@Rushaoz @willzihang Source material? What are you talking about? The Hobbit was recorded at 48fps, that's the source-- 24fps wasn't the source but obviously half of 48 is 24 so it's a simple halving of frames job.

I don't know why you brought up 120hz, I never mentioned that.

Reality obviously doesn't have a framerate, so the smoother you can get FPS on media/games, the more realistic it looks. I'm afraid this isn't a matter of opinion, this is an indisputable fact.

The gameplay is also smoother at 60fps, again, this isn't an opinion; when fine aiming is required high framerates mean there is smoother motion, ergo more precise aiming is far more easy to accomplish-- though granted with auto aim on consoles it will be less of an issue.

Yes, I understand that capping at 30 means more graphics detail can be achieved owing to lower fps targets, but that isn't my argument-- though it can be said that fluid gameplay is also a factor of good graphics.

I just want to point out that as I see it it isn't a matter of preference 30fps or 60fps, the latter is simply superior. Frankly the people that didn't like the high-frames Hobbit are simply unused to seeing video in such smooth motion, so they simply dismiss it as 'weird'.

To those who like to say there's no difference between 30 and 60fps, and try and make a comparison to films running at 24fps-- have none of you seen The Hobbit 48fps? Though if you continue to think there is no difference between the 24 to 48fps version then you frankly don't know what you're looking at.

Also watch this: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-watch-bf4-at-60fps

@SniperFire17 @willzihang @Darkhol0w Actually Watch Dogs will be on current gen consoles.

It will look a lot better on a high-end rig-- but then what would you expect from systems that are fully constomisable, one can pay huge sums of money for the very best hardware. Consoles have to use mid-range hardware so they can sell them at a price the majority of people are willing to pay, which seems to have an upper limit of around £400.

Remember already the PC version will support 4k resolutions, and the very best technology available now-- the most advanced DoF, AA, SSAO, Tessellation. The PC isn't limited in the same way consoles are.

But that doesn't mean one can't enjoy games played on a console; though it does mean if you are the type of person that demands the very best graphical fidelity the PC is the only choice.

@clr84651 Not really... game controlers may be iconic to consoles these days but they aren't, and have never really been, exclusive to them. It's just an interface, originating from arcade units I imagine.

I would point out that this is an issue some PC users fail to seem - the ones that oddly think using a gamepad for certain games is being disloyal somehow to PC. It's ridiculous, I myself use whatever control method is more suited. FPS K&M, and an action game like Batman AA/AC a controller.

Nice in looks, I can imagine much smoother gaming moving and changing the camera with touchpads rather than buttons. Though I can't see how this will displace me from using a mouse on FPS and strategy games. It would be good for action games that don't require precise aiming though.

As far as moving a pointer around is concerned (and you could argue that you are moving a static pointer on an FPS) the mouse is pretty much the optimal system; I suppose touching the screen itself is close-- but that suffers its own issues as you can't really be pin-point accurate with a finger.

@Logan303 Then why the almost propagandist statement of "Plus, I'd actually rather play a game on a console, on my 56" TV, through my home theater system, and relaxing in my recliner, than sitting at my computer desk."

It's not the fault of PCs that you haven't got your PC set up in a 'comfortable' setting. Since when is a bedroom less of a gaming setting than a living room?

I personally have a large TV set up beside my monitor, and I switch between the two depending on what games I want to play; or if I want to watch a film or Youtube long video. It's more 'comfortable' to play Rome 2 at the desk near a high fidelity monitor because of the large amounts of text on screen, trying to do so at a distance on a TV is not a pleasant experience. But to play a game such as Mortal Kombat I like to do so lying on my bed.

I must admit that I am curious to see what the PC 'standards' will be in 8 or so years from now. 4k res I'm sure, with looking at 6 or 8k perhaps for the future from then. Full tessellation on every object on screen; no more flat surfaces. I'd like to see TressFX that's used in Tomb Raider become standardised.

I can see many graphically demanding games running at 900p--- but really 1600x900 isn't that different from 1920x1080. Though you will loose some sharpness from the upscaling to 1080. Lowering resolutions is just the main fix to compensate for the CPU dragging its heels; as it almost certainly will on both systems considering how weak, frankly, the chips are.

@Logan303 Can you stop perpetuating this myth that consoles are the 'comfort' device for the living room, large TVs, good speaker set-ups and gamepads; and that PCs can't do exactly this, and perhaps more.

@tajirinere It's also the case that this time around they are both made with extremely standard and familiar hardware; so optimisation won't even come into it.