I forgot this game even existed. lol

OP has been amended to include the direct quote.

i thought many gamers always say prefer higher frame rate than resolution... 

You can look at the screen grabs on DF and see the end result is still a sharp looking game. It certainly doesn't look like a game running Wii or Vita resolution.

Basically, people seem to be upset about the resolution the game is technically running. But the end result looks good and helps performance. A slightly softer picture is worth the frame rate boost.

Full 1080p would be nice, always, but here's my take on the whole resolution narrative. When video games look better than a movie that is shown at 720p, then I'll care. In other words, there's so much more to be done with graphics than resolution. So, until graphics look like real life, stick the resolution argument up your ass, (not the op, just generally) because there's a hell of alot more they can do with 720p that they've not achieved, not even remotely close.

1. its a design choice for whatever their reason. Not a single thing about that game that suggests it was done due to limitations. Its not like its the prettiest game on the planet. 

2. the real ticker, and this is the million dollar question. If DF didn't actually count those pixels and explain the tech used..... would anyone have noticed?

curl-6 said: globalisateur said: Wrong. It's actually 540p on PS4 and 450p on XB1. That would make sense actually; Digital Foundry didn't specify, but presumably if the same process is used, Xbox One would be rendered at 800x450.

If you play the game it's a non issue.  The looks and runs fine.  Nothing spectacular but it's far from bad.  Gameplay is excellent. 

Sounds like a pretty interesting technique I'll get it on the PS4 just to look at the end result.