Are console gamers more obsessed with visuals than PC gamers?

  • 134 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Avatar image for Juub1990
Juub1990

12620

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1  Edited By Juub1990
Member since 2013 • 12620 Posts

The resolution war is a fairly recent phenomenon. 1080p has existed on PC for ages and to this day people still run with 1366x768 laptops or 1600x900 screens. The PC community as a whole isn't very divided because of that.

On consoles the story is different. There was an enormous war between the X1 and PS4 over 1080p. You couldn't make two days without some headline detailing the resolution of some game.

As a first, consoles even got a mid-gen refresh whose objective is, you guessed it, shoot for higher resolutions.

Then consider things like HDR which are heavily promoted and even timed exclusive features in some cases(Witcher 3 for Xbox One X), the success of cinematic driven games on consoles(Uncharted, TLOU etc) among other things. I find console gamers to be far, far more concerned about graphics and resolutions than PC gamers are which is quite ironic given the fact PC is THE place for anyone cherishing those things.

Blockbuster big-budget wow games also receive more promotion on consoles whereas smaller games with a bigger focus on gameplay, style or innovation tend to do better on PC and often get their early success there, only to be released on console after receiving enough attention from the PC crowd(Kerbal Space Program, Elite Dangerous are examples). Even the biggest games on PC aren't exactly lookers but games accessible to the vast majority of gamers such as DOTA, COS, LOL, Football Manager but on consoles the big AAA wow-looking games get the larger appeal.

From a personal opinion, the people I know who game on PC are more concerned about playability, frame rate and gear quality(mouse, keyboard, triple monitors) than they are with visuals, often not hesitating to sacrifice graphics for something else. Console gamers are the ones who tend to rush to buy the new HDR/OLED TV to go along their spanking new Pro or X1X. I really find the whole PC gamers obsessed with graphics narrative to be false. Console gamers in general give far more importance to graphics than PC gamers do.

Thoughts?

Avatar image for clone01
clone01

29822

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 clone01
Member since 2003 • 29822 Posts

On this forum they are.

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
uninspiredcup

58643

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 86

User Lists: 2

#3  Edited By uninspiredcup
Member since 2013 • 58643 Posts

Playstation, absolutely.

It's replaced PC as the "buy it for the graphix", system.

Avatar image for hrt_rulz01
hrt_rulz01

22369

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 hrt_rulz01  Online
Member since 2006 • 22369 Posts

Certainly seems that way... fu*ken fanboys.

Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
DragonfireXZ95

26641

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 DragonfireXZ95
Member since 2005 • 26641 Posts

Probably because most PC gamers know that smaller resolutions can be offset by using AA or supersampling, and would rather have higher res textures, push more polygons, better volumetric lighting, and etc.

Avatar image for Alucard_Prime
Alucard_Prime

10107

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#6  Edited By Alucard_Prime
Member since 2008 • 10107 Posts

Graphics were always part of the console experience, the first thing I noticed when I got my SNES were the better graphics and sound quality, it's one of the main things me and my friends would talk about. At the time, one of the biggest draws of the Arcades were the significantly better graphics compared to home consoles. At some point that changed and consoles surpassed what you could find in the Arcades.

But none of that matters if the game isn't good, I cannot stand shallow games with great graphics. Gameplay first, graphics last. I remember how some SNES games had "slowdown" and "flickering", basically things would slow down significantly when many enemies were onscreen, some sprites would vanish, thus ruining the experience despite the great graphics. But what graphics do is enhance an already amazing game. That's why re-masters are so popular, that's why many PC gamers go back to a favorite game when they upgrade their rig. That's what I used to do when I was a PC gamer, every time I would upgrade my PC I would play Diablo 2 again at higher settings in 3D mode. Because it's a game I love and I was getting more out of it with enhanced graphics. Graphics are what you see and they are very important in the overall experience, but only if the rest is great. Also, you don't need great graphics for an amazing game, it's a luxury for me.

