Why i was disappointed by MK8's graphics.

[Zekkyou]

jigokutamago said:

Zekkyou said:

It's not a comparison though, like i said, it's just a reference point. It's directed at people who say MK8 is a graphical achievement. I'd agree MK8 has runs impressively, but DC shows what an actual graphical achievement is, and the kind off trade offs necessary to achieve it. You can't have both :p

That's assuming MK8 is indeed 1080p/60fps. If it's actually still 720p/60fps then i'll be back to disappointment (720p/60fps is less resource intensive than 1080p/30fps from a flat view).

I think the problem is that you view fps as the performance and AA, AF, and textures as graphics. In truth, they are all simultaneous part of both graphics and performance. 60 fps does make a game a graphical achievement. Using animation as an example, a still image of two different clips can be compared like

[image]

[image]

They are comparable, and you could say they both are graphically good looking but if you comapre them in motion

http://youtu.be/otmqBvuwkfg?t=20s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy0E-1MD0bw

Like animation, framerate is also a part of the graphical experience.

Graphics and performance are separate things, but yes they are directly influenced by each other.

If MK8 is running at 1080p/60fps then i can understand its graphical short comings. That's a difficult performance rate to achieve and requires considerable trade offs, even on the PS4/X1. If, however, it's still 720p/60fps then i'll be disspointed. At the very least 720p/60fps should have some decent AA/AF :/

Still, we will have to wait and see. My opinion on the matter will depend entirely on which of those two performance levels it's hitting.