| Zekkyou said: Don't bother arguing with him. It's been explained to him multiple times in the past that using SF as an example for this stuff is pointless. As you said, for all intensive purposes it's 1080p. No one noticed it wasn't because clarity wise it looks damn near identical. Peoples primary complaint was with the motion blur, the majority of which was in-fact added by Gorilla before launch, not directly caused by the 1080p simulation itself (though that does create a small amount itself). He was also linked a video by JoeTheBro a while back from before the motion blur was added on top to prove this. Personally i think they should have left it how it was, as the motion blur isn't particularly appealing, but that's irrelevant. All of that hasn't stopped him so far, so we can conclude he's either not listening or missing some screws :p He doesn't seem to be unintelligent to me, so i think it's more likely he's simply happy being ignorant on the topic. |
For starters, what video by "JoetheBro" are you talking about? I don't remember ever linking any video to Killzone 6 from any supposed state of the game before the MP became a blurry mess. Maybe refresh my memory, friend? All I ever linked were pics and gifs showing that the game is, in fact, blurry as hell when you move. This is actually hilarious, you're confusing the clear pics of the game as some version of the game from "before blur was added" when it's actually the exact same game, the player just wasn't moving. Is there a better way for me to prove my point than you doing it for me? Thanks.
As for the bolded, lulz. Yeah, it's kind of 1080p, except not. It looks damn near identical, except for all that blur. And it's not caused by the method they used to simulate 1080p, except that it completely is. Either way just like the other guy, you're missing the point. And no one noticed because it took a pixel counter like DF longer than normal to break down the game and reveal it actually wasn't the perfect 1080p60 next gen showcase people were claiming it to be. Had that article never came out, people would still be posting that it's 1080p60. But the article did come out, so now we get "it's basically 1080p", "everyone knew it wasn't technically 60fps", it "looks near identical" to 1080p, and all other sorts of cute qualifiers. Thanks though, it's funny to read.
