scrapking said:
I've read a lot of comments like this. You act like this is happening in a vacuum. If you want a game to be 1080p/60FPS, then the safest way to do it is make Pong (just regular Pong, not a modern reimagining). What would you prefer Battlefield 1 sacrifice to lock in at 1080p/60FPS? Worse textures? Closer draw distance? Worse and/or fewer AI teammates/opponents? Simpler geometry? Less stuff on screen in general? Framerate drop to 30 FPS (or a floating/inconsistent framerate)? Just having 1080p/60FPS guarantees nothing about your playing experience. And 60 FPS is higher than a lot of other games that hit higher frame-rates, it looks like EA decided to favour framerate over resolution. That actually makes a lot of sense to me and I don't know why more developers don't favour dynamic resolution over dynamic framerate (or a framerate locked at/near it's lowest point, denying gamers better framerates for the less demanding sections of games). This hate seems misplaced. |
Hate is not misplaced to those that play enough EA games will actually understand.
I'm not asking EA to make the game 1080p/60fps, but the least they can do is be on par with their competitors. 620p is a joke, that probably even a joke for last gen games. As well EA put down Activison's CoD games but at least BO3 on XB1 can run at 900p.
