| Vasto said: Its not about the screens being decompressed. There is a clear difference in those games regardless of any type of compression it would be highly noticable. What I am saying is the difference last gen was bigger but people are voting that its bigger this gen when its not. |
The difference between native resolution and upscaled softness is way bigger then some grass not being rendered. If nobody told you there's supposed to be more grass you wouldn't know. Upscaler softness however is always there. Maybe some people are just used to how upscaling looks that they're not seeing it or actually preferring it. Like tests between mp3 and uncompressed music that had people prefer mp3... It's just what you're used too, doesn't mean there is no difference.
Ofcourse looking at screenshots in a browser on a laptop or tablet is not going to show the benefit of natively rendered video. Plus most of those devices aren't or can't be calibrated properly in the first place. Which is another area where people initially prefer the botched oversatured, artifically sharpened, overbright, high contrast settings that are used in stores to catch your attention.
Anyway last gen ps3 usually got the better shadow filtering and lighting being closer to he pc version, while 360 won in texture quality, resolution (albeit much less difference) and more stable frame rate. This gen it's all one sided.