I just finished playing the Darkening of Tristam in Diablo 3, when you go into the retro Dungeon the graphics take a step back and become pixelated, it's hilarious when you take a portal back to town after and it switches back to 4K graphics, the difference is insane...but guess what? I cleared the dungeon after like 3 hours, was great fun despite the retro graphics, got used to it after a few seconds it's really not a big deal as I am a huge Diablo fan, it's the game mechanics I enjoy. Anyways, that's just my 2 cents

Avatar image for NoodleFighter
NoodleFighter

11780

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 NoodleFighter
Member since 2011 • 11780 Posts

@DragonfireXZ95 said:

Probably because most PC gamers know that smaller resolutions can be offset by using AA or supersampling, and would rather have higher res textures, push more polygons, better volumetric lighting, and etc.

Also screens that display resolutions such as 1366x768 and 1600x900 are usually under 21.5" so the pixel density makes up for the lack of pixels while on consoles most people use screens that are at least 30" and above the differences and lack of quality is more easily noticeable. The only way you can "solve" that is by sitting farther away from your display, but some point you'd might as well be gaming on a smaller screen.

Avatar image for Nike_Air
Nike_Air

19733

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 Nike_Air
Member since 2006 • 19733 Posts

I've always had to have the best graphix on consoles.

  • PS1
  • PS2
  • PS3
  • PS4

Avatar image for MonsieurX
MonsieurX

39858

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 MonsieurX
Member since 2008 • 39858 Posts

@Nike_Air said:

I've always had to have the best graphix on consoles.

  • PS1
  • PS2
  • PS3
  • PS4

PS2 was the weakest of its gen

Avatar image for lamprey263
lamprey263

44503

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#10 lamprey263
Member since 2006 • 44503 Posts

Well, given that most the games people buy on either Xbox or Playstation are largely redundant third party multiplats available on either, and fanboys will be driven to show their console of choice as the superior one, graphic performance is really all there is to go on.

Avatar image for jun_aka_pekto
jun_aka_pekto

25255

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#11  Edited By jun_aka_pekto
Member since 2010 • 25255 Posts

Does it matter? Show em if you got em. ;)

Avatar image for deactivated-6092a2d005fba
deactivated-6092a2d005fba

22663

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#12  Edited By deactivated-6092a2d005fba
Member since 2015 • 22663 Posts

@uninspiredcup said:

Playstation, absolutely.

It's replaced PC as the "buy it for the graphix", system.

All they ever talk about whenever Uncharted 4 & Horizon Zero Dawn is mentioned are its awesome graphics duuuuuuuude lol.

Avatar image for NoodleFighter
NoodleFighter

11780

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 NoodleFighter
Member since 2011 • 11780 Posts

@Juub1990: @Alucard_Prime: While Diablo 3 certainly isn't a graphical powerhouse its still a good looking game to this day because of its art direction. PC gaming shares that similarity with Nintendo a lot. If a game on PC isn't going for photo realistic/high end graphics than the least the developers can do is use an art style to compensate for it. These art styles are what allow these PC games to be played for years to come without looking too dated in comparison to newer titles. It's why I can keep going back to Team Fortress 2 which is over 10 years old now despite playing things like the latest Battlefield or Crysis game.

Take a look at Blade & Soul for example, even though the game goes as far back as 2009 and there are much more better looking MMORPGs out on the market today it is still a great looking game to this day because of its art direction.

Loading Video...

Avatar image for GioVela2010
GioVela2010

5566

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 GioVela2010
Member since 2008 • 5566 Posts

@NoodleFighter said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:

Probably because most PC gamers know that smaller resolutions can be offset by using AA or supersampling, and would rather have higher res textures, push more polygons, better volumetric lighting, and etc.

Also screens that display resolutions such as 1366x768 and 1600x900 are usually under 21.5" so the pixel density makes up for the lack of pixels while on consoles most people use screens that are at least 30" and above the differences and lack of quality is more easily noticeable. The only way you can "solve" that is by sitting farther away from your display, but some point you'd might as well be gaming on a smaller screen.

