@slickr: FXAA and other cheap post processing AA methods are sufficient at 4k. MSAA is not needed. And anyone who thinks SSAA is meaningful at 4k+ needs their head checked. I game at 4k on a 60" screen and agree that some AA is needed, but the archaic and overly expensive methods of AA that are used here to cripple framerates are not and in fact almost never yield a perceptible improvement in image quality when playing the game.

@sellingthings: SSAA on 4k is minimum 8k resolution. The only people attempting that are people running FOUR 1080 Ti or Titan XP cards. People running 1080 Ti SLI are not doing that.

@imajinn: Just rank incompetence

@sellingthings: nobody runs supersampling at 4k

@asmoddeuss: They were testing Deus Ex with 8x MSAA for sure. Would have gotten somewhere around 30fps if they didn't use that unnecessary setting.

@realguitarhero5: Most of these games run fine. The author here is just extremely misguided and added absurdly demanding and unnecessary antialiasing to them (e.g. super sampling in Metro, 8xMSAA in Deus Ex).

@superbuuman: 4k 60fps Ultra settings is doable in most of these games on a single 1080 Ti if you have a brain and don't turn on MSAA or super sampling like the author of this review has done.

The incompetence you have shown here in your testing methodology is staggering. This is how ignorant myths propagate about PC gaming. Using maximum AA - including super sampling - at 4k????? What are you guys smoking???? Nobody is ever going to do that. What you have tested here is not "what are the most demanding games on PC" but rather "which games can we arbitrarily increase anti-aliasing on the most in order to deliver the lowest framerates"?

For example, a 1080 can play Deus Ex at 4k Ultra settings without MSAA and get around 30fps average. But if you're missing half your brain cells and decide to crank to 8x MSAA then sure you can have a slideshow for almost no visual improvement.

I think GameSpot got most of these spot on... only one I think was horribly wrong was GTA 3 over Halo in 2001; Halo sold a system and is the reason Xbox still exists today. Hard for me to see how there are legit arguments for it not being GOTY that year.

@aaron15: Have you actually played Halo 5? Have you played Rig, Orion, or Pegasus? Because those are basically PS2 textures there. And the resolution on shadows is godawful. There is only one thing in Halo 5's visuals that looks good and it's the facial animations during cutscenes. Literally everything else about the game's graphics are average or bad.

Also, whatever you think about the games compared to one another, no rational person can claim Halo 5 has more overall content than BLOPS 3. Again... are you actually playing Halo 5? You literally play the same 5 maps over and over and over in the same 4-5 playlists. Warzone has a whopping 3 maps. The game does not have much content at all compared to BLOPS 3.

Also, note that my comment was in reply to someone making a graphics comparison between the two... if you want to take up the "graphics < gameplay" argument, then take it up with him.