dangoball said:
Is this saying GTAV is utter shit? 'Cause to me it looks like you just called GTAV utter shit.
Not like I care, never played it and never will, so good on you.
Uh, no. If anything it's indirectly ragging on Ubisoft and directly ragging on the game industry.
To set the way back machine (Come on Sherman) Ubisoft claimed that they released their latest "Assassin's Creed" in 30FPS because it was "more cinematic" than 60FPS. This lead to a lot of people, especially from the gaming industry it seems, claiming that most people can't tell the difference anyway.
"Tim" is some hypothetical person that can't tell what is a very obvious difference, and the point is that someone who couldn't is going to be some kind of idiotic mutant who likely couldn't tell the difference between their video game and a Lovecraftian portal of insanity, the punchline is that even as he's been sucked into it he still believes it's GTA V that he's playing since it's "no different than the 360 version"... or at least like a corporate pitch man he's sticking to that story as he's sucked into a terrifying oblivion.
-
To be honest with you being able to tell the difference in resolutions, FPS, etc... tends to mostly happen when you watch them side by side. If you say have a computer playing a game at 60fps and one playing it at 30fps you are going to notice quite a bit. The same is true if say you have a very high resolution and then say drop it a few levels. In the past we've seen this demonstrated with anti-corporate crusades where say a shot of a video game is shown to be in much higher resolution than the game itself due to them using a tech demo as an example of the game itself. One classic example was how they pimped "Final Fantasy" for the X-box using much-higher resolution screen shots from the PlayStation making it look like the X-box could perform as well as the PlayStation, and so on.
That said while 60FPS is an obvious upgrade, I do not think 30FPS makes a game "unplayable" especially if it was designed that way. Something being "better" does not mean everything that doesn't meet those standards becomes absolute garbage in comparison.
To put it into comparison it's sort of like comparing a current "Pixar" movie to the old "Super Friends" cartoon and saying there isn't any improvement in quality. This doesn't mean "Super Friends" is bad exactly when you account for the intended age group and of course nostalgia, but it's a far inferior work of animation compared to the state of the art.