1366 x 768 on a 21.5” screen Is too shit of pixel density if your eyes are 2 feet from the screen.

its the equivalent of sitting 2 feet from a 60” 4K Display

Sounds like your just making excuses for pC Gamers on crap displays

Avatar image for NoodleFighter
NoodleFighter

11780

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15  Edited By NoodleFighter
Member since 2011 • 11780 Posts

@GioVela2010: Said under 21.5" not at it. Also 1366x768 is more of a laptop resolution and usually on laptops that are around 12" to 15" big

Avatar image for jun_aka_pekto
jun_aka_pekto

25255

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#16 jun_aka_pekto
Member since 2010 • 25255 Posts
@GioVela2010 said:

1366 x 768 on a 21.5” screen Is too shit of pixel density if your eyes are 2 feet from the screen.

its the equivalent of sitting 2 feet from a 60” 4K Display

Sounds like your just making excuses for pC Gamers on crap displays

C'mon. Most PC monitors with 1366x768 resolution are usually 17" or smaller. With most game-capable laptops nowadays, they're usually 14" or smaller. In fact, 1366x768 is now the default resolution of 11.6" netbooks.

Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
DragonfireXZ95

26641

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#17  Edited By DragonfireXZ95
Member since 2005 • 26641 Posts

@jun_aka_pekto said:
@GioVela2010 said:

1366 x 768 on a 21.5” screen Is too shit of pixel density if your eyes are 2 feet from the screen.

its the equivalent of sitting 2 feet from a 60” 4K Display

Sounds like your just making excuses for pC Gamers on crap displays

C'mon. Most PC monitors with 1366x768 resolution are usually 17" or smaller. With most game-capable laptops nowadays, they're usually 14" or smaller. In fact, 1366x768 is now the default resolution of 11.6" netbooks.

On top of that, you can super sample resolutions now if you have a beefy video card on a small display, so even if the max res of the monitor is 1366 x 768, you could easily go much higher. Besides, why is this even relevant? Most PC gamers(especially on this forum) will be using at least 1080p or higher on a minimum 22 inch display.

Avatar image for deactivated-5f3ec00254b0d
deactivated-5f3ec00254b0d

6278

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 0

#18 deactivated-5f3ec00254b0d
Member since 2009 • 6278 Posts

No

Avatar image for appariti0n
appariti0n

5011

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#19 appariti0n
Member since 2009 • 5011 Posts

I specifically chose 1366x768 for my laptop screen for a few reasons.

The GPU will be able to drive high FPS for much longer, as it's not like I can really upgrade the GPU later. It's a 13" screen.

99% of the time, it's used at a friend's house and plugged in to an external display anyhow.

And obviously, it was cheaper than a 1080p or god forbid 4K. (lol @ 4K on a screen that small)

Avatar image for Micropixel
Micropixel

1383

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#20  Edited By Micropixel
Member since 2005 • 1383 Posts

Absolutely.

Graphics and Console Hardware Profiles are far more debated than any PC discussion thread you'll find. You also don't see a lot of ridicule being passed around for PC gamers who decide to stick with lower grade hardware, whatever those reasons may be. But come to a place like this and try to talk about how much you're enjoying a console that probably isn't as powerful as another, and somebody (maybe even ALOT of somebodys) will circle your insights with wagons, pitchforks and torches and attempt to burn those opinions to ashes.

It's really stupid.

A truly good console interfaces well with every level of gamer; Beginners and Experts alike. It should also aim to strike a healthy balance between Power, Efficiency and Simplicity, as long as it's capable of encompassing all of the current designing tools, which all of them currently do.

Of course, most console gamers don't look at it this way and instead choose to engage in pointless console-bashing threads where they compare hardware profiles like Johnsons in a school restroom. I hardly ever see PC gamers being sucked into cesspool discussions like these. In fact, it's the opposite. PC gamers are usually looking out for eachother and trying to assist one another with trouble-shooting issues and getting the most out of their rigs.

But console gamers just seem to want to piss on eachother.

