There’s been a lot of debate lately about graphics and resolution, particularly as things like Assassin’s Creed: Unity, and the Evil Within come out with locked in 30 FPS with statements such as “It’s more cinematic” or the resolution only getting 900px due to console limitations.
For more or less the first time in memory, game creators are calling for people to stop worrying about the graphics as much. For years, publishers and developers have been selling games based on constantly increasing the resolution, graphical fidelity and other graphic parts… and now it seems they have hit a bit of a wall and are trying to come up with various reasons to say stop worrying about it.
Far Cry debuted on March 23, 2004, meaning that next week, it will have been 20 years since Jack Carver first washed up on the shore of a tropical paradise teeming with hostile mercenaries.
Yeah, 4 was good, was hard choosing which Golden Dawn member to side with, when they were both pieces of sh!t.
I've beaten all the main entries except 2 and 6, ended up uninstalling 6 to download something else instead.
I'd love a far cry pack with the original PC game (not the half assed port on ps360) instincts, predator even a port of far cry 2 to modern consoles back when these games had their own identity and weren't far cry 3 cut and pastel
Same here, I don't know why these games get so much hate. I've thoroughly enjoyed every single one of them, with only a couple of exceptions. I wish they'd hurry up and announce Far Cry 7. The only thing I'm concerned about is the rumoured time limit.
Shaz from GL writes: "Assassin’s Creed Unity is looked at as one of the worst in Ubisoft’s iconic franchise. But playing it nearly 10 years later reveals it may just be the best"
Xbox Game Pass continues to bring quality titles for gamers no matter the genre, but this time we here at CGMagazine have compiled a list of spine-tingling titles to celebrate the spooky season with.
The Dead Space Remake gets added to GamePass 10/26, definitely worth playing through.
Graphics matter. They can get a player more immersed, and as gamers it is only logical we demand the best that technology can bring us. However, consoles are not the best route to achieve some desires. To get 1080p everytime (and usually more), and get 60fps, a gaming PC is obviously the way to go. I feel as though the resolution debate came from fanboys trying to get their console of choice somewhat more justification for their own personal purchase. I myself am not a massive PC gamer, but I know how pathetic it is to argue 900p vs 1080p when 1440p+ is easily achievable on hardware that is....just better. I mean think about it, consoles are suppose to be cheap and popular to the masses. Under $500, all the time (for the most part). Anymore doesn't sell well, so compromises have to be made.
The last of Us was 720p on the ps3 and still it was one of the best game ever created.
This proves that a game can still be a gem if the res is a bit lower.
You won't see massive differences on 900p vs 1080p on a screenshot.
But if you play the game on a 1080p tv, you will. I can tell straight off if a game isn't hd.
As for PC, I have one and play many games on it.
But many games that consoles get do not come to PC.
My PC/PS4 combo works for me.
Smooth 60fps over anything in my opinion. But games being set to 30fps is not a drawback for all of them just a lot of them.
Isn't it only natural to expect my games to be the 10 year industry standard of 1080p by now? No excuse my 11 month old console can't match my prehistoric TVs image output!