| aLkaLiNE said: It really doesn't affect gameplay. The only ones that seem to vocally care don't have a ps4 or weren't going to buy the game in the first place, but I can tell you right now that the core users that grew up on this franchise clearly don't seem to mind. And in an offline game where 60fps offers no performance edge, it makes total sense that insomniac would prioritize full HD fidelity as opposed to the twitchy hyper reactive controls that 60fps brings. There is -no- benefit to an offline game where controls were never an issue in the first place. I would rather take the Pixar like visuals any day, the key thing here is that it's 30fps CONSISTENTLY.
edit- and there's been a demo available at Best Buy for a while now. I played it and the frames per second never even crossed my mind, the game felt great
double edit (I've stated this in another thread) charm>consistency>resolution>fps for single player games. |
| DivinePaladin said: MGSV also had a budget MUCH higher than this AA-at-best game. The movie AND game combined had a $40m budget, which is tiny for either medium - and MGSV alone probably reaches around five times that amount.
A game is only as powerful as its budget dictates, and Insomniac has lived off of small budget games its entire career.
Stop being argumentative and arguing good or bad in a subject that doesn't have black and white. You know better than to hyperbolize. If this developer, who has made successful low budget games for 20 years, can do so better at 30FPS, then who is somebody on the web to dictate it's a bad decision? Come on. |
Honestly, while I'd love to continue this, I'm not comfortable risking moderation when my first post here was reported. I'm not trying to be a trouble-maker. Adios!