Avatar image for jun_aka_pekto
jun_aka_pekto

25255

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#21 jun_aka_pekto
Member since 2010 • 25255 Posts

It's good to see competition regardless of what platform it is. Plus, having great graphics doesn't automatically mean the gameplay is bad.

Avatar image for pelvist
pelvist

9001

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#22  Edited By pelvist
Member since 2010 • 9001 Posts

Since the XBOX 360/PS3 non-Nintendo consoles have been marketed to whatever they now class as High Definition -even while falling short of it in most games. Manufacturers will use whatever new buzz they can to swindle the gullible minds of children with while implying its a "PC like experience" (did you know PS3 could send rockets to the moon!? Well, so could my ZX Spectrum but hey! The moon in 4D! Oh and PS4 is basically a supercharged gaming PC? Yeah...). On the other hand new PC hardware is mostly marketed toward performance; although to be fair, I once heard that PC cant do HD, so that might be why.

4k HDR WOW! Dont miss out!

Avatar image for koko-goal
koko-goal

1122

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#23 koko-goal
Member since 2008 • 1122 Posts

if console fanboys don't care about visuals, then why there was superior multiplats drama during the Xbox 360 era?

Avatar image for davillain
DaVillain

55898

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#24 DaVillain  Moderator
Member since 2014 • 55898 Posts

@i_p_daily said:

All they ever talk about whenever Uncharted 4 & Horizon Zero Dawn is mentioned are its awesome graphics duuuuuuuude lol.

I talk about gameplay more on those titles then I ever do about graphics. Raw graphics are (and always) just a bonus to me. If the game doesn't have good fluid gameplay and most importantly, framerates, it's a crap game.

Avatar image for vfighter
VFighter

11031

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25 VFighter
Member since 2016 • 11031 Posts

When it comes to the fanboy wars on this site, I'd say yes. In real life though I don't think so. I've known plenty of PC "gamers" who were into the specs (resolution, fps, graphics cards, memory, etc) over the actual games, they were just nice to show off their newest builds and rigs.

Avatar image for davillain
DaVillain

55898

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#26 DaVillain  Moderator
Member since 2014 • 55898 Posts

Or you could just not care about graphics. Then you are eternally happy and this is aiming to console gamers.

PC has always been about options when it comes to graphics, console hardware doesn't have the features of a PC do and stuck whatever the console manufactures give to console gamers. One thing I notice ever since this gen started, console gamers have been so obsess with resolution more so then last-gen. 1080p vs 900p was such a huge big deal between PS4 & Xbox One and fanboys kept playing who wears the pants in this house. Console gamers care about raw graphics then PC gamer do.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
mrbojangles25

58157

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#27 mrbojangles25
Member since 2005 • 58157 Posts

yes. one tends to covet and obsess over what they do not have, and consoles not having cutting edge visuals causes them to be more obsessed.

When you are on PC, you already have it, so you're like "Peasants, struggling to obtain what is to never be. I'd pity them if they were not such fools! Bwahahahahaha"

In all seriousness, and this is just me, I find cutting edge visuals more of a "neat" or "impressive" thing, but my favorite games have never been particularly amazing looking. I much prefer a pleasant or creative art direction over a bigger number. 1080p and solid performance > 4K and...meh.

Avatar image for Juub1990
Juub1990

12620

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28 Juub1990
Member since 2013 • 12620 Posts
@davillain- said:

I talk about gameplay more on those titles then I ever do about graphics. Raw graphics are (and always) just a bonus to me. If the game doesn't have good fluid gameplay and most importantly, framerates, it's a crap game.

Well both these games have shit frame rates.

Avatar image for Alucard_Prime
Alucard_Prime

10107

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#29 Alucard_Prime
Member since 2008 • 10107 Posts

@NoodleFighter: Good points yes, the Art Direction goes a long way and can shine through outdated graphics. The upgraded visuals just lets you appreciate it more by accentuating all the details.

Avatar image for quadknight
QuadKnight

12916

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#31  Edited By QuadKnight
Member since 2015 • 12916 Posts

@Juub1990 said:
@davillain- said:

I talk about gameplay more on those titles then I ever do about graphics. Raw graphics are (and always) just a bonus to me. If the game doesn't have good fluid gameplay and most importantly, framerates, it's a crap game.

Well both these games have shit frame rates.

Nah, they are both locked at 30fps which is good enough for single player games.

UC4 on the PS4 actually runs at 60fps in multiplayer.

Avatar image for Juub1990
Juub1990

12620

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#32  Edited By Juub1990
Member since 2013 • 12620 Posts
@quadknight said:

Nah, they are both locked at 30fps which is good enough for single player games.

UC4 on the Pro actually runs at 60fps in multiplayer.

I beat both these games and know they run at 30 which is why I said it's shit lol.

I'm also enjoying Lost Legacy more than Uncharted 4. Had enough of Drake and his wisecracks.

Avatar image for deactivated-6092a2d005fba
deactivated-6092a2d005fba

22663

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#33 deactivated-6092a2d005fba
Member since 2015 • 22663 Posts

@Juub1990 said:
@quadknight said:

Nah, they are both locked at 30fps which is good enough for single player games.

UC4 on the Pro actually runs at 60fps in multiplayer.

I beat both these games and know they run at 30 which is why I said it's shit lol.

Oh so you're just another one of "those" people.

Avatar image for Juub1990
Juub1990

12620

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34 Juub1990
Member since 2013 • 12620 Posts
@i_p_daily said:

Oh so you're just another one of "those" people.

Have no idea who "those" people refer to. 30fps is choppy as hell and terrible to play at.

Avatar image for deactivated-6092a2d005fba
deactivated-6092a2d005fba

22663

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#35 deactivated-6092a2d005fba
Member since 2015 • 22663 Posts

@Juub1990 said:
@i_p_daily said:

Oh so you're just another one of "those" people.

Have no idea who "those" people refer to. 30fps is choppy as hell and terrible to play at.

Like I said one of "those" people.

Avatar image for Juub1990
Juub1990

12620

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#36 Juub1990
Member since 2013 • 12620 Posts

@i_p_daily: Again no idea what you mean.

Avatar image for deactivated-6092a2d005fba
deactivated-6092a2d005fba

22663

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#37 deactivated-6092a2d005fba
Member since 2015 • 22663 Posts

@Juub1990: Yes you do.

Avatar image for quadknight
QuadKnight

12916

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38 QuadKnight
Member since 2015 • 12916 Posts

@Juub1990 said:
@quadknight said:

Nah, they are both locked at 30fps which is good enough for single player games.

UC4 on the Pro actually runs at 60fps in multiplayer.

I beat both these games and know they run at 30 which is why I said it's shit lol.

I'm also enjoying Lost Legacy more than Uncharted 4. Had enough of Drake and his wisecracks.

I personally think locked 30fps in SP is fine for a console game. 60fps would be nicer but it's hardly "shit" like you make it out to be.

Avatar image for wiiboxstation
Wiiboxstation

1753

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

#39 Wiiboxstation
Member since 2014 • 1753 Posts

I don't play on PC only consoles.

All I care about graphics wise is being able to tell what is on the screen. So a tree looks vaguely like a tree, road looks like a road.

Game play and game mechanics are so much more important.

Avatar image for Gaming-Planet
Gaming-Planet

21064

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 14

User Lists: 0

#40  Edited By Gaming-Planet
Member since 2008 • 21064 Posts

I care more about performance and gameplay.

- A PC gamer.

Avatar image for UssjTrunks
UssjTrunks

11299

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#41  Edited By UssjTrunks
Member since 2005 • 11299 Posts

It's like two homeless people arguing over who's toaster is better. It's sad.

