I would rather have they putting that resource on better texture, better models, better fps or leave it unitilized than to lazy AA to have a mark on a checklist. Sony could use that 3,5Gb of reserved RAM and make a standard AA decent so shitty devs don't make a worst game because it's cool to have AA.

You still don't understand. What's the point of using 10% better resolution on textures and 10% more polygons on the models if those are destroyed (yes destroyed) by the FXAA? Those GPU ressources are not seen by the gamers because those details are wrecked and transformed into a blur by the FXAA (or other blurring methods like motion blur or Qincunx or TXAA).

By its nature, FXAA will blur any high constrasts between sub-pixels. The problem is that high resolution textures and high polygoned models mean high constrasts between pixels. in fact FXAA will barely touch the low resolution textures, kinda ironic.

FXAA is a bad AA solution period. The more the game is detailed, the more FXAA will wreck/blur it.

Anyway it's normal most people don't understand this reasoning. Most developers, which are working very hard, and are smarter than most people, still don't understand it.

 - well, you know what - even the worst games ever had fans, so there you go.

You must be a fan of Ride to Hell: Retribution then, because clearly nobody else on this planet is.

You seem to not understand what I said... I said I prefer they DON'T use AA and use that % available of computacional power to improve texture, models or even leave it there, don't touch, just don't use it for AA.

Sorry, well yes you are right of course then!

But it would never happen because people would complain: "I can see the jaggies"