Kerethos said:
1080p has been my standard for several years. Ever since I got a 42" TV as my main display device (in 2010), and I use it mainly for my PC (though I've also got a 360 and NES). It's now 2014 and they're saying that my minimum standards are too high compared to 4 years ago (when 1080p/60 fps had already been standard for years).
The 27" TV my wife and I bought two years ago runs at 720p, and that was around $200. The 20" monitor I bought six months ago for my desktop runs at 900p.
And I can't imagine how bad your NES looks on a 1080p display. My 480i Gamecube looks terrible on my 720p television.
Mcoffey said:
Lets say I have a bookshelf. Made it with my own two hands!
I'm very happy with it, because not only is it very pretty and ornate, it has a lot of shelves for holding stuff in an aesthetically pleasing way.
I go to the store, and just as I get ready to pick something up, I notice it has a sticker that says "For lower to bottom shelves only." This confuses me because, just by looking at it, I can already tell that it would look much better on the higher shelves at eye level.
Then the maker of that product walks up and says "Well who really cares about where they store stuff? It looks just as good by your feet so we figured, 'why not?'"
This is irritating because it makes no sense, and especially so to me because I have all these extra shelves that I put extra effort into and now they're going unused.
Just let me use my shelves, Ubisoft!!
That's actually not uncommon. In most free standing bookshelves where you can't adjust shelf height, the shelves towards the bottom are larger and are designed to hold taller, heavier books. The idea is to shift the center of gravity lower so the bookshelf is less likely to topple over.
***
But both of these arguments/rebuttals pale in comparison to the underlying issue here: that you all are complaining about X developer not making games capable of running at Y resolution (and sometimes Z frame rate.)
In case you all forgot, developers don't make games for television sets or monitors; they make them for consoles. Perhaps your ire should be directed not at the hobby makers who find themselves forced to choose the "best" way to communicate their artistic vision, but at the console makers for not constructing hardware which can keep up with demands of the hobbyists who have been spoiled by a rapidly-progressing television industry driven moreso by film than video gaming.
Case in point: the 4K television set Hutchinson mentioned. Who here can name a 4K Blu-ray player? What kind of gaming setup would you need to fully utilize a 4K tv or monitor? What's the cheapest price even the PC Master Race can pull it off at?
Whatislove said:
4K TVs are better when you are sitting CLOSER to the TV.. not further away, and that is the main complaint about the technology, that a 55" viewed from average distance won't give you any feeling of difference. For me, however, who has a 55" UHD TV in his bedroom, I notice the difference immediately, I sit closer to my TV than an average person would in their lounge room.
1) It's not good for your eyes to sit too close to a television set.
2) Every man lies about how what he's got in the bedroom.
Strazdas said:
the mistake in this is that you assume Ubisoft wants to write optimized code. they have demonstrated multiple times they have no intention in having thie games optimized. after all according to them you should just buy a better graphic card for badly optimized ports [http://www.videogamer.com/pc/assassins_creed_4_black_flag/news/ubisoft_provides_statement_on_ac4_pc_optimisation_proud_of_pc_version.html]
Optimization takes money, dude, and really most companies stopped years ago. They can only optimize for what's available at the time, and I guarantee you within six months something better will come along and all of a sudden that optimization is rendered obsolete. Some companies (if it's budgeted) will optimize to a certain degree for different platforms, but it's far easier to just create a stable port.