Avatar image for commander
commander

16217

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#42 commander
Member since 2010 • 16217 Posts

@Juub1990: I don't know where you suddenly get this from. Visuals in games has been the driving force in gaming since pretty much forever. The eighties and nineties were know for the bit wars, the whole 8 vs 16 vs 32 bit era. More bits meant better graphics and better sound. Playstation put partially an end to it with the cd, since having more data storage for textures gave better yields in terms of quality than increasing the bit size (playstation 32 bit vs n64)

But the nail in the coffin was the pc, which came with 3d accelerated hardware, increasing the detail quality and resolution for 3d games exponentially. But the price difference was so huge that the console still had the advantage of pricing. Playing pc games were not always a cakewalk either, the pc of the nineties were not as plug and play as the the pc's of today. There was also the issue of the controller and the exclusives. So the pc became the system of innovation and the console fought their wars amongst each other.

Now it wasn't about bits anymore, now it was about ghz, ram size and polygons. The playstation 1 was so successfull that sony didn't care much about this war and released the weakest console of the three but they released it first, while the ps2 was the best selling console of all time, sony let microsoft put a dent in their reign with the xbox original, which was a vastly superior system to the ps2.

The xbox original made way for the xbox 360, which was so strong at release and at the same time affordable it started a mass exodus from the pc and the playstation to the xbox. This time the war was about cores, but the xbox 360 had other perks with the xbox live platform and party chat. The controller made it stand out as well.

The pc and playstation were able to recover because of the hilarious (and way too late) launch of the xboxone and it is then that the resolution war started. People had hdtv's that supported 1080p and wanted 1080p. The resolution war is no different from all the other wars, it's about graphics quality

It's not because the pc is always the dominant factor in terms of graphical quality and performance that pc gamers don't think hdr is important. It's just because hdr monitors are way too expensive. Sometimes the console is a much cheaper option that it becomes tempting for everyone to go the console route because the pc version is just too expensive. It was like that with the release of the sega 16 bit, the snes, the ps1 and the xbox 360.

But it isn't even that bad this time around, pc support hdr, so you can still play on a hdr tv.

Avatar image for j2zon2591
j2zon2591

3571

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#44  Edited By j2zon2591
Member since 2005 • 3571 Posts

perhaps a bit. I'm confident without any data that a lot of "pc gamers" are even playing old crappy looking mmos. even the most popular mobas don't look that good.

Avatar image for deactivated-60cd6c3d31f6d
deactivated-60cd6c3d31f6d

745

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#45  Edited By deactivated-60cd6c3d31f6d
Member since 2015 • 745 Posts

Its not like PC gaming is pushing on the graphical front.

Many PS4 games look better than anything on PC. And the only advantge PC gaming had was Resolution and famerate. But resolution has lost its luster as a talking point for PC gamers after the release of the Pro and XboneX.

Avatar image for deactivated-5cd08b1605da1
deactivated-5cd08b1605da1

9317

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

#46  Edited By deactivated-5cd08b1605da1
Member since 2012 • 9317 Posts

Cant speak for others but I'm definitely not. I like my games pretty and all but performance and gameplay will always be my priorities

Avatar image for Epak_
Epak_

11911

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#47 Epak_
Member since 2004 • 11911 Posts

Graphics sell on consoles, that's what people (console gamers) want to see, better graphics.

Avatar image for xantufrog
xantufrog

17875

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

#48 xantufrog  Moderator
Member since 2013 • 17875 Posts

@Juub1990: is lost legacy good? I'm considering giving it a go at some point, but i'm not a huge fan of the UC games.

Avatar image for davillain
DaVillain

55898

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#49  Edited By DaVillain  Moderator
Member since 2014 • 55898 Posts

@Juub1990 said:
@davillain- said:

I talk about gameplay more on those titles then I ever do about graphics. Raw graphics are (and always) just a bonus to me. If the game doesn't have good fluid gameplay and most importantly, framerates, it's a crap game.

Well both these games have shit frame rates.

There both locked at 30fps. As long as 30fps is locked on consoles, I can live with that. And Horizon happens to be my favorite PS4 game to date and so glad 30fps was locked just for me to enjoy the gameplay more so.

Avatar image for Chutebox
Chutebox

50494

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#50 Chutebox
Member since 2007 • 50494 Posts

I wouldn't say more, but just the same