fps_d0minat0r said:
After what you said about low and mid range PC's, you have even less of a reason to complain. If they are getting a better product than the gamers who will be generating more revenue (consoles), then theres no question of a bad port. I may be wrong, but I believe the PC version was the lead platform. Back to the point, the downgrade issue was about the trailer they initially showed and yes, it would require a $1000+ PC to run it like that, so im glad they didnt bother with that for the minority who need to justify how much they paid for their PC, and instead cared more about the consoles and low/mid range PC's. |
http://i.imgur.com/fHs9WgH.jpg
The top version could be ran on a modern mid range pc at 1080p 30fps, with a top gpu(so that's only a £230 gpu, not a £500-£1000 gpu like people think) running it at 60+fps at 1080p. If you want to argue about price, then post the specs CD R said the pc was (or are you just guessing?). The top image also looks like a next gen game.
The bottom image is a joke; poor lightning, low res textures, terrible draw distance, no tesselation or any surface variation for that matter etc. A company that can't make a decent graphics engine makes you wonder about their competency as programmers. If they couldn't do that, then how buggy will this game be? How much effort have they actually put in etc? How much of what they are claiming is in fact more rubbish and PR lying to fans.
At the end of the day, good graphics make a game more immersive so this is a big loss to a lot of people and I won't be buying a game that looks so bad.







