it was very noticeable and the clarity(lack of) of the game was noticeable coming from the 360 version. Funny thing is those games weren't even fully 720p. I was hardly into comparing games but having both systems it was pretty obvious. Even my less technically informed relatives saw differences. They couldn't put it to into technical terms but they'd say it looks "sharper" or "blurrier" on PS3 when compared to 360 versions. Even a game like 2k was under scrutiny.
People used to be able to tell the difference easily between sub hd games back on ps3/360 but now since it's the shoe on the other foot people are acting like there's barely any difference?? I'm calling bs. I think the folks claiming it's hardly any difference are just saying so to alleviate the fact that their preferred console isn't the one with the advantage this time around.
the typical doesn't mean all. many racing and fighting games will opt for 60FPS. Some shooters but in the console space 60FPS is usually not a priority for AAA games. they take the extra power required for that performance and use it to boost graphical effects. if 60FPS were the priority we'd have less pretty console games that ran smoother. by dialing down the effects they can get most any game to 60FPS.
the people that actually care about getting a locked 60FPS have PCs with something close to an 780s / 290s or better in them because they're gaming in an arena they can guarantee that performance. in the console space you're assigned performance and there's nothing that can be done on your part to improve it.
That's a different argument. I think the strawman here is whenever someone says they can notice the difference easily between resolution and/or framerate, the other side says "if you care about locked you'd get a PC.".
what does that have to do with what he said?
there's an argument that these tech guys analyzed the footage and put out a number. people then take the number and run with it championing game x or console x. Happened with Killzone Shadowfall. turns out the numbers put out were wrong and the typical source later corrected it. until that source put out the real numbers almost nobody said hey this resolution isn't what they said it was.
my point is people are arguing about stuff that when push comes to shove they don't really care about that much. Its just a bunch of trolling.
I also challenge anyone to see the value in paying for an overpriced spy machine. 