Boutros said:
PullusPardus said:
Boutros said:
vlad321 said:
Boutros said:
Kasz216 said:
I'm just happy thanks to consoles I can play it on "High".
Can't comment on the highest end settings, but I can say that thanks to consoles crappy graphical ability there probably was much more focus on performance for those of us with PC's that are 3-4 years old.
Which is why the "You have to upgrade your PC every year" argument makes me laugh.
|
''Consoles crappy graphical ability''?
That's just trolling..
|
I am fairly sure that you can objectively count the polygons and resolutions of textures as well as distance downgrading to show that consoles have a crappy graphical ability.
|
Err not really.
Consoles are obviously not as powerful as a PC but their power certainly isn't ''crappy'' or anything close to that. They are still very modern and they can easily keep up with today's standards.
|
What is "Today's standard" though?
|
I like the dictionary definition of standard: something considered by general consent as a basis of comparison.
Maybe Skyrim looks a little better on PC but I'm still impressed by how Skyrim looks on my PS3.
|
yes i know, but what do you think the standard of today's graphics? , i personally don't think there is a standard , if a game looks good it looks good, to me personally i think Skyrim looks better than Battlefield because its optimized well, BF3 sure has MAOR! effects and "BLOODY SCREEN SO REAAAL" effects but they focused too much on special effects that they forgot the game looks like a wet turd without them.
Skyrim is just beautiful looking with or without the effects , on consoles and PC as well
so what i am saying is , over doing it in graphics section will not make the game look better, it will make it look worse.
