Re-read his post carefully and understand his point. He is trying to say that a 660 is a low end card. If that's the case, how can I classify an Intel integrated GPU? Garbage-end? It doesn't make sense. Games are just requiring mid to high end cards now to run.

And re-reading his post, it's clear that the points is that when a game runs bad on PC, it's bad porting, bad coding, etc. But on PS4? It's because it's weak. It isn't analysing the possibility that mabe the console version was badly coded or that the PC game in question is really demanding (as some really are for good reasons).

Yes, it is a low/medium-end discrete card. Nobody even factors in integrated graphics because we are talking about gaming PC's which will have discrete cards separate from the integrated GPU which comes with the CPU

That separate paragraph you cherry-picked points from was stating that a lot of the poor performance comes from poor optimization. It says nothing about whether or not this lack of optimization is exclusive to PC. By apriori knowledge, one can assume hardware that is weaker (such as the PS4's) will be less equipped to deal with said poor optimization than hardware that is more powerful. Since console versions are the target platform, it is unlikely that there is a case that the console version would be poorly coded for while at  the same time the PC port would be better suited at running such unoptimized code (other than with more powerful hardware.) Do note that he used the words, "The other issue I see" , "some", and "usually."  He never assumed that this were true for all games and all cases. 

We have a lot of cases of poorly coded games on consoles. AC Unity, The Evil Within, etc. A lot of games looks way better and run more smoothly/with higher res/fps. We could compare these games with the port of Metro LL, that looks way better and runs at 1080p and 60 fps. It's easy to point out the bad optimization here when even a well done port can beat you game that was made "ground up for next gen", in the case of AC: U.

These consoles are fairly young, with immature APIs. Normally, specific optimization would allow the GPU on consoles to punch around 2 times its original potential as PC GPUs and that's quite a punch. It's similar to last gen. We had GPUs around PS3's releases that simply outperformed it 2:1. Right now, PS3 still plays a lot of games that simply won't run on that same GPUs.

Are you saying that a GTX660 (basically a PS4 GPU) is a low end card? It evens max out Crysis 3 and most PC games. Even letting integrated graphics out of the mix, we still have all the GT and GTS Nvidia dedicated GPUs and its AMD equivalents. If a 660 is a low end card, how can I classify the others? Mind that the gap between a GTS and a GTX660 is way bigger than the gap between a 660 and even a 970/980.

What do you expect when the Op has pics saying PC PS3 and PS4? 

the question is, is the game still broken and runs like ass or not?

Yes, and were these games optimized on PC at all? Nobody said consoles can't have unoptimized games. It was stated that modern games are unoptimized on ALL platforms, and consoles are having trouble keeping up because their weaker hardware. Hence the 900p (or 720p in Xbone's case) resolutions and 30fps. 

Except last generation the consoles had unique architectures and there was a huge need for improved development techniques. This generation this isn't the case. Also can you provide me an example of a GPU that outperformed the 360/PS3 upon its release and wasn't able to play later releases at the same specifications? The PS360 had top of the line cards when they released whereas the PS4/XBONE had mid-tier cards upon their release. Even next gen games like Dragon Age Inquisition support the 8800gt, a card released in 2008. 

I'd say it is on the lower end of mid-tier cards. And the PS4's GPU is a stripped Pitcairn (HD 7870.) Although I do agree that the PS4's GPU performs closer to a GTX660.  And no the GTX 660 can't max out Crysis 3 at 1080p 60 fps like other mid-ranged cards. At high settings 1680*1050 the best it gets is 40 FPS. 

Here is a benchmark for "very high" settings no AA. 

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2014/05/19/amd-radeon-r9-280-review-feat-xfx/6

It averages at 35 FPS and dips below 30fps. 

Considering how the thread outright ignored the Xbone and PC versions of the rerelease, I just don't see how this could've been a topic to discuss in the first place. 

Here you are discussing mostly everything about it other than the game improvements, but I won't ask you to stop your debate, that is not my place.

That is not true at all. I addressed the video in my first few posts. 

"Why are they emphasizing PS4? The rework is releasing on XBO and PC also."

Then somebody responded with.

"Because that's where most people will buy it on and it probably looks better"

At times like that it is good not to comment on speculations. "Probably looks better than on PC?"

Although, the sale numbers for DS2 is higher on playstation, and the remaster on PS4 does look better than the old builds. This much is true, BELIEVE IT!