| Jizz_Beard_thePirate said: Patience is a virtue that not everyone has and there are many new gamers being made everyday who don't know how the gaming industry works or how explotive they can be so that "broken trust" that many gamers had between the publishers and themselves might not be there yet for many consumersl. Oh and obviously its a subjective thing but generally, if a game is bad from many reviewers, its probably bad for the majority of the players Well, the issue is the consistant frame rates rather than the minimum framerates cause if the frame is steady at 100 and the all of a sudden drops below 55, it is highly noticable, annoying and immersion breaking and if it happens consistantly, then its not really a good thing... And I have played quite a few open world games such as sleeping dogs where things like this would be minimal. Granted the graphics in Far Cry 4 is much better than sleeping dogs but working within limitations is always the key. Heck, if you have seen TB's DA:I review, you would see that the stuttering issue is not there |
I realize that there are new gamers everyday but the audience isn't massively growing, it's kept constant most of the time ...
Then why not just lock the framerate to 60FPS ? Hardly anyone has a 144Hz monitor, let alone above 60Hz ... Your just being overly critical of Far Cry 4's so called "stuttering" issue for not scaling past 60FPS ...
Oh, it IS that bad ... I have never seen the internet gaming community so obsessed over a several short comings of one publisher to this degree ...
