By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Nem said:
DonFerrari said:
Nem said:

Indeed. And i think 60fps should be the basis to start from. Not the one that gets sacrificed first. Because for me, what matters more in a game is smooth gameplay. The choice or AI or objects or whatever should come at the cost of resolution and not FPS. But alas... "everyone" prefers a shiny game over a responsive one. Blame me for defending that a game that plays better is preferable to a game that looks better.

You can defend whatever you like, the right you don't have is to say your taste is the more relevant and should be the rule. There are multiple markets, buy whatever you like and ignore what you don't want, but don't keep preaching to others that your taste is better than others and everyone should like what you like.

Here you go again saying its a matter of taste, or opinion. Its not. Its fact. Higher FPS makes for smoother gameplay. You just opt to not to want it and have a worse off game gameplay wise.

Say what you will, but i'm right. Caring more about graphics is shortsighted. But many people are like that. Its something the rest of us have to put up with, but it does not mean we aren't right.

Yes ok, I'll consider your absolute FACT as the universal truth. We should ban from gaming anyone that buy a game with less than 60fps output.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."