I find funny that people talk about things when they know nothing about them.

1080p msaax4    is not the standard on PC, without even talking about crazy soft body physic and models.

The Order could easily achieve 1080p if they give up the msaax4 but they prefer to not and it doesnt impact the IQ, the FOV is even wider.

Because trolololol. What else?

I though you were right, but there are nuances to bring into this, yes on any given console resolution/framerate/etc. are trade offs because of limited ressources that are available in a known quantity.

I think this point here is a little flawed:

"5) There is no comparison to make here. 

There was no comarison to make for Ryse, DR3, Forza, Titanfall.  Yet people, including but not limited to Sony FBs, continue to mock their technical tradeoffs made for better IQ / gameplay."

Yes there are no direct comparison, however it seems clear now that MS was demoing their games on PCs at the 2013 E3 (or at least the machines in them were more powerful development systems, probably from before the hardware was final... but I doubt that) ... so yes MS pushed the performance narative and led people to expect that at last year's E3 were all games were 1080p AND had amazing AA, people were rightfully impressed by that original version of Forza, Ryse, BF4 and titanfall (however not DR3) all promised native 1080p and MS put emphasis on frame rates... 

See this article from digital foundry about what people were led to expect: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-hands-on-with-xbox-one

All got serious downgrades, obviously, if nobody would have talked about that aspect and they would not have boasted about performance it may not be this bad now... 

And well yes, people comment on the performance of individual titles, sometime to troll... others really wonder, what would the games look like on the competing system? would Titanfall be 1080p on the PS4? Would forza have proper lighting, AA and off track details? Would Ryse have better FPS and be full 1080p on the PS4? we know how it turned out for all multi-platform titles, they all have either big or small benefits if you play on the PS4...

So people will compare Ryse and Killzone, like they used to compare Mario and Sonic or whatever exclusive and wonder how they would look on the other platform... that will bother the people on the weaker machine to no end, some will feel picked on... those who don't get that these trade offs are made due to necessities will think 60fps or 1080p is the essence of the argument and they will come in PS4 games threads to say stupid things like: see the PS4 has 30 fps games too, both machines are equal (or downright, the XB1 became more powerful).

I had a gaming PC when the xbox 360 came out and it had 512MB or video memory, around 1GB of RAM and my monitor as 1920*1200 (I'm not bragging here, this was a period of my life when I played a lot more on PC) it wooped the floor with both the 360 and the PS3, together... even back then multiplatform titles could be played at higher resolution with slightly better textures (not as drastically better as now, but they were better) and frame rates, with AA on good PCs.

So when computer monitors started to settle at "full HD" I felt betrayed, because this is a stupid resolution to use on a computer (those extra few pixels really let you put more tools at the top of your screen), generally PC games let you pick the screen ratio as well as resolution, according to your specs... 

Now, we have a lot of people playing on PC with a lot of different settings, ranging from laptops with mediocer screen and integrated GPU that can barely move windows around... to those yealding triple Titans or whatever is the top end card right now driving some 4K screen or a high performance 120+hz gaming monitor, which is all amazing... until you look at the bill for it! and for having been a PC gamer for a long time, someone who tried to keep up while at it, I would say that now I am happy with my consoles, and I still want my eye candies and I still want to be able to discuss those aspects! too bad if some people consider it inflamatory...

Because some people are stupid and don't know the difference between apples and oranges.

I'd rather a game be at 720p 60fps than 1080p 30fps. Graphical fidelity doesn't matter. Performance does. This isn't a movie. It's a game.

I respect this post, and thank you for keeping it "grounded".

I agree, that it does seem that MS was using PCs for E3 demos.  Seems like they did a lot of shuffling last minute... perhaps with dev kits, etc.  Almost like they didn't have 5+ years to prepare haha.  Some of it might have been on purpose though.  We may never know.  Either way, a little disappointed to see FINAL builds get WORSE in some cases.

And of course most X1 exclusives could run better on PS4 if optimised for it.  Doesn't change the fact that developers will make tradoffs on IQ vs. performance all the time.  Wii U, X1, PS4, all require the same discussions in the dev studios.  So some of the flak The Order is getting is simple tick for tack retribution.  Bullying back after being bullied yourself.

I have no doubt that we will see what Mario with PS4 graphics looks like... on Nintendo's next system haha.  Just the way the world is.  Great games come in all shapes sizes resolutions and fps.

The rule should be quite simple: if graphics power isn't enough to get the best of everything, in the fastest games, like driving and combat or acrobatic flight sims, better giving up some graphics FX or some resolution to keep frame rate higher, in other games it depends, but the possible choices are wider.