Ubisoft Talks Bollocks About Framerate And Resolution
Sometimes, you don't need a flashy title for your videos.
Watch Video
Sometimes, you don't need a flashy title for your videos.
Watch Video
This is not a console issue, it's all over the industry. Games get downgraded and locked at framerates for their PC release, too.Westonbirt said:PC MASTER RACE !
But seriously, this is just a console-centric developer jumping through hoops to justify its not taking into account the huge power advantage that gaming PCs have over consoles. They might as well come out with a statement just saying "no, we're not interested in coming onto the superior and more competitive platform, because it makes our dick feel small."
It's alright to stay on consoles and to make games which are made to be there, but just fucking admit that they are underpowered and inferior, don't try to make an artistic statement out of it, cause that's just silly.
It's the fact that it was promised, nothing more. It isn't necessarily two-faced. Essentially, if humans see a possibility and then fail to see it realized, they are pissed. Had no one ever mentioned 60fps or resolutions then this stuff wouldn't even be debated. They're would be nothing to debate. Because no one would care. It's still these big publishers fault for pushing it and then cowering away and lying. But had they never tried to hype it this generation, it would have never been a problem.Silentpony said:Not that I disagree, but how does this stack up to the idea that graphics don't matter? I'll admit, I only have a decent gaming lappy, and I play most of the new releases on my apparently old and worthless 360. But when I hear a debate of 30fps and 60fps, or that the resolution is off(whatever that bloody means!) or that the in-game graphics have been downgraded since the last demo.=, I can follow it, and it makes sense. Gaming companies have been hoisted by their own petard so to speak. They sold us on graphics and then didn't deliver, fair. Good. Great.
But then the same people arguing turn around and say Minecraft is fucking amazing and that graphics don't make the game. They praise shitty looking games for 'evoking a sense of nostalgia!' and for not 'buying the corporate line about graphics, man' And I can't help but feel the people are either being two-faced, or just like arguing for arguments sake.
Is it just that Ubisoft promised 60fps and then only delivered 30? Would there be a controversy if they just said 30fps and that graphics shouldn't matter if the game is good? Don't we all believe that? Isn't that a core principle of gaming? Why are AAA games taken to task for the exact fucking pixel count when the indies are purposefully praised for having shit graphics? Is it money? Do we expect AAA games to have a great graphics to backup their absurd bankrolls? If so, aren't we tentatively implying that bad games can be fixed by flinging money at them? Then how can we complain about over-budget games? Shouldn't we all WANT an over-budget game, because it must have solved every problem.
Again, not trying to start a flame war, but how do the two principles exist side-by-side?