@Richardthe3rd: 4k at 30 is about as good as it gets for 4k gaming, especially without dual graphics cards.. a consistent 30 is pushing it without. ONLY the new GTX 1080 can do 4k reasonably stable for modern games with demanding graphics and that's brand new. Even then it won't be running a stable 60fps, unless you lower most settings and make the game look like it's 10 years old. Seriously, look at benchmarks.
Today's 'standards' are not based on a $4000 pc with quad channel memory and an SLI setup.
@coeurdulyon: I'm sure it could but it depends whether the adjustment is patched in. I assume it's blurry because they have some crappy anti-aliasing technique in use for the game because it ran better that way.
@repercussion: I've played them all. What's comical is people reading into a video game too much. I played them and I didn't have a problem with how it ended. That's all there is to it.
I've read about the reasons why it's considered bad but it's just geeky people being extra geeky.
I liked the ME3 ending.. I've never understood the criticism it got. I can understand that people didn't like it boiling down to 3 choices at the end instead of the choices they made throughout the games.. but in terms of the story of the ending(s), I see no problem.
Piss off early access. Just wait until it's finished damn it!
But people are exaggerating how bad the graphics are. Compared to most survival games of this type with world building; ARK, RUST, Savage Lands, etc. This looks miles better. It's definitely comparable to Fallout 4 graphics and no one is complaining that much about them...
I'm assuming most of the people who have commented are console gamers and aren't used to this type of game.
Darkrayne's comments