Anybody who has enough money to buy a 60" flat screen has enough money to spend $1,000 on a PC and get the recommended specs--heck, spend just 6 or 7 hundred ($700) for everything.
If u can buy all that for 700, i hope u keep your warranty handy, cause u will be using it soon after. Pc alone should net u ~800, the tv ~1000, the receiver and speakers ~600
I do agree that graphics aren't the most important thing about DA:I, but why even introduce next-gen consoles if graphics don't matter at all. It's kind of sad that 'next-gen' is already struggling to keep up with the PC this early in the cycle.
Looking foward to play it on my PS4.
On a sidenote for PC "master race" people (I realize not all people do this) one thing I like about consoles is the fact that I know my PS4 will run it without updating drives, experiencing errors and spending an hour or two trying to figure out why it won't play, or spending an extra $200-$700 for a graphics card to be able to play the game I just bought, also I don't like keyboard and mouse playstyle. So if you wonder why people prefer consoles those could be some reasons.
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
If u can buy all that for 700, i hope u get keep your warranty handy, cause u will be using it soon after. Pc alone should net u ~800, the tv ~1000, the receiver and speakers ~600
Looking foward to play it on my PS4.
On a sidenote for PC "master race" people (I realize not all people do this) one thing I like about consoles is the fact that I know my PS4 will run it without updating drives, experiencing errors and spending an hour or two trying to figure out why it won't play, or spending an extra $200-$700 for a graphics card to be able to play the game I just bought, also I don't like keyboard and mouse playstyle. So if you wonder why people prefer consoles those could be some reasons.
Not to take sides, since it's not my fight, but it's actually way more than 17%.
1600*900 = 1,440,000 pixels
1920*1080= 2,073,600 pixels
That's a gap of 30%.
You're absolutely right, my math was way off there.
But is it still that much of a difference? Like many have said, there doesn't seem to be that much of a difference between SoM's graphics on different consoles.
(also, not to butt in the PC-side of this debate, but as an ex-PC'er, I gladly trade reduced graphics to consistency and user-friendlier play. It's a matter of priorities and preferences - could we leave this debate at that?)
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
You're absolutely right, my math was way off there.
But is it still that much of a difference? Like many have said, there doesn't seem to be that much of a difference between SoM's graphics on different consoles.
(also, not to butt in the PC-side of this debate, but as an ex-PC'er, I gladly trade reduced graphics to consistency and user-friendlier play. It's a matter of priorities and preferences - could we leave this debate at that?)
I do agree that graphics aren't the most important thing about DA:I, but why even introduce next-gen consoles if graphics don't matter at all. It's kind of sad that 'next-gen' is already struggling to keep up with the PC this early in the cycle.
(also, not to butt in the PC-side of this debate, but as an ex-PC'er, I gladly trade reduced graphics to consistency and user-friendlier play. It's a matter of priorities and preferences - could we leave this debate at that?)
same here
same here
Nah, i bought the game for PC because of Mods. xD Just kidding, PC have lesser problems on quests and frames, so with DA: Keep i decided to buy the deluxe edition.
Since it has to be upscaled (most HDTVs are native 1080p panels), it depends on the size of the display and the distance from it that you are.But is it still that much of a difference? Like many have said, there doesn't seem to be that much of a difference between SoM's graphics on different consoles.
Yes, the frame rate is locked to 30 in the console versions.I genuinely do not know how much of a visual difference it is. I don't have experience with either or with comparisons. The thing that's more important to me is framerate, which is why I asked on the previous page if they were still at 30 FPS.
I do agree that graphics aren't the most important thing about DA:I, but why even introduce next-gen consoles if graphics don't matter at all. It's kind of sad that 'next-gen' is already struggling to keep up with the PC this early in the cycle.
No. Next-gen might be struggling to keep up with the gaming rigs of the hardcore gamers, but then that's always been the case and will probably always be the case, since updating a rig is much more feasible than, say, releasing a new console generation every 2 years.
In terms of performance, consoles are about par with the middle-of-the-line store-brought PCs (but even that's a problematic assesment to make, since PCs come in many different specs). Built rig? Beats a console hands down. A regularly updated store bought? That one probably as well. But you can't just walk into Walmart, pick a $399 PC and expect it to run all new games on ultra high or even better than a console - or even if it does, it won't be doing that for long, and it definitedly won't run games released 6 years later - unlike a console.
But I don't wanna start another platform war. Some people like to do their gaming on the consoles for various reasons, some people prefer the PC, again, for various reasons. Live and let live, right?
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Yes, the frame rate is locked to 30 in the console versions.
As someone who plays only on PC, I'm pretty shocked that some people can be ok and/or even excited that new games on a "next-gen" console would be limited to 30FPS.
I mean, for the price of a console and the subsequent game costs, 30FPS in 2014/near 2015 is pretty substandard.
I completely realize that its not all about graphics, and DAI looks awesome even at a lower framerate. However, I think it speaks more to just how poor a console could be hardware wise where next gen games have to compensate quality of textures and overall framerate and resolution just to make it playable to an acceptable level.
I truly hope that everyone who plays the game enjoys it on whatever platform they play it on, and think it will play good whether on console or pc. I for one though, will always sooner take higher quality and better performance of a PC over a console.. If the consoles were capable of more, I'd much sooner consider playing games on it. But for it to be limited to only 30 @ 900p.. sheesh. That is very underwhelming to me.
Well that's a shame.
Final Fantasy XIV will be 30 frames to
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Final Fantasy XIV will be 30 frames to
Do you mean "is?"
Man, my friends who play this are on Xbox One. But that 1080p on PS4 is calling my name. I don't want to screw my friends over by getting it on PS4, but I don't want the SP to look worse. I want Cass in glorious 1080p.
Which console should I buy it for... Bioware, why you make this so hard. 
Bioware, why you make this so hard.
Glad I'm not the only one sad around here.
I doubt those gorgeous images at night, raining with lighting bolts will be the same in both consoles.
there is nothing wrong with 30fps for a rpg. 60fps works great for games like the last of us remastered bf4. But 30fps for an rpg is fineAs someone who plays only on PC, I'm pretty shocked that some people can be ok and/or even excited that new games on a "next-gen" console would be limited to 30FPS.
I mean, for the price of a console and the subsequent game costs, 30FPS in 2014/near 2015 is pretty substandard.
I completely realize that its not all about graphics, and DAI looks awesome even at a lower framerate. However, I think it speaks more to just how poor a console could be hardware wise where next gen games have to compensate quality of textures and overall framerate and resolution just to make it playable to an acceptable level.
I truly hope that everyone who plays the game enjoys it on whatever platform they play it on, and think it will play good whether on console or pc. I for one though, will always sooner take higher quality and better performance of a PC over a console.. If the consoles were capable of more, I'd much sooner consider playing games on it. But for it to be limited to only 30 @ 900p.. sheesh. That is very underwhelming to me.
there is nothing wrong with 30fps for a rpg. 60fps works great for games like the last of us remastered bf4. But 30fps for an rpg is fine
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
IMO it's wrong and that's why I'm surprised that more console gamers are not outraged by this.
This is a little strong. It's not "right" or "wrong." We're talking about a video game.
This is a little strong. It's not "right" or "wrong." We're talking about a video game.
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Perhaps its a bit strong, but I'm also referring to other games too..
And when I see "Maximized Potential" in the title of the thread, it makes my hairs stand up because I worry that peolle take that as the truth, which in my opinion it is not.
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but do you have experience with crafting open-world (I know I know, but really, close enough) games with four controllable characters for new hardware? It's easy to judge, but it's much harder to do.
I tend to think most console gamers just worry about whether they're happy with how the game looks, and less about what others are getting, so they tend to be less outraged I guess.I try to not look at it as "something wrong" I tend to look at it as "what's better"?
This game to me looks beautiful.. so sure, I can go and get it for a console and be limited to a hard cap of 30fps a d 900p resolution, or I can play it with a higher Res, more detail, and far smoother performance.
All I'm saying is that it should come down to the user's choice. Setting a hard limit on a game's fps and resolution due to a limitation of hardware (console) and then making that user still pay full price for what amounts to less performance overall...?
IMO it's wrong and that's why I'm surprised that more console gamers are not outraged by this.
Retour en haut