One was for the game EndWar and talks about slipping Playstation Eye past Microsoft. Those two examples you gave me didn't really tell me anything.
It seems the only "debate" they've managed to avoid is debating with MS about whether they'll be allowed to publish the game they've already spent thousands of man-years developing. Now ask yourself this who benefits from forced parity? Clearly, not Ubisoft. Resolution and frame rate "only" determine which platform you choose. What's strange about not wanting to do business with someone who says they plan to give you the shaft simply because the product you didn't buy can't catch a break? He clearly put a lot of thought in to those red herrings, carefully crafted to distract from the real issue forced parity. They've done those tests, and you lost the bet.Īgreed. AA would mostly serve to eliminate fine details, right? Post-patch, I had no trouble at all determining which way they were facing, and consequently, I could then infiltrate secure areas in what seemed like half the time. That's at least two, and it seems this has been going on for years.Įxcellent point, however Pre-patch I had a really hard time determining which way distant guards were facing, especially if I was looking at them from the side. Ubi telling us they're expected to deliver "feature parity" in Gen7, again, required by MS. The fact that DA isn't being held to parity doesn't prove there are no parity clauses it merely proves they aren't always enforced, but we already knew that.īlizzard telling us MS demanded parity in Gen8. We know MS have parity clauses for launch-date and "features," at a minimum and we know they enforce them. Not that resolution and fps can't make for a better game, but they by themselves tell me nothing on if a game is any good. The point is: All resolution/FPS does is help me determine which platform I am going to buy the game on - but whether or not the game is good and worth my funds is fairly independent.
I mean, why the hell would you ever purchase any Nintendo game then? The fact so many people have written off Unity based on console parity, instead of writing it off because they don't actually like the footage or the gameplay being shown, I feel is what irks journalists.Īs somewhat of a journalist (just a blogger really) and a massive video game fan that does care about technical specifications, I admit we put way too much emphasis on them when deciding if a game is worth a purchase. I am not going to be silly enough to stand here and tout how the technicaly specs don't matter - they just shouldn't be the starting point of defining what makes a good game. I own an Xbox One, PS3, Wii U, and a gaming PC.
Dragon age inquisition for pc is a pile of shit 1080p#
Parity is indeed a silly thing, but I think most journalists stance is fairly understandable: Technicaly performance of a game is only one (or in this case two), aspects of a title, and a game could be 1080p or higher with 100fps, but that doesn't actually tell you if it is a good game or not.
0 kommentar(er)
