Professional analysts do their research though. Like you say they both are very hard to find. Demand far outweighs production so at the moment whoever can make the most sells the most (well to a certain degree anyway).
It could be that analyst has looked into who is likely to make more in 2022 by tracking sales of components to various production lines and factored that into their prediction?
I believe one of the reviewers put it in a tweet.. . maybe they deleted if after backlash? I remember one reviewer also wondered why all the infected are white (i believe this was also in a tweet) . . even though it is explained in the main story which made me wonder if they were paying any attention at all.
Also on Kotaku in their review they say "It is exhausting to watch another gruff white dude experience the extremes of humanity brought about by disaster. . ."
Can't say I know of any other open world game that has large (500+) organized hordes dotted around the map that come out or hide away depending on the weather and time of day. Felt like a pretty unique experience to me in that regard. Never knew if/when you might accidentally stumble across one which is incredibly dangerous early in the game and keeps the tension up while exploring.
Sure most of the other stuff in the game is very much like a typical Ubisoft open world game, but seeing as it's up to the same standard as ubisoft games, imo, i don't understand why it scored so low when compared them. Those large hordes and the fact PS4's weak cpu could handle them is pretty amazing imo.
Loading times got reduced, as well as install size (67GB down to 39GB), after some patching.
I dunno. I thought it deserved better reception from critics. Felt like a 7.5/10 game to me, maybe even 8 after all the updates and extra gameplay modes were added. Was way better than 5/10 GS gave it but then i supposed the early review copies were bug ridden.
I think it'll achieve it well enough. I have a Reverb G2 for my PC which is only slightly higher resolution at 2160 x 2160 per eye. (psvr2 is 2000 x 2040).
Okay I have a 2080ti which is a fair chunk more powerful than PS5 but it's not leagues ahead (especially when you take DLSS and Ray tracing out of the equation which haven't been used much in VR yet anyway) and it handles games that are designed purely for VR i.e. optimized properly, with ease at full native resolution at 90fps, like Half-Life Alyx for example which is one of the best looking VR games out there, it runs like butter. I'm sure PS5 could handle that game in VR at native resolution (i'm pretty sure it'll come to PSVR2- fingers crossed)
PSVR2 has a trick up it's sleeve that will help with it's lesser GPU. . . Foveated rendering, which my VR Reverb doesn't have. This tracks where your eyes are looking and put's more resources into rendering the things you're focusing on while letting things in your peripheral vision render at much lower quality, freeing resources and you shouldn't notice as you're not looking at them anyway. This could make up the difference in power. Plus they can get away with running at 45-60fps in some games and use re-projection to reach the full 90-120hz. So yeah, i'm confident PS5 is powerful enough for 2k per eye.
XB360 came out a whole year before PS3 yet PS3 still managed to overtake xb360 in sales by the end of the generation. They were selling more per year in order to catch up.
@fragnem: After shooting on the rails etc you're left to explore the whole city on foot or you can drive pretty much any parked car or switch to drone/fly mode. There's locations to find (shown on the map), some just give details about the demo, others can change effects, like switching the demo from daytime to nighttime.
@ceelogreen94: PS5 and Series X seem identical to me. Looking at screen shots on both IGN and DF some look more detailed on series x but then just as many look more detailed on PS5. Think is's just motion blur being more prominent randomly from frame to frame on either system.
analgrin's